Peters, C. J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the revocation of the defendant’s pretrial release from confinement pursuant to General Statutes § 54-64f1 violated *334the right of bail provision of article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution.2 The defendant, Enrique Ayala, while released on a $25,000 surety bond following his arrest on May 28,1991, was arrested on June 12,1991, and again on June 14,1991. Upon a motion by the state to revoke the defendant’s release, the trial court, Barry, J., after an evidentiary hearing, revoked the defendant’s release on the basis that the state had established, by clear and convincing evidence, that another person would be endangered while the defendant was on release, and that there was probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a federal, state or local crime while on release in violation of General Statutes § 54-64e.3 In response to the defendant’s petition for review, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-63g,4 the Appellate Court granted review but denied the relief requested. This court thereafter *335granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal. State v. Ayala, 220 Conn. 922, 598 A.2d 365 (1991).5 We conclude that the order of the trial court should be affirmed.

The record discloses the following undisputed facts. Subsequent to the defendant’s arraignment on June 5, 1991, on charges that included burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101, unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95, risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 and assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61,6 the defendant was released after posting a $25,000 surety bond. His release was conditioned on orders that expressly required him, inter alia, to stay away from the named victim and not to commit any federal, state or local crime during the period of release. See General Statutes § 54-64e. On June 12, 1991, while on release, the defendant was arrested and charged with assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60. He was released after posting a $50,000 surety bond. Two days later, on June 14,1991, he was arrested and charged with threatening in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 and was released after posting a $5000 surety bond.

The state filed a motion pursuant to § 54-64f to revoke the defendant’s release alleging that (1) the *336defendant had been released on bail following his arrest on June 4, 1991, for a criminal offense punishable by more than ten years imprisonment, and (2) the defendant had violated the conditions of his release by violating the criminal laws of this state.

At the June 20,1991 evidentiary hearing on the state’s motion to revoke release held pursuant to § 54-64f (a), the state offered the testimony of I. Charles Mathews, deputy mayor of Hartford, who testified that, while on his way to a local radio station on the morning of June 12, 1991, he had been severely beaten about the head and body by a man wielding a steel pipe.7 Mathews, who remained in the hospital for two days following the assault, required treatment for a head wound and received stitches in both legs. At the hearing, Mathews positively identified the defendant as his assailant and then testified that he had never seen the defendant before and did not know what had precipitated the attack. He further testified that he was receiving police protection and was in fear of the defendant.

The trial court, Barry, J., applying the criteria of subsection (c) of § 54-64f,8 found that probable cause *337existed to believe that the defendant had committed a federal, state or local crime while on release, and further found by clear and convincing evidence that the safety of another person, namely Mathews, was endangered while the defendant was on release. It stated that these findings gave rise to a rebuttable presumption that the defendant’s release should be revoked, which, it concluded, the defendant had failed to rebut. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant’s release under the initial bond of $25,000 be revoked.

On July 19,1991, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first information or in the alternative to set new conditions of release. The trial court, Kocay, J., after hearing oral argument by the parties on July 31, 1991, denied the defendant’s motion on August 2,1991, and declined to set bond. On August 8, 1991, the defendant filed a motion for review of bond in the Appellate Court pursuant to § 54-63g.9 On September 8, 1991, the Appellate Court granted the motion for review and denied the relief requested. The defendant filed a petition for certification in this court. On October 9, 1991, by a corrected order on the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal; see footnote 5, supra; we granted certification on two questions: (1) procedurally, does this court have jurisdiction to con*338sider the defendant’s claim, and (2) substantively, does article first, § 8 of our state constitution, which establishes a right to bail in criminal prosecutions, render the bail revocation provisions of § 54-64f (c) unconstitutional in the circumstances of this case?

I

The first issue that we must address is whether this court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the defendant’s interlocutory appeal within the confines of our authority to certify appeals from the Appellate Court. If we conclude that such jurisdiction is lacking, the question then arises whether any other avenue of appellate review is appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case.

The statute that governs our certification jurisdiction is General Statutes § 51-197f, which provides that this court may certify cases for review “[ujpon final determination of any appeal by the appellate court . . . .” This court has previously dismissed petitions for certification from decisions of the Appellate Court denying leave to appeal in a zoning matter; Ingersoll v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 194 Conn. 277, 278-79, 479 A.2d 1207 (1984); and denying relief on a motion for review. State v. Carter, 212 Conn. 811, 564 A.2d 1072 (1989). We have thus consistently observed the statutory mandate that our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Appellate Court is not plenary but is limited to final judgments by that court. We have never construed Practice Book § 4126, which describes our review of “causes” decided by the Appellate Court, as having been intended to enlarge our statutory jurisdiction.

In this case, the Appellate Court did not undertake finally to determine an appeal. Instead, in accordance with § 54-63g, the Appellate Court granted the defendant’s petition for review of the revocation of his bail *339but denied the relief that he had requested. That decision was neither the determination of “an appeal” nor action that constituted a final judgment. In a criminal proceeding, there is no final judgment until the imposition of a sentence. State v. Coleman, 202 Conn. 86, 89, 519 A.2d 1201 (1987); State v. Grotton, 180 Conn. 290, 293, 429 A.2d 871 (1980).

It may be true, as the defendant contends, that some interlocutory orders are directly appealable to a court that has the statutory jurisdiction to hear them. The general rule is, however, that interlocutory orders in criminal cases are not immediately appealable. United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 857, 98 S. Ct. 1547, 56 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1978) (denial of motion for speedy trial); Cogen v. United States, 278 U.S. 221, 227-28, 49 S. Ct. 118, 73 L. Ed. 275 (1929) (denial of motion for return of seized property); State v. Atkins, 203 Conn. 33, 34, 522 A.2d 1234 (1987) (finding of probable cause to believe criminal offense has been committed); In re Juvenile Appeal (85-AB), 195 Conn. 303, 306, 488 A.2d 778 (1985) (denial of a motion to transfer to the criminal docket); State v. Longo, 192 Conn. 85, 89, 469 A.2d 1220 (1984) (denial of motion for youthful offender status); State v. Spendolini, 189 Conn. 92, 97, 454 A.2d 720 (1983) (denial of motion for accelerated rehabilitation); State v. Grotton, supra, 295-96 (granting of state’s motion to take nontestimonial evidence from defendant); State v. Kemp, 124 Conn. 639, 646-47,1 A.2d 761 (1938) (permitting defendant access to grand jury minutes); compare State v. Aillon, 182 Conn. 124, 126, 438 A.2d 30 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1090, 101 S. Ct. 883, 66 L. Ed. 2d 817 (1981) (colorable double jeopardy claim immediately appeal-able). Notably, this court has reviewed, on appeal after a final judgment, a criminal defendant’s claim that the trial court had violated his state constitutional right to be released on bail. State v. Olds, 171 Conn. 395, 404, 370 A.2d 969 (1976).

*340Even when we have entertained the possibility that an interlocutory order in a criminal case might warrant an immediate appeal; see State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 463 A.2d 566 (1983); we have recognized that “[t]he right of appeal is purely statutory.” Id., 30. The legislature has the authority to make interlocutory orders immediately appealable; see, e.g., General Statutes § 52-278l (prejudgment remedies) and General Statutes § 52-405 (accounting); or to characterize interlocutory orders as final judgments for the purposes of an appeal. See, e.g., General Statutes § 54-56e (denial of motion to dismiss upon completion of accelerated rehabilitation program or termination of participation in such a program). There is, however, no statutory authority that confers on the defendant a right to an interlocutory appeal in this case.

The legislature also has the authority to make interlocutory orders immediately reviewable, in summary fashion, by authorizing petitions for review, usually within a limited time period, and often specifically to the Appellate Court. See, e.g., General Statutes § 51-164x (closure orders); General Statutes § 54-47g (a) (grand jury disclosures). With respect to the petition for review authorized in this case by § 54-63g, as with regard to §§ 51-164x and 54-47g (a), the legislature has designated the Appellate Court, and not this court, as the appropriate forum for the disposition of such petitions. Statutory permission to file a petition for review does not authorize the filing of a full-fledged appeal, either in the Appellate Court or in this court. The limited review contemplated by § 54-63g does not confer jurisdiction on this court to grant certification to reconsider the merits of the action taken by the Appellate Court. Absent statutory authorization, this court has no inherent judicial authority to grant certification to hear appeals concerning contested orders of trial court *341judges. See In re Judicial Inquiry No. 85-01, 221 Conn. 625, 605 A.2d 545 (1992); see also State v. Gross, 109 Conn. 738, 147 A. 670 (1929).

In light of these precedents, the petition for certification to appeal under § 51-197f must therefore be dismissed. As in State v. Carter, supra, we have no jurisdiction to grant a certified appeal to review the Appellate Court’s disposition of a petition for review under § 54-63g.

The question that remains, however, is whether there is any other jurisdictional basis for this court to consider the serious constitutional issues that the defendant has raised. The special circumstances of this case fit within the substantive ambit of General Statutes § 52-265a (a),10 which allows the chief justice to certify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court on an issue of law that “involves a matter of substantial public interest and in which delay may work a substantial injustice.” To avail himself of this special right to appeal, however, a litigant must ordinarily request certification “within two weeks from the date of the issuance of the order or decision” of the Superior Court for which expedited review is being sought. Because of the defendant’s recourse to the petition for review authorized by § 54-63g, he can no longer comply with these time constraints.

*342The Supreme Court will, nonetheless, treat the defendant’s petition for certification under § 51-197Í as a late petition for certification under § 52-265a (a). The chief justice has agreed to waive the defendant’s delay in filing this petition, and has determined that the defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 54-64f warrants an immediate appeal from the order of the Superior Court in accordance with § 52-265a (a). The merits of the defendant’s appeal are therefore properly before this court.

II

We now turn, therefore, to consider the second certified question on appeal, that is whether General Statutes § 54-64f (c), as applied to the defendant, violated the right of bail provision of article first, § 8 of our state constitution. We conclude that it did not.

Section 8 of article first provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right . . . to be released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption great . . . .” We have previously concluded that this provision guarantees bail in a reasonable amount in “all cases, even capital cases not falling within the exception.” State v. Menillo, 159 Conn. 264, 269, 268 A.2d 667 (1970); see also State v. Aillon, 164 Conn. 661, 295 A.2d 666 (1972).11 The defendant has *343a fundamental constitutional right to bail pending trial in all but certain capital offenses. State v. Olds, supra.

Pursuant to bail reform undertaken in 1990, the legislature amended many of the provisions on bail contained in the General Statutes and added others. For persons arrested and charged with certain class A, B, C and D felonies, General Statutes § 54-64a, amended pursuant to Public Acts 1990, No. 90-213, § 51, authorizes a trial court to impose nonfinancial conditions of release that it determines will “reasonably assure the appearance of the arrested person in court and that the safety of any other person will not be endangered.” Section 54-64e imposes as a nonfinancial condition of all pretrial and posttrial releases that “the person released not commit a federal, state or local crime during the period of release.” Section 53 of Public Acts 1990, No. 90-213, codified as § 54-64f, enumerates possible sanctions for violation of a condition of release or the commission of a crime while on release, ranging from the imposition of different or additional conditions of release to the revocation of release where the defendant is on release with respect to an offense with a possible term of imprisonment of ten or more years. General Statutes § 54-64f (b) and (c). “The revocation of a defendant’s release . . . shall cause any bond posted in the criminal proceeding to be automatically terminated and the surety to be released.” General Statutes § 54-64f (d).

Consequently, the condition that the defendant not commit any federal, state or local crime was automatically imposed upon the defendant’s pretrial release from confinement on June 5, 1991. Subsection (b) of § 54-64e requires that, at the time of release, the defendant be notified in writing: “(1) Of the condition specified in subsection (a) of this section and any additional conditions of release; (2) that violation of any condition of release may result in the imposition of *344different or additional conditions of release; (3) that if he is released with respect to an offense for which a term of imprisonment of ten or more years may be imposed and the court finds that he has violated any condition of release and the safety of any other person is endangered while he is on release, his release may be revoked.” The defendant has not challenged the adequacy of the notice that he received.

In light of the certified questions that limited the defendant’s constitutional challenge to his right to bail in the circumstances of this case,12 we construe the defendant’s argument on appeal as having two components. First, the defendant urges us to construe § 54-64f (c), in order to preserve the statute’s constitutionality, to require the setting of a new bond as the only penalty for breach of conditions of release. Second, the defendant maintains that if such a construction is not adopted, it was constitutionally imper*345missible for the trial court to apply the statute in this case to revoke his bond in its entirety.13

A

We reject the defendant’s statutory construction argument as inconsistent with the language of § 54-64f (c). Subsection (c) provides that “[i]f the defendant is on release with respect to an offense for which a term of imprisonment of ten or more years may be imposed and the court, after an evidentiary hearing, finds by clear and convincing evidence that the safety of any other person is endangered while the defendant is on release and that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a federal, state or local crime while on release, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that his release should be revoked.” Despite its clear language, relying on the admonition that “when presented with a constitutional challenge to a validly enacted statute, [we] construe the statute, if possible, to comport with the constitution’s requirements”; Rules Committee of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Information Commission, 192 Conn. 234, 240, 472 A.2d 9 (1984); the defendant and the amicus urge us to construe § 54-64f (c) to require that a new and perhaps higher bond, with additional conditions, be ordered following revocation.

“Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning unless such meaning is clearly at odds with the legislative intent.” State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 82, 214 A.2d 362 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921, 86 S. Ct. 1372, 16 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1966); see also Kil *346 duff v. Adams, Inc., 219 Conn. 314, 336-37, 593 A.2d 478 (1991). Section 54-64f (c) provides that a trial court may, in certain circumstances, revoke a defendant’s release. Revoke means to “annul or make void by recalling or taking back. To cancel, rescind, repeal, reverse, as to revoke a license or will.” Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). Absent language indicating that the legislature intended a new release to be granted in all cases, the use of the term “revoke” denotes finality. Read literally, therefore, § 54-64f (c) authorizes the permanent revocation of release.

The conclusion that the legislature in § 54-64f (c) contemplated permanent revocation is further bolstered by language in the first part of § 54-64f (b). Subsection (b) permits the trial court, upon a violation of a condition of release, to “impose different or additional conditions” upon a defendant’s release where the offense for which the defendant is released has a maximum sentence of less than ten years. If the legislature, by using the term “revoke” in the remaining part of subsection (b) and subsection (c), had intended that, following revocation of release, the trial court must always grant a new release on new or different terms, the language of the first part of subsection (b) would be rendered meaningless. “Such an interpretation undercuts the established principle that no part of a legislative enactment is to be treated as insignificant or unnecessary, and there is a presumption of purpose behind every sentence, clause or phrase . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Delossantos, 211 Conn. 258, 274, 559 A.2d 164, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S. Ct. 188, 107 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1989).

B

For three reasons, we conclude that § 54-64f (c) was not unconstitutionally applied in this case. First, the statute, properly viewed, implements the inherent judi*347cial authority of trial courts to compel compliance with conditions of release. Second, revocation of release is consistent with ensuring a defendant’s appearance in court. Third, good behavior while on pretrial release has been recognized historically as a legitimate purpose of bail in this state.

