Skip to content
Home / Results

Case Results

DISCLAIMER: The following results and outcomes listed on this page are specific to the cases described and are not a guarantee of results.

Appellate

Appellate Victory in State v. Nichols: Correcting a Trial Court’s Legal Error

We are proud to share news of a major appellate victory in State v. Nichols, where our team successfully secured a reversal before the Connecticut Appellate Court. Even more exciting — this marks Corinne Burlingham’s first appellate win. Congratulations, Corinne!

The Case Background

The defendant, Robert Lee Nichols, had been convicted at trial of assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child. After the verdict, the defense filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s decision was against the weight of the evidence.

The trial court denied that motion, but in doing so, it applied the wrong legal standard. Instead of independently evaluating whether the verdict raised “a substantial question regarding its reliability” — the proper test for a motion for a new trial — the court merely deferred to the jury’s findings, essentially treating the issue like a sufficiency of the evidence claim.

The Appellate Issue

This subtle but critical distinction became the focal point on appeal. The defense argued that the trial court’s reliance on the wrong standard effectively stripped the defendant of a meaningful review of the verdict’s reliability.

The Connecticut Appellate Court agreed. It found that the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard in denying the motion for a new trial. As a result, the court reversed in part and remanded the case back to the trial judge with instructions to make a proper determination under the correct standard.

Corinne’s Role

This appellate victory is especially noteworthy because the winning issue was Corinne’s idea alone. She identified the trial court’s error when others had overlooked it, crafted much of the appellate briefing around it, and delivered persuasive oral argument before the Appellate Court.

Her innovative thinking and precise legal writing directly led to this important reversal, showing how appellate advocacy can protect clients by ensuring courts follow the law correctly.

Why This Matters

This decision highlights a fundamental principle of appellate practice: trial courts must apply the correct legal standard when evaluating motions for a new trial. Failure to do so undermines confidence in the verdict and denies defendants an essential safeguard in the justice system.

By securing this reversal, our firm not only protected the rights of our client but also reinforced the importance of trial courts independently reviewing verdict reliability when asked to do so.

Sexual Assault

Client’s Case Nulled Due to Alleged Victim Not Cooperating With the State

Earlier in the year, our juvenile client was arrested for sexual assault in the 1st degree. The assault allegedly took place at a boarding school. One of the defenses we raised was that the alleged sexual encounter was consensual. The State wanted to speak with the alleged victim and assess his/her credibility. After 6 months, the alleged victim refused to tell the State his/her side of the story. The State dropped the charges.

While the charges were pending, the case had a significant impact on our client’s life. The client had to live at home, get tutored, be monitored by probation, and face a great deal of social isolation. Now, the client has been able to enroll in another school and can play on a sports team and do other activities with no restrictions. Thankfully, the State acted fast to clear our client’s name. Too often, cases like this take several years to resolve.

Over the years, we have had a number of cases with similar facts. Two people engage in consensual sex. When a third party finds out, one of the persons involved becomes embarrassed, or humiliated, or refuses to admit the sexual activity to a parent who finds out, or to a steady boyfriend/girlfriend. The “victim” tells the police and an arrest is made. The arrest has a cascade effect on the accused: school expulsion, loss of housing privileges, loss of job, public humiliation, and much more. It is very important to examine very closely every piece of evidence, especially phone records and social media accounts of the “victim”. In this case, the “victim” reached out to our client through social media and that act damaged the State’s case. The credibility of the “victim” became questionable. Oftentimes, late disclosure, no physical evidence of assault and no record of reporting a sexual assault in the “victim’s” medical records can help us defend our client. The facts can lead to a case being thrown out, or a client pleading guilty to a lesser included offense such as a lower degree of sexual assault, a non-sexual assault, or unlawful restraint. These charges could be misdemeanors and could also prevent the client from having to be listed on the sex offender registry.

Probate

Termination of Parental Rights

Barry, Taylor & Levesque, LLC secured a significant win in probate court on behalf of our client, who was seeking to terminate the parental rights of her former partner. Our client was the victim of abuse – both physical and verbal – by her partner, “A.” She had a protective order filed against her partner in 2013, to ensure the protection of her and her daughter. At the time the protective order was filed, her former partner was incarcerated. We invite you to read more about the case.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing

Barry, Taylor & Levesque, LLC recently won a motion to dismiss based on a petitioner’s lack of standing in the court. The petitioner filed an Application for a Restraining Order against our client, on behalf of her daughter who has intellectual disabilities. Attorney Ryan Barry filed a motion to dismiss this application, “asserting that the court lacks jurisdiction over the application.” We invite you to read more about this interesting case.

