State v. Harkness Mock Trial PDF

2024-2025 High School Mock Trial Case* State of Connecticut v. Emerson Harkness CBA Civics Education Committee/Mock Trial Subcommittee Hon. Joyce...

2024-2025 High School Mock Trial Case* State of Connecticut v. Emerson Harkness CBA Civics Education Committee/Mock Trial Subcommittee Hon. Joyce Krutick Craig Attorney Jeanine Dumont Hon. Hope C. Seeley Attorney Jonathan Weiner Attorney Mark K. Youssef Release Date: September 12, 2024 *This case originated from the State Bar of Georgia, and was adapted by the Young Lawyers Division of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and used as the 2024 Pennsylvania Statewide High School Mock Trial Competition Case. The CBA's Mock Trial Subcommittee is grateful to the Pennsylvania Bar Association for giving us permission to use their version of the case. The CBA Mock Trial Subcommittee adapted the case to Connecticut, and made numerous changes to the content of the case problem used in the prior competition in Pennsylvania. i  TABLE OF CONTENTS Section One: Message from the CBA's Mock Trial Subcommittee 1 Case Summary 4 Witnesses and Exhibits 5 Long Form Information 6 Applicable Statutes and Jury Instructions 8 Pretrial Memorandum of Decision re the Testimony of Willie Waramaug 17 Stipulations 20 Section Two: Witness for Prosecution—Detective Sawyer Sherlock 24 Witness for Prosecution—Jackie Pepin, Food Blogger 31 Witness for Prosecution—Sam Talcott, Owner of Sam's Black Rock Pizzeria and Tavern 40 Witness for Defendant—Emerson Harkness, Defendant and Owner of Ancient Apizza 46 Witness for Defendant—Aspen Wadsworth, Employee of Sam Talcott 53 Witness for Defendant—Casey Mattatuck, Employee of Sleeping Giant Brewery 59 Section Three: Exhibit 1—Police Report 68 Exhibit 2—Supplement to Police Report 70 Exhibit 3—Map of Hammonasset Square 72 Exhibit 4—Diagram of Dillon Hopyard's Office 73 Exhibit 5—Evidence (Gun) 74 Exhibit 6—Event Flyer 75 Exhibit 7—Business Card with Code 76 Exhibit 8—Google Review 77 Exhibit 9—Fingerprint Report 78 Exhibit 10—Bank Records 80 Exhibit 11—Text Messages Report 82 Exhibit 12—Photographs of Different Pizza Styles 84 ii  Message from the CBA's Mock Trial Subcommittee On May 22, 2024, Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro entered a statement into the Congressional record declaring New Haven the pizza capital of the United States. It has been reported that Representative DeLauro's declaration stated in part: "For more than a century, New Haven has been home to some of the most famous pizzerias in the country, known for everything from a plain sauce to white clam to mashed potato....Earlier this year, Governor Ned Lamont declared New Haven to the be the pizza capital of Connecticut—I rise today to claim New Haven as the pizza capital of the United States." 1 New Haven's reputation for pizza is comparable to Philadelphia's for the cheesesteak, Miami's for the Cubano sandwich and Buffalo's for Buffalo wings. It all started in 1925 with the opening of Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana-Style, followed by Modern Apizza in 1934 and Sally's Apizza in 1938. Of course, those of us who are true pizza connoisseurs know there are other worthy pizza establishments in the area beyond this trifecta, including Zuppardi's Apizza in West Haven, Roseland Apizza in Derby, Ernie's Pizzeria in the Westville section of New Haven, and Abate Pizza located near Pepe's and Sally's on Wooster Street in New Haven. This year’s case, State v. Harkness, brings us to the heart of downtown Rocky Neck, located in New Haven County, to learn about the local pizza and restaurant scene around the historic Hammonasset Square. That community is vibrant and eclectic, and we are sorry to tarnish it by having a homicide there. Rocky Neck, although a fictious place, is real to us. The events of this case are fictitious, and we assure you, they are not tied to any real life events. Likewise, all characters in this case also are fictitious and any similarity to any actual person is strictly coincidental. The Connecticut High School Mock Trial Competition is, first and foremost, an educational program designed to encourage a deeper understanding and appreciation of the American legal system by providing students with an opportunity to participate actively in the legal process. Mock trials help students gain an appreciation for the rule of law, legal issues and courtroom procedure. Moreover, while obtaining this knowledge, students develop oral advocacy skills, including proficiency in asking questions, listening, reasoning and thinking on their feet. Additional objectives include providing an opportunity to compete in an academic setting while promoting effective communication and cooperation between team members. Equally important, is that participation in mock trial will teach the students professionalism. Students learn ethics, civility and how to be ardent, but courteous advocates for their clients. Good sportsmanship and respect for all participants are central to the competition. We thank the teachers, coaches, advisors and judges, not only for the skills that they teach, but for the example of professionalism and good sportsmanship that they model for the students throughout the tournament. The reality of the adversary system is that one party wins and the other loses, and therefore, participants need to be prepared to accept defeat and success with dignity and restraint. 2 We also thank the hundreds of volunteers from Connecticut's bar and bench who annually give their valuable time as coaches and judges throughout the mock trial season. Without their assistance, this competition would not be the tremendous success that it is each year. Finally, we give our special thanks to the students who devote their time and energy preparing for the tournament. Every year, we are amazed at the level of skill and talent the students bring to the courtroom. We hope you find these materials interesting and wish you all the best of luck in this year’s competition. CBA Civics Education Committee/Mock Trial Subcommittee Hon. Joyce Krutick Craig Attorney Jeanine Dumont Hon. Hope C. Seeley Attorney Jonathan Weiner Attorney Mark K. Youssef 3  Case Summary Modern capitalism. The American Dream. Competition. These are time-tested mantras of small businesses throughout this country. These businesses, passed from generation to generation, establish their own little niche in their communities. But what happens when that “friendly competition” threatens those businesses, and it becomes a cutthroat game? Is greed, in fact, always good? What happens when one of those businesses fails, and the owners are left with nothing but a heart full of sadness and a gut full of revenge? Could that friendly competition turn deadly? It’s a gruesome scene, the type of story out of a mob movie. Dillon Hopyard slumped over his desk in a pool of blood, shot in the head, execution-style. Hopyard was a well-known business owner in the bustling and eclectic Hammonasset Square in Rocky Neck, Connecticut. He operated Devil's Hopyard Sicilian-Style Pizzeria, a local watering hole competing for customers’ hard earned cash with other Square businesses. In the span of little more than a month, Hopyard went from being one of the lucky winners of a substantial scratch-off lottery ticket prize to murder victim. While Hopyard should have been enjoying his lottery windfall, instead he was using it to escalate his “friendly competition” with another establishment, Ancient Apizza, a pizza joint on the same square. Hopyard was ready to win at all cost; he had launched a full- on nuclear war—buying the building and evicting his competition entirely. Standing accused of this brutal crime is Emerson Harkness, the owner of Ancient Apizza—who makes no attempt to hide their hatred for Dillon Hopyard. The State alleges that Harkness conspired with local n’er do-well, Willie Waramaug, to take Hopyard out. Large cash withdrawals and suspect conversations during clandestine meetings are at the heart of the State’s case. But what about Sam Talcott, owner of Sam’s Black Rock Pizza Pie & Tavern, with their own secrets, struggling with worsening alcoholism and perhaps a failing business? Could Sam Talcott have been desperate enough to resort to murder to weed out the competition or had Emerson Harkness just had enough? Dillon Hopyard is found dead in a brutal murder scene. The once eclectic and vibrant Hammonasset Square community is now forever tarnished by the grisly crime committed there. Rocky Neck’s peace—yet again—disturbed. But who killed Dillon Hopyard? That is the question of the year. 4  Witnesses Prosecution Witnesses: Detective Sawyer Sherlock Jackie Pepin, food blogger/restaurant reviewer Sam Talcott, owner of Sam's Black Rock Pizza Pie & Tavern Defense Witnesses: Emerson Harkness, Defendant and owner of Ancient Apizza Aspen Wadsworth, employee of Sam Talcott at Black Rock Pizza Pie & Tavern Casey Mattatuck, employee of Sleeping Giant Brewery ** Each witness may be portrayed by any student. In the materials, we have used the pronouns "they," "their" and "them" for ease of reference; students may use their preferred pronouns during the mock trial performances. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Police Report Exhibit 2: Supplement to Police Report Exhibit 3: Map of Hammonasset Square Exhibit 4: Diagram of Dillon Hopyard's Office Exhibit 5: Evidence (Gun) Exhibit 6: Event Flyer Exhibit 7: Business Card with Code Exhibit 8: Google Review Exhibit 9: Fingerprint Report Exhibit 10: Bank Records Exhibit 11: Text Messages Report Exhibit 12: Photographs of Different Pizza Styles 5  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOCKET NO.: NNH-CR-23-6008284S STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN v. EMERSON HARKNESS OCTOBER 15, 2023 LONG FORM INFORMATION COUNT ONE Assistant State’s Attorney Edith Webster for the Judicial District of New Haven accuses EMERSON HARKNESS of MURDER (AS AN ACCESSORY) and charges that in the County of New Haven, at the Town of Rocky Neck, on or about the 23rd day of May, 2023, at or near the area of Hammonasset Square within said Town, EMERSON HARKNESS, with intent to cause the death of DILLON HOPYARD, did solicit, request, command and importune another person, to wit, Willie Waramaug, to cause the death of DILLON HOPYARD, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) and 53a-8 (a). 6 COUNT TWO Assistant State’s Attorney Edith Webster for the Judicial District of New Haven further accuses EMERSON HARKNESS of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER and charges that in the County of New Haven, at the Town of Rocky Neck, on or about the 23rd of May, 2023, at or near the area of Hammonasset Square within said Town, EMERSON HARKNESS, with intent that conduct constituting the crime of MURDER, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-54a, be performed, agreed with one Willie Waramaug to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and that there was committed one or more overt acts in the performance of such conspiracy, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-48. STATE OF CONNECTICUT BY: Edith Webster______________ Edith Webster Assistant State’s Attorney 100 Elm Street New Haven, CT 06510 7  APPLICABLE STATUTES AND JURY INSTRUCTIONS Relevant portions of the Connecticut General Statutes Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-54a (a): A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, s/he causes the death of such person. Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-8, Accessorial Liability: A person is criminally liable for a criminal act if s/he directly commits it or if s/he is an accessory in the criminal act of another. The statute defining accessorial liability reads in pertinent part as follows: a person, acting with the mental state required for commission of an offense, who solicits, requests, commands, importunes or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable for such conduct and may be prosecuted and punished as if h/she were the principal offender. Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-48, Conspiracy: A person is guilty of conspiracy when, with the intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, s/he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy. Relevant Mock Trial Jury Instructions After the presentation of evidence, the judge will instruct the jury how to apply the law to the evidence. Hypothetically, if the judge in your mock trial case were to provide instructions to the jury, they would look something like these. Although these instructions may not be used as an exhibit during the mock trial competition, students may use these legal concepts in fashioning their case and making arguments to the jury. Members of the jury, you are about to perform one of the most serious duties of citizenship. You are going to decide whether a fellow citizen, Emerson Harkness, is guilty or not guilty of the crimes charged by the State of Connecticut. You have heard the evidence presented in this case. It is now my duty to instruct you as to the law that you are to apply in this case. Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof We will begin with a discussion of two related concepts: the defendant’s presumption of innocence and the state’s burden of proof. In this case, as in all criminal cases, the defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crimes with which they have been charged. This means: first, that at the time they were presented before you for trial, they stood free of any bias, prejudice or burden arising from their position as the accused; and second, that just as they were presumed innocent at the start of this trial, they are s presumed innocent now and will remain so forever unless, in the course of your 8 deliberations, you unanimously conclude that the state has overcome that presumption by proving each essential element of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state succeeds in proving each essential element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will have overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence with respect to that offense. In that event, they must be found “Guilty” as charged. If, however, the state fails to meet its burden of proof as to one or more essential elements of that offense, the presumption of innocence alone will require that they be found “Not Guilty” of that offense. If there is even one element of the offense which the state has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of not guilty. The Standard of Proof: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt To obtain a conviction of a charged offense, the state must prove each essential element of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The meaning of reasonable doubt can be arrived at by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is a doubt which is founded upon reason and supported by the evidence, or the lack of evidence, in the case. As the words imply, a reasonable doubt is a doubt held by a reasonable person after he or she has carefully analyzed, compared, and weighed all of the credible evidence in the case. By the same token, a reasonable doubt is not a mere guess or surmise or conjecture that finds no logical support in the evidence or lack of evidence in the case. It is such a doubt as, in the serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance. It is not hesitation springing from any feelings of pity of sympathy for the accused or any other person who may be affected by your decision. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt; the law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the jury before it returns a verdict of guilty. Before you may return a verdict of guilty on crime charged, you must be firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt on that charge. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that is so firmly convincing that it precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. Under this standard, any conclusion, reasonably to be drawn from all of the evidence presented at trial, which is consistent with the innocence of the defendant, must therefore prevail. If, then, at the end of your deliberations, you are left with a reasonable doubt as to any essential element of the charged offense, you must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt by finding him "Not Guilty" of that offense. Finally, to reiterate, you must remember that the defendant has no burden whatsoever to raise reasonable doubt in your minds, or to convince you that any doubt you may have is a reasonable one. Rather, the state bears the sole and exclusive burden of persuading you beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely upon the evidence presented in this trial, that the defendant committed each essential element of the charged offense. 9  Credibility of Witnesses In deciding the factual issues of this case, you must decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe and credit all, part or none of any witness's testimony. In making that decision, you may take many factors into account, including: (1) Was the witness able to see, or hear, or know the things about which they testified? (2) How well was the witness able to recall and describe those things? (3) What was the witness's manner while testifying? (4) Does the witness have any interest in the outcome of this case, or any bias or prejudice concerning any party or any matter involved in the case? The greater the witness’s personal interest in the outcome of the case, the more closely and carefully you should scrutinize their testimony before deciding to credit it for any purpose. (5) How reasonable was the witness's testimony, considered in light of all the other evidence in the case? and (6) Was the witness's testimony contradicted by what they said or did at another time, or by the testimony of other witnesses, or by other evidence? These are some of the factors you may consider in deciding whether or not to believe the testimony of any witness who has come before you in this case. Based upon your consideration of those factors and others you routinely rely upon to assess the credibility of people you interact with in your daily lives, you may choose, in your sole discretion, to believe all, some or none of what any witness had to say in this case. Testimony of Police Officers One police officer testified in this case. The testimony of a police officer is entitled to no special or exclusive weight merely because it comes from a police officer. Instead, you should give it the same consideration, and apply to it the same factors, as you would apply to the testimony of any other witness, including: the officer's demeanor on the witness stand; his or her manner of testifying; any bias shown or interest he or she may have in the outcome of the case; and the consistency and completeness of his or her testimony. The decision whether or not to credit the testimony of a police officer, and if so what weight to give it in the circumstances of the case, is entirely up to you, just as it is for every other witness in the case. In short, you should not believe or disbelieve a police officer’s testimony, in whole or in part, merely because it came from a police officer. Defendant’s Testimony In this case, the defendant testified. An accused person, having testified, stands before you just like any other witness. They are entitled to the same considerations and must have their testimony tested and measured by you by the same factors and standards as you would judge the testimony of any other witness. You have no right to disregard the defendant’s testimony or to disbelieve the defendant’s testimony merely because they are accused of a crime. 10  Direct and Circumstantial Evidence There are, generally speaking, two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, evidence from which the factfinder could find that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly. There is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as far as probative value; the law permits the factfinder to give equal weight to both, but it is for the factfinder to decide how much weight to give to any particular evidence. Circumstantial evidence of an event is the testimony of witnesses as to the existence of certain facts or evidence or the happening of other events from which the factfinder may logically conclude that the event in question did happen. The only practical difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is that when there is direct evidence of some fact, the main thing the factfinder has to do is determine the believability of the direct testimony given, the credibility of the witness. With circumstantial evidence, the factfinder must first determine the credibility of the witness or witnesses and decide whether the facts testified to did exist. Then the factfinder must decide whether the happenings of those events or the existence of those facts leads logically to the conclusion that other events occurred or other facts exist. There is no reason to be prejudiced against evidence simply because it is circumstantial evidence. One makes decisions on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the everyday affairs of life. There is no reason why decisions based on circumstantial evidence should not be made in the courtroom. In fact, proof by circumstantial evidence may be as conclusive as would be the testimony of witnesses speaking on the basis of their own observation. Circumstantial evidence, therefore, is offered to prove a certain fact from which the factfinder is asked to infer the existence of another fact or set of facts. Before the factfinder decides that a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence, the factfinder must consider all of the evidence in light of reason, experience and common sense. Consciousness of Guilt In any criminal trial it is permissible for the state to show that conduct by a defendant after the time of the alleged offense may have been influenced by the criminal act; that is, the conduct show a consciousness of guilt. For example, flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it. Such conduct does not, however, raise a presumption of guilt. If you find the evidence proved and also find that the conduct was influenced by the criminal act and not by any other reason, you may, but are not required to, infer from this evidence that the defendant was acting from a guilty conscience. The state claims that the defendant fled Rocky Neck after Dillon Hopyard was killed and that conduct is evidence of consciousness of guilt. It is up to you as judges of the facts to decide whether the defendant’s alleged flight, if proved, reflect a consciousness of guilt and to consider such in your deliberations in conformity with these instructions. 11  The Offenses Charged I will now instruct you on the principles of substantive law which must govern your deliberations in this case. The state has charged the defendant with two separate crimes: Count One: Murder (Charged As An Accessory) Count Two: Conspiracy to Commit Murder The Information that I read to you at the beginning of this case will be provided to you in the jury deliberation room. I must emphasize that the Information is not evidence; the fact that the state accuses the defendant of committing these crimes does not mean to any extent that the defendant is guilty or that the defendant has done anything wrong. The information is simply the formal means of bringing the defendant to court for trial. Multiple Charges The defendant is charged with two counts. The defendant is entitled to and must be given by you a separate and independent determination of whether they are guilty or not guilty as to each of the counts. Each of the counts charged is a separate crime. The state is required to prove each element in each count beyond a reasonable doubt. Each count must be deliberated upon separately. The total number of counts charged does not add to the strength of the state’s case. You may find that some evidence applies to more than one count.. The evidence, however, must be considered separately as to each element in each count. Each count alleges a separate crime. You must consider each count separately and return a separate, independent and unanimous verdict for each count. This means that you may reach opposite verdicts on different counts. A decision on one count does not bind your decision on another count. 1. Count One: Murder in Alleged Violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) In Count One of the Information, the defendant is charged with murder, as an accessary, in alleged violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) and 53a-8 (a). Here, the state has alleged the following in Count One of the Information: [The state] "accuses EMERSON HARKNESS of MURDER (AS AN ACCESSORY) and charges that in the County of New Haven, at the Town of Rocky Neck, on or about the 23rd day of May, 2023, at or near the area of Hammonasset Square within said Town, EMERSON HARKNESS, with intent to cause the death of DILLON HOPYARD, did solicit, request, command and importune another person, to wit, Willie Waramaug, to cause the death of DILLON HOPYARD, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) and 53a-8 (a)." A person may be held criminally liable for the acts of another person as an 12 accessory. Accessorial liability pursuant to § 53a-8 (a) is equivalent to liability as a principal and requires proof that the defendant had the specific mental state required for the commission of the substantive offense and acted in furtherance of that crime. The statute defining accessorial liability reads in pertinent part as follows: "a person, acting with the mental state required for commission of an offense, who solicits, requests, commands, importunes or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable for such conduct and may be prosecuted and punished as if they were the principal offender." This statute does not connect those five acts specified with the word “and” but separates them by the word “or.” A person is an accessory if they solicit or request or command or importune or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct that constitutes an offense. “Solicit” means to tempt or to entice someone to do wrong; “importune” means to demand or urge; “aid” means to assist, help or support. A person acts “intentionally” with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. “Intentionally aid,” therefore, means to act in any manner, the conscious objective of which is to assist, help or support. If the defendant did any of these things as specified in the statute, they are guilty of the crime of murder as though they had directly committed it or participated in its commission. To establish the guilt of a defendant as an accessory for assisting in the criminal act of another, the state must prove criminality of intent and community of unlawful purpose. That is, for the defendant to be guilty of murder as an accessory, it must be established that they acted with the mental state necessary to commit the crime of murder, and that in furtherance of that crime, they solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided the principal to commit the crime of murder. In other words, a conviction under § 53a-8 (a) requires proof of a dual intent: the intent to aid the principal and the intent to commit the offense of murder. Evidence of mere presence as an inactive companion, or passive acquiescence, or the doing of innocent acts which, in fact, aid in the commission of a crime, is insufficient to find the defendant guilty as an accessory under the statute. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant was actually present or actively participated in the actual commission of the crime of murder. The rule is that a person who solicits, requests, commands, importunes or intentionally aids in the commission of a crime is guilty of that very crime. Thus, for you to find the defendant guilty of the crime of murder as an accessory, you must unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided another to commit the crime of murder. You must also unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent to commit the crime charged and had the intent to solicit, request, command, importune or intentionally aid another in the commission of the crime of murder. 13  2. Count Two: Conspiracy To Commit Murder In Alleged Violation Of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) and 53a-48 In Count Two of the Information, the defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit murder, in alleged violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) and 53a-48. Here, the state has alleged the following in Count Two of the Information: [The state] "accuses EMERSON HARKNESS of CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER and charges that in the County of New Haven, at the Town of Rocky Neck, on or about the 23rd of May, 2023, at or near the area of Hammonasset Square within said Town, EMERSON HARKNESS, with intent that conduct constituting the crime of MURDER, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-54a, be performed, agreed with one Willie Waramaug to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and that there was committed one or more overt acts in the performance of such conspiracy, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-48." The defendant is charged in count two with conspiracy to commit murder. A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, they cause the death of such person. The statute defining conspiracy reads in pertinent part as follows: a person is guilty of conspiracy when, with the intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, they agree with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them commits an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy. To constitute the crime of conspiracy, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) there was an agreement between the defendant and one or more persons to engage in conduct constituting the crime of murder, which conspiracy the defendant specifically intended to join; 2) there was an overt act in furtherance of the subject of the agreement by any one of those persons; and, 3) the defendant specifically intended to commit the crime of murder. The size of the defendant’s role does not determine whether they may be convicted of conspiracy. Element 1—Agreement The first element is that there was an agreement between two or more persons. It is not necessary for the state to prove that there was a formal or express agreement between them. It is sufficient to show that the parties intentionally engaged in a mutual plan to do a criminal act. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove that there was an agreement because conspiracies, by their very nature, are formed in secret and only rarely can be proved by other than circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to establish that the defendant and the defendant’s alleged coconspirators signed papers, shook hands, or uttered the words “we have an agreement” but rather a conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused. 14  The mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the object of the agreement without cooperation or agreement to cooperate, however, is not sufficient to make one a party to a conspiracy to commit the criminal act. It is sufficient if they have come to an understanding with at least one other person, and have come to such understanding with that person to further a criminal purpose. Additionally, it is not essential that they know the complete plan of the conspiracy in all of its details. It is enough if they know that a conspiracy exists or that they are creating one and that they are joining with at least one person in an agreement to commit a crime. Therefore, in order to convict the defendant on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder, the first element that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant specifically intended to enter into an agreement, with at least one other person to engage in conduct constituting the crime of murder. Element 2—Overt Act The second element is that at least one of the alleged co-conspirators did an overt act to further the purpose of the conspiracy. It does not matter which one of the alleged coconspirators did the overt act. It need not be the defendant, and it need not be a criminal act. An overt act is any step, action, or conduct that is taken to achieve or further the objective of the conspiracy. An overt act, therefore, is one that is committed or caused to be committed by any member of the conspiracy in an effort to accomplish some objective or purpose of the conspiracy. Remember, a single overt act is sufficient to prove this element of the conspiracy. The overt act cannot, however, be held against the other alleged coconspirators if it was not intended to further the general purposes of the conspiracy, but was secretly intended to further the actor’s own personal purpose. The overt act must be a subsequent independent act that follows the formation of the conspiracy. Element 3—Criminal Intent The third element is that the defendant had the intent to commit the crime of murder. This means that the defendant must specifically intend that every element of the planned offense be accomplished. As to this count, those elements are that the defendant specifically intended to cause the death of Dillon Hopyard and specifically intended to have another cause the death of Dillon Hopyard. The defendant may not be found guilty unless the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they specifically intended to commit the crime of murder when they entered into the agreement. Conclusion In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant had an agreement with one or more other persons to commit , 2) at least one of the coconspirators did an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, and 3) the defendant