The fundamental right to bail guaranteed under our state constitution must be qualified by a court’s authority to ensure compliance with the conditions of release. While released on bail prior to trial, a defendant is still within the constructive custody of the law. State v. Bates, 140 Conn. 326, 330-31, 99 A.2d 133 (1953). The trial court retains jurisdiction over the conditions of release; see General Statutes §§ 54-69 to 54-69b; Practice Book § 673; and possesses the inherent authority “ ‘to exercise powers; to implement and enforce laws; to exact obedience.’ ” In re Dodson, 214 Conn. 344, 350, 572 A.2d 328, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 896, 111 S. Ct. 247, 112 L. Ed. 2d 205 (1990); see also State v. Howell, 80 Conn. 668, 671, 69 A. 1057 (1908). One court has noted that “a specific statute granting the trial court authority to revoke bail [upon the violation of a reasonable condition of release] is not necessary, since a court with jurisdiction over a criminal case has the power to enforce its orders as to bail just as it has control over other orders.” Mello v. Superior Court, 117 R.I. 578, 583-84, 370 A.2d 1262 (1977).

We agree with the state that the power to enforce reasonable conditions of release is a necessary component of a trial court’s jurisdiction over a criminal case. Indeed, since 1976, the rules of court of this state have provided that “[a]fter a hearing and upon a finding that the defendant has violated reasonable conditions imposed on his release, the judicial authority may impose different or additional conditions upon the defendant’s release or revoke his release.” (Emphasis added.) Practice Book, 1963 as amended to 1976, § 2094 *348(now § 683). In this case, an explicit condition placed upon the defendant’s release on bail was to refrain from committing any federal, state or local crimes. The trial court allowed the defendant’s pretrial release from confinement, and the defendant acquiesced in the trial court’s condition of release. The defendant was subsequently arrested on charges that, while on release, he had engaged in an unprovoked brutal assault on Mathews in broad daylight. Upon the trial court’s finding of probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed this crime, it had the power, either pursuant to its jurisdiction over the criminal case, or pursuant to § 54-64f (c),14 to revoke the defendant’s release.

Standards promulgated by the American Bar Association are in accord with this view. They note that “[t]he concept of conditional pretrial release would be meaningless if courts lacked the power to rescind release after release conditions have been violated. . . . Defendants who have violated those terms have disregarded judicial orders. As long as they are proceeded against in a constitutionally fair fashion, they may be incarcerated in the same manner as persons convicted of contempt.” American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice, Pretrial Release Standards (1985 Rev.) § 10-5.8 (a), p. 129.

Revocation of the defendant’s release did not encroach upon his constitutional right to be released on bail. The defendant’s failure to abide by the conditions of his release resulted in a forfeiture of his right to release.15 Because the defendant was initially *349released on bail, the requirements of article first, § 8, as announced by this court in State v. Menillo, supra, were met. As one court noted, in effect, “the keys to continued freedom [were] left in the pocket of the accused.” Rendel v. Mummert, 106 Ariz. 233, 238, 474 P.2d 824 (1970). Having been released on bail, and having subsequently violated the condition placed upon the release that he not commit a federal, state or local crime, the defendant cannot be heard to complain that his constitutional right to bail was violated.

Our conclusion that the trial court had the authority to revoke the defendant’s bail is not inconsistent with our statement in State v. Menillo, supra, 269, that the “fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the presence of an accused throughout all proceedings.” See also State v. Bates, supra, 330. It is reasonable to suppose that a defendant who is arrested and charged with the commission of additional and serious crimes while on pretrial release might, as a result of these charges, more readily be tempted to flee the jurisdiction.

The historical roots of the right to bail in this state illuminate the proposition that the constitution of 1818 was not intended to provide the defendant with an unconstricted right to bail. To comprehend the true import of the right to bail under our constitution, it is helpful to consider the historical record of the period before and at the time of the adoption of the provision. See State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529, 538-39 n.4, 541 n.8, 594 A.2d 917 (1991); State v. Lamme, 216 Conn. 172, 178-81, 579 A.2d 484 (1990).

Consideration of the customary purposes of bail prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1818 supports the *350conclusion that, while ensuring the appearance of the defendant is a primary purpose of bail in this state, it is not necessarily the sole purpose. The statutory right to bail in Connecticut is traceable to a 1672 legislative enactment declaring that “no mans person shall be Restrained or Imprisoned by any Authority whatsoever, before the Law hath sentenced him thereunto if he can put in sufficient security, bayl or mainprize for his appearance and good behaviour in the mean time, unless it be in Crimes Capital, and Contempt in open Court, or in such cases where some express Law doth allow it.” (Emphasis added.) The Laws and Liberties of Connecticut Colonie, reprinted in The Laws of Connecticut: An Exact Reprint of the Original Edition of 1673 (G. Brinley Ed. 1865) p. 32; see also The Public Statute Laws of Connecticut, tit. I, p. 24 n.7 (1808); C. Collier, “The Connecticut Declaration of Rights Before the Constitution of 1818: A Victim of Revolutionary Redefinition,” 15 Conn. L. Rev. 87, 93 n.19 (1982). A substantially identical provision on bail was included in the 1750 revision of the Declaration of Rights; see The Public Statute Laws of Connecticut, supra; see also C. Collier, supra; which, we have stated, “had constitutional overtones even though it was statutory in form.” State v. Lamme, supra, 179; see also C. Collier, supra, 94; 2 Z. Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (1796) p. 391 (“[i]n respect of bail, our law determines that no man's person shall be restrained, or imprisoned by any authority whatever, before the law has sentenced him thereto, if he can or will give sufficient security, bail, or mainprize, for his appearance and good behaviour in the mean time”).

Neither the text of the 1818 constitution16 nor that of any subsequent constitution has made express reference in *351its bail provision to the defendant’s appearance or to the defendant’s good behavior. Legislative references to either purpose were eliminated from statutes enacted after 1818 and before 1849, while language providing that bail was conditioned upon a defendant’s appearance before the court reappeared in statutes enacted in 1949 and remained thereafter. There is no evidence, however, that the framers of the 1818 constitution intended to abandon the customary purposes of bail that were in effect at the time of the adoption of the constitution and had been for at least 145 years. This court has previously stated that “[t]he constitution adopted in 1818 did not create a government but gave to that which had already been established the sanction of the people and, in very general language, formulated its framework.” Dowe v. Egan, 133 Conn. 112, 119, 48 A.2d 735 (1946); see also C. Collier, supra, 96 (“the substance of the ancient statutory and common law protections continued unchanged” following the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1818).

In 1981 the legislature expressly authorized a defendant’s pretrial release upon a written notice to appear with nonfinancial conditions imposed. Public Acts 1981, No. 81-437. Prior to 1981, a defendant was either released upon execution of a written promise to appear or upon a bond with or without surety. General Statutes (Rev. to 1981) § 54-64a. Conditioning pretrial release on a defendant’s ability to meet a financial bond set by the court emphasizes the appearance aspect of bond more so than do many nonfinancial conditions commonly imposed now pursuant to § 54-64a (c). The use of nonfinancial conditions of release in addition to or in lieu of bond has broadened the focus of the purposes of bail to recognize, once again, that bail is a method for ensuring a defendant’s good behavior while on release.

*352The courts of numerous other states with constitutional provisions similar to ours concur that a defendant’s bail can be revoked following the violation of a condition of release or for the commission of a crime while on release. In Taglianetti v. Langlois, 105 R.I. 596, 600, 253 A.2d 609 (1969), the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that its constitution, like ours, provided bail as a matter of right in all but capital cases.17 Nevertheless, in Mello v. Superior Court, supra, reasoning that a defendant’s pressure to flee increases when he commits crimes while free on bail; id., 582; the court held that revocation of bail is a proper remedy for violating a condition imposed upon a defendant’s release. Id., 585. It rejected the defendant’s claim that the trial court may only set new and higher bail with more stringent conditions, stating that “we do not think our Constitution must be read as providing a continuing, renewable right to bail on the same charge where a bail condition has been breached. The state need not keep freeing the defendant while upping the ante.” Id., 583. It further noted that “[t]he authority of the court to revoke bail in certain situations ought not to be construed as authority to exercise preventive detention. The former is a sanction for past acts, the latter a prophylactic for the future. We are concerned with the *353former.” Id., 585; see also Bridges v. Superior Court, 121 R.I. 101, 105 n.3, 396 A.2d 97 (1978).

In People ex rel. Hemingway v. Elrod, 60 Ill. 2d 74, 83-84, 322 N.E.2d 837 (1975), the Illinois Supreme Court recognized a trial court’s authority to revoke a defendant’s release on bail for the violation of a condition of release or the commission of a serious crime while awaiting trial.18 It concluded that, while “[t]he object of bail, of course, is to make certain the defendant’s appearance in court”; id., 81; “[t]he court has the inherent authority to enforce its orders and to require reasonable conduct from those over whom it has jurisdiction.” Id., 83. The court emphasized that by concluding that a defendant’s bail could be revoked for violating a condition of release, it was “not adopting the principle of preventive detention of one charged with a criminal offense for the protection of the public” and declined to discuss “the wisdom or the constitutionality of that principle.” Id., 80; see also Rendel v. Mummert, supra, 237-38; Gardner v. Murphy, 402 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. App. 1981); State v. Albert, 312 N.C. 567, 575, 324 S.E.2d 233 (1985); State v. Brown, 136 Vt. 561, 565-66, 396 A.2d 134 (1978); but see Reeves v. State, 261 Ark. 384, 548 S.W.2d 822 (1977) (revocation of pretrial release without setting new bail deemed unconstitutional). In our view, the Connecticut constitution confers upon our trial courts a similar authority, in the proper circumstances, to revoke a defendant’s bail for serious noncompliance with the conditions of his release.

The certified appeal is dismissed; upon the granting of review pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

*354In this opinion Callahan, Covello and Borden, Js., concurred.

Berdon, J.,

dissenting. Today, the majority ignores the plain language of our state constitution, which provides that every person who is charged with a crime is entitled “to be released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption great . . . .” Conn. Const., art. I, § 8. I disagree with the majority on how it reaches the merits of the issue and also on its interpretation of our state charter of liberty.

I

I do not believe that the chief justice is required to invoke General Statutes § 52-265a1 to hear the present appeal from the Appellate Court’s denial of the relief requested in the petition to be admitted to bail by the defendant, Enrique Ayala. General Statutes § 51-197f provides that this court may certify cases for review “[u]pon final determination of any appeal by the appel*355late court.” The present appeal is from a final determination by the Appellate Court regarding the defendant’s constitutional right to be free on bail prior to conviction. Any judicial determination depriving a person of liberty, which never can be returned to him or her, constitutes a final judgment. Indeed, I cannot think of anything else more final. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction under § 51-197f to hear the appeal.

If not a final judgment, the Appellate Court’s denial of the relief requested surely comes within the second exception of State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983)—that is, “where the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.”2 Again, if the defendant was improperly denied bail, further proceedings cannot affect that right because his lost freedom cannot be returned to him.

Furthermore, the procedural posture of this case requires that we exercise our general supervisory authority over the Appellate Court. Practice Book § 4127 (3). After the trial court refused to set a new bond once the defendant’s pretrial release was revoked pursuant to General Statutes § 54-64f, the defendant filed a petition for review with the Appellate Court raising substantial questions of first impression for this state, which included whether § 54-64f passes muster under our state constitution. Even though the defendant complained that he was being unconstitutionally deprived of his liberty, the Appellate Court denied the defendant’s request for relief sought in the motion to review without setting forth its reasons, either in written or oral form.

*356Although I do not agree that it was necessary to invoke § 52-265a, I do agree that the defendant “is aggrieved by an order or decision of the superior court in an action which involves a matter of substantial public interest and in which delay may work a substantial injustice.” General Statutes § 52-265a (a). Since the chief justice made her certification under § 52-265a (b), we surely have jurisdiction.

I am concerned, however, that since the statute provides for only vague statutory guidelines, the chief justice, in writing for the majority, did not provide an analytical framework for the application of § 52-265a. We, therefore, do not have the benefit of any guidance for future cases, especially in situations, such as this case, wherein the chief justice invoked the jurisdiction of this court under § 52-265a on her own motion, notwithstanding the requirements of that statute.3 am sure that the legislature, in granting this discretion to one justice, albeit the chief justice, did not intend to grant that justice unbridled discretion.4

*357One further preliminary matter needs comment. It is implicit in the chief justice’s certification under § 52-265a that she finds that the present issue “involves a matter of substantial public interest,” and I agree, as indicated above. Under these circumstances, the chief justice should have ordered reargument of this case before the full court so that the people of the state would have the benefit of all the justices’ opinion on this important issue involving the deprivation of a person’s liberty.5 See General Statutes § 51-207.

II

I also disagree with the majority’s disposition of the merits of the present case. The plain, clear and concise language of our bail provision in the state constitution requires that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right ... to be released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption great . . . .” Conn. Const., art. I, § 8. Today, the majority, in interpreting that § 54-64f permits the court to revoke the bond of the defendant without setting a new bond, imports on our state constitution a “good behavior” clause that it claims was engrafted there as a result of statutory and common law precedent. It seems to me that if good behavior was an exception to the right *358of bail, then the framers of our constitution would have made it explicit, just as they have done for certain capital offenses. Indeed, the chief justice wrote in her dissenting opinion in Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 192 Conn. 48, 77, 469 A.2d 1201 (1984), the following: “When constitutional provisions, read in context with each other, guarantee constitutional rights, subject only to the explicit limitation that they shall not be abused, is it proper to add an additional limitation that the constitution itself does not contain? While the intent of the framers is an important resource to resolve ambiguity, it is not an appropriate resource to create ambiguity. As Dean Ely notes, it is important ‘to bring to the fore what seems invariably to get lost in excursions into the intent of the framers, namely that the most important datum hearing on what was intended is the constitutional language itself. ’ (Emphasis in original.) J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust (1980) p. 16. We have recognized the same rule of construction in Borino v. Lounsbury, 86 Conn. 622, 625, 86 A. 597 (1913), where we relied on 1 Story on the Constitution (5th Ed.) §§ 405, 407, to limit the role of evidence of the intent of the framers of the Connecticut constitution.” (Emphasis in original.) This rule applies with equal force in the present case because, as we held in State v. Menillo, 159 Conn. 264, 269, 268 A.2d 667 (1970), “the bail provision of § 8 of article first of our constitution makes clear that it was intended that in all cases, even capital cases not falling within the exception, bail in a reasonable amount should be ordered.”

I do not question the authority of the trial court or the legislature to place reasonable conditions on bail, including a “good behavior” requirement. Because, however, our constitution does not expressly allow for the denial of bail for the breach of a condition, once the bond is revoked because of such a breach, the trial court must set new bail to provide again for the release *359of the accused. Undoubtedly, the trial court, in setting the new bail, may consider that the subsequent bad conduct of the accused would increase the likelihood that he or she might flee and, therefore, the trial court could command a higher surety. Mello v. Superior Court, 117 R.I. 578, 582, 370 A.2d 1262 (1977).

