A Connecticut appeals court has upheld the conviction of a former volunteer youth pastor, rejecting arguments that a nearly two-decade gap between the crime and his arrest violated his constitutional rights.
The Connecticut Appellate Court officially released a Tuesday in State v. Sanderson, affirming a Middlesex Superior Court ruling that denied Brandt Sanderson’s motion to dismiss the case. Sanderson had entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere—accepting a conviction without admitting guilt—to a charge of risk of injury to a child.
Sanderson was sentenced to five years of incarceration, which was fully suspended, along with 10 years of probation.
According to court documents, the incidents occurred between June 2002 and January 2003 in East Haddam. Sanderson, then 20, served as a mentor for a church youth group. The victim was 14 years old at the time. The relationship began with kissing and fondling and progressed to multiple forms of sexual contact.
Authorities did not learn of the abuse until March 2019, when a friend of the victim reported the matter to the Colchester Police Department. The victim, who was living in Seattle, Washington at the time, later provided a video-recorded statement to police.
Following a three-and-a-half-year investigation involving out-of-state witness interviews and medical record requests, a warrant was signed in July 2022, and Sanderson was arrested the following month.
On appeal, Sanderson’s defense team argued that the 20-year delay between the offense and the arrest, alongside a three-year gap during the active police investigation, created an unfair hurdle for the defense.
The defense contended that the passage of time resulted in a lack of contemporaneous church records, missing digital communications, and an inability to perform DNA testing. Sanderson’s counsel asked the court to create a “carve-out” exception to state precedent, arguing that a massive gap in time should automatically imply prejudice to a defendant’s case.
The appellate panel, consisting of Judges Nina F. Elgo, Jose A. Suarez, and Jane K. Seeley, flatly rejected the proposal.
Writing for the unanimous court, Judge Suarez pointed to the state’s established legal framework as set forth in the recent landmark case State v. McFarland. Under Connecticut law, a defendant making a pre-arrest due process claim carries a “monumental hurdle” to prove that a delay caused actual and substantial prejudice before the burden shifts to the state to justify the timeline.
“The defendant’s bare suggestion that he would have been able to challenge the victim’s narrative of the events had the prosecution been initiated earlier simply falls far short of the ‘monumental hurdle’ the defendant was required to overcome,” Suarez wrote.
The court deemed the defense claims regarding missing records and potential DNA testing to be entirely speculative, noting that the defense failed to show how any lost items would have actually aided Sanderson’s case. Suarez added that a general fading of witness memories over time is an inherent reality of delayed prosecutions that impacts both sides, particularly the state, which carries the burden of proof.
The court also emphasized that presuming prejudice based strictly on a time gap would directly conflict with the Connecticut legislature’s policy choices. In 2019, state lawmakers eliminated the statute of limitations for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors.
“Our Supreme Court has noted the legislature’s policy to allow for child sexual abuse victims, ‘who may be unable to come forward at the time the offense has occurred, a reasonable opportunity to report the abuse,'” the opinion states, referencing documented psychological barriers like shame and repressed memories that frequently delay disclosures.
The appellate court concluded that the initial 17-year delay was driven by the victim’s timing in reporting the crime, rather than improper state action. Furthermore, the defense conceded during oral arguments that the subsequent three-year investigation faced justifiable delays due to the complexities of tracking down out-of-state witnesses and navigating the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chad L. Edgar served as assigned counsel for Sanderson. The state was represented by certified legal intern Henry J. Seyue, assistant state’s attorney Nathan J. Buchok, and Middlesex State’s Attorney Michael A. Gailor.
READ: Georgia Inmate Fails To Overturn Murder Verdict In Prison Shank Attack
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
