Clark warrant may be unsealed

This afternoon a judge will likely unseal the last search warrant in the investigation into Yale lab technician Raymond Clark III, who pleaded not guilty in January to the murder of Annie Le GRD ’13, one of Clark’s lawyers said Tuesday, even though a motion has been filed to keep the warrants sealed.

The lawyer, Joseph Lopez, declined to comment on the warrant’s contents because it is sealed, but said he does not think it will contain any surprising information.

“I don’t think it’s been kept [sealed] longer than the others because of any great surprises,” Lopez said. “There’s not anything particularly unusual about it. It’s just more of the same.”

The search and seizure warrant in question was issued after Clark was arrested on Sept. 17, Lopez said.

David Grudberg ’82, a New Haven-based criminal defense attorney, said a warrant sought after an arrest does not indicate anything specifically about the contents.

“All it indicates is that the state’s investigation was ongoing and that they sought to obtain evidence from other sources that perhaps they did not have time to pursue before obtaining the arrest warrant,” Grudberg said.

If New Haven Superior Court Judge Roland Fasano lifts the seal, it is likely he will redact some information, Lopez said, as he did with warrants that were unsealed in November and December. Fasano ruled in November that most of the warrants should be unsealed because most of the information they contained had already been seen by the public and was unlikely to bias a potential jury pool.

The search-and-seizure warrants released in early December revealed that police found blood stains in Clark’s apartment, and the arrest warrant affidavit released Nov. 13 showed that bloody items of clothing and DNA evidence led to Clark’s arrest.

State prosecutor John Waddock, who is handling the case, could not be reached for comment. New Haven State’s Attorney Michael Dearington declined to comment.

Clark will not appear in court today because his attorneys did not feel his presence was necessary, Lopez said.

It is not uncommon for a defendant not to appear in court if details that don’t require his or her presence or immediate consultation are going to be discussed, Grudberg said.

At the Jan. 26 hearing when Clark pleaded not guilty, a new charge of felony murder was added, meaning jurors could convict Clark if they conclude Le’s death was unintentional but occurred in the process of committing another felony, such as rape or kidnapping.

Clark is currently being held on a $3 million bond at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield, Conn.

Comments

  • great system

    I’m so glad Ray-Ray is getting a fair trial…

    especially because Annie was never given the same privilege.

    does anyone else see how backwards this is??

    by the way, just my two cents, but I wouldnt doubt if this wasn’t his first. I saw him in the days following the murder, before they closed the scene. Based on that, and what cops said they saw him doing, that is my prediction.

    oh, also, this is not a classic case of work place violence. there is SO much more.

  • Agree

    I absolutely agree with you.

  • mr.agreeable

    I hope that motive and explanations come out during the trial.Annie was denied everything (but a trial,she was’nt charged.) I was also suspicious of some other issue other than “workplace violence”, ” or spurned advances” – but sometimes it is what it is . A face value sort of thing. Not much intrigue or complicated conspiracy.
    I was never in or at the Amistad building but had a few appointments last summer, and it is a hostile environment down there. there are a few hospitable folks but very few. i never “went there” with questions as to exactly what breed of bug is up one’s arse. But step into any office and it’s like Amistad workplace.And if you pass one door and not enter they storm out and chase ya.
    i still wont be surprised if new evidence assists in his exoneration.If he walks. Is this a release of info to explain and show probable cause ? ahh heck,he did it, but maybe not….Let’s be open minded and think about serving on a jury

  • @#3

    I’m a bit confused… if you were never IN the Amistad building how on earth would you know weather or not it is a “hostile environment down there” and that “there are a few hospitable folks but very few”? I work in the building and in the animal facility and everyone I have met/encountered in my time there are very nice and polite. I have never seen any indication of hostility in that or any of the med school buildings.

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you ment in your post.

  • mr.agreeable yet delving

    Oh sorry for not being specific.

    Like i said ,” i was downtown last summer
    for various appointments”.