In Mello, the issue before the Rhode Island Supreme Court was similar to the issue in the present appeal; that is, whether the complete revocation of bail is a proper remedy for a violation of a condition imposed upon an accused’s release. In his dissent, Justice Doris concluded that the violation of a good behavior condition to bail should not strip the accused of the right to be released on bail a second time. Id., 591 (Doris, J., dissenting). He stated that “[i]f a condition of bail is breached, bail may be forfeited and a new bail set. If the breach is flagrant, citation for contempt may be appropriate. But a court should not be allowed to enforce its orders by attempting to withhold constitutional rights.” Id., 592. I agree with Justice Doris in Mello where he aptly noted that “revocation of bail solely for breach of a condition comes perilously close to preventive detention.” Id.

In Reeves v. State, 261 Ark. 384, 387, 548 S.W.2d 822 (1977), relying in part on article two, §§ 8 and 9 of the Arkansas constitution (1874), the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that a criminal defendant “has an absolute right before conviction, except in capital cases, to a reasonable bail.” The court concluded that the imposition of bail with reasonable terms and conditions passes constitutional muster because, if the accused violates the terms of the present bail, the trial court is required to set new and reasonable bail and not refuse any future release of the petitioner on any bail. Id.

The framers of our state constitution placed a high priority on the right to be free pending a determina*360tion of guilt. By drafting article first, § 8 of our constitution, which has its roots in our first constitution; see Conn. Const, of 1818, art. I, § 14;6 the framers obviously recognized that more than liberty is lost when bail is denied. It is well documented that “[p]retrial detention lessens [the presumption of innocence] because an accused is now treated as a convict before trial. An accused individual loses time and liberty, jobs frequently disappear, family and friend relationships are disrupted. The physical appearance of an accused is affected during this period of detention. This impedes upon the ability to prepare an effective defense. As a result, an accused individual is more likely to be convicted and there is a greater likelihood that a severe sentence will be imposed. This violates due process since an accused individual loses liberty during pretrial detention prior to an adjudication of guilt at trial.” Comment, “ United States v. Salerno: A Reduction of Individual Rights,” 15 New Eng. J. on Crim. and Civ. Confinement, 147, 161-62 (1989).

I would hold that, although bail for the defendant may be revoked under § 54-64f, upon application by the defendant, new bail must be set in accordance with the provisions of article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution. I would, therefore, order that the Appellate Court remand the matter to the trial court with instructions to set new bail. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

Arthur H. Healey, J.

This appeal involves various aspects of a criminal defendant’s right to self-representation at trial, including whether he has a right to hybrid representation. On August 22, 1980, the defendant was charged by an information with tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151. After entering a plea of not guilty to the charge, he was tried by a jury and found guilty.

On appeal, he raises claims that the trial court erred in that it: (1) caused him to conduct a portion of his trial alone without first obtaining a valid waiver of his state and federal constitutional right to the assistance of counsel; (2) violated his state constitutional right to hybrid representation when his request to proceed as co-counsel was denied; (3) expressly restricted the role of his standby counsel in violation of Practice Book § 964; and (4) violated Practice Book § 632 in originally granting his defense counsel’s motion to withdraw. We find no error.

Some elaboration of the pertinent pretrial proceedings is necessary for disposition of the defendant’s appeal. Subsequent to being charged with the present offense, the defendant applied for and was found eligible to receive the services of a public defender. Attorney Judith Hoberman was appointed to represent him. Upon his plea of not guilty and election of trial by jury, the defendant’s case was assigned for trial on December 11, 1980.

Prior to the voir dire of the prospective jurors, the trial court was informed by Hoberman that the defendant had “expressed” to her “an interest to conduct a *371portion of his own defense.” Hoberman informed the trial court that she could not appear as co-counsel with the defendant, that she had suggested to him that he file a pro se appearance, and that she would move to withdraw her appearance for the defendant. Hoberman further informed the court that she would be willing to appear as the defendant’s standby counsel in the event he elected to proceed pro se.1

The trial court then cautioned the defendant of the dangers of self-representation. Specifically, the trial court advised the defendant of the gravity of the offense with which he was charged, that if convicted he faced a possible sentence of up to five years of imprisonment, and that “a trial, particularly a trial to the jury, is going to require a very real degree of expertise to be properly conducted.” In explaining the latter point, the court cited the expertise needed to argue intelligently about the admissibility of evidence.2 The court then in *372no uncertain terms warned the defendant of the dangers of self-representation: “You’re putting yourself in a terrible position in attempting to represent yourself. You are not really cognizant of how a trial is conducted, what the appropriate law is, what the appropriate rules of evidence are and that sort of thing. You realize to be a lawyer requires three years of graduate school just to start. Now you can’t possible [sic] have that background expertise.”

The defendant’s response to the court’s statements was: “What you said is quite true — As a matter of fact absolutely true, but what you don’t understand is that my counsel — I discussed with my counsel the case and she is just not going to submit things that I want submitted, that I feel need to be submitted, to the jury to understand what’s fully going on here.” Upon the court’s suggestion that, because of his counsel’s “expertise,” a decision not to develop “certain things” may have been necessary “under the rules of evidence,” the defendant declared: “Oh, yes they can be brought out and they will be brought out if I have anything to say about this. I am the one being accused. They drag me in here, accuse me and there’s no way I can see myself sitting here not saying anything in my defense.”

Hoberman then renewed her motion to withdraw. The trial court expressly asked the defendant whgther he realized that he was “entitled to be represented,” to which the defendant answered, “[r]ight.” The trial court asked the defendant whether he “realizefd] that this can run into a lot of technicalities, in the course *373of a trial, of which you are unaware.” The defendant responded that he did not “want to conduct a full trial,” but rather “[a]ll I want is a small portion — a little say. [Attorney Hoberman] will be conducting the trial.” The court then said: “Well, I can’t force a lawyer on you,” and the defendant stated: “So, please don’t let her go.” The court further inquired of the defendant whether “[kjnowing your rights and knowing the difficulties with which you are facing, nevertheless, you want to conduct your own defense?” The defendant responded, “I don’t want to conduct the whole trial, I just want to be able to have, you know, a say, a few things here and there. She would counsel me, of course, before I say it.”3

The trial court then proposed that if the defendant filed “a pro se appearance” the court would grant Hoberman’s motion to withdraw but would also order her “to remain in attendance as standby counsel.”4 The court then instructed the clerk to ensure that the defendant was provided a pro se appearance form. Hoberman requested that the defendant be given “just a few moments to consider your Honor’s latest proposal,” but the defendant retorted: “I understand it perfectly well.” The court warned the defendant that *374further delay of the trial would not be permitted and directly asked the defendant: “Are you entering a pro se appearance or are you not?” The defendant responded affirmatively: “That’s correct.” The defendant filed his pro se appearance with the trial court which then granted Hoberman’s motion to withdraw her appearance as the defendant’s counsel. The court, however, appointed Hoberman as standby counsel for the defendant and directed her “to remain in attendance.”

The defendant thereafter presented his opening statement to the jury panel, in which he represented that he was a student “at Yale College with the Special Division Program,” and he personally conducted the voir dire during jury selection. Just prior to the presentation of evidence, the defendant orally moved to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that there was “no probable cause in the first place to arrest me.” During the hearing on this motion, the defendant, as he asserts in his brief, “requested that his counsel be re-appointed and withdrew his appearance.”5 Noting that the defendant had already “made a knowing waiver of the right to be represented by counsel,” the court granted the defendant’s request, and the pro se appearance was withdrawn. Later during the actual trial, the defendant changed his position and requested and was granted the court’s permission to conduct his *375representation on a pro se basis.6 Hoberman’s appearance was again withdrawn, and the court appointed her as the defendant’s standby counsel. The defendant then conducted the balance of his trial, including the presentation of final argument to the jury.

I

We address first the defendant’s claim that the trial court “caused him to conduct a portion of his trial alone without first obtaining a valid waiver” of his state and federal constitutional right to assistance of counsel. Specifically, the defendant argues that, because the “waiver” of his right to counsel should be held invalid on the ground that the record does not clearly demonstrate that he made “an unequivocal request to represent himself,” he is entitled to an automatic reversal of his conviction in that he had represented himself during a portion of the proceedings when the right to counsel had attached.

The state does not dispute that the defendant had a state and federal constitutional right to assistance of counsel during both the voir dire of the prospective jurors and the pretrial hearing on the defendant’s pro se motion to dismiss. In State v. Gethers, 193 Conn. 526, 480 A.2d 435 (1984), it is implicit that the court viewed the right to counsel as having attached during the stage of the proceeding involved in the voir dire of prospective jurors. Id., 532-33. This court also regards the voir dire under Connecticut law as “an *376integral part” of the criminal trial and a “critical stage” of the proceeding. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 7, 90 S. Ct. 1999, 26 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1970); State v. Ibraimov, 187 Conn. 348, 357, 446 A.2d 382 (1982); State v. Canady, 187 Conn. 281, 289, 445 A.2d 895 (1982); 3 Wharton, Criminal Procedure (12th Ed. Torcia 1975) § 411. We turn next to the primary component of the defendant’s claim, i.e., the record does not clearly demonstrate that he made an unequivocal request to represent himself.

A criminal defendant is guaranteed the right to assistance of counsel under both the federal; see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963); and the state constitutions. See State v. Gethers, supra, 533. A criminal defendant also has the right to appear pro se in a state criminal trial “when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975); see also State v. Gethers, supra, citing Lyles v. Estelle, 658 F.2d 1015, 1020 (5th Cir. 1981); see generally annot., 98 A.L.R.3d 13 (1980). The court in Faretta stated the rule as follows: “When an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. For this reason, in order to represent himself, the accused must ‘knowingly and intelligently’ forego those relinquished benefits. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. [458, 464-65, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938)]. Cf. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723-24, 68 S. Ct. 316, 92 L. Ed. 309 [1948] (plurality opinion of Black, J.). Although a defendant need not himself have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self-representation, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with *377eyes open.’ Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. [269, 279, 63 S. Ct. 236, 87 L. Ed. 268 (1942)].” Faretta v. California, supra, 835.7 In accordance with Faretta, we have recognized that “[n]othing more intricate than a voluntary and intelligent waiver of counsel is required of an accused to exercise his right to defend himself in person.” State v. Gethers, supra, 533, citing Faretta v. California, supra, 835.

In reciting the circumstances of that case, the Faretta court noted that: “Here, weeks before trial, Faretta clearly and unequivocally declared to the trial judge that he wanted to represent himself and did not want counsel.” Faretta v. California, supra, 835. Some courts have extrapolated from this language a further requirement that the defendant’s request to proceed pro se must be clear and unequivocal;8 Raulerson v. *378 Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 808 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 966, 105 S. Ct. 366, 83 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1984); United States v. Tompkins, 623 F.2d 824, 827-28 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Bennett, 539 F.2d 45, 50 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 925, 97 S. Ct. 327, 50 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1976); State v. Crafts, 425 A.2d 194, 196 (Me. 1981); and the defendant contends that the record establishes that this he did not do. Our review of the record in this case, as we demonstrate below, reveals that the defendant did make a valid waiver of his constitutional right to counsel.

The defendant argues, and we agree, that the gist of his initial dialogue with the trial court, “accurately construed,” was a request to act as co-counsel along with his court-appointed attorney. The defendant’s request for hybrid representation was denied by the trial court, and we agree that this type of request should not be considered as a request to proceed pro se. See Raulerson v. Wainwright, supra, 808; United States v. Bennett, supra, 49. We note that the defendant’s court-appointed counsel expressed clearly her lack of willingness to serve as co-counsel with the defendant,9 and *379the record discloses that the defendant’s wish to be permitted hybrid representation status was the catalyst for Hoberman’s first motion to withdraw her appearance as his attorney.

The trial court, faced on the first scheduled day of trial with a defendant requesting a status to which he had no legal right; see Part II, infra; and a motion to withdraw from an attorney whom the defendant considered to be a “very good lawyer,” scrupulously attempted to accommodate the defendant’s desire to participate actively in conducting his defense within constitutional parameters.10 Cf. Moreno v. Estelle, 717 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1983). The court, after ensuring that the requirements for a valid waiver had been satisfied; see State v. Gethers, supra, 532-40; see generally Practice Book § 961;11 proposed that if the defendant wanted to proceed pro se, Hoberman would be *380appointed as his standby counsel to be available “for consultation” and ready “to step in” when the defendant during the trial realized he was “out of [his] depth.” The record establishes without question that the defendant affirmatively responded to this proposal, stated on the record that he understood it “perfectly well,” and accepted it both orally and by filing a written pro se appearance form.

If the trial court has first made appropriate inquiries regarding the defendant’s choice of representation, “the court can then properly insist that the defendant choose between representation by his existing counsel and proceeding pro se.” United States v. Welty, 674 F.2d 185, 188 (3d Cir. 1982). “A criminal defendant may be asked, in the interest of orderly procedures, to choose between waiver and another course of action as long as the choice presented to him is not constitutionally offensive.” Maynard v. Meachum, 545 F.2d 273, 278 (1st Cir. 1976). In the present case, the trial court heard statements from both the defendant and his counsel regarding their difference of opinion. The trial court then inquired of the defendant regarding the criteria for an effective waiver. See footnote 2, supra. “When a defendant is faced with the choice of proceed*381ing with counsel he is not entirely happy with or defending pro se, the trial judge must satisfy himself that if the defendant chooses to proceed pro se, he does so knowingly, with a full understanding of the risks involved.” Cordoba v. Harris, 473 F. Sup. 632, 637 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). This the trial court did do, and the defendant makes no claim that the trial court failed to comply with Practice Book § 961.

First, the trial court expressly advised the defendant of his right to be represented by counsel. Second, the trial court warned the defendant at length about the dangers of self-representation. Third, the defendant was apprised of the nature of the proceedings against him, and of the potential exposure to punishment. See footnote 2, supra; see also State v. Gethers, supra, 537 (the trial court “may appropriately presume that defense counsel has explained the nature of the offense in sufficient detail”); cf. State v. Barker, 35 Wash. App. 388, 393-94, 667 P.2d 108 (1983). Fourth, the defendant actively participated in the colloquies involved, which were both informative and lively. Fifth, the trial court had extensive opportunities to see, hear and evaluate the defendant’s intelligence and perceptions. On this record12 we conclude that the defendant did voluntarily and intelligently waive his constitutional right to counsel in choosing the option of proceeding pro se with standby counsel available to him; see Flowers v. Fair, 680 F.2d 261 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 946, 103 S. Ct. 262, 74 L. Ed. 2d 204 (1982); and the record establishes that “ 'he [knew] what he [was] doing and his choice [was] made with eyes open.’ ” Faretta v. California, supra, 835, citing Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S. Ct. 236, 87 L. Ed. 268 (1942).