specifically intended to enter into the agreement and intended the conduct constituting the crime of murder. If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy to commit , 15 then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty. Concluding Remarks In conclusion, I impress upon you that you are duty bound as jurors to determine the facts on the basis of the evidence as it has been presented, to apply the law as I have outlined it, and then to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty as to each count. When you reach a verdict, it must be unanimous, that is, all of you must agree on the verdict. It is the duty of each juror to discuss and consider the opinions of the other jurors. Each of you takes into the jury room your individual experience and wisdom. Your task is to pool that experience and wisdom. You do that by giving your views and listening to the views of others. There must necessarily be discussion and give and take within the scope of your oath. That is the way in which a unanimous verdict is reached. Despite that, in the last analysis, it is your individual duty to make up your own mind and to decide this case upon the basis of your own individual judgment and conscience. With that, you may now retire to the jury room. 16  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOCKET NO.: NNH-CR-23-6008284S STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN v. EMERSON HARKNESS NOVEMBER 1, 2024 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The State filed a motion in limine to compel third-party witness Willie Waramaug to testify in the above-captioned matter or, in the alternative, to declare that Waramaug is unavailable as a witness in this matter. The court heard oral argument from the parties on October 21, 2024. The motion to compel third-party witness Willie Waramaug to testify in State v. Emerson Harkness is denied, but the alternative motion to declare that Waramaug is unavailable as a witness is granted. This case is unusual in that Waramaug is not an ordinary possible witness. Rather, he is the accused co-conspirator and/or solicited agent of the defendant, Emerson Harkness. As the parties are undoubtedly aware, this matter is further complicated by the procedural posture in Waramaug’s case. This court – by way of separate order in Waramaug’s matter – has suppressed all evidence of Waramaug’s alleged confession, because Waramaug had invoked his right to counsel before the alleged confession was obtained. The State has appealed that ruling, and the appeal is pending before the Connecticut Supreme Court. The parties have submitted their appellate briefs and the case is expected to be argued in early 2025. A decision is not expected for several months once the case has been argued before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the defendant in the instant matter, Emerson Harkness, demands a speedy trial, which in this case will mean one that occurs before that appeal can be heard. Understandably, Waramaug asserts his right to be free from self-incrimination, a right sacred under the constitutions of both the United States and this State. Waramaug has a reasonable fear of prosecution. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more 17 reasonable one than being charged at the time of testimony for the same crime about which testimony would be taken. See generally State v. Luther, 152 Conn. App. 682, 698-701, 99 A.3d 1242, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 940, 108 A.3d 1123 (2014). The State nonetheless asserts that Waramaug should be compelled to take the stand, because the Fifth Amendment must be invoked on a question-by-question basis, citing—among other cases—Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486–87 (1951), and United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2005). However, that rule is more often followed in the context of civil matters; in criminal cases, the prejudice that would come from calling a witness just to have them invoke the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury is substantial, particularly if the prosecutor knew all along that the witness would invoke the constitutional right not to incriminate himself. Our Supreme Court has held that a witness may not be called to the stand in the presence of the jury merely for the purpose of invoking his privilege against self- incrimination. State v. Dennison, 220 Conn. 652, 660, 600 A.2d 1343 (1991). The mere invocation of the Fifth Amendment, in front of the jury, may cause substantial prejudice. See id. (recognizing there is a "danger that a witness's invoking the Fifth Amendment in the presence of the jury will have a disproportionate impact on their deliberations"). The prejudice here would be particularly acute, as jurors could conclude that Waramaug’s invocation of the privilege means that Waramaug is guilty of murder, a critical element of proof for the State in this matter. Accordingly, the court will quash the subpoena for Waramaug’s testimony at the trial of the above-captioned action. Waramaug’s counsel has advised the court that Waramaug will assert his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as to all questions, and that suffices for present purposes. The State, however, is correct that a witness who is called for trial but invokes a privilege as to the relevant testimony is “unavailable” for purposes of Rule 804(a)(1) (“A declarant is… unavailable as a witness if the declarant… is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because the court rules that a privilege applies…”). The right against self-incrimination is a paradigmatic example of a privilege that exempts a witness from testifying. See United States v. Salerno, 505 U.S. 317, 321 (1992); United States v. Boyce, 849 F.2d 833, 836 (3d Cir. 1988). Accordingly, based on the ruling above, which extends the Fifth Amendment privilege to Waramaug, Waramaug is “unavailable” to both the State and the defendant. To avoid prejudice, the court acknowledges and enters as a part of this decision the stipulation of the parties that neither party may comment on Willie Waramaug’s failure to testify or may attempt to have the jury draw any inference from Waramaug’s choice not to testify in this action. 18 So Ordered. BY THE COURT: Simon Cowell SIMON COWELL, J. 19  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOCKET NO.: NNH-CR-23-6008284S STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN v. EMERSON HARKNESS OCTOBER 15, 2024 STIPULATIONS The undersigned counsel hereby stipulate to the following: 1. All documents, signatures and exhibits, including pre-markings, included in the case materials are authentic and accurate in all respects; no objections to the authenticity of any of the foregoing will be entertained. The parties reserve the right to dispute any legal or factual conclusions based on these items and to make objections other than to authenticity. 2. Jurisdiction, venue and chain of custody of the evidence are proper and may not be challenged. 3. All signatures on Witness Affidavits and other documents are authentic. No challenges based on the authenticity of a witness’ signed document will be considered. Each witness was given an opportunity to update or amend his/her statement shortly before trial, and no changes were made. If asked, a witness must acknowledge signing the document(s) and must attest to the content of the documents(s) and the date(s) indicated thereon. The Witness Affidavits are deemed to be given under oath or affirmation. 4. All statements were taken after the alleged incidents but before trial. All statements were notarized on the day on which they were signed. The dates of witness statements are not relevant. 20 5. All evidence was obtained constitutionally, and no challenges will be entertained. 6. Except as noted elsewhere, objections may be made to any exhibit or testimony pursuant to the Rules of Evidence. However, no objection may be made as to the constitutionality of the admission of any evidence. For example, the defendant may object that some testimony or exhibit is hearsay, but s/he may not object that admission of the testimony or exhibit violates his/her Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), or other constitutional precedent. 7. Consistent with Rule 3.6 of the State Rules of Competition (Trial of All Issues), whether Willie Waramaug committed the murder of Dillon Hopyard is a contested fact. Accordingly, neither the defense nor the prosecution may render evidence relating to that question irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible by removing it from dispute by stipulation or otherwise. 8. In accordance with the Court’s decision on the question, Willie Waramaug has properly invoked his right to be free from self-incrimination with respect to any testimony in this case. He is unavailable as a witness, and neither party may make any comment on his choice not to testify or to attempt to use that failure to testify in any manner, but particularly in any manner that suggests that Waramaug is more likely to have killed Dillon Hopyard because he did not testify in this action or that Emerson Harkness is more likely to have participated in the killing of Dillon Hopyard because Willie Waramaug did not testify in this action. 9. Emerson Harkness has elected to testify in their own defense and has made a knowing, voluntary waiver of their Fifth Amendment rights. Either party may comment on Harkness’s decision to testify in its opening statement. 10.Dillon Hopyard was a living human being on and before May 23, 2023. He was found dead on May 23, 2023, and the cause of his death was a single bullet to the back of the head. 11.The bullet that killed Dillon Hopyard was a.38 caliber round fired from the pistol recovered from the home of Willie Waramaug, a photo of which is identified as Ex. 5. 21 12.The court's jury instructions are accurate statements of the law and may be used to present each party's theory of the case and in argument. 13.Exhibit 3 accurately depicts the locations of the businesses identified thereon. It is not to scale, but neither side may object to its admission for that reason. 14.Exhibit 4 was prepared by the Crime Scene Unit of the Rocky Neck Police Department. 15.Exhibit 5 is a picture of the firearm recovered from the home of Willie Waramaug. That firearm was functional at the time of its recovery, and the defendant waives any right to have the actual firearm present in the courtroom. 16.Exhibit 7 is a picture of the business card recovered from the home of Willie Waramaug. The defendant waives any right to have the actual card present in the courtroom. 17.Exhibit 8 is a copy of a Google review for Devil's Hopyard Sicilian-Style Pizzeria recovered by Det. Sawyer Sherlock. The defendant waives any right to have the digital source document present in the courtroom. 18.Exhibit 9 is a report of the Connecticut State Police Bureau of Forensic Services. A copy of the report was shared with Det. Sawyer Sherlock. The report may be introduced by either party without further foundation, and both parties waive the right to object to it on hearsay or Confrontation grounds. 19.Exhibit 10 was obtained from the Rocky Neck Credit Union by the State during its investigation of the crime. It is a copy of the normal account statement kept by the Credit Union for all its customers, in the course of the bank’s regular business activities, as required by law. It is not a statement generated for purposes of the investigation. Defendant has waived any right to confront the custodian of record. 