    Absolutely not in or near the Amistad building , but one can feel knives darting from every union capon and do-gooder with a sordid past ( ha ha )

    .and it was a hostile environment -which is very sad, but very true. I wish they can address the issue.

    Maybe another way of saying it would be

    “Amistad at every corner” , “Amistads and horrifying rides by fellow students and strangers”

    please read slowly #4 and preferably clean of any trial med.

  • Observer

    Raymond Clark is innocent until proven guilty. That is how it should be. But the release of these warrants is further demonstrating that the case the police have against him is very flimsy and they are doing everything they can to corrupt justice.
    I’ve reviewed the warrants, and while on the surface they seem incriminating, a lot of the evidence they claim shows Clark is somehow guilty can easily be argued down. The DNA evidence was on a couple of items that could have been obtained by another person familiar with the lab area since Raymond Clark and other animal techs left clothing items out in the open AND labeled. The bloodstains they claim to have found in the car and apartment were not explained as being human or animal. Plus it doesn’t make sense that blood stains would transport to those locations if the Raymond Clark, the alleged killer, completely changed his clothing before and after work.
    The 3 million dollar bond is outrageous. It definitely ensures Raymond Clark can’t get outside to adequately defend himself with his own research.

  • @ #6

    I would like to see him or his defense make a statement about his innocence. I dont see anyone on their side defending that. If they aren’t defending him, I sure as heck won’t.

    All it looks like is that they are going to try to do is pull this out as long as they can to try to find SOMETHING to argue about the evidence so that he can get 50 years instead of life. However, I was involved in the investigation, and I KNOW there is a whooooole lot more evidence than these warrants show, and very little room to dispute it. sorry.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this never even goes to trial, that he will take a plea eventually. There’s no escaping this.

  • Observer

    @#7
    You say you were involved with the investigation. Can you give out any more information that points to his guilt beyond what is in the warrant. What I’m wondering is what time to they think he killed her. And if he really had the time to do that and dispose of the body and transport her throughout the basement area without being seen that day. If they were alone at night in the basement, I can see that being possible. But the first day of school for that semester, I imagine it would have been difficult for him to walk around with blood on his clothes and all over the ground in the rooms they said they found it, and nobody saw a thing. If he dropped his favorite green pen in the chase, then wouldn’t he have tried replacing it with a back up green pen? I don’t think the warrants point to guilt because there are many questions that are unanswered.
    His defense probably isn’t saying anything because it wouldn’t help his cause either. I don’t know what angle their taking on this case. Maybe they want to make sure he’s totally ruled out before they come out and say something. Or they’re just keeping their client’s fifth amendment right until the trial. He already entered a plea of Not Guilty, so that should be adequate.

  • carl

    Raymond Clark is innocent until proven guilty. That is how it should be. But the release of these warrants is further demonstrating that the case the police have against him is very flimsy and they are doing everything they can to corrupt justice.
    I’ve reviewed the warrants, and while on the surface they seem incriminating, a lot of the evidence they claim shows Clark is somehow guilty can easily be argued down. The DNA evidence was on a couple of items that could have been obtained by another person familiar with the lab area since Raymond Clark and other animal techs left clothing items out in the open AND labeled. The bloodstains they claim to have found in the car and apartment were not explained as being human or animal. Plus it doesn’t make sense that blood stains would transport to those locations if the Raymond Clark, the alleged killer, completely changed his clothing before and after work.
    The 3 million dollar bond is outrageous. It definitely ensures Raymond Clark can’t get outside to adequately defend himself with his own research.

    In what universe is the evidence against Clark flimsy.

    He was the last to see her alive.

    The card swipes.

    His behavior to the cops and after the incident.

    His change of clothes, as in why did he need to?

    The DNA evidence everywhere including his car and house.

    The Lie detector.

    His pen on Annie’s body in the hatch.

    His purchase of equipment to the retrieve the pen the next day.

    His texting her moments before she was killed.

    The wounds on his body.