*382II

The defendant also claims that the trial court erred by denying him the right to hybrid representation that he contends is guaranteed by article first, § 8, of the constitution of the state of Connecticut. The key portion of that provision declares that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel . . . .” Conn. Const., art. I § 8.13 In his brief the defendant argues that the plain language of the provision “suggests that the right the framers [of the Connecticut constitution] sought to protect was the right of a criminal accused to present his case as co-counsel with his retained or appointed attorney, should he so desire.” (Emphasis in original.) The defendant also argues that “the standard tools of constitutional construction” demonstrate that “the provision must be interpreted so as to guarantee a right to hybrid representation.” We disagree and hold today that article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution does not guarantee the right to hybrid representation.14

*383As a preliminary matter, it is necessary to define the term “hybrid representation,” also known as “co-counsel” status. The defendant explains that “[u]nder such a 'hybrid representation’ arrangement, both he and his attorney would conduct portions of his trial, while he retained ultimate control over defense strategy.” Accord 2 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure (1984) § 11.5 (f); comment, “The Right to Appear Pro Se: Developments in the Law,” 59 Neb. L. Rev. 135,156-57 (1980); note, “The Accused as Co-Counsel: The Case for the Hybrid Defense,” 12 Val. U.L. Rev. 329, 339 (1978); see 21A Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law § 767 (1981). The state does not dispute that a hybrid representation arrangement involves “the joint presentation of his defense by him and by his counsel.”15 Theoretically, hybrid representation can be considered as the ultimate product of a criminal defendant’s “partial waiver” of both his Faretta right to self-representation and his right to assistance of counsel. 2 LaFave & Israel, supra. The record indicates that, in the pertinent proceedings, the defendant’s initial colloquy with the trial court could be fairly construed as a request for hybrid representation, although he never explicitly requested “co-counsel” or “hybrid” status.16

The defendant premises his hybrid representation claim on the state rather than the federal constitution. *384It has been uniformly established that the right to counsel under the sixth amendment to the federal constitution does not guarantee a criminal defendant the right to hybrid representation.17 The United States *385Supreme Court recently indicated that “Faretta does not require a trial judge to permit ‘hybrid’ representation of the type Wiggins was actually allowed.”18 McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183, 104 S. Ct. 944, 79 L. Ed. 2d 122, reh. denied, 465 U.S. 1112, 104 S. Ct. 1620, 80 L. Ed. 2d 148, on remand, 729 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1984). Quite clearly, there is no federal constitutional right to hybrid representation. And it must be remembered that, “although we fully recognize the primary independent vitality of the provisions of our own constitution”; Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 641, 376 A.2d 359 (1977); “the decisions of the United States Supreme Court defining federal constitutional rights are, at the least, persuasive authority”; id.; and thus maybe “afforded respectful consideration.” Id., 642; see also Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 192 Conn. 48, 66, 469 A.2d 1201 (1984).

The defendant essentially argues that the plain meaning of the pertinent clause of article first, § 8, compels the conclusion that the right to hybrid representation is one guaranteed by our state constitution. Again, the constitutional language, which is the focus of this claim on appeal, provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Conn. Const., art. I § 8. The defendant argues that the framers’ use of the conjunctive “and” rather than the disjunctive “or” and the application of the phrase “to be heard” supports his position.

*386“In dealing with constitutional provisions we must assume that infinite care was employed to couch in scrupulously fitting language a proposal aimed at establishing or changing the organic law of the state. Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 19, 103 A.2d 818 [1954]; 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) p. 125. Unless there is some clear reason for not doing so, effect must be given to every part of and each word in the constitution.” Stolberg v. Caldwell, 175 Conn. 586, 597-98, 402 A.2d 763 (1978), appeal dismissed sub. nom. Stolberg v. Davidson, 454 U.S. 958, 102 S. Ct. 496, 70 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1981). Although the simplicity of the defendant’s argument may have some superficial appeal, important questions involving constitutional principles, as a general rule, “cannot be so easily solved.” Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 155, 251 A.2d 49 (1968). We find the defendant’s “plain meaning” argument unpersuasive.

In his brief, the defendant maintains the plain language of article first, § 8, “clearly suggests that the right the framers sought to protect was the right of a criminal accused to present his case as co-counsel with his retained or appointed attorney, should he so desire.” (Emphasis in original.) We have previously noted, however, that “[similar provisions in other states have not been construed to entitle an accused as a matter of right to be heard by both himself and by counsel.” State v. Carr, 172 Conn. 458, 475, 374 A.2d 1107 (1977). Constitutional framers’ selection of the word “and” in comparable “right to be heard” provisions in other jurisdictions has been held not to encompass a state constitutional guarantee: to “a right to representation and self-representation simultaneously”; Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 199 (Del. 1980); to “simultaneous enjoyment” of “these two basic rights”; State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 369 (Tenn. 1976); “to have his case presented in court by both himself and counsel acting at *387the same time”; People v. Sharp, 7 Cal. 3d 448, 459, 499 P.2d 489, 103 Cal. Rptr. 233 (1972), citing People v. Mattson, 51 Cal. 2d 777, 336 P.2d 937 (1959); State v. Burgin, 539 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Mo. 1976), citing State v. Velanti, 331 S.W.2d 542, 546 (Mo. 1960); “to be represented by counsel and at the same time actively conduct his own defense”; Moore v. People, 171 Colo. 338, 346, 467 P.2d 50 (1970), citing People v. Mattson, supra; to “an absolute right of the defendant to actively participate, with his counsel, in the trial of his case”; Moore v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 285, 298, 265 N.W.2d 540, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 956, 99 S. Ct. 356, 58 L. Ed. 2d 348 (1978); or “may intermittently use and then discard counsel.” State v. Whitlow, 13 Or. App. 607, 610, 510 P.2d 1354 (1973); accord Mosby v. State, 457 S.W.2d 836, 839-40 (Ark. 1970); People v. Mirenda, 57 N.Y.2d 261, 265-66 n., 442 N.E.2d 49, 455 N.Y.S.2d 752 (1982) (state constitutional provision allowing criminal defendant “to appear and defend in person and by counsel” refers to two separate rights that are not to be exercised “both at the same time”); cf. Burney v. State, 244 Ga. 33, 36, 257 S.E.2d 543, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 970, 100 S. Ct. 463, 62 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1979) (state constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend his own cause in any of the courts of this state, in person, by attorney, or both”); Gray v. Mississippi, 351 So. 2d 1342, 1345 (Miss. 1977) (state constitution provides that “the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself or counsel, or both”); contra Wake v. Barker, 514 S.W.2d 692 (Ky. App. 1974). Thus, the weight of authority overwhelmingly demonstrates that the defendant’s suggested construction of “and” in article first, § 8, is far from plain. See State v. Carr, supra.

In sum, we are not persuaded that the framers’ use of the conjunctive in article first, § 8, manifests an intent to guarantee hybrid representation. “ ‘If the *388words have a doubtful meaning, or are susceptible of two meanings, they should receive that which will effectuate the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the general intent of the instrument.’ Borino v. Lounsbury, 86 Conn. 622, 625, 86 A. 597 (1913).” Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 62.

The Borino rule also assists in our analysis of the phrase, “right to be heard,” in § 8 of article first. Historical background, where there is ambiguity, may be utilized as a proper tool to discern the framers’ intent in drafting the language of constitutional provisions; see Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra; or of legislative enactments. See Perille v. Raybestos-ManhattanEurope, Inc., 196 Conn. 529, 494 A.2d 555 (1985). Constitutional interpretation can be “necessarily influenced” by recognition of a provision’s historical roots, including its English common law antecedents. Borino v. Lounsbury, supra, 629; see Faretta v. California, supra, 821-22. Our examination of the historical background of article first, § 8, discloses that there are two related yet separate legal developments that may have culminated in the original adoption of this provision of the first Connecticut constitution in 1818.

First, the independent right of an individual accused of the commission of a crime to self-representation had evolved. See generally Faretta v. California, supra. “[U]nder the ancient English common law a person on trial for a felony was not allowed counsel and was not a competent witness in his own behalf.” State v. Carr, supra, 473. In cases involving other crimes that were prosecuted in the Star Chamber, a defendant was compelled “to accept representation by counsel whose object was to avoid the disapprobation which would follow if anything in the defendant’s answer to the indictment offended the Crown.” Hooks v. State, supra, 199; see also Faretta v. California, supra, 821-23. During interrogation conducted in the Star Chamber, the *389accused was not permitted assistance of counsel. Note, “Assistance of Counsel: A Right to Hybrid Representation,” 57 B.U.L. Rev. 570, 577 (1977). After the elimination of the Star Chamber, “every litigant was required to ‘appear before the court in his own person and conduct his own cause in his own words.’ ” (Footnote omitted.) Faretta v. California, supra, 823. The legal fiction had emerged that the presiding judge could serve in these undoubtedly inquisitorial proceedings as counsel for the accused. Id., 824 n.21; State v. Carr, supra, 473; State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 543-44 (1880); note, 57 B.U.L. Rev., supra, 577. Incremental statutory reform commencing in late seventeenth century England provided criminal defendants with the option of presenting a defense “ ‘by Counsel learned in the Law.’ ” Faretta v. California, supra, 824; see also State v. Burkhart, supra, 367; note, 57 B.U.L. Rev., supra. The right to counsel thus emerged “as guaranteeing a choice between representation by counsel and the traditional practice of self-representation.” Faretta v. California, supra, 825; see also State v. Burkhart, supra.

Historically, “[i]n the American Colonies the insistence upon a right of self-representation was, if anything, more fervent than in England.” Faretta v. California, supra, 826. As a general proposition, the scope of the right to counsel in early colonial times was probably limited, just as it had been in England. See note, 57 B.U.L. Rev., supra, 578. Because lawyers in colonial America were identified with the Crown, distrust of lawyers was institutionalized as several colonies, including Connecticut, initially “prohibited pleading for hire in the 17th century.” Faretta v. California, supra, 827 and n.32.19 By the end of that *390century, however, the right to counsel had been established in Connecticut. Id., n.35; 2 Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (1796) pp. 398-99.20 Appointment of counsel was “the practice in Connecticut in the latter part of the 18th century; appointment apparently was sometimes made even when the accused failed to request counsel, if he appeared in need of a lawyer, but there is no indication appointment was ever made over the objection of the accused.” Faretta v. California, supra, 830 n.40, citing 2 Swift, supra, 392.

Thus, by the time of the adoption of our first state constitution in 1818, a defendant in a criminal case had the right to present a defense, including one by counsel, if he so chose. Under the rationale as espoused by the recent illustrative decision in Hooks v. State, supra, our constitutional provision guaranteeing “a right to be heard by himself and by counsel”21 simply “was *391addressed to securing both of these equally important fundamental rights. But we are not persuaded that a hybrid representation arrangement would be in any way consistent with or of assistance to the framers’ original intent. The discussion in Faretta clearly shows that the states envisioned the right to counsel as an adjunct to the ever-present right to self-representation, available if the defendant wishes to make use of it.” Id., 199; see Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 466, 62 S. Ct. 1252, 86 L. Ed. 1595 (1942).

The second development in the law involved the competency of a criminal defendant to testify on his own behalf at trial. The ancient common law rule was “that a person charged with a criminal offense is incompetent to testify under oath in his own behalf at his trial.” Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 81 S. Ct. 756, 5 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1961). In our examination of the English common law system, we have already indicated that after the English revolution the defendant was permitted to argue on his own behalf at trial. Faretta v. California, supra, 823-24. “In the process the defendant could offer by way of explanation material that would later be characterized as testimony. . . . In the seventeenth century, however, he was allowed to call witnesses in his behalf; the right to have them sworn was accorded by statute for treason in 1695 and for all felony in 1701. 7 Will. Ill, c. 3; 1 Anne, St. 2, c. 9. ... A distinction was drawn between the accused and his witnesses — they gave evidence but he did not. . . . The general acceptance of the interest rationale as a basis for disqualification reinforced this distinction, since the criminal defendant was, of course, par excellence an interested witness.” (Emphasis in original.) Ferguson v. Georgia, supra, 574.

This rule was the law in Connecticut when the state constitution was adopted: “It is a general rule in criminal cases, that a person who is either to be a gainer, *392or loser in the event of the cause, in which he is called to give evidence, is incompetent, and cannot be examined.” Swift, A Digest of the Law of Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases (1810) p. 69; see generally Lucas v. State, 23 Conn. 18 (1854). However, the defendant, as explained above, had the right to make his oral statement, unsworn, in his case. In 1867, the common law disability prohibiting a defendant from testifying under oath was abrogated by statute in Connecticut.22 See General Statutes § 54-84.

By 1818, then, one accused of a crime in our state had no right to testify in his own behalf. He could, however, be “heard” in his role as defendant by making an unsworn statement himself. The provision in article first, § 8, that guarantees the accused “a right to be heard by himself and by counsel” may have been intended by the framers “to insure that every accused citizen enjoyed the benefit of counsel and a correlative right to be heard in person.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Burkhart, supra, 371.23 Under the rationale espoused by such cases as Burkhart and Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977), article first, § 8, was “intended to afford an accused the right to participate and be heard in his trial while at the same time removing the restrictions to full representation and participation of counsel.” Landers v. State, supra, 277; see also State v. Burkhart, supra. The short *393answer to the critics of this line of reasoning that it causes the phrase, “to be heard,” “to have different meanings as to the terms himself, or counsel or both”; Landers v. State, supra, 281 (Phillips, J., dissenting); is that this theory assumes the framers’ intent that each would be “heard” in accordance with his respective accepted role as defined at that time in history. The defendant could at that time appear as an unsworn witness represented by counsel. If the accused, however, chose to represent himself, then he would be “heard” in the capacity of counsel as well as in that of defendant. After the disqualification of a defendant as a witness was removed by statute his right to make an unsworn statement was replaced by the right to testify. See Landers v. State, supra.

In any event, we need not base our resolution of this issue on an express selection between these two historical developments. In light of all this background, we instead are persuaded that to accept the defendant’s argument that article first, § 8, guarantees a right to hybrid representation would be tantamount to viewing that provision’s language “as newly descended from the firmament like fresh fallen snow”; Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 62; as there is scant evidence that the framers ever intended, much less imagined, any such result.24 That provision has not previously been so construed by this court. See State v. Carr, *394supra, 475. In conclusion, we decline the defendant’s invitation to so construe this provision of our state constitution.25

*395III

The defendant also claims that the trial court committed reversible error by granting defense counsel Hoberman’s motion to withdraw in that the court did not first establish “good cause”; see Practice Book § 632; and by restricting the role of his standby counsel so as to violate Practice Book § 964. The state counters that these claims, raised for the first time on appeal, have not been properly preserved for appellate review. In neither his brief nor his reply brief does the defendant address the state’s argument that these claims have not been preserved for our review.