Personal Injury & Civil Claims

$460,000 car accident settlement

Barry, Taylor & Levesque, LLC secured a $460,000 settlement for a client injured in a motor vehicle crash. The defendant’s insurer, Allstate, initially contested the extent of liability and damages. The firm resolved the case favorably for the client without the need for trial. 2025

$115,000 UM settlement before trial

Originally, the insurance company denied our clients’ UM claim entirely, offering them nothing. Attorney Spinella was able to settle the case favorably for our clients in mediation one week before jury selection. Read more about the case here. 2021

$75,000 pre-trial settlement for car accident: Carol Zeiler v. Scott Williams (Central Mutual Insurance Company).

After medical evaluation, it was found our client suffered a fractured pelvis, as well as soft tissue injuries to her neck and back. Our client was walking in the parking lot of a Stop & Shop when she was struck by a GMC pickup truck. Read more about the case here. 2018.

Policy limits settlement for wrongful death by a drunk driver

Barry, Taylor & Levesque, LLC represented a family member in a claim for death benefits. The insurance company did not want to pay out to our client. Once we stepped in, within two short months, the firm obtained a settlement of policy limits, and additional PIP coverage to cover the funeral and burial expenses. Read more about the case here. 2020

Dismissal of Claim in Civil Case

Obtained federal court dismissal of claim against client after removing case from State Court. The Firm was able to settle the case separately as a result of this ruling. 2020

Motion to Sever Trial in civil sexual assault case

Won hotly contested Motion to Sever Trial in a case with consolidated matters represented by 4 other law firms. Court ordered that the claims of each of 13 plaintiffs be tried separately. This ruling protected client from highly prejudicial, cumulative evidence being heard by a jury, before consolidated matters were scheduled to be tried. 2019

Precedent-setting UM/UIM case

Won precedent-setting case of first impression regarding UM/UIM coverage for rental cars: Justin Lollar v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co. Our client was a passenger in a vehicle which was hit by an uninsured driver. Our client tried to make a claim through the vehicle’s renter’s UM/UIM insurance, but was denied. We filed a lawsuit claiming that this exclusion violated Connecticut law, which stated that UM/UIM insurance was mandatory for all policies in Connecticut. Read more about the case here. 2019

Confidential settlement for car accident case.

Client suffered lower back soft tissue injury and nerve impingement.

Confidential settlement for truck accident case against the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Administration.

Client’s car was violently hit by a paving truck. She sustained neck and back injuries.

Confidential settlement for motorcycle accident

Client was on a motorcycle when he was hit by an elderly driver. Client sustained injuries to foot and lower back. 2020.

Corporate Clients and Business Law

Judgment after trial

After trial, secured judgment in favor of corporate client in eminent domain action brought by CT Department of Transportation.

Dismissal of profit gouging claim

Secured dismissal of profit gouging case brought by CT’s Atty General vs. Amazon retailer. 2020

Dismissal of breach of contract

Won dismissal of case alleging breach of contract and other claims when Court granted Motion to Dismiss. 2020

Probate hearings

Successfully defended non-profit client in successive hearings before Probate Court. 2020

Criminal Defense

Acquitted: federal investigation

Successfully defended manufacturing client in federal investigation into business practices allegedly against national security interests. 2019

Acquitted: Risk of injury to a child, fourth-degree sexual assault

Our client was accused of sexually molesting a 12-year-old girl. He faced up to 25 years in prison and being placed on the sex offender registry. Attorney Anthony Spinella was able to use the accuser’s shifting stories as well as an ongoing custody battle, coupled with an outright denial by our client as well as other people in the home at the time the incident allegedly happened, so show that our client was not guilty. He was acquitted of all charges after a three day trial. Read more about the case here. 2017

Appellate Work

Reversed

Obtained Appellate Court reversal of trial court’s granting of plaintiffs’ continued use of pseudonyms. 2018