    His erratic and unusual cleaning of the lab in front of police.

    He is a coward for his actions, both the attack and how he has handled himself afterword. Despicable. His family as well.

  • Observer

    @Carl

    He was the last person to admit to seeing her alive. If someone else killed her, they would not admit they saw her.

    Card swipes don’t prove anything other than his card was used to enter rooms. That’s it. It doesn’t prove a murder has taken place, or that he committed murder.

    We can’t say how unusual his behavior was because we weren’t there. Also, the police assume he was acting out of the ordinary, yet he was always co-operative with them. If you wanted evidence of truly odd behavior, how about if he left early that day once he saw the police? Or if he spent too much time near the locker area where her body was found. Now that would be suspicious.

    Changes of clothes are necessary because you don’t want to contaminate the lab animals with your outside clothes. They are provided with scrubs, similar to what is worn in hospitals. Nothing unusual there.

    I’m afraid you’re wrong about the DNA evidence being in his car and his house, unless you have extra information not printed in the warrants. They only said they found blood stains or blood like stains in those areas. They chose not to say whether the blood was human or not.

    His pen was in the chase. But did he put it in there, or did someone pick it up and put it in there. The sign in sheets show he was using a green pen until 1:30pm that day.

    He didn’t purchase anything to retrieve the pen.

    Wounds on his body were from his cat, he said. The warrant said Annie’s hands had gloves.

    You’re assuming way too much. He hasn’t even been to trial. Your reaction is the reason why he will not get a fair trial. The release of the warrants are further ruining his chances.

  • PeaceandJustice

    Observer, if anybody is “assuming too much,” it is none other than yourself.

    You assume that a real murderer would not have the temerity to claim he/she is the last person to see a victim alive.
    That the card swipes record could be activated by somebody else other than the suspect (sure, a duplicate card could be made by others easily as we can see from banking frauds.) (Nobody is claiming that the card swimpes records alone would CONVICT the suspect, only that he entered the rooms at specific, relevant time periods.)
    That leaving early that day would make Clark MORE suspect instead of less.
    That the suspect was “co-operative” with the police. How So? He told the police he saw the victim leaving? He frantically cleaned an already pristine lab? That he moved a blood-stained box of wipe-all?
    That his change of clothes was nothing usual. Did Clark change his clothes every work shift?
    That the scratch marks were by cats. Annie’s glove was torn when her body was found.
    That some master criminal gang targeted Clark to scapegoat him and plant all manners of Annie’s DNA on his clothes and body and his DNA on Annie’s body and clothes and planted the green pen in the space where the body was.

    Well, well, well, and you have a cheek to call Carl presumptuous.

  • Hoyt63

    Simply put no one knows anything with any certainty unless you were there. If observer was somehow involved in the investigation, I sincerely doubt they would be revealing any information unless they were incredibly stupid. There are quite a few things we’ll all have to wait to be revealed at the trial. That’s the arena for evidence and conjecture. Any public discussion of the slightest information you may know is a disservice to both justice for Annie and odd as it sounds, Raymond Clark.

  • PeaceandJustice

    A judge decided to release the redacted affivdavits after considering thoroughly whether they would prejudice the forthcoming trial (if there is one.) Once in the public domain, there would be discussions. Nobody should presume that it WOULD render a “fair trial” untenable. People are not stupid; if the twelve good men/women and true were selected for the jury, they would (after challenges from lawyers on both sides for any grounds of unsuitablity,) consider the evidence presented at the trial itself with due diligence and fairness to their best of their ability. The jury system is tried and tested and we should have faith in it. It is deeply insulting to say that “fair trial is impossible.”

  • whaaaaat!

    Observer, you sound more gullible than Jennifer Hromadka. If they didn’t have anything, they wouldn’t have been able to arrest him. The jury will be the judge, but really, are you going to go there with the he was framed nonsense? Why was his DNA in her fingernails, how could you possibly explain that? Why can’t he talk then, if he’s so innocent?