.

Buhl Harassment Trial Delayed by Ailing Judge

The case has been postponed until March 22.

 

New Canaan resident Teri Buhl, who is accused of posting the personal journal entries of her then-boyfriend's teenage daughter online, made an appearance in Superior Court at Norwalk Monday morning where her trial was postponed until March 22 due to a judge's absence because of illness. 

Judge William Wenzel told Buhl and her attorney Frank DiScala that the case had to be postponed because he had to "cover multiple calendars" equaling about 90 cases due to Judge Maureen Dennis' absence.

DiScala told Judge Wenzel that while the date was convenient for counsel, it was inconvenient for Buhl because it was "inhibiting her from continuing her move out west."

In response to the new court date, Buhl told Judge Wenzel, "We're ready to go... I don't understand."

Buhl told the New Canaan Advertiser in November that she requested a bench trial because she felt "inaccurate reporting" by local media outlets would make it "too hard to pick a jury."

In June 2010, Buhl's boyfriend at the time, a New Canaan resident, and his then 17-year-old daughter, reported to New Canaan police that someone had gained access to the daughter's personal journal and posted excerpts on Facebook.

Containing sexually explicit information, accounts of underage drinking and other personal information, the entries were from a notebook, which father and daughter said she kept in the bedroom of their home.

As the investigation continued, according to an affidavit application filed with the court by Sgt. Carol Ogrinc of the New Canaan Police Department, the Facebook account creation and postings were traced to IP addresses associated with Buhl's Optonline Internet service subscriber account at home on Locust Avenue in New Canaan, as well as to a computer at New Canaan Library.

Buhl was charged with second-degree harassment, second-degree breach of peace and interfering with an officer, all misdemeanors.

Glen K Dunbar January 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Princess Teri: I wish you the best of luck and am so sorry the legal system is putting you through this. Wish I could help. I would love to meet for coffee and get your side of the story. Personally, why are they making such a fuss over nothing??? your new friend GLEN
Teri January 29, 2013 at 02:51 PM
You are right on a lot of those points Judge Crater. My arrest was widely covered by my peers in the national financial press in Oct/Nov 2010. Even publications I had written for - Dealbreaker, Business Insider, Hearst Newsapers covered it. I have a well know byline by people who read financial news or anyone who cares about the lack of wall street prosecutions we've seen. In fact, last week I was featured in a Frontline Film, The Untouchables, for my series of reporting at The Atlantic on the bank wide rmbs fraud committed at Bear Stearns that led to a NY AG civil fraud suit and an SEC suit. Ade - is likely someone I've written about before, a member of the Brody family or even the fired new canaan patch editor who likes to comment on anything I report http://www.teribuhl.com/2012/02/16/new-canaan-patch-editor-plays-favs-for-rtc-chairman-ohora/ In my 6 years of investigative reporting about a dozen people or firms have been arrested, sued by the SEC or shut down by their regulators. Upset subjects of my reporting often comment-unnamed. Just ignore it. As far as the bench trial- I made that choice not the court and yes they still offer AR which I will never take. Another reason for the bench trial was to force the State to set a trial date after I watched them promise several trial dates & it never happens. It will now be two years and 5 months till I get to trial. We've be ready since early 12'. I think that shows a problem in CT's judicial system.
Judge Crater January 29, 2013 at 07:13 PM
Connecticut General Statutes, Sec. 54-82 b states: “54-82b. Right to trial by jury. (a) The party accused in a criminal action in the Superior Court may demand a trial by jury of issues which are triable of right by a jury. There is no right to trial by jury in criminal actions where the maximum penalty is a fine of one hundred ninety-nine dollars or in any matter involving violations payable through the Centralized Infractions Bureau where the maximum penalty is a fine of five hundred dollars or less.” So a waiver of a jury trial is a waiver of a right possessed by the accused. The maximum fines for the charges exceed $199. The accused seems to be within her rights. She is under no obligation to reveal legal strategy. The information above is intended for discussion and not intended to be legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a lawyer.
Ade January 29, 2013 at 08:01 PM
You couldn't be more wrong, Teri. You've neither met me nor reported on me or anyone I know personally and I have never been a Patch publisher. I am just your average citizen that has no respect for your work and your seeming lack of integrity. I find it interesting that you hold such disdain for Patch yet still feel the need to comment here regularly. That's all. I'd also be willing to bet that most of the general public does not follow the financial publications you reference. If you had been reported on in People, I'd say you had a case for your argument. I will agree with you that your case is being painfully dragged out.
Nanid Zero January 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Teri, what is a "well know byline"? Is that something new, besides comical? You beg your readers for money on your website so you can pay your rent. Is that worthy of a "well know" journalist as yourself.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »