Gojcaj Appeals Conviction

Marash Gojcaj, sentenced on March 3 to 50 years in prison, , is appealing his conviction.

Gojcaj, 34, was convicted on Nov. 5, 2010 of murdering his uncle and business partner at Gusto’s Ristorante on Main Street after a night of hard drinking.  

Attorney Stephan Seeger of the Stamford law firm Stephen J. Carriero, LLC, said he will appeal Gujcaj’s conviction on several grounds, including where the murder took place, the admission of evidence surrounding the restaurant’s alarm system, expert witness testimony regarding a saw, and the validity of the jury’s verdict. In court papers, Seeger also said he would seek to appeal the verdict based on evidentiary rulings and objections, jury instructions and orders regarding motions to suppress and dismiss. He said more grounds for appeal may develop as he files motions and briefs during the appeal.

Seeger said the appeal in a Class A Felony with a 50 year sentence goes straight to the Supreme Court.

Gojcaj, 34, was sentenced on March 3 to 50 years. The murder is said to have taken place on April 5, 2004, but in this complicated trial, even the day of death was questioned by Seeger and the defense team, which included Attorney Casey Jordan and Attorney Mickey Sherman.

“As you know, we moved to have the case dismissed because there was no evidence of the murder having happened in the state of Connecticut,” Seeger wrote in an e-mail describing the appeal. He explained this isn’t a venue motion. He said it is a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, since a Connecticut court only has jurisdiction over crimes within its boundaries.

Seeger said there is no forensic evidence the murder took place in the restaurant or forensic evidence that Vulevic’s body was then driven from Danbury to Bedford, NY, on the night of April 4-5, 2004. Seeger also argued that evidence about the time of Vulevic’s death fell within a 7-day range, meaning he didn’t have to die in the restaurant that night by Gojcaj’s hand. He could have walked out, like Gojcaj said.

State's Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury Stephen Sedensky said these issues that Seeger raised were all discussed during the trial.

“I have every confidence the verdict will be upheld on appeal,” Sedensky said. “I have yet to see a murder verdict that isn’t appealed.”

Sedensky said Seeger and Sherman disputed the location of the murder through the whole trial.

“Judge (Robin) Pavia made a specific finding on that issue. She said we had proven it,” Sedensky said.

Sedensky said the alarm evidence was looked at carefully, and Judge Pavia allowed it.

Regarding the saw that might have been used to cut Vulevic’s body into seven parts, Sedensky said the state’s witness testified about what he discovered by looking at the bones. He wasn’t testifying about exactly which saw did the cutting. The saw evidence was allowed.

“We think Judge Pavia made a reasonable decision,” Sedensky said.