20.Exhibit 11 was obtained from Cilantro Wireless by the State during its investigation of the crime. It is a copy of the transmission records kept by Cilantro for all its customers for a limited period, in the course of Cilantro’s regular business providing text messaging and telephone services to its 22  customers. It is not a statement generated for purposes of the investigation. Defendant has waived any right to confront the custodian of record. Edith Webster Mark Twain Edith Webster Mark Twain Assistant State’s Attorney Attorney for the defendant 100 Elm Street 145 Wooster Street New Haven, CT 06510 New Haven, CT 06512 23  STATEMENT OF SAWYER SHERLOCK 1 My name is Sawyer Sherlock, and I am a Detective in the Rocky Neck Police Department. 2 I am 35 years old and born in raised in Hamden, Connecticut. I graduated from Hamden 3 High School in 2005 and graduated from UCONN in 2009 with a Bachelor of Science 4 degree in Computer Science and a minor in Social Justice. Upon graduation, I worked for 5 the New Haven Police Department as a uniformed patrol officer for 10 years. While with 6 the New Haven PD, I completed the full police academy and special weapons training 7 module, a 20-week training program. 8 9 While a uniformed patrol officer, I responded to calls dispatched to me involving 10 automobile accidents, robberies, shots fired, and other felony and misdemeanor offenses. 11 At the scene of the offense, I would do whatever was needed: secure the area, administer 12 first aid, conduct preliminary investigations, gather evidence, take witness statements, 13 make arrests, and prepare reports. And, of course, I would testify in court. I learned a lot 14 from my tenure in the Elm City, but it wasn’t all good times: I was reprimanded twice for 15 not properly securing a crime scene and moving key evidence before forensics could sweep 16 the location. The last incident was in 2012, and I have not had an issue since. In fact, in 17 2018 I was honored by the Mayor of New Haven for saving a family—two adults, a ten- 18 year-old child and a baby—from their first floor apartment during a fire. They were all 19 unconscious due to smoke inhalation when I arrived. As the first responder, I went in and 20 was able to pull all them out of the apartment and hand them over to the paramedics. 21 22 In 2019, I learned about a detective opening in the Rocky Neck Police Department. Rocky 23 Neck is located about twenty miles from New Haven and is a much smaller community, 24 both in population size and geographic size. I was hired right away—barely an interview— 25 but that made sense: I was that good at that point. Rocky Neck sent me to the Advanced 26 Connecticut Police Academy in Meriden, CT, where I learned more about criminal 27 investigations; drug enforcement and drug recognition; constitutional rights; physical and 28 digital forensics; traffic safety; physical fitness; and counterterrorism. I undergo at least 29 25 hours of additional training every year and re-certify annually on firearms and crime 30 scene management. 31 32 Being a detective in Rocky Neck isn’t exactly Law and Order: SVU. Serious crime here is 33 rare, and the Department has only a couple dozen officers, total. Most of the work is 34 community policing, avoiding crimes by talking people through things. But don’t get me 35 wrong; small towns have plenty of problems, too. A perfect example was the rivalry among 36 the pizza establishments on Hammonasset Square, and in particular between the owners 37 of Devil's Hopyard Sicilian-Style Pizzeria and Ancient Apizza. I guess maybe you’d say 38 Sam’s, too, that is, Sam's Black Rock Pizza Pie & Tavern. Downtown Rocky Neck is 39 eclectic, a real mix of University students, older professionals, laborers, and aspiring artsy 24 40 types. But while we’re not poor, none of those folks are rich, either. So there isn’t always 41 enough pocket change to go around, especially when you account for Papa Gino's and 42 Domino's up by the mall. So that competition was always gonna create issues. But these 43 owners took competition to a whole different level. The worst offenders were Dillon 44 Hopyard, who owned Devil's Hopyard Sicilian-Style Pizzeria, and Emerson Harkness, 45 who owned Ancient Apizza. Everyone, and I mean everyone, in town knew they hated 46 each other. I am not sure why—their pizzas were totally different. Thin-crusted v. thick- 47 crusted. Fancy toppings like clams v. traditional toppings like sausage and pepperoni. 48 Personally, I grew up eating Greek-style pizza cut into pie wedges, so I really wasn't a fan 49 of either one. Sicilian pizzas are cut into square slices—after all, they are called pizza pies 50 for a reason! I mean, who cuts pizza into squares? And the pizza at Ancient Apizza is 51 paper thin—just not my cup of tea, if you know what I mean. And besides, they put clams 52 on pizza. Whoever heard of clams on pizza? I prefer my clams in chowder. 53 54 Worse, they constantly dragged the police into it. Harkness called us in claiming that 55 Hopyard’s sign violated the local ordinance; Hopyard called us a week later to file a report 56 that Harkness’s outside deck violated the zoning code. They both complained that the 57 other was responsible for poor reviews on Yelp and Google. Harkness even demanded that 58 we bring in State Police computer forensics! 59 60 They competed in more normal ways, too. Harkness started a trivia hour, offering a deeply 61 discounted Happy Hour—beer and pizza--hoping to draw some customers from Devil's 62 Hopyard Pizzeria. We were over there at least once a week breaking up fights. Never 63 thought I would charge a felony based on whether a battle was called “Manassas” or “Bull 64 Run,” but there’s a first time for everything, I guess. Harkness even had one of the Ancient 65 Apizza servers passing out fliers in front of Devil's Hopyard Pizzeria. That led to another 66 call, from Dillon Hopyard, claiming “aggravated trespass” or some other internet 67 nonsense, because the server had—allegedly—stepped off the sidewalk and onto the 68 threshold of Devil's Hopyard. 69 70 Still, things got even nastier. In February 2023, someone tried to burn down Ancient 71 Apizza by setting fire to a stack of Ancient Apizza fliers under a wooden bench from the 72 deck. The fire was put out before it could reach the main building, but arson is arson, and 73 a fireman broke an arm when part of the deck collapsed. Harkness wanted us to charge 74 Hopyard, but there was no evidence. The bar had to close for several days, costing 75 Harkness business, and the deck was never rebuilt, costing more. Whether because of that 76 or not, a couple weeks later, Harkness’s landlord put the place up for sale, and—wouldn’t 77 you know?—Hopyard bought it. Ultimately, Hopyard cancelled Harkness’s lease, and we 78 served an eviction notice filed by Hopyard on Ancient Apizza on May 15, 2023, with a 79 move-out day of the end of the month. 80 25  81 All of which led to the mess at the Savor. The Savor the Square is a big festival the 82 weekend before Memorial Day. It brings in artists from around the State, live musical 83 acts, and in addition to two stages at opposite ends of Hammonasset Square, the 84 restaurants and bars in town are allowed to have a booth free of charge. It is also the one 85 weekend a year where citizens were allowed to carry adult beverages outside in open 86 containers, and it is a massive money-maker. Rocky Neck isn’t much of a tourist 87 destination, apart from the antique stores, so having tens of thousands of people passing 88 through is a real. big. deal. The Department turns out in force, all hands on deck, even 89 though there have been only a handful of arrests in the history of the event. Smart police 90 know when to put the handcuffs away, and the Mayor makes sure we know to be smart 91 police that weekend. 92 93 In 2023, Savor the Square ran from May 19-22. I was monitoring the Square on May 19, 94 and around 5 pm, right after the Mayor gave her opening remarks and introduced the 95 Whiskey River Rats, a bit of pandemonium broke out. When Hopyard, a festival sponsor, 96 showed up at the festival stage like Apollo Creed walking into the ring, Harkness lost it. 97 Harkness ran up on stage, grabbed the mic from the lead singer of the Whiskey River Rats 98 and screamed, “I am going to kill you! I am going to kill you! You ruined me! You couldn’t 99 let me have this weekend after all I have done for this community! You ruined me! I am 100 going to kill you!” Harkness then ran off the stage in tears. 101 102 Then, four days later, I got my first murder case as a detective. On Tuesday, May 23, 2023, 103 I was tucking into bed when a call came in, and I was dispatched at 10:23 pm to Devil's 104 Hopyard Sicilian-Style Pizzeria (435 Hoyt Street). Devil's Hopyard is closed on Tuesdays. 105 When I arrived, the responding officer, Patrol Officer Olivia Benson, led me to Dillon 106 Hopyard’s body in the bar’s office. Officer Benson told me that she had spoken with Casey 107 Mattatuck from the Sleeping Giant Brewery, who discovered the body. Mattatuck 108 reported that they did not touch the body and immediately calling 911. 109 110 I observed Mr. Hopyard’s body slumped over his desk; he had been shot execution-style 111 through the back of the head. The Medical Examiner, Dr. Carver, pronounced Hopyard 112 dead on the scene and transported the body to the morgue. 113 114 I then led the Crime Scene Unit processing the premises. CSU investigators are forensic 115 science technicians who collect and gather evidence at the crime scene. Together, we 116 walked the scene, and I directed the search for potential trace evidence such as 117 fingerprints, hairs, and fibers for later analysis at the State Crime Lab. The office did not 118 appear to be in disarray, and there were no defensive wounds on Mr. Hopyard, leading me 119 to conclude that there was not a struggle. Robbery did not appear to be a motive; the office 120 had not been ransacked. Hopyard’s widow, Vivian, confirmed later that nothing appeared 121 to have been taken. There were receipts spread on the desk, a large-button calculator, and 26 122 a pad with a series of numbers or calculations on it. Devil's Hopyard Sicilian-Style Pizzeria 123 had a single security camera by the front door and one over the cash register at the bar. 124 Only the register camera was working. It showed no movement at all on Tuesday, May 125 23. 126 127 All windows were intact, so I concluded that either someone had come in through a door 128 or Hopyard let that person in. But Hopyard was at the desk, apparently in the middle of 129 typing something and doing accounts for the week, so the door seemed more likely. The 130 main door was locked and barred, but the back door was only locked, and there is a keypad 131 in the alley allowing keyless entry, making that the killer’s most likely entry point. 