Our rules of practice, of course, require that a party, in order to preserve a claim for appeal, “distinctly [raise]” it at trial. Practice Book § 3063; see also Practice Book § 315; State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 65-66, 327 A.2d 576 (1973). As we stated in Evans, supra, 70, and have reiterated since, it is only in “exceptional circumstances” “that newly raised claims can and will be considered by this court.” The first such circumstance involving a recently discovered constitutional right is inapposite to these claims. Nor is the second exceptional circumstance, the deprivation “of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial,” implicated here. Id. We do note, however, that the record, fairly read, supports the state’s position that the defendant received a fundamentally fair trial,26 and the defendant asserts no claim to the contrary.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

*684Peters, C. J.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether, in a criminal prosecution involving alleged sexual abuse of children, a minor victim may testify through the use of a videotape made outside the physical presence of the defendant. The defendant, Charles Jarzbek, was charged by information with the crimes of risk of injury to or impairing the morals of a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 and sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a.1 Prior to trial, the state, over the defendant’s objection, obtained permission from the trial court to videotape the testimony of the defendant’s daughter, one of the alleged victims, outside his physical presence. As requested by the state, this videotaped testimony was admitted into evidence at the defendant’s trial. In accordance with a jury verdict finding the defendant guilty on both counts, the trial court rendered a judgment sentencing the defendant to a total effective term of imprisonment for five years, execution suspended, and five years probation. The defendant has appealed *685from that judgment. We remand for a further evidentiary hearing to give the state the opportunity to establish a compelling need for the videotaping procedure used in this case.

I

Before we address the merits of the defendant’s attack on the videotaped evidence taken outside his physical presence, we must first identify the process by which that videotape was sought, the videotaping procedure that the trial court authorized, and the role that the videotaped testimony played at the defendant’s trial. A detailed understanding of the record is essential to put the defendant’s claims into focus.

The trial court permitted videotaping of the testimony of the alleged victims, T, and her brother, I, in response to a pretrial motion by the state. In support of its motion, the state presented the testimony of two clinical psychologists who opined that the children would be psychologically and emotionally traumatized if they were to be required to testify in open court in the presence of the defendant. The defendant called no witnesses of his own, although he did cross-examine the state’s witnesses.

In granting the state’s motion, the trial court framed the issue as “whether or not the videotaping of the testimony of these four and five year old witnesses outside the presence of the defendant and the jury in a case alleging sexual molesting by their father violates the defendant’s sixth amendment right of confrontation.” The court noted the widespread prevalence of child sexual abuse and the “tremendous rise” in the number of such cases in recent years. Relying upon the testimony of the psychologists, and upon the state’s assertion that sexually abused children suffer further trauma when forced to testify in the presence of their alleged abusers, the court concluded that the children’s *686testimony could be videotaped outside the physical presence of the defendant without violating his constitutional right of confrontation.

The trial court’s order set out specific procedures designed to balance the needs of the children to testify without trauma and the right of the defendant to confront the witnesses against him.2 The court designated those who would be permitted to be present when one of the children testified: the child’s mother, the judge, the state’s attorney and one defense counsel. The court required the videotaping to take place in a setting comparable to a child psychology laboratory, consisting of a witness room connected by a one-way mirror to a monitoring room. The defendant, in the monitoring room, would not be visible from the witness room, but would be able to observe the witness fully and directly and to hear the testimony as it was given. The court recognized that the defendant was entitled to access to his counsel for the purpose of cross-*687examining the witness, and ordered that the witness room and the monitoring room be electronically linked by a communications device, such as an ear attachment, that would permit the defendant to communicate instantly with his counsel. To further the defendant’s meaningful participation in cross-examination, the court also provided that the defendant should have the assistance of co-counsel while he was observing the videotaping from the monitoring room.

After a competency hearing, only T, the defendant’s daughter, was deemed competent to testify at trial.3 T’s testimony was videotaped for trial in accordance with the court’s order. Although the court’s order would have enabled the defendant to observe the taping in the monitoring room, he chose not to attend the hearing. Defense counsel had a full opportunity to cross-examine T at the hearing at which her testimony was taped.

In the videotape that was introduced into evidence at trial, T described the game of “roll around,” which she demonstrated through the use of anatomically correct dolls. After the dolls’ clothes had been removed, she placed them together, face to face, demonstrating genital contact. She stated that she had played the game with her father “many times” and that they had always played with their clothes off. She further testified that her buttocks had gotten dirty from the game and that she had had to take a bath “[s]o Grammy [wouldn’t] know.” She also stated that her father had told her that he would hit her if she told anyone about the game.

The jury could reasonably have found other evidence introduced by the state at trial to be corroborative of *688T’s videotaped testimony. The games that the defendant played with T came to light when J, her eleven year old cousin, observed T, then four years old, and I, her three year old brother, playing in a bedroom of their Middletown home. J observed the two on the bed, the victim on top of her brother, face to face, “rubbing up and down” in an obviously sexual manner. After watching his cousins for about thirty seconds, to confirm that he was not misconstruing their behavior, he asked what they were doing. Although the victim initially tried to “cover up” their activity, she then acknowledged that she and her brother had been playing a secret game that her father had taught her, and that her father had told her to keep the game a secret or else she “would never see him again.”

Various adult relatives also testified, at trial, about conversations with T concerning the games she had played with her father. The victim had given essentially the same account, in varying degrees of detail, to her aunt, her mother, her maternal grandmother, and a social worker.

In his appeal, the defendant maintains that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the videotaped testimony of his daughter because it was videotaped outside his physical presence. In challenging the legality of this videotaping procedure, the defendant has raised only two interconnected claims. Notably, he has considerably narrowed the focus of our inquiry because there are a number of possibly related questions that he has not pursued. The defendant does not challenge the competency of the minor victim, T, to testify.4 Nor *689does he oppose the use of videotaped testimony per se at criminal trials. To the contrary, he conceded at oral argument that, under appropriate circumstances, and with proper procedural safeguards in place, videotaped testimony is a constitutionally viable alternative to live testimony. The defendant likewise does not argue that the videotaped testimony presented at trial distorted the appearance or demeanor of the minor victim or unduly limited the jury’s ability to judge her credibility. Finally, he does not object to the informal setting in which the hearing was conducted and he makes no claim that he was denied a full opportunity to cross-examine the victim at the pretrial videotaping session. Rather, the defendant challenges the admissibility of the videotaped testimony solely on the ground that he was denied his constitutional right to be in the witness room, physically confronting the victim, while she testified. He claims that the trial court’s videotaping order violated: (1) his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him, a right guaranteed both by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and by article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution;5 and (2) his right to be present at trial, a right guaranteed by Practice Book § 968 in the absence of a finding of waiver, which the trial court in this case *690did not make.6 Because the second claim is analytically subsumed under the first, we will address the two claims jointly.

II

We will first address the constitutional origins of the defendant’s claims. Relying on the right to confrontation guaranteed to him by the federal and state constitutions; U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Conn. Const., art. I, § 8; the defendant maintains that his right physically to confront the witnesses against him was not satisfied by affording him the opportunity to watch T testify on videotape and to cross-examine her in the setting described above. Absent a compelling need, which has not been established here, he argues that he has a constitutional right to insist on a face-to-face confrontation with adverse witnesses.

It is useful to consider this novel constitutional claim by dividing it into a number of subsidiary issues. We must first decide whether the defendant is entitled to invoke the state constitution, which he did not cite to the trial court when it ruled on the state’s pretrial motion for videotaping. Second, we must determine whether the rights protected by the relevant federal and state confrontation clauses encompass a right of physical confrontation in addition to a right of cross-examination. Third, we must decide whether the rights *691conferred by the federal and state confrontation clauses are absolute and, if not, under what circumstances they may give way to other compelling interests.

A

The state maintains that the defendant may not, on appeal, invoke the confrontation clause of our state constitution because he did not rely on that provision at trial. We disagree. If the record adequately supports an appellate inquiry, a constitutional challenge that implicates the fundamental constitutional right of an accused to confront witnesses against him; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1965); as well as the fundamental fairness of his trial; State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530, 560-65, 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192, 105 S. Ct. 967, 83 L. Ed. 2d 971 (1985); can be raised on appeal for the first time. This is such a case. Accordingly, we will review the defendant’s constitutional claims under both the state and the federal constitutions. State v. Fullwood, 199 Conn. 281, 283, 507 A.2d 85 (1986); State v. King, 187 Conn. 292, 309, 445 A.2d 901 (1982); see State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 327 A.2d 576 (1973).

B

The state and the defendant agree that videotaping the testimony of a witness against the defendant, outside the defendant’s physical presence, implicates the right of an accused to confront witnesses against him as guaranteed by the confrontation clause of both the federal and state constitutions. U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Conn. Const., art. I, § 8; Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S. Ct. 1038, 35 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1973); Pointer v. Texas, supra, 403-404; State v. Maldonado, 193 Conn. 350, 356, 478 A.2d 581 (1984); State v. Wilson, 188 Conn. 715, 721, 453 A.2d 765 (1980); State v. Hackett, 182 Conn. 511, *692517, 438 A.2d 726 (1980). The state and the defendant also agree that each of these confrontation clauses affords the criminal defendant two types of protections: “the right physically to face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct cross-examination.” Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51, 107 S. Ct. 989, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1986); Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 18, 106 S. Ct. 292, 88 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1985); State v. Maldonado, supra; State v. Hackett, supra.

Although most confrontation clause litigation has involved an alleged infringement on the right of cross-examination, the right of physical confrontation is an equally fundamental component of the clauses. As the United States Supreme Court has asserted, a defendant’s “literal right to ‘confront’ the witness at the time of trial . . . forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause.” California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157, 90 S. Ct. 1930, 26 L. Ed. 2d 489 (1970); Delaware v. Fensterer, supra; Davis v. Alaska, supra, 315; Dowdell v. United States, 221 U.S. 325, 330, 31 S. Ct. 590, 55 L. Ed. 753 (1911). The clause was originally conceived as a safeguard “to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits . . . being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.” Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242-43, 15 S. Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895); see also 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed. 1940) §§ 1365,1367. The clause finds its modern justification in the perceived role that physical confrontation *693plays in the truth-seeking process. Confrontation is intended to enhance that process in a number of ways: by affording the accused an opportunity for face-to-face contact with adverse witnesses at trial; by ensuring that a witness will give his statements under oath, which impresses upon him the seriousness of the proceedings and importance that he testify truthfully; by forcing a witness to submit to cross-examination, a practice designed to elicit the truth; and by aiding the jury in assessing the credibility of a witness by observing his demeanor on the stand. California v. Green, supra, 158.

C

The protection that the confrontation clauses afford to a criminal defendant is not, however, absolute. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that competing interests “may warrant dispensing with confrontation at trial.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 64, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1980); Chambers v. Mississippi, supra, 295; Mattox v. United States, supra, 243. For example, although the federal confrontation clause has been interpreted as reflecting a “preference for face-to-face confrontation at trial”; Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 63; an “adequate opportunity for cross-examination may satisfy the clause even in the absence of physical confrontation.” Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 418, 85 S. Ct. 1074, 13 L. Ed. 2d 934 (1965). In this case, the videotaping procedure at issue was designed to afford the defendant a full opportunity to cross-examine the minor victim. See Stincer v. Commonwealth, 712 S.W.2d 939, 941 (Ky. 1986), rev’d, 482 U.S. , 107 S. Ct. 2658, 96 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1987). The issue presently before us, therefore, is to determine what circumstances warrant impairment of the second confrontation requirement, the defendant’s right of physical confrontation.

*694In claiming that the videotaping procedure unduly infringed on this constitutional right, the defendant contends that the state has failed to establish an adequate justification for videotaping the adverse testimony of his daughter where she could not see him. Although he was permitted to observe the witness during her testimony through a one-way mirror, he maintains that this arrangement did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of physical confrontation. According to him, absent some compelling need, which the state has not demonstrated here, the federal and state confrontation clauses require no less than eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the defendant and adverse witnesses.

The state’s broad response to this claim is that the constitutionality of the videotaping procedure may be upheld because the defendant had an opportunity to participate visually and electronically in the taking of the testimony that he challenges. The state maintains that this procedure afforded the defendant the equivalent of face-to-face access to the adverse witness, and that the confrontation clauses do not require more. See Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 63; Commonwealth v. Willis, 716 S.W.2d 224, 230 (Ky. 1986); State v. Sheppard, 197 N.J. Super. 411, 484 A.2d 1330 (1984). Interpreting the clauses in this manner, according to the state, adequately serves the underlying purpose of confrontation, which is to further the accuracy of the truth-seeking process. See California v. Green, supra, 161.

The state’s argument is unpersuasive because it pays insufficient deference to the constitutional requirement of an opportunity for physical confrontation, which we interpret to mean eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, between the accused and adverse witnesses. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, supra, 51; Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra, 678; Delaware v. Fensterer, supra, 18; California v. Green, supra; contra Commonwealth v. Willis, *695supra, 230; State v. Sheppard, supra, 432. It is widely recognized that physical confrontation contributes significantly, albeit intangibly, to the truth-seeking process: “The requirement of personal presence . . . undoubtedly makes it more difficult to lie against someone, particularly if that person is an accused and present at trial.” 4 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Evidence (1979) § 800[01], p. 800-10; Dowdell v. United States, supra, 330; United States v. Benfield, 593 F.2d 815, 819 (8th Cir. 1979); C. McCormick, Evidence (3d Ed. 1984) § 245, p. 727; see H. Sahm, “Demeanor Evidence: Elusive and Intangible Imponderables,” 47 A.B.A.J. 580 (1961). In addition, physical confrontation furthers other goals of our criminal justice system, in that it reflects respect for the defendant’s dignity and the presumption that he is innocent until proven guilty. The state therefore cannot prevail in its categorical argument that the videotaping procedure fully complied with constitutional confrontation requirements.

The state argues, alternatively, that even if the videotaping procedure infringed on the defendant’s right of confrontation, that infringement was slight and can be justified as necessary to combat the widespread sexual abuse of children that has become a growing public concern. See Connecticut Child Abuse Task Force, Final Report 5 (1986); H. Ward, C. Fletcher, N. Fuzesi & A. Sayer, Growing Up At Risk in Connecticut (1984) p. 56. The salient question for us to resolve is whether the procedures used in this case can be justified on this narrower ground.

As the state reminds us, the numerous exceptions to the rule against hearsay illustrate circumstances in which a defendant’s right of confrontation is not absolute. See generally C. McCormick, supra, §§ 245, 246. For example, certain hearsay testimony, such as a dying declaration; Mattox v. United States, supra, 244; State v. Onofrio, 179 Conn. 23, 43, 425 A.2d 560 (1979); *696or testimony presented at a prior adversarial hearing; Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 68-70; California v. Green, supra, 164; see State v. Parker, 161 Conn. 500, 504, 289 A.2d 894 (1971); is admissible even though the defendant does not have an opportunity to cross-examine or confront the declarant, who is unavailable to testify at trial. The state argues that, like the hearsay testimony that is deemed admissible because it bears sufficient indicia of reliability, the videotaped testimony of the minor witness in this case possessed adequate guarantees of trustworthiness to justify its admission.

