Law360 (August 21, 2026, 12:01 PM EDT) -- Former Cramer & Anderson LLP partner Robert L. Fisher Jr. is entitled to a new manslaughter trial because the presiding judge at his original trial "created an appearance of a lack of impartiality" when he did not disclose to the parties that he had applied for an oversight job with the state prosecutor's office, an appeals court ruled Friday.

In an opinion written by former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Dennis G. Eveleigh, a three-judge panel of the Connecticut Appellate Court agreed with Fisher, who shot and killed an attacker in his law firm's parking lot in June 2021, that the judge should have disclosed his application before the start of trial.

The panel said its holding "serves to emphasize the high standard of impartiality set forth in rule 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, requiring judges to be impartial and appear to be impartial."

A Torrington Superior Court jury convicted Fisher of first-degree manslaughter in March 2025. Then-Appellate Court Judge Eliot D. Prescott, a senior judge presiding over the trial by designation, sentenced Fisher to 2 ½ years in prison followed by three years of probation. His law license was then suspended for 5 ½ years.

Fisher told the appellate court that before the trial, Judge Prescott had applied to become inspector general in the state's Division of Criminal Justice — a position that investigates use of force by police officers — and did not tell the parties until after he was hired. By then, the jury had reached its verdict, but the judge still needed to rule on post-trial motions and sentence Fisher.

"In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that our decision is not based on any actual bias on the part of Judge Prescott," the panel said. "The defendant does not raise a claim of actual bias and readily admits that there is no evidence in the record to support such a claim. Accordingly, our decision does not reflect on Judge Prescott's ability to remain impartial nor does it impugn his exceptional reputation."

According to Fisher, Matthew Bromley attacked him without provocation and threatened to kill him, so the attorney shot him in self-defense. But prosecutors argued that Fisher had an opportunity to flee safely and had re-engaged with Bromley after the attack had ended.

Fisher's trial counsel, William A. Conti of Conti Levy Salerno & Goodrich LLP, told Law360 that he "always felt Bob Fisher was innocent."

"I'm certainly very happy with the decision to overturn the conviction," Conti said. "Bob Fisher deserves to be out and to live his life. We're obviously very happy for him. He's a good man; he's always been a good man. We're obviously very happy with the decision."

The panel did not consider Fisher's additional arguments for a new trial, including a claim that State's Attorney David R. Shannon made an improper comment during closing arguments.

Shannon told the jury that Bromley was wearing a "wifebeater" shirt and cargo shorts and driving a "beat-up old Saab." He said Fisher was "proud" of his own career and educational background and that "pride" motivated his actions.

At a May 28 appellate argument, Judge Robin L. Wilson expressed concern that Shannon had made a forbidden "socioeconomic" remark about the victim.

According to evidence presented at trial, Bromley, 39, followed the then-74-year-old attorney to Cramer & Anderson's office in Litchfield, ran to the door of Fisher's Audi convertible, opened it and started punching the lawyer in the face.

Fisher testified that he pushed Bromley back with his feet several times, then got out of his car, drew his gun and fired when Bromley charged toward him and reached for his arm, but a witness said the fight had ended by the time Fisher shot Bromley once in the left temple.

Fisher has said that he did not know Bromley. A law enforcement affidavit said Fisher's assistant may have seen Bromley's name on the firm's caller ID in May 2021, and he could have been seeking assistance with a foreclosure, but Fisher did not handle those cases.

Prosecutors argued that Fisher gave up his right to challenge Judge Prescott's involvement when he consented to letting the jurist preside over post trial motions. The panel disagreed.

"Defense counsel made clear at that time that the defendant was preserving his right to file a motion for a new trial based on 'an appearance of an issue…,'" the opinion said. "Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the defendant waived his ability to raise a claim regarding Judge Prescott's appearance of partiality at the time he presided over the defendant's trial."

The panel also turned away the state's contention that a reasonable person would not think Judge Prescott had a conflict. Even though the state argued that the inspector general is independent and has no connection to the Litchfield prosecutors' office, the appellate court said "a reasonable examiner would view them to be part of the same team," quoting from a dissenting opinion in the 2016 Minnesota Supreme Court case Troxel v. State.

In a statement, Shannon told Law360 that the panel's opinion "had nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence or the jury's decision."

"The decision issued by this court is currently being reviewed by the Division of Criminal Justice's Appellate Bureau and a decision will be made shortly as to whether or not we will seek review from the state Supreme Court," he said. "Regardless of the outcome of any further appeals, the Litchfield State's Attorney's Office stands ready and willing to retry the case at any time."

Judges Dawne G. Westbrook and Robin L. Wilson and Judge Trial Referee Dennis G. Eveleigh, a former Connecticut Supreme Court justice, sat on the panel for the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Fisher is represented by Jon L. Schoenhorn of Jon L. Schoenhorn & Associates LLC.

The state is represented by Meryl R. Gersz of the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, Appellate Bureau.

The case is Connecticut v. Robert L. Fisher, case number AC 48859, in the Connecticut Appellate Court.

--Additional reporting by Aaron Keller. Editing by Alyssa Miller.

Update: This story has been updated with more details and comment from Shannon.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.