Gail P. Hardy, Connecticut's New State’s Attorney

As a Hartford native, a woman of color and a state prosecutor, I write to join the many voices offering congratulations and support to Gail P. Hardy, the new State’s Attorney for the Hartford Judicial District (J.D.). I am grateful that the Criminal Justice Commission, in making this historic appointment, not only recognized Attorney Hardy’s talent as a seasoned prosecutor, but also the importance of diversity and community involvement in selecting leaders within the criminal justice system. I am joined in this message by several affinity bar associations of which I am a member, including the George W. Crawford Black Bar Association, the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association, the Connecticut Asian Pacific American Bar Association and the South Asian Bar Association of Connecticut.

In two recent commentaries, Supreme Court Justice Richard N. Palmer and Appellate Court Judge Lubbie Harper, Jr., have made insightful observations about Attorney Hardy’s appointment and its likely effect on the community. As a fellow prosecutor, I would like to expand on three points with respect to Hardy’s selection.

First, as noted by Justice Palmer, the hiring of a State’s Attorney necessarily involves many considerations and has never been based on seniority or dictated by geographic location. In my view, the most damaging aspect of the public comments blasting Hardy’s appointment is that they inaccurately suggest that these factors have been determinative in past appointments. This argument, which distorts the nature of the process to show that Hardy was hired “just” because she is black, unfairly plays to the stereotype that the selection of a diverse candidate necessarily means that standards must have been lowered. Faced with an exceptional pool of candidates, the Commission chose a prosecutor who had a wide range of experience in the criminal justice system, was involved in the Hartford community and had served in a leadership capacity as a prosecutor. Reasonable minds could differ about who is “best” for any position, but it is both inaccurate and a great disservice to our colleague to suggest that her appointment represents a radical departure from existing standards.

Attorney Hardy has twenty-three years of experience in the criminal justice system, including eleven years as a prosecutor, seven of which were spent handling serious felony cases in the Waterbury Judicial District. Her level of experience hardly represents a departure from any prior benchmark that has been set for State’s Attorneys. She actually has been a prosecutor longer than other individuals who have been appointed State’s Attorneys, including in Hartford. Indeed, Jack Bailey, the much beloved Chief State’s Attorney who died tragically in 2003, had been a prosecutor for less than three years before he was named Hartford’s State’s Attorney. Because the hiring process has never been based on seniority, the argument that more senior applicants should have been selected essentially subjects Hardy to an entirely different standard than has been applied in the past. Furthermore, seniority as prosecutor does not necessarily speak to one’s abilities as a manager or leader in the greater community. Similarly, although State’s Attorneys often have worked within the Judicial District for which they are hired, it is hardly unprecedented for a candidate to be selected from another Judicial District. It is unclear why geography should be given significant weight here since Hardy has extensive experience in an urban Judicial District that is similar to Hartford, is involved in the Hartford community and is well-acquainted with its leadership.

Second, it bears noting that even though women and people of color are disproportionately impacted by crime, they historically have not been well-represented in the criminal justice system, especially in the ranks of prosecutors. Although diverse candidates increasingly are being hired by the Commission, relatively few women and virtually no people of color have become supervisors. As noted by Judge Harper, it is enormously important that the criminal justice system reflect the diversity that exists within the community that is served, given that the perception and the reality of justice is intertwined. I fear that the caustic comments that have been made will obscure the fact that many people within the Division recognize the need for diversity at all levels. I commend those who have worked toward that goal within the Division, including Chief State’s Attorney Kevin T. Kane, our State’s Attorneys and other prosecutors in the state, including prosecutors in the Hartford Judicial District.

Finally, it would be difficult to overstate how meaningful Attorney Hardy’s selection has been for many employees of color within the Division. We were elated that the Commission finally had recognized a woman of color as qualified to serve as a State’s Attorney. Given that it is 2007, and a number of positions in the criminal justice system have never been held by a woman or a person of color, this occasion is a bittersweet one. Hardy’s appointment, however, is a very auspicious sign of progress.

by Toni M. Smith-Rosario

Toni M. Smith-Rosario is an Assistant State’s Attorney and the 2007 recipient of the Edwin Archer Randolph Award given by the Lawyers Collaborative for Diversity, Inc., a statewide coalition of law firms, corporations, public sector entities, law schools and state bar associations.