The state’s hearsay argument does not imply that the videotaped testimony in this case constituted hearsay.7 Like ordinary courtroom testimony, the testimony of the minor victim in this case was videotaped at a hearing before the trial judge, held in a modified courtroom, and conducted specifically for the purpose of preserving the witness’s testimony for trial. Moreover, both the state and the defendant had a full opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness at the hearing. Kentucky v. Stincer, supra, 4903; cf. Pointer v. Texas, supra, 406-407; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725, 88 S. Ct. 1318, 20 L. Ed. 2d 255 (1968). We agree with the state that the circumstances surrounding the tak*697ing of the minor victim’s testimony make it inherently more reliable than the out-of-court declarations characterized as hearsay. Rather than view the videotaped testimony as hearsay, we therefore consider it to be the functional equivalent of testimony in court. Commonwealth v. Willis, supra, 228; note, “The Testimony of Child Victims in Sex Abuse Prosecutions: Two Legislative Innovations,” 98 Harv. L. Rev. 806, 823 (1985). Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the videotaped testimony is therefore not inadmissible simply because it does not fall within any of the established exceptions to the hearsay rule.

A defendant’s right of physical confrontation is also demonstrably short of absolute when, by his own conduct, he has waived the right of confrontation either directly or indirectly, as by having waived his right to be present at trial. For most purposes, the state cannot avail itself of a claim of waiver absent an appropriate finding by the trial court. Our Practice Book § 968 also requires such a finding, which the trial court in this case did not make. The state argues nonetheless that the defendant constructively waived his right of confrontation by virtue of the threats he made against the minor victim, threats that were testified to by the victim herself and corroborated by the testimony of others.8

A criminal defendant may waive his sixth amendment right of confrontation, which encompasses his right to *698be present at trial, by reason of his own misconduct. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 342-43, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1970); State v. Drakeford, 202 Conn. 75, 79, 519 A.2d 1194 (1987); State v. Simino, 200 Conn. 113, 128-29, 509 A.2d 1039 (1986); see also United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526, 105 S. Ct. 1482, 84 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1985). Such a waiver implied by law must be distinguished from an express waiver of a constitutional right, which is ordinarily valid only if there is “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938); see State v. Drakeford, supra; State v. Simino, supra, 129; Talton v. Warden, 171 Conn. 378, 384, 370 A.2d 965 (1976). A defendant may waive his right of confrontation in a number of ways, such as by his voluntary and deliberate absence from trial; Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 94 S. Ct. 194, 38 L. Ed. 2d 174 (1973); by disruptive conduct which requires his removal from the courtroom; Illinois v. Allen, supra; State v. Drakeford, supra; State v. Simino, supra; see State v. Johnson, 185 Conn. 163, 178-79, 440 A.2d 858 (1981), aff'd, 460 U.S. 73, 103 S. Ct. 969, 74 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1983); or by causing a witness to be unavailable for trial for the purpose of preventing that witness from testifying. United States v. Mastrangelo, 693 F.2d 269, 272-73 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1204,104 S. Ct. 2385, 81 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1984); United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 630-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom. Evans v. United States, 456 U.S. 1008, 102 S. Ct. 2300, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1303 (1982); State v. Altrui, 188 Conn. 161, 173, 448 A.2d 837 (1982). The state argues that the latter situation, whereby the defendant procures a witness’s silence, either by chicanery; United States v. Mayes, 512 F.2d 637, 648-51 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1008, 95 S. Ct. 2629, 45 L. Ed. 2d 670 (1975); by threats; United States v. Balano, 618 *699F.2d 624, 628-29 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 840, 101 S. Ct. 118, 66 L. Ed. 2d 47 (1980); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1358 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S. Ct. 2174, 53 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1977); or by actual violence or murder; United States v. Thevis, supra; is closely analogous to the facts of this case. According to the state, here, as in those cases, the defendant waived his right to confront the minor victim by intimidating her and threatening to punish her if she told anyone about the games she had played with him.

We conclude that the present record does not demonstrate the kind of conduct that constitutes waiver of a defendant’s right of physical confrontation. In the waiver cases cited above, the defendant was suspected of scheming to obstruct justice by tampering with a witness after the crime in question had occurred, the judicial proceedings against him had commenced, and the witness allegedly subjected to intimidation had given pretrial testimony incriminating the defendant. Here, by contrast, although the threats made by the defendant against the minor victim were similarly designed to conceal his wrongdoing, they were made during the commission of the very crimes with which he is charged. We acknowledge that threats such as those made by the defendant could potentially inhibit a witness, causing the witness to testify untruthfully or to refuse to testify at all. The constitutional right of confrontation would have little force, however, if we were to find an implied waiver of that right in every instance where the accused, in order to silence his victim, uttered threats during the commission of the crime for which he is on trial. The state therefore cannot prevail on its claim that the defendant waived his right of confrontation. Cf. State v. Sheppard, supra, 435-41.

*700D

Although we conclude that neither a hearsay argument nor a theory of waiver provides a persuasive analogy legitimating the videotaped procedure that was used in this case, we accept the proposition that other compelling state interests may justify dispensing with the constitutionally mandated requirement of physical confrontation. The state has proffered two possible interests as justification for an impairment of the defendant’s constitutional confrontation rights. First, the state contends that its interest in combating sexual abuse of children and minimizing the trauma experienced by child victims when they participate in the judicial process outweighs the interests served by constitutional confrontation requirements. Second, it maintains that videotaping the testimony of a minor victim outside the physical presence of the accused is necessary to encourage minor victims of sex crimes to come forward and provide accurate testimony. According to the state, these two interests justify the adoption of a per se rule, applicable to all prosecutions involving sexual abuse of children, which would allow the videotaping of the testimony of a minor victim outside the physical presence of the defendant.

Interests similar to those asserted by the state in this case were addressed by the United States Supreme Court, in an analogous context, in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982). There, the United States Supreme Court declared that a state mandatory closure statute, which required “trial judges, at trials for specified sexual offenses involving a victim under the age of 18, to exclude the press and the general public from the courtroom during the testimony of that victim,” violated the first amendment right of the press and the general public to access to criminal trials. Id., 598, 602; see *701 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 577, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980). Although the court struck down the mandatory closure rule, it held that a “trial court [can] determine on a case-by-case basis whether closure is necessary to protect the welfare of a minor victim.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 609. While that case involved the rights of the press and the public that derive from constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly; U.S. const., amend. I; Conn. Const., art. I, §§ 4,5 and 14; and this case involves the confrontation rights of criminal defendants, we find it instructive in analyzing the interests asserted by the state here.

The state’s first rationale rests on the interest of the state, acting as parens patriae, in safeguarding the welfare of children. The underlying assumption is that sexually abused children who testify in open court, in the presence of their alleged abusers, suffer severe trauma and are thereby victimized a second time by the judicial system itself. See J. Parker, “The Rights of Child Witnesses: Is the Court A Protector or Perpetrator?” 17 New Eng. L. Rev. 643, 647-56 (1982); G. Melton, “Psychological Issues in Child Victim’s Interaction with the Legal System,” 5 Victimology 274-75 (1980); D. Libai, “The Protection of the Child Victim of a Sexual Offense in the Criminal Justice System,” 15 Wayne L. Rev. 977,983-84 (1969). That rationale farther assumes that children are uniquely vulnerable witnesses who must be treated more delicately than adult witnesses in order to protect their psychological and emotional well-being. See L. Berliner & M. Barbieri, “The Testimony of the Child Victim of Sexual Assault,” 40 J. Soc. Issues 125, 128 (1984).

We acknowledge that protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children is a compelling state interest. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-57, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 (1982); Globe *702 Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 607. As the defendant accurately points out, however, it is by no means clear that sexually abused children are harmed, psychologically or otherwise, by the experience of testifying in the presence of their alleged abusers. To date, there is no empirical data that unequivocally supports the state’s sweeping generalization that minor victims are inevitably traumatized by that experience. To the contrary, experts in child psychology who have studied sexually abused children are divided on the issue of whether they suffer undue trauma and further harm in facing the accused at trial. G. Melton, supra, 274; G. Goodman, “The Child Witness: Conclusions and Future Directions for Research and Legal Practice,” 40 J. Soc. Issues 157, 167-68 (1984); D. Whitcomb, E. Shapiro & L. Stellwagen, When the Victim is a Child: Issues for Judges and Prosecutors, National Institute of Justice (1985) pp. 17-18; L. Berliner & M. Barbieri, supra. Moreover, recent studies indicate that some minor victims actually benefit from their participation in proceedings that give them a sense of power over those who have violated them and afford them a long awaited opportunity to achieve vindication. G. Melton, “Sexually Abused Children and the Legal System: Some Policy Recommendations,” 13 Am. J. Family Therapy 61, 64-65 (1985); L. Berliner & M. Barbieri, supra, 135; C. Rogers, “Child Sexual Abuse and the Courts: Preliminary Findings,” Social Work and Child Sexual Abuse (Conte & Shore Eds. 1982) pp. 145,150.

Just as the United States Supreme Court, in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 609, rejected the generalization that sexually abused children invariably suffer traumatic injury by testifying in the presence of the press and the general public, we reject the generalization that these children will be traumatized by testifying in the presence of the accused. Given the lack of consensus among recognized authorities as to *703the effect on a minor victim of a face-to-face confrontation with the accused, we conclude that the state’s interest in protecting the well-being of children, in and of itself, does not justify a per se rule that infringes on a defendant’s right of confrontation.

The second rationale proffered by the state focuses on the difficulty of persuading minor victims to testify in sexual abuse cases and on the credibility of their testimony. The state claims that allowing minor victims to testify outside the physical presence of the accused encourages victims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities and, more importantly, enhances the reliability of their testimony. The defendant responds that the state’s claim regarding the enhanced reliability of testimony taken outside the physical presence of the accused is too speculative to justify depriving a criminal defendant of his constitutional right of confrontation on that basis.

We have decided to pursue a middle ground in order to accommodate the competing concerns of the state and the defendant. Taking as our point of departure the truth-enhancing goals of the confrontation clauses, we conclude that they should not be construed so strictly as to preclude the state, in particular circumstances, from establishing a compelling need to have a minor victim of tender years testify outside the physical presence of his or her alleged sexual assaulter. We cannot discount the possibility that such a witness might be intimidated, or for any number of reasons inhibited, by the presence of the accused. For example, a minor victim may refuse to testify or may distort his or her testimony because he or she has been threatened by the defendant or is overwhelmed by feelings of guilt. In such instances, affording the defendant the right of physical confrontation would undermine the purpose of confrontation, instead of advancing its truth-seeking *704goals. Compare State v. Melendez, 135 Ariz. 390, 393, 661 P.2d 654 (1982); Commonwealth v. Willis, supra, 230-31; State v. Sheppard, supra, 432.

We conclude that, in criminal prosecutions involving the alleged sexual abuse of children of tender years, the practice of videotaping the testimony of a minor victim outside the physical presence of the defendant is, in appropriate circumstances, constitutionally permissible. Our holding that appropriate circumstances may warrant a departure from strict compliance with confrontation requirements does not, however, signal a relaxation of the underlying evidentiary requirement that appropriate circumstances be proven to exist. We emphatically reject the proposal of the state that, in every case allegedly involving the sexual abuse of children, we should presume that the credibility of a minor victim’s testimony will be improved by excluding the defendant from the witness room during that witness’s testimony. There is no constitutional justification for automatically depriving all criminal defendants of the right of physical confrontation during the videotaping of a minor victim’s testimony. We instead mandate a case-by-case analysis, whereby a trial court must balance the individual defendant’s right of confrontation against the interest of the state in obtaining reliable testimony from the particular minor victim in question. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 609 and n.25.

Under the approach we adopt today, a trial court must determine, at an evidentiary hearing, whether the state has demonstrated a compelling need for excluding the defendant from the witness room during the videotaping of a minor victim’s testimony.9 In order to satisfy its burden of proving compelling need, the *705state must show that the minor victim would be so intimidated, or otherwise inhibited, by the physical presence of the defendant that the trustworthiness of the victim’s testimony would be seriously called into question. Furthermore, the state bears the burden of proving such compelling need by clear and convincing evidence. Cf. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (application of clear and convincing standard to questions of admissibility involving constitutional requirements going to the reliability of evidence); United States v. Thevis, supra, 631 (application of clear and convincing standard to determine whether defendant waived right of confrontation by reason of his own misconduct). Although the trial court may consider the well-being of the witness as a significant factor in its analysis, the state cannot prove need simply by demonstrating that the victim would suffer some harm if forced to testify in the presence of the accused. We reiterate that, in light of the constitutional right of confrontation at stake here, the primary focus of the trial court’s inquiry must be on the reliability of the minor victim’s testimony, not on the injury that the victim may suffer by testifying in the presence of the accused.10

The state maintains that, on the facts of this case, it proved a compelling need to exclude the defendant from the witness room during the videotaping of the minor victim’s testimony. At the hearing on its motion to videotape the minor victims, the state presented two clinical psychologists, both of whom are considered experts in the field of child sexual abuse. The first psychologist, Dr. Sidney Horowitz, never examined the *706children in question, but testified on the basis of his “experience with many children of similar ages.” He testified, in general, as to the need to videotape the testimony of child witnesses in sexual abuse cases, and to do so outside the physical presence of the accused, in order to minimize the trauma they may suffer. He offered no opinion, however, as to whether these particular children would suffer harm or whether the reliability of their testimony would be affected by the presence of the defendant in the witness room. The second expert called by the state, Dr. David Mantell, had interviewed each of the children individually. He testified that “videotaping the children’s testimony would be far superior to testifying in court.” Dr. Mantell further testified that “[w]ith respect to the children in question . . . for either of them to testify in person before the accused would be traumatizing” and that it would “be easier for the children to tell their version of the events ... if they are not facing their father . . . .”

We express no opinion as to whether the evidence presently on the record is sufficient to satisfy the state’s burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, a compelling need to videotape the testimony of the minor victim outside the physical presence of the defendant. It is not the role of this court to make such a factual determination. It is in the sole province of the trier of fact to evaluate expert testimony, to assess its credibility, and to assign it a proper weight. Johnson v. Fuller, 190 Conn. 552, 556, 461 A.2d 988 (1983); State v. Gordon, 185 Conn. 402, 409, 441 A.2d 119 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989, 102 S. Ct. 1612, 71 L. Ed. 2d 848 (1982); State v. Perez, 182 Conn. 603, 610, 438 A.2d 1149 (1981). In the present circumstances, the trial court must determine what of the expert testimony it should reject or accept. Gorra Realty, Inc. v. Jetmore, 200 Conn. 151, 161, 510 A.2d *707440 (1986). Since this is a case of first impression and since the governing standard is one that we have not previously articulated, the trial court is free to consider any additional evidence that the parties may want to present on the issue of compelling need.

In summary, we hold that, in criminal prosecutions involving the alleged sexual abuse of children of tender years, videotaping the testimony of a minor victim outside the physical presence of the defendant is a constitutionally permissible practice if, and only if, the state proves by clear and convincing evidence a compelling need to exclude the defendant from the witness room during the victim’s testimony. This holding rests not only on the mandates of the federal constitution, but also on independent and adequate state grounds. U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Conn. Const., art. I, § 8; see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1983).