132 133 That was it for me that evening. The next day, I started interviews. Both Mrs. Hopyard 134 and Casey Mattatuck said that the feud between Hopyard and Emerson Harkness had 135 gotten bad. I thought it would be best to talk to Harkness, and perhaps to clear them as a 136 suspect, but Harkness was nowhere to be found: not at their residence, not at the 137 restaurant. In fact, no one had seen them since they ran off stage at the Whiskey River 138 Rats concert. Emerson had skipped town. That made Emerson the primary suspect. We 139 all know that flight shows a consciousness of guilty. 140 141 Still, every good detective always digs deeper. Over the next few days, I interviewed the 142 current employees of Devil's Hopyard Pizzeria and other witnesses. Jackie Pepin had been 143 there when Hopyard revealed that he had bought the building in early May. Pepin had 144 observed Hopyard coming into Ancient Apizza waving a piece of paper and saying to 145 Harkness, “Now I’ve got you. Either you stop all these dirty tricks, or I am going to double 146 your rent.” Harkness responded, “What’s the matter, can’t take a little competition?” Then 147 Hopyard said, “You either toe the line or I’ll evict you!” Harkness said, “I knew you were 148 a dirtbag but I never thought you’d resort to extortion. What goes around comes around. 149 Karma’s a nasty mistress.” 150 151 Pepin also said that a couple of weeks later, while Pepin was eating lunch at Carley’s 152 Coffee Shop, a man came in and met with Harkness. Pepin heard Harkness say something 153 to the effect of, “Yeah, I told you I’d take care of you and your family if it comes to that.” 154 The rest of what Pepin told me is generally consistent with the statement Pepin gave in 155 this matter. 156 157 I also talked to Aspen Wadsworth, who was working at Sam Talcott’s pizza joint at the 158 time, Black Rock Pizza Pie & Tavern, which serves Detroit-style pizza. Again, not my 159 thing. Really thick crust cut into squares. Aspen said that the fight between Harkness 160 and Hopyard had been taken to the internet, specifically targeting each other’s Yelp pages. 161 That afternoon, I visited the two restaurants’ reviews online and printed them off to 27 162 preserve them. I would have liked to have captured them properly, in what the forensic 163 folks call “native format,” but we don’t have that kind of budget. 164 165 The investigation was making progress, but I guess not quick enough for some people. The 166 press was having a field day, and they were trying to get copies of my report and the 167 autopsy. So I took everything I had to the judge to get a search warrant for Emerson 168 Harkness’s place. I was convinced it had to be Harkness. The judge turned me down flat. 169 The Chief was not pleased. Turns out I shouldn’t have bothered. Harkness got word of it 170 somehow and offered us to search the place. We rolled it good , and we found nothing. 171 172 But then we caught a real break. A couple weeks after the warrant debacle, I heard about 173 an altercation at Sam’s pizza place involving Harkness, and I went over to find out about 174 it. Not only did Sam Talcott tell me what happened, he told me about a conversation he 175 had with Willie Waramaug the night before my visit. Talcott said that he met Waramaug 176 when Waramaug was installing ovens at Sam’s Black Rock Pizza Pie & Tavern. I checked 177 to see if Waramaug had a record, and he had one in spades: when he was sixteen, he 178 stabbed another boy in a fight over a girl. He was tried as an adult and received ten years. 179 In the four or five years since he was released, he had been arrested for public intoxication, 180 possession of a controlled substance, and resisting arrest, but had not served any 181 additional time. No steady employment. When I saw the picture, I knew the guy from 182 around town. He does odd jobs for cash and drives an old Pontiac Firebird. We’ve spotted 183 him sleeping in the back from time to time. It’s a sad thing, but not a crime. We even try 184 to knock on his window when the parking stops being free so he doesn’t get ticketed. 185 186 Standard police practice in cases like this one is not to tell the public all the details of the 187 crime, because that helps sort out the crank calls and conspiracy theorists from people 188 who have real information. Talcott was able to provide two details that Waramaug told 189 him which we had not released to the media: the perp shot Hopyard with a.38 caliber 190 revolver and how Hopyard was in the middle of paying bills. Nobody who had not talked 191 to the killer or one of the crime scene techs or seen the police report would know those 192 details. As the icing on the cake, Waramaug told Talcott that Harkness was the person 193 who hired him to kill Hopyard. Later, Talcott identified Waramaug in a lineup. 194 195 That gave us probable cause to get a warrant to search Waramaug’s apartment. Inside 196 the apartment, I located a.38 caliber revolver and a box of ammunition; Exhibit 4 is a 197 photo of the gun that was found. Ballistic tests confirmed that this.38 was the gun used 198 to kill Hopyard, and the ammunition found inside the apartment was consistent with the 199 projectile the Medical Examiner, Dr. Carver, recovered from the body of Hopyard. In 200 addition to the gun and ammunition, I found an Ancient Apizza business card with a five- 201 digit number written on the back: 27878. Or 27818. It was hard to tell. I had the crime lab 202 try to match the handwriting, but they said they couldn’t do much with five characters, 28 203 especially numbers. From my own observation of the samples, though, and based on the 204 two or three hours of forensic handwriting courses I have taken over the years, I will say 205 that Harkness’s “1s” and “7s” look pretty similar, and they look pretty similar to the ones 206 on the business card. Sam Talcott’s also looked similar to each other, but different from 207 those on the card. 208 209 During the search, I also found a cell phone bill from Cilantro Mobile in Waramaug’s 210 name, giving me his cell phone number as well as a chain of text messages. I then secured 211 a warrant for Waramaug’s cell phone records to see if there had been any communication 212 between Waramaug and Harkness. Waramaug called Harkness at 10:45 p.m. on the night 213 of May 23, for approximately 3 minutes, among other calls. There were also a few odd text 214 messages between the two of them. I subpoenaed Harkness’s financial records, both 215 personal and for the business. There were cash withdrawals on May 17th for $7,000 from 216 the business account and $5,000 from their personal account. 217 218 In early July, I located Waramaug and brought him in for questioning. On the way into 219 the police station, I had Officer Benson and Pepin sit in an undercover police car with 220 tinted windows. I walked the handcuffed Waramaug past the vehicle to see if Pepin could 221 identify Waramaug. But after I Mirandized Waramaug, he never said a word. In the 222 hallway, I checked in with Pepin, who told me straightaway that Waramaug was almost 223 certainly the same person they saw speaking to Harkness at the café. 224 225 By this time, we had initial fingerprint results that showed Waramaug’s partial print on 226 the code-box at the Devil's Hopyard. That means Waramaug was at the murder scene on 227 May 23. I went back into the interview room and confronted Waramaug with the physical 228 evidence retrieved from his apartment and Talcott’s testimony; he did not budge. In fact, 229 the only thing he said at first was that he wanted a lawyer. I didn’t question him after 230 that, but I told him that we had an eyewitness who overheard him talking to Harkness. 231 No response. I told him that Harkness was using him and that once he’s sitting in a jail 232 cell, Harkness will act like they never even heard of him. I even tried to suggest that 233 Harkness was framing him and didn’t he want to come clean and not take the rap for 234 Harkness. All to no avail. Waramaug just sat there, steely-eyed and stoic. 235 236 Then I made him a cooperation offer to testify against Harkness, and he started to open 237 up a little, admitting to owning the firearm—which is a crime for a convicted felon—and 238 to having been in Devil's Hopyard that night, but only to drink. That’s when I knew I had 239 him, because Devil's Hopyard wasn’t open on Tuesdays. As soon as I confronted him about 240 that, he clammed up again. 241 242 Still, I had the confession we needed. Only, get this! The judge in Waramaug’s case is 243 saying the confession is tainted, because Waramaug asked for a lawyer first. The 29 244 prosecutor doesn’t think so, because I didn’t ask any questions, I just made statements. 245 But that’s on appeal, and in the meantime, the Judge called my Chief and the prosecutor 246 and “suggested” that I take refresher training on the Sixth Amendment. While I stand by 247 my interrogation, I definitely would do things differently now. 248 249 I secured warrants for the arrest of Harkness and Waramaug for the murder of Dillon 250 Hopyard. I thought it was going to be hard to locate Harkness, and I was ready to make a 251 fugitive report, but it turns out that Harkness was back at home, elbow-deep in basil or 252 something in their home garden. I asked why Harkness skipped town, and Harkness 253 replied, “my father has been ill and after being embarrassed by Hopyard at the festival, I 254 went home to clear my head and spend time with my family.” I asked Harkness if they 255 knew of Hopyard’s death—and the reply was chilling, “Good news travels fast.” I asked 256 Harkness if they knew Waramaug, and Harkness replied with a bit of a surprise, “You 257 mean the deck guy?!?” 258 259 Still, I could not shake the feeling that Sam Talcott knew too many details and perhaps 260 was involved as well. Talcott was having their own financial troubles, and with Harkness 261 in custody and Hopyard dead, Talcott could control the bar scene. Word around town is 262 that Talcott lost a lot of money on the Patriots last year. It’s also been reported that Talcott 263 has an alcohol problem, and I can tell you that Talcott was convicted of DUI in 2021, 264 because I was the arresting officer. So I subpoenaed Talcott’s financial records, too. There 265 was nothing directly tying Sam to Hopyard’s death, so we closed the investigation. I still 266 wonder, though. 267 268 Whatever. I completed my reports timely and fully, and my initial instinct was right, 269 whatever that judge said about the evidence we had at the time. Harkness is definitely 270 guilty, and as soon as the jury reaches that obvious conclusion, I’ll have my first murder 271 conviction. Not bad, Detective. Not bad. 272 273 Dated: December 1, 2024 /s/ Sawyer Sherlock 274 STATE OF CONNECTICUT ) ) SS. COUNTY OF NEW HAVEN ) On this first day of December, 2024, before me personally appeared Sawyer Sherlock, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that s/he/they executed the same as her/his/their free act and deed. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the County and State aforesaid, the day and year first above written. Ida Nown Notary Public – Notary Seal STATE OF CONNECTICUT 30 New Haven County My Commission Expires: Oct. 8, 2025 Commission # 16513542  STATEMENT OF JACKIE PEPIN 1 My name is Jackie Pepin, and I write Connecticut's Culinary Scene, a restaurant 2 review/food blog that appears in most Connecticut newspapers, including the Rocky 3 Neck Gazette. I also am an Adjunct Instructor in the Culinary Arts program at Rocky 4 Neck Vocational Tech, teaching restaurant management, without Gordan Ramsay’s 5 over-the-top vocabulary. A lot of people think restaurant management is easy, just 6 because they’ve eaten in them. But it’s an immensely challenging form of small 7 business, and many restaurant investments fail, even when the managers have been 8 in the business for years. 9 10 In fact, being a customer of a restaurant can actually lead directly to bad decisions: 11 too many would-be restaurateurs make the mistake of running a place the way they’d 12 like to see it as a customer—the highest quality ingredients, extra staff to keep things 13 running smoothly, tons of menu options. That’s a nice idea, but hardly ever fiscally 14 sound; you spend far too much to turn a profit (unless you’re so high-end that you can 15 charge whatever you like). The idea is to make the customers think you’re running 16 the place expansively, while keeping a gimlet eye on the bottom line. 17 18 Don’t get me wrong: I love food! And I love the restaurant business. In fact, that’s 19 what I studied in school, at the world-renowned Nolan School of Hotel Administration 20 at Cornell University. Not many Ivy League schools teach something as practical as 21 hospitality, but Cornell does! Of course, I also really learned it in the school of hard 22 knocks when my own best effort at a restaurant went belly-up in 2020, during 23 COVID. Still, every student I can help learn that in a classroom is one more who 24 doesn’t learn it the hard way, as I did. 25 26 I guess I should say that it wasn’t all academic learning for me. In 1992, when I was 27 graduating Cornell, I’d had an epiphany—if not me, then who?—and I went to see my 28 Navy recruiter. I first joined the Navy Reserves, which helped to pay down my loans, 29 but when we went to war in the Middle East and Uncle Sam recognized that I had a 30 degree that included hours of work in supply chain logistics, I was pulled onto active 31 duty, coordinating hospitality services (food, housing, and recreation) in Afghanistan 32 and Southeast Asia. I mustered out in 2016 as a Commander, USN (Ret.), having 33 served my "twenty," entitling me to a full pension. Then I spent a couple years in 34 school food service before opening my place in my hometown of New London, The 35 Long Island Supper Club. We barely kept in the black through the first couple years, 36 but I think we were turning a corner when COVID hit. That was the end of that, and 31 37 nearly of me. I paid off the creditors I could in bankruptcy. My restaurant was not 38 eligible for a Paycheck Protection Program funds or a Restaurant Revitalization Fund 39 grant because I did the honorable thing and declared bankruptcy in late March, 40 rather than renewing a lease it did not look like we could pay. We closed our doors 41 forever. 42 43 After licking my wounds during the quarantine times, I realized I didn’t want to be 44 tied down again. I figured with my background, I could offer a unique eye to the food 45 scene in small, upcoming towns, so I headed closer to New Haven, which has a vibrant 46 restaurant scene. We looked around and settled on Rocky Neck as a base of 47 operations. I was attracted by what was going on in Rocky Neck, especially around 48 the historic Square. I was originally looking for a place to work as a sous-chef or where 49 I might invest a little, but I stumbled across food blogging, which led to a newspaper 50 column. I hadn’t considered writing before, but pretty quickly, I found my talents 51 transferred to the media. Turns out Cornell taught me more than just how to staff a 52 registration desk! 53 54 So now I write about food, but I also try to give my readers something more—a look 55 at how well the restaurant runs, not just what’s on the plate. And while I’m not 56 making or breaking places like the New York Times Restaurant Reviews do, I have 57 been able to highlight some cool, neat spots and give some needed warnings about 58 others. I like to be a writer of the people, so I don’t mind being seen and recognized. I 59 want to experience the spot as any diner would, not have a fuss made when I walk 60 in. I’ve gotten to know a lot of restaurant owners and been able to highlight the neat 61 things they’re doing, both in the kitchen and in the community. Most of the 62 restaurant folks in Connecticut are good people. Most. That said, the community is 63 very small, so a place could get written up more than once, and I often write of special 64 events and festivals. Weddings, for example, always get clicks, and to me catering is 65 as much a craft as owning a restaurant. 66 67 I also learned to size-up people like Harkness—blustering bad eggs—and not to be 68 intimidated by them. That part came naturally to me; once you’ve stared down a 3- 69 star in the E-Ring of the Pentagon, a local pizza jockey isn’t gonna have you quakin’ 70 in your boots. Still, I can understand the issue. I was unsparing in what I wrote about 71 both the feud between Ancient Apizza and Devil's Hopyard Sicilian-Style Pizzeria-- 72 which was going to kill both places, I thought—and the choices Harkness was making 73 in the Ancient Apizza business. Harkness’s business model was lousy, and I’d always 74 had a sixth sense that Harkness was trouble. Plus, Harkness rubbed me the wrong 75 way and refused to give any kind of samples. Unlike Harkness, Hopyard was always 32  76 willing to provide a bit of free food and drink and—once—a little financial assistance 77 on the side for me. I knew it was an effort to get me to write a favorable article about 78 Devil's Hopyard, but I am not going to pretend that I didn’t appreciate the help, since 79 I got paid for clicks, not a salary or whatever. 80 81 Even so, I didn’t pull punches in blaming them both for the feud that could have killed 82 both places. Harkness seemed to feel like they were in constant competition with 83 Hopyard over the same customer base, even though Ancient Apizza’s menu and 84 Hopyard’s Devil's Hopyard Sicilian-Style Pizzeria were different style of pizza—New 85 Haven-style pizza vs. Sicilian-style pizza—and we all know folks can be quite 86 particular about their pizza. Honestly, I felt Devil's Hopyard Pizzeria had a better 87 model for a college town and was in a better position to succeed. But the bigger issue 88 was that they were fighting at all. The town actually is big enough for the both of 89 them, but their relentless focus on each other detracted from the real fight they 90 should have been having, which is against the chain restaurants around the rest of 91 the area. 92 93 And boy did they fight. There had been a lot of public sniping between the two 94 owners—a lot of trash talking on-line, including in the comment sections of my 95 column. Things were kept to cyberspace until there was some kind of incident 96 involving Harkness’s cut-rate beer fliers and a fire on Ancient Apizza’s deck that 97 occurred in February 2023. After that, I started spending a lot more time covering 98 the ins and outs of the fight, half as a food reporter, half covering the crime beat for 99 the Rocky Neck Gazette! Every article did better than the last, as I sort of became 100 Rocky Neck’s reporter-on-scene for the fight. 101 102 Of course, I wasn’t just hanging at Ancient Apizza and Devil's Hopyard. I was all over 103 the Square, including at Sam Talcott's place, Sam's Black Rock Pizza Pie & Tavern. 104 I’ve always considered Sam’s to be more direct competition for Devil's Hopyard more 105 so than Ancient Apizza. Both Sam’s and Devil's Hopyard are more bar-like and both 106 serve thick-crusted pizza cut into squares, albeit for a pizza connoisseur like me there 107 is a difference between Sicilian-style and Detroit-style pizza. Authentic Sicilian-style 108 pizza is called "sfincione," pronounced "sfeen-CHO-neh," which loosely translated 109 means "thick sponge." It has a fluffy, spongy bread base topped with a meatless sauce 110 made from onions, chopped anchovies, tomatoes, herbs, spices and breadcrumbs, with 111 grated hard cheese and is baked in rectangular oil-lined pans, resulting in a crispy 112 crust with a soft and spongy middle. Of course, the authentic version has been 113 adapted in the U.S., and the pillowy dough is still used, but regular tomato sauce and 114 mozzarella cheese—preferably fresh mozzarella—are used. I know that Devil's 33 115 Hopyard offers both an authentic version, anchovies and all, as well as the American 116 version. I would say that Detroit-style pizza is a descendant of Sicilian pizza. It 117 originated, obviously, in Detroit, by a tavern owner who used a steel automotive pan 118 to bake his pie. While not as deep as a Chicago deep dish pizza, it is deeper than the 119 pan used for Sicilian-style pizza. Lots of brick cheese, typically Wisconsin, is loaded 120 all the way to the edges, leading to caramelization. Along with tomato sauce, 121 pepperoni is the most popular topping. 122 123 Personally, my favorite pizza in the Square is from Ancient Pizza. I grew up going to 124 New Haven's Wooster Street area and standing in line at three iconic pizzerias: Frank 125 Pepe Pizzeria, Sally's Apizza and Modern Apizza, which have been in business since 126 the 1920s and 1930s. These three shops are often called New Haven's pizza Holy 127 Trinity, and even inspired a documentary movie, Pizza A Love Story. My parents 128 would rotate among these three legendary pizzerias, where I learned pizza is called 129 "apizza," which is pronounced "ah-beetz." New Haven-styled pizza has its roots in the 130 Neapolitan tradition of thin-crusted pizza, typically cooked at high temperatures— 131 close to 1,000 degrees—in a coal-fired brick oven and served in an irregular or oblong 132 shape. The pizza crust is known to be a little bit crispier with a bit of char. I had two 133 favorites growing up. The first was a tomato pie, which had tangy tomato sauce and 134 just a scattering of Parmesan or pecorino romano. Of course, you could add 135 mozzarella, or "mootz" as we called it, but that was considered a topping, just like 136 pepperoni or sausage. My second favorite was a white clam pizza, which features 137 clams, fresh garlic, parsley, olive oil and Romano cheese. Ancient Apizza uses a coal- 138 fired oven and serves traditional New Haven-style apizza—which brings me back to 139 my childhood. 140 141 It was obvious to me that the real competition for customers was between Sam’s and 142 Devil's Hopyard, not Devil's Hopyard and Ancient Apizza. But Dillon Hopyard didn’t 143 see it that way, and neither did Emerson Harkness. I don’t know how Sam saw it, but 144 I think Sam was just happy for those two to fight. And if one or both of them went out 145 of business, all the better for Sam’s. 146 147 Then the really crazy thing happened. You know those scratch-off games with the 148 stupid groundhog ads? The ones everyone always loses, especially people who can’t 149 afford to? Well, in early April, Dillon Hopyard played one and hit! I know because the 150 local convenience store put out one of those “Winner Sold Here” things. It’s not like 151 the PowerBall or whatever, but that’s still hundreds of thousands of dollars, more 152 money than Devil's Hopyard was ever gonna make. I can’t imagine Devil's Hopyard 153 cleared more than a thousand or two a week in profit. 34 154 155 So we all figured Hopyard would let bygones be bygones and get out of the bar 156 business. That was the smart move. Instead, Hopyard took it as a sign from heaven 157 to really go after Harkness or something. On the first day of May, Hopyard bought 158 the Clavin-Peterson Building, which is where both Devil's Hopyard and Ancient 159 Apizza were located and leased the space. I heard from Casey Mattatuck, who 160 happened to be in Ancient Apizza when Hopyard dropped the news, that Hopyard 161 held the lease over Harkness’s head like the wire of a cheese slicer over a wedge of 162 Gouda. I think Hopyard did the initial presentation of his cash purchase, and the fact 163 that he was now the landlord for Harness, during the lunch hour so they’d have 164 witnesses. Harkness was furious and made some windy, vague threats—“Payback 165 sucks, y’know,” and that sort of thing—and cursed Hopyard out. 166 167 Throughout the month of May, things got really tense. Everyone in the industry 168 throughout town was trading gossip and speculating on what would happen. People 169 would drop by both Devil's Hopyard Pizzeria and Ancient Apizza to “catch up” with 170 Harkness and Hopyard and see if they could find a nugget of news. By this point, I 171 was blogging it almost daily, and you can bet I was one of those people, although we’d 172 publish whether there was news or not. 173 174 I worked all the pizzerias and other establishments at the Square, including Sam’s. 175 Sam could always be counted on to talk, because Sam was usually drinking as much 176 as the customers. Sam called it “sampling,” but sadly, it looked like plain old 177 alcoholism to me. Sam seemed giddy at the prospect of either—or both—of the 178 restaurants closing. I also relied on Casey Mattatuck, who was always in and out of 179 restaurants pitching Sleeping Giant Brewery products and merchandise. Casey was 180 helpful in keeping me up with the gossip and latest goings-on, especially on the 181 financial side of things. So I always knew who was paying up and who was cash-poor. 182 183 It all came to a head on May 15th, when out of nowhere Hopyard showed up with the 184 RNPD at Ancient Apizza to serve eviction papers to Harkness. Harkness was shocked 185 to say the least—I think it was the first time they were ever silent. Well, I wasn’t 186 there, but that is what I was told. It was that sort of moment when you realize that 187 all hope is lost. You see, after Memorial Day, the town clears out, and the college kids 188 are gone, so all Harkness had was the Savor the Square event that weekend for any 189 chance of income. I knew from Casey that Harkness was way overleveraged, so they 190 would have to have a great weekend at the festival to get rid of all of the food stock 191 and beer. 192 35 193 Then, on the 17th, I was sitting in a booth at Carley’s Coffee Shop—unfortunately for 194 Carley's, it is situated right in the middle of the war, between the two bars—eating 195 lunch with a colleague, the music columnist for the Gazette. We tend to get together 196 and discuss our respective blogs, though his zealous affinity for Billie Eilish and 197 Harry Styles is lost on me. I prefer Taylor Swift. 198 199 I was sitting on the side facing the street, working on the day’s article-length blog 200 entry about the drama with Sleeping Giant, when Harkness steps into the coffee shop 201 and stops, looking around. This was unusual; Harkness wasn’t the kind to eat lunch 202 in a coffee shop. Carley’s is a quaint throwback, sort of like a 1950s diner, even down 203 to Mr. George wearing a white apron and soda jerk hat at the grill. So, Harkness 204 stands in the door, looking around, right through me, before focusing on someone at 205 the end of the bar. But I couldn’t really see who it was since his back was to me, 206 almost at the end of my seat, although it kinda looked like Willie Waramaug, an 207 infamous local degenerate. It definitely sounded like Willie. Anyway, I am just going 208 to refer to this person as “the stranger.” Adds a bit more mystery, right? 209 210 Anyway, Harkness stomps down the soda bar—not even a “Hey,” “how are ya’?” or 211 “how ya’ doin’?” to Miss Sandy along the way. I hear Harkness say, “You ready?” with 212 such impatience and venom that I paid attention. I didn’t dare look at them, but they 213 were close enough where I could pretty easily catch the conversation. Now, I lost a bit 214 of my hearing during my time on ship, but it was acute enough for me to discern their 215 conversation despite the cacophony of dishes, conversation and “ready orders” from 216 the restaurant. It’s strange how complacent they were about privacy. 217 218 The stranger didn’t say anything for a few moments, which made Harkness sit down 219 on the stool next to the guy and ask again, “Hey, you ready?,” albeit in a slightly 220 rougher tone. 221 222 “I dunno,” the guy said. 223 224 “C’mon,” Harkness replied, “It’s not like you haven’t done it before.” 225 226 There was a long silence. Then the stranger growled, “It’s just that, I don’t take 227 personal checks...” 228 229 “Don’t worry about my credit,” retorted Harkness. “That dirtbag Hopyard’s going to 230 get what’s coming..!” 231 36 232 Harkness unrolled a napkin from around some silverware and put it in their lap for 233 a moment, before putting it back on the counter and sliding it towards the stranger 234 with something inside. The stranger lifted the napkin, showing a stack of cash, the 235 green contrasting against the white of the napkin. There were a lot of bills. “Fix this,” 236 Harkness said, “quickly.” 237 238 The stranger interrupted Harkness, asking, “What about afterwards? What’s my 239 insurance policy that I won’t get in a jam for all of this? It’s not like I have a license 240 to do this.” 241 242 “I’ll take care of anything if it comes to it. You’re helping me in with a problem, I’ll 243 help you,” replied Harkness. 244 245 “Fair enough, I guess,” said the Stranger, smoothly. “Band-aids are band-aids, but 246 some problems require full-on surgery. When you are sure, call me. Don’t send a text.” 247 Then he wiped at his belly area with the napkin with the cash in it, but when the 248 napkin went onto the bar, it was limp, empty. He must have stashed the cash, smooth 249 as a pillowcase, in a pocket or his waistband or something. 250 251 My reporter’s intuition told me I didn’t want to be seen listening to the conversation, 252 so I left money on the table and retreated across the Square to Sam’s, to get some 253 space. 254 255 As I was settling-in across the Square, I saw the stranger headed the same way. Now 256 I could really get a look at him—and I am, like, 85% certain it was Waramaug. He 257 was probably in his mid-40s and looked like he worked out a good bit, but had a 258 tremendous beer gut. He had shorter blond hair and wore round-framed sunglasses. 259 I don’t think he had a moustache or beard, but there was at least a day or two of 260 growth on his face, and I didn’t want to get caught staring at him. I tensed, figuring 261 that he’d suppose I’d heard too much. I didn’t want to get mixed up in whatever it 262 was Harkness and Waramaug were talking about, so, before I even ordered, I hustled 263 back to my office. 264 265 On May 19th, everyone was at the Square—and I mean everyone. It was the biggest 266 event of the year. But more than that it really felt like a New Orleans style party in 267 the middle of Connecticut. I was there, too, of course: everyone loves my person-on- 268 the-street interviews with increasingly intoxicated folks from around the area. But 269 on the prior evening, May 18th, Hopyard made the final move, giving Casey and 270 Sleeping Giant an offer they couldn’t refuse: Hopyard would be the only one selling 37 271 Sleeping Giant (at Devil's Hopyard) during Savor, or Devil's Hopyard would cut the 272 contract after Savor, leaving Sleeping Giant with no place on the Square once Ancient 273 Apizza closed. Of course, they still had Sam’s, but Sam’s isn’t exactly a craft beer kind 274 of place. I was there for what Hopyard called an “exclusive,” but which I think was 275 just Hopyard’s way of rubbing Harkness’s nose in it. Casey really didn’t have a choice, 276 and Hopyard only gave Casey a few minutes to decide. Real hardball stuff. Casey 277 caved, and Sleeping Giant pulled its product from Ancient Apizza, leaving Harkness 278 with no good beer to pair with the food Ancient Apizza had bought specifically for 279 those brews and only generic brands to sell, which Sam priced better. It was savage, 280 but effective: there was no way Harkness could get into the black. Harkness was not 281 only losing his beloved pizzeria, but they would be in debt. 282 283 When everyone’s favorite band, the Whiskey River Rats, took the stage to kick off the 284 festivities, suddenly Harkness ran up on stage, grabbed the mic and while what they 285 said was a bit muddled, everyone caught the gist. It was directed at Hopyard, and 286 everyone heard Harkness say over and over, “I’m going to kill you! I’m going to kill 287 you!” Harkness broke into tears, ran off the stage, and disappeared. No one saw 288 Harkness again all weekend. The party went on, though. People are like that. 289 290 Then, that next week, things really blew up when word leaked out that Hopyard had 291 been killed. I heard about it from Casey and went live on the blog immediately. The 292 incident sent the town over the edge. Everyone was talking and speculating. Sides 293 were drawn pretty quickly about Harkness’s potential involvement; with most 294 everyone thinking there was no way Emerson could do something like that. I didn’t 295 know what to think, but Harkness doing it made sense. I wanted to be the point 296 person for the story, but the news desk took it over and just used me for a background 297 story on the long-running feud. Instead, I started working on a book about it. 298 299 I didn’t hear anything more until Sawyer Sherlock contacted me to ask what I knew, 300 sometime late the week that Dillon was killed. I was glad to offer my part, of course. 301 302 In late June or early July, Sherlock asked me to sit in a police car and try to identify 303 someone walking with the officers. It was definitely the guy I saw with Harkness. Of 304 course, by then I was even more sure that was an older Willie Waramaug. I’d been 305 reading archived stories in the Gazette from Waramaug’s first trial, and I grew more 306 convinced that was the guy I saw with Harkness with each one I read. 307 308 I’m really curious to see what will fill the empty Ancient Apizza space and what comes 309 of Devil's Hopyard Pizzeria. Hopyard’s widow has kept it going as best she can, and 38 310 it seems to be doing okay. I don’t know how long the life insurance will last, but 311 between that and owning the Old Clavin Building, she should do alright. I hope 312 something nice and upscale will move in. We could use something new on the Square. 313 314 Dated: December 1, 2024 /s/ Jackie Pepin 315 STATE OF CONNECTICUT ) ) SS. COUNTY OF NEW HAVEN ) On this first day of December, 2024, before me personally appeared Jackie Pepin, to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that s/he/they executed the same as her/his/their free act and deed. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal in the County and State aforesaid, the day and year first above written. Ida Nown Notary Public – Notary Seal STATE OF CONNECTICUT New Haven County My Commission Expires: Oct. 8, 2025 Commission # 16513542