conducted a hearing to review Kal-man’s status. At that hearing, the PSRB considered the discharge, confinement, or conditional release of the plaintiff and concluded, on the basis of testimony by defendant Carre and Dr. Sabita Rathi, who is not a defendant in this action, that Kalman is mentally ill “to the extent that his discharge or conditional release would constitute a danger to himself or others” and that he ought to be confined. [Dkt. No. 43], Ex. C. That finding is subject to periodic review biannually. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-585. In addition, that finding is subject to administrative appeal. Conn. Gen.Stat. § 17a-597 (“Any order of the board entered pursuant to subdivision (2) or (3) or section 17a-584 ... may be appealed to the superior court .... ”). Represented b ) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832, 108 S.Ct. 108, 98
holding that sixth amendment was violated by admissions made to state psychiatrist because the court ordered the sessions to determine competency holding that a defendant who asserts a diminished capacity defense through the testimony of an examining psychiatrist waives his or her fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination as to any statements made to the psychiatrist holding that action under 4701a is a criminal case because trial court functions in its capacity as a criminal magistrate holding that a criminal defendant must object to an untimely preliminary examination before commencement of the preliminary examination to be entitled to relief in the form of dismissal of the criminal charge holding that a psychiatrist appointed by the court to conduct a competency examination of a criminal defendant performs functions essential to the judicial process and as such enjoys absolute immunity in performance of such functions