As the dissent acknowledges, this court has, on other occasions, expressly relied on a provision of the state constitution as an independent and adequate state ground in support of a decision, even where the language of the state constitutional provision essentially paralleled the language of the relevant federal constitutional provision. State v. Simms, 201 Conn. 395, 405 n.8, 518 A.2d 35 (1986); State v. Burge, 195 Conn. 232, 246 n.15, 487 A.2d 532 (1985); State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 498-99 n.19, 479 A.2d 763, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990, 105 S. Ct. 397, 83 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1984); State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 45 n.12, 463 A.2d 573 (1983). These precedents are rooted in a view of federalism that has received widespread recognition. In Michigan v. Long, supra, 1040, the Supreme Court of the United States, noting its respect for the independence of state courts, urged us to indicate expressly when a state decision was based on an independent and adequate state constitutional ground. Such an *708approach, the court stated, would “provide state judges with a clearer opportunity to develop state jurisprudence unimpeded by federal interference. ‘It is fundamental that state courts be left free and unfettered by us in interpreting their state constitutions. . . . [Minnesota v.] National Tea Co., [309 U.S. 551, 557, 60 S. Ct. 676, 84 L. Ed. 920] (1940).’ ” Id., 1041. Scholarly and judicial commentators alike have recently reemphasized that state constitutions are an independent source of civil rights and liberties. See, e.g., Developments in State Constitutional Law (ed. by B.D. McGraw) (1985).

We therefore remand this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was a compelling need to videotape the testimony of the minor victim, T, outside the physical presence of the defendant. See State v. Gonzales, 186 Conn. 426, 435-36, 441 A.2d 852 (1982). If the court concludes that the state has not met its burden of proving such a need by clear and convincing evidence, the defendant is entitled to a new trial from which the videotaped testimony of T must be excluded. If the court concludes that the state has met its burden, the defendant’s conviction must stand, subject to any further appeal by the defendant to this court concerning the validity of the trial court’s ruling on this issue.

The case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

In this opinion Healey and Glass, Js., concurred.

Shea, J., with whom, Callahan, J.,

joins, dissenting. I agree with the majority that this case is largely governed by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982), which invalidated a Massachusetts statute mandating *709closure of the courtroom during the trial testimony of minor victims of sexual offenses as violative of the right of the press and the public to attend a criminal trial. Globe Newspaper Co. recognized, however, that the interest of the state in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor—is a compelling one.” Id., 607. “That interest could be served just as well by requiring the trial court to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the State’s legitimate concern for the well-being of the minor victim necessitates closure.” Id., 609. The determinative issue is “whether closure is necessary to protect the welfare of a minor victim. Among the factors to be weighed are the minor victim’s age, psychological maturity and understanding, the nature of the crime, the desires of the victim, and the interests of parents and relatives.” Id., 608.

The trial court in my judgment followed the criteria set forth in Globe Newspaper Co. in deciding that the defendant’s five year old daughter and four year old son should be permitted to testify on videotape outside the courtroom and without his visible presence. Although the videotaping order satisfied the procedures specified in General Statutes § 54-86g, which became effective on October 1, 1985, almost one month after completion of the trial, the court did not rely upon the general presumption of the statute that all sexual abuse victims less than thirteen years old are likely to be harmed if required to testify in a courtroom. The court heard the testimony of two clinical psychologists with expertise in child abuse cases concerning the “high probability that the child would be traumatized” if required to testify in the “threatening environment of the formal courtroom setting.” One of them had examined the children and had concluded that “for either of them to testify in person before the accused would be traumatizing.” The court expressly referred to this testimony in the memorandum granting the state’s *710motion for videotaping. Thus, the references in the majority opinion to the “generalization that sexually abused children invariably suffer traumatic injury by testifying in the presence of the press and the general public” and to “a per se rule” do not apply to the case before us.

The majority opinion does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the court to support the conclusion that the “psychological well-being” of the five year old child whose testimony was admitted at trial would be seriously harmed by the experience of testifying in a courtroom “eye-ball to eye-ball” with her father concerning the incidents when he abused her sexually. Nor is it maintained that the criteria for the “case-by-case” approach established by Globe Newspaper Co. were not satisfied. Instead, the opinion engrafts upon the Globe Newspaper Co. standard for balancing the likelihood of psychological harm to the child against the primacy of first amendment values a further requirement, that the state demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that “the minor victim would be so intimidated, or otherwise inhibited, by the physical presence of the defendant that the trustworthiness of the victim’s testimony would be seriously called into question.” (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, this unprecedented standard for determining whether the testimony of a child sexual abuse victim may be videotaped is made the “primary focus of the trial court’s inquiry,” thus relegating to secondary status the risk of psychological harm to the child, which Globe Newspaper Co. singles out as the relevant consideration where first amendment infringements are involved.

The majority opinion offers little useful guidance concerning the showing to be made in the trial court necessary to establish that the “trustworthiness” of a child victim’s testimony would be suspect unless videotaped. Presumably the determination is to be made ordinar*711ily in advance of the trial so that the proceeding will not be interrupted and sufficient time will be available to arrange for videotaping, if it is ordered. Without some actual experience where the child has been unable to testify adequately in a courtroom setting, however, it is not readly apparent that a “clear and convincing” demonstration complying with the majority’s novel standard can be made, assuming the usual conflict between the opinions of experts produced by the state and those of the defendant. As a practical matter, I fear that many child victims will be obliged to testify without the benefit of the safeguards designed by § 54-86g to mollify the impact of the experience of reliving the crime itself that their testimony entails and thus to protect their mental health. However serious the risk of harm to the child, under the majority view, unless the reliability of the testimony would be substantially impaired by testifying before the defendant in the normal courtroom setting, the measures intended by the legislature to lessen the psychological impact of the testimonial experience upon the child cannot be utilized.

I am not convinced that this result is required by the right of confrontation guaranteed to a defendant by the sixth amendment to our federal constitution. No impairment of the defendant’s right to cross-examine can be found in the procedures used by the court to videotape the testimony of the victim in this case. I disagree with the majority that “the right of physical confrontation is an equally fundamental component” of this sixth amendment right and that physical confrontation “enhances” the truth-seeking process where the witness is a child sexual abuse victim and the defendant is a family member, as in this case. In such instances, “eye-ball to eye-ball” presence of the defendant is likely to result not only in the traumatization of the child but also in the repression or distortion of his testimony. The legislative judgment embodied in § 54-86g, author*712izing videotaping in such cases, reflects a more realistic view of human nature than that of the majority.

We shall never know whether the majority's reliance in this case upon the federal constitution is well founded or otherwise, because the majority opinion has precluded a more authoritative determination of that question by exercising the option given to state courts for avoiding review of their decisions by the United States Supreme Court in accordance with Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041, 105 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1983). The express reliance upon the parallel right of confrontation contained in our state constitution as an independent ground for the decision apparently insulates from further review the conclusion of the majority that the federal right demands a “trustworthiness" determination as a prerequisite to videotaping a child sexual abuse victim’s testimony.

Although I have blinked at the practice in the past, I believe that it ill serves the development of the law in this country thus to remove decisions of state courts upon federal constitutional provisions from the scrutiny of our highest court. Where a state court rests its decision upon the federal constitution as an alternative to a state constitutional ground, that declaration of federal law should be subject to challenge in order to clarify whether a state constitutional amendment alone would be effective. Where there is no substantial textual difference between the federal and state constitutional provision, as is true of our parallel right of confrontation clauses, it would be far more appropriate, in the absence of applicable state precedent, to reserve consideration of the state constitutional provision until after a definitive resolution of the federal issues has been obtained. See State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673, 674-75 (S.D. 1976). The determination can then be made, if our assumptions regarding the federal counterpart prove incorrect, of whether we should adopt *713a different interpretation of the similar state constitutional provision. By prematurely resorting to our state constitution as an independent ground we create an unnecessary ambiguity and also deprive ourselves of the light that further review of our decision would shed upon the federal precedent we have largely relied upon in reaching our conclusions in respect to both the federal and state constitutional grounds advanced in support thereof.

The majority perceive in our state constitutional provision a greater emphasis upon the necessity of the visible presence of the defendant during the testimony of a witness than the federal constitutional right of confrontation may warrant. We have previously read these parallel provisions to afford the same protection to a criminal defendant. Although there is no significant textual difference between them, this court unquestionably has the power to construe article first, § 8, of our state constitution to provide greater protection to a defendant than required by the sixth amendment to the federal constitution. For the reasons given, however, I would defer the resolution of that issue until a more authoritative determination of the scope of federal protection can be obtained than this court can furnish. Nevertheless, since the majority has chosen to eschew the edification upon the federal issue that our highest court might provide, I am constrained to express my present view that our state constitutional right of confrontation does not require, any more than its federal counterpart, that the state’s interest in protecting children from pyschological harm be relegated to the status of a secondary consideration in deciding whether videotaping without the visible presence of a defendant is appropriate. That interest, where the court properly finds that a child sexual assault victim is likely to be seriously harmed by testifying before the defendant in a courtroom, is sufficient to outweigh the defend*714ant’s traditional right to be present in person during the testimony of a witness so long as his right of cross-examination remains unhampered, as the procedures followed by the trial court in this case have ensured.

Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment.

Berdon, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether, in order to prove a claim that he has been deprived of due process of law under the state constitution, a criminal defendant must prove that the police acted in bad faith in failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence.

The defendant, Roberto Morales, was convicted after a court trial of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (l),1 robbery in *709the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (3)2 and threatening in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 (a) (1).3 The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. Morales, 33 Conn. App. 184, 634 A.2d 1193 (1993). We granted the defendant’s petition for certification. State v. Morales, 228 Conn. 928, 640 A.2d 116 (1994).4 We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to the Appellate Court for further proceedings.

The following facts were elicited at trial.5 On December 30, 1990, the victim was at the Pembroke Grill on *710Pembroke Street in Bridgeport. She left the grill at approximately 11:45 p.m., walked down Pembroke Street and turned left onto East Main Street. While on East Main Street, she heard someone following her. She stopped at a phone booth and was approached by a man who tried to initiate a conversation with her. While the man spoke with a third person, however, the victim walked away and turned down Seymour Street.

On Seymour Street, the victim saw the same man following her, so she turned down Kossuth Street. As she reached a highway underpass, however, the man accosted her, grabbing her and punching her in the mouth. He then pulled a knife from his coat, placed it at her neck and pushed her down on her knees, telling her not to move or say anything. He also told her that if she did not keep her head down, he would kill her.

The man told the victim to unbutton and unzip her pants. He then removed her pants and underwear, moved behind her and held her around the neck. From that position, he penetrated her, ejaculating in her anus. He withdrew his penis and wiped it on the victim’s leather jacket, leaving ejaculate “all over” the jacket. He then pulled off her necklaces and bracelet and fled.

After the assault, the victim went immediately to Bridgeport police headquarters, where she signed a statement narrating what had happened. The police then took her to Park City Hospital. At the hospital she repeated to the treating physician what she had told the police, i.e., that her assailant had sodomized her and that he subsequently had wiped his penis on her jacket. She told a nurse, however, that her assailant had sodomized her and also had raped her vaginally. The physician conducted several tests, including taking a swab and smear of the victim’s anus and anal area, as well as her vagina. The police seized the victim’s jacket as evidence.

*711Laboratory tests revealed the presence of partial spermatozoa on the anal swab and the presence of intact spermatozoa on the anal smear. Tests also revealed the presence of sperm on the vaginal swab. In accordance with established procedures, laboratory personnel did not attempt to conduct blood grouping tests on the anal swab or anal smear.6 Blood grouping tests conducted on the vaginal swab, however, revealed an antigenic substance that could only have been deposited by a person with type A blood. The victim, who was type 0, could not have been the source of that antigenic substance.

Sometime early in 1991, the victim, who did not have another winter jacket, sought to have the police return the jacket they had seized. The police, after repeated requests from the victim, finally returned her jacket on February 13, 1991, some six weeks after she had been attacked.

Three and one-half weeks after the police had returned the jacket, on March 11, 1991, the victim was a passenger on a bus in Bridgeport and saw the defendant standing on the corner of Stratford Avenue and East Main Street. She stayed on the bus for a few stops, then disembarked and called the police. The police transported the victim back to the corner of Stratford and East Main, where she identified the defendant as her assailant and the police arrested him. Tests subsequently conducted on the defendant revealed that his blood was type 0, and that he could not have deposited the foreign antigenic substance found in the victim’s vagina.

Prior to trial, the court granted the defendant’s timely motion for general discovery and inspection, which required the police to produce exculpatory infor*712mation, materials and tangible objects. The defendant’s counsel conceded that both he and prior defense counsel knew then of the existence of potential semen stains, but failed to ask specifically that the police produce the jacket.7

At trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges against him because the police had failed to preserve the victim’s jacket as evidence. The defendant did not argue that the police, in returning the jacket to the victim, had acted in bad faith or that they had any motive for doing so other than accommodating the victim. Rather, the defendant argued that the fact that the jacket was unavailable had irreparably harmed his ability to defend himself in two ways. First, he argued that the defense could have conducted tests on the jacket to determine if semen was present. If tests showed no semen on the jacket, the defense could have used that result to attack the credibility of the victim. Second, if the tests showed that semen was, in fact, present on the jacket, the defense could have evaluated any *713DNA8 contained in the semen to prove that the defendant had not been the assailant. See generally State v. Hammond, 221 Conn. 264, 280-86, 604 A.2d 793 (1992). The trial court, however, denied the defendant’s motion.

In the defendant’s appeal from the judgment of the trial court, he argued to the Appellate Court that the failure of the Bridgeport police to preserve the victim’s jacket had violated his right to due process of law under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. The Appellate Court, however, determined that the standard adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1988), reh. denied, 488 U.S. 1051, 109 S. Ct. 885, 102 L. Ed. 2d 1007 (1989), under the federal due process clause also was the proper standard under the state constitution’s due process clause. In Youngblood, the Supreme Court concluded that a criminal defendant must prove that the police acted in bad faith in failing to preserve potentially useful evidence. Id., 58. The Appellate Court, noting that the defendant in this case had failed to show bad faith on the part of the police, concluded that his right to due process of law provided by article first, § 8, of our state constitution, similarly had not been violated.

We now consider (1) what degree of protection the due process clause of our state constitution offers to criminal defendants when the police fail to preserve potentially useful evidence, and (2) what remedy should follow if the defendant has established that a failure to preserve such evidence has violated his state constitutional rights.

*714I

We begin our analysis of the defendant’s claim by setting forth the relevant legal background of “what might loosely be called the area of constitutionally guaranteed access to evidence.” United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867, 102 S. Ct. 3440, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1193 (1982). Under the federal constitution, the state’s failure to provide evidence within its control to a criminal defendant may violate the defendant’s right to due process of law in two types of situations.

The first situation concerns the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the police from the accused. The United States Supreme Court has held “that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the [government].” Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963); State v. Walker, 214 Conn. 122, 126, 571 A.2d 686 (1990); State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 495, 479 A.2d 763, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990, 105 S. Ct. 397, 83 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1984); see State v. Milner, 206 Conn. 512, 539-40, 539 A.2d 80 (1988). This type of violation of the defendant’s due process rights is commonly referred to as a “Brady violation.”

The second situation, and the one at issue in this case, concerns the failure of the police to preserve evidence that might be useful to the accused. The United States Supreme Court discussed this situation in Arizona v. Youngblood, supra, 488 U.S. 51, a case in which the facts are remarkably similar to those in this case. In Youngblood, the child victim had been sodomized and the state had failed properly to preserve the child’s clothing, which was stained with semen, and a swab *715taken of the victim’s rectum after the assault. The defendant claimed that, had the state properly preserved this evidence, test results might have completely exonerated him. The United States Supreme Court, however, held under the federal constitution that a criminal defendant carries a heavy burden in seeking to overturn a conviction based on the failure of the police to preserve evidence: “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in Brady, makes the good or bad faith of the State irrelevant when the State fails to disclose to the defendant material exculpatory evidence. But we think the Due Process Clause requires a different result when we deal with the failure of the State to preserve evidentiary material of which no more can be said than that it could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have exonerated the defendant. . . . [UJnless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” Id., 57-58; see also California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 81 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1984).

The defendant in this case, accordingly, does not claim that the state’s failure to preserve the jacket of the victim constituted a violation of his rights under the federal constitution. Rather, raising an issue of first impression for this court,9 he claims that, under the Connecticut constitution, a criminal defendant need not show that the police acted in bad faith in failing to pre*716serve potentially useful evidence. Because the defendant has raised this issue in a principled manner, furnishing us with a detailed analysis under a format that we have urged in raising state constitutional issues; see State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 684-86, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992);10 we review his claim.

It is beyond debate that “federal constitutional and statutory law establishes a minimum national standard for the exercise of individual rights and does not inhibit state governments from affording higher levels of protection for such rights.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529, 546, 594 A.2d 917 (1991). In State v. Marsala, 216 Conn. 150, 579 A.2d 58 (1990), in which this court rejected the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule that the United States Supreme Court had adopted in United, States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984), we stated: “We have frequently relied upon decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the fourth amendment, as well as other amendments to the United States constitution, to define the contours of the protections provided in the various sections of the declaration of rights contained in our state constitution. We have also, however, determined in some instances that the pro*717tections afforded to the citizens of this state by our own constitution go beyond those provided by the federal constitution, as that document has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 112, 547 A.2d 10 (1988); State v. Stoddard, 206 Conn. 157, 166, 537 A.2d 446 (1988); State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn. 219, 235-36, 496 A.2d 498 (1985). In so doing, we have recognized that [i]n the area of fundamental civil liberties—which includes all protections of the declaration of rights contained in article first of the Connecticut constitution—we sit as a court of last resort, subject only to the qualification that our interpretations may not restrict the guarantees accorded the national citizenry under the federal charter. In such constitutional adjudication, our first referent is Connecticut law and the full panoply of rights Connecticut residents have come to expect as their due. Accordingly, decisions of the United States Supreme Court defining fundamental rights are persuasive authority to be afforded respectful consideration, but they are to be followed by Connecticut courts only when they provide no less individual protection than is guaranteed by Connecticut law. Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 641-42, 376 A.2d 359 (1977).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsala, supra, 159-60.

Indeed, we have long abandoned the notion that our state due process clause; article first, § 8;11 has the same meaning and imposes the same limitations as its federal counterpart.12 Rather, we have held that “[t]he due process clause of the Connecticut constitution shares but is not limited by the content of its federal *718counterpart. Roundhouse Construction Corporation v. Telesco Masons Supplies Co., 168 Conn. 371, 374, 362 A.2d 778 [vacated, 423 U.S. 809, 96 S. Ct. 20, 46 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1975), on remand, 170 Conn. 155, 365 A.2d 393, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 889, 97 S. Ct. 246, 50 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1976)].” Fasulo v. Arafeh, 173 Conn. 473, 475, 378 A.2d 553 (1977); see also E. Peters, “State Constitutional Law: Federalism in the Common Law Tradition,” 84 Mich. L. Rev. 583, 588 (1986) (“[s]tate courts . . . must be empowered to determine, in light of state interests and state history, what meaning to attribute to provisions contained in state constitutions”). The question then becomes, what degree of protection, independent of the federal constitutional right, does our state constitutional right to due process provide in a case such as this?

A criminal defendant’s right to present evidence and bring facts to light in order to prove his innocence has been historically recognized in Connecticut.13 Chief Justice Zephaniah Swift, a prominent scholar as well as a jurist, wrote the first American treatise on the law in 1796. See 2 Z. Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (1796). He pointed out that many years earlier in England, and in the early days of the *719Connecticut colony, an accused was denied the opportunity even to question evidence presented as “facts” by the prosecution. According to Swift, “by the common law of England, no witnesses could be adduced on the part of the prisoner, to manifest his innocence, for he could then make no preparation for his defence.” Id., p. 399. The courts, he wrote, guided by “cruel and illiberal principle[s] of the common law of England,” would prevent counsel for an accused from investigating facts or examining witnesses. Id., p. 398. Instead, the court would allow the attorney only to plead points of law. Id. By the time Swift wrote in 1796, however, the Connecticut legislature and courts had long abandoned “the impropriety and injustice of shackling and restricting a prisoner with respect to his defence.” Id., p. 399. Recognizing that it “is manifest that there is as much necessity for counsel to investigate matters of fact, as points of law, if truth is to be discovered,” Swift explained that prisoners were allowed not only to present evidence in their own defense, but also to call into question those “facts” presented by the prosecution. Id.

Prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Youngblood, we consistently had applied a balancing test in determining whether the failure of the police to preserve potentially useful evidence had deprived a criminal defendant of due process of law under either the federal or state constitution. Relying on decisions of federal courts interpreting the federal constitution’s due process clause,14 we had required a trial court, in determining whether the defendant had been deprived of his rights under either the federal or state constitutions, to weigh several factors. These factors included “the materiality of the missing evidence, *720the likelihood of mistaken interpretation of it by witnesses or the jury, the reason for its nonavailability to the defense and the prejudice to the defendant caused by the unavailability of the evidence.” State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695, 724, 478 A.2d 227 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1050, 105 S. Ct. 1749, 84 L. Ed. 2d 814 (1985) (federal due process clause); State v. Harden, 175 Conn. 315, 327, 398 A.2d 1169 (1978) (federal and state due process clauses);15 see State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 565, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986); see also State v. Baldwin, supra, 224 Conn. 365; State v. Marra, 222 Conn. 506, 516, 610 A.2d 1113 (1992); State v. Boucino, 199 Conn. 207, 229, 506 A.2d 125 (1986). We refer to this test as the Asherman test. Although the United States Supreme Court in Youngblood held that due process under the federal constitution does not require a trial court to apply such a balancing test, we are persuaded that due process under our state constitution does.

Indeed, we frequently have rejected a litmus test that consists of only one factor, and instead have required courts to employ a balancing test, when ruling on issues that concern due process or fundamental fairness. In Gaines v. Manson, 194 Conn. 510, 521, 481 A.2d 1084 (1984), for example, we held that a court must employ a balancing test in determining whether the state’s failure to provide a criminal defendant with timely access to appellate review had violated his state constitutional right to due process. “That test requires a consideration of four factors: [ljength of delay, the reason for *721the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.16

Similarly, we have employed a balancing test in determining the scope of due process to be afforded an individual before the government may deprive him or her of liberty or property interests. Borrowing from the federal constitutional standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976), we have held that due process under the Connecticut constitution requires us to “consider three factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 218 Conn. 646, 662, 591 A.2d 101 (1991) (article first, § 10); State v. Lamme, 216 Conn. 172, 178, 579 A.2d 484 (1990) (article first, § 9); Kinsella v. Jaekle, 192 Conn. 704, 730, 475 A.2d 243 (1984) (article first, §§ 8, 9, 10); see Chmielewski v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra, 656 n.12, 661 n.17.17

*722In deciding Youngblood, however, the United States Supreme Court discounted the value of a balancing test in cases of unpreserved evidence, indicating instead that a litmus test of bad faith more accurately reflects the concerns of due process. The court advanced two principal arguments for its position: (1) in cases of unpreserved evidence, “courts face the treacherous task of divining the import of materials whose contents are unknown and, very often, disputed”; Arizona v. Youngblood, supra, 488 U.S. 57-58; and (2) a test that did not require the defendant to show bad faith might impose “on the police an undifferentiated and absolute duty to retain and to preserve all material that might be of conceivable evidentiary significance.” Id., 58.

The Asherman balancing test, however, accommodates and addresses both of these concerns. It is true that if evidence has not been preserved, a court may not be able to ascertain with scientific precision what that evidence would have revealed at trial. Such certainty, however, is rarely required. Instead, an explanation or description of the type of evidence that is missing and what that evidence may have shown will allow the court to determine its relative importance to the defendant. The Asherman factors, which include balancing the materiality of the missing evidence, the likelihood of mistaken interpretation of it by witnesses or the jury, the reason for its nonavailability to the *723defense and the prejudice to the defendant caused by its unavailability, allow the court to perform this task while preserving the defendant’s right to due process.

Moreover, the Asherman test does not require the police to preserve every shred of physical evidence, every object it seizes from a crime scene, no matter how remote or tangential to the case the item seems to be. The trial court should include on its Asherman scale the reason for the unavailability of an item of evidence, as well as the motivation and good or bad faith of the police in failing to preserve that evidence. For example, if the police have discarded or failed to preserve an item of evidence which at the time appeared to be completely irrelevant to the case but which later proved to be important to the defendant, the good faith of the police at the time of the evidence’s destruction is one of the factors the trial court may consider in determining whether the defendant’s due process rights have been violated.

Fairness dictates that when a person’s liberty is at stake,18 the sole fact of whether the police or another state official acted in good or bad faith in failing to preserve evidence cannot be determinative of whether the criminal defendant has received due process of law. Rather, our constitution imposes certain obligations on the state to ensure that the criminal trial is “a search for truth, not an adversary game.” United States v. Perry, 471 F.2d 1057, 1063 (D.C. Cir. 1972); State v. Wright, 87 Wash. 2d 783, 786, 557 P.2d 1 (1976). As Justice Stevens pointed out in his concurring opinion *724in Youngblood, “there may well be cases in which the defendant is unable to prove that the State acted in bad faith but in which the loss or destruction of evidence is nonetheless so critical to the defense as to make a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.” Arizona v. Youngblood, supra, 488 U.S. 61; see note, “The Role of Police Culpability in Leon and Youngblood,” 76 Va. L. Rev. 1213, 1223 n.59 (1990) (“Of course, there is the additional difficulty of proving that the police knew the evidence to be exculpatory. New officers will be willing to admit they destroyed evidence they knew to be exculpatory.”).19 Furthermore, as the United States Supreme Court observed in Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. 87, a court that truly seeks justice ought not to be concerned about the punishment of society for the misdeed of its agents and employees, but rather the “avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused. Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.”

*725Sister states have rejected Youngblood’s “bad faith” test as the sole criteria for determining whether the state has violated the defendant’s due process rights by failing to preserve evidence.20 In Massachusetts, for example, the Supreme Judicial Court has declared that “[t]he rule under the due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution is stricter than that stated in the Youngblood opinion”; Commonwealth v. Henderson, 411 Mass. 309,311, 582 N.E.2d 496 (1991); and requires a trial court to “consider and balance the degree of culpability of the government, the materiality of the evidence, and the potential prejudice to the defendant in order to protect the defendant’s constitutional due process right to a fair trial.” Id., 310.

In Vermont, the Supreme Court has held that the Youngblood rule is “too narrow because it limits due process violations to only those cases in which a defendant can demonstrate bad faith, even though the negligent loss of evidence may critically prejudice a defendant.” State v. Delisle, 162 Vt. 293, 310, 648 A.2d 632 (1994). Instead, the court has adopted, under the Vermont constitution, a balancing test that requires the trial court to conduct a “pragmatic balancing of three factors: (1) the degree of negligence or bad faith on the part of the government; (2) the importance of the evidence lost; and (3) other evidence of guilt adduced at trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

In Delaware, the Supreme Court has stated that “[w]e remain convinced that fundamental fairness, as an element of due process, requires the State’s failure to preserve evidence that could be favorable to the defendant [to] be evaluated in the context of the entire *726record. . . . When evidence has not been preserved, the conduct of the State’s agents is a relevant consideration, but it is not determinative.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del. 1989).

In Alabama, the Supreme Court refused to apply the Youngblood bad faith test to a case in which the state, during scientific testing of hazardous waste materials, had destroyed all the samples. Ex Parte Gingo, 605 So. 2d 1237 (Ala. 1992). The court concluded that, although the state did not act in bad faith, “it would be fundamentally unfair to allow the State to use the results of the . . . tests on the destroyed samples.” Id., 1241.

Other states recently departing from the Youngblood approach include Hawaii; State v. Matafeo, 71 Haw. 183, 187, 787 P.2d 671 (1990) (trial court must inquire not only into bad faith of police, but also “into the favorableness of the evidence or the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of its loss”); and Alaska; Thorne v. Dept. of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1330 n.9 (Alaska 1989) (“[w]e have construed the Alaska Constitution’s Due Process Clause to not require a showing of bad faith”).

Like our sister states, we conclude that the good or bad faith of the police in failing to preserve potentially useful evidence cannot be dispositive of whether a criminal defendant has been deprived of due process of law. Accordingly, we, too, reject the litmus test of bad faith on the part of the police, which the United States Supreme Court adopted under the federal constitution in Youngblood.21 Rather, in determining *727whether a defendant has been afforded due process of law under the state constitution, the trial court must employ the Asherman balancing test, weighing the reasons for the unavailability of the evidence against the degree of prejudice to the accused. More specifically, the trial court must balance the totality of the circumstances surrounding the missing evidence, including the following factors: “the materiality of the missing evidence, the likelihood of mistaken interpretation of it by witnesses or the jury, the reason for its nonavailability to the defense and the prejudice to the defendant caused by the unavailability of the evidence.” State v. Asherman, supra, 193 Conn. 724.22

In a case such as this, where the crucial issue for which the evidence would have been offered was the identity of the assailant, the court must weigh the factors in that light. If, for example, the evidence could have been tested to demonstrate immutable characteristics of the assailant,23 then the prejudice factor would weigh heavily in favor of the defendant. On the other hand, if the evidence would have been merely cumulative or would have failed to rebut evidence that was already available, the defendant may have suffered little prejudice, and his right to due process of law under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution may not have been violated.

*728II

Our inquiry, however, does not end here. We still must determine whether, in a case in which the failure of the police to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence violates the defendant’s due process rights, the trial court’s only remedy is to dismiss the charges against the defendant.

It is true that a defendant may raise the issue of the failure of the police to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence by filing a motion to dismiss.24 Indeed, the defendant in this case challenged the actions of the Bridgeport police by filing just such a motion. Neverthe*729less, if the trial court concludes that a defendant’s due process rights have been violated, the court is not required to dismiss the charges, even if the state’s failure to preserve evidence has adversely affected the defendant’s right to a fair trial. State v. Belