Attorney Palmer has defending thousands of criminal matters in courts throughout the state since 1987. He aggressively defends his clients and understands the implications a criminal conviction can have on his clients and their futures.

Criminal Defense representation includes: 

  • Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or drugs
  • Drug Offenses
  • Sexual Assaults
  • Assault
  • Serious motor vehicle violations
    • Manslaughter with a Motor Vehicle
    • Assault with a Motor Vehicle
    • Misconduct with a Motor Vehicle
  • Burglary
  • Breach of Peace
  • Disorderly Conduct
  • Criminal Mischief
  • Violation of Probation Hearings

Represented over fifteen hundred respondents in Per Se license suspension hearings before the Department of Motor Vehicles and the following types of administrative hearings before the Department of Motor Vehicles:

  1. medical fitness to operate either a motor vehicle or a commercial motor vehicle;
  2. qualifications to hold a public service license;
  3. reduction of license suspension based on an out-of-state operating under the influence conviction; and
  4. reduction of lifetime suspension for operating under the influence.

Co-counsel in an administrative hearing before the Department of Environmental Protection involving the appeal of a safe boating certificate suspension arising out of a fatal boating accident.

As a former member of Board of Pardons and Paroles, he is now representing individuals in pardon applications and hearings to expunge their criminal record.

Reported Criminal Decisions

State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1296, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1086 (2010). My prior office defended Reynaldo Arroyo as special public defenders. He was charged with murder, felony murder and robbery. The State called two jailhouse informants in it’s case-in-chief. My contribution to this case was developing the legal basis for co-counsel to request from the trial court a special credibility instruction concerning the testimony of the informants. [This request was made prior to State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452 (2005)]. The trial court denied our request for the instruction. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and held that trial courts must now give a special credibility instruction to the jury whenever a jailhouse informant testifies. See, Criminal Jury Instruction 2.5-3. (Our firm did not handle the appeal).


Altschul v. Salinas, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 53 Conn. App. 391 (1999), cert. denied, 249 Conn. 931 (2000). This matter involved an appeal from the trial court which upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles suspending the plaintiff’s operator’s license for refusing to submit to a breath test. The issues in this appeal were:

(1) Whether the trial court properly conclude that the Plaintiff refused to submit to a blood alcohol test within the meaning of General Statutes Section 14-227b(f) (3) by his conduct in requesting to consult with counsel before answering the police officer’s question whether he would submit to a breath test, where the police officer, without qualification, advised the Plaintiff that he had the constitutional right to consult with an attorney before being questioned?; and

(2) Whether Connecticut General Statutes Section 14-227b under the above circumstances, violated the Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law under the United States Constitution?


Marshall v. DelPonte, 27 Conn. App. 364 (1992). I joined with two other attorneys in preparing and filing a amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. This successful administrative appeal involved the failure of the Department of Motor Vehicles to produce evidence of the plaintiff’s blood alcohol content at the time of the alleged offense in a Per Se Hearing. In response to this decision the legislature amended Connecticut General Statues Section 14-227b to require only that evidence be presented at a Per Se Hearing that the chemical testing was commenced within two hours of operation.


State v. Bothwell, 78 Conn. App. 64, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 908 (2003). I represented the Defendant Richard Bothwell on appeal. The issues were:

I. Whether the remarks and statements of the State’s Attorney during both the evidentiary and final argument phases of the trial violated the Defendant’s right to Due Process of Law under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and his Right Against Self-incrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Connecticut General Statutes Section 54-84(a)?

II. Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing into evidence documents purporting to be certified copies of final judgments where the Individuals certifying the documents testified that they Did not compare the documents/copies with the original final judgments, and could not testify that the documents/copies accurately reproduced the original final judgments?

III. Whether the Trial Court erred in entering a judgment of guilty on the Second Part of the Information where the evidence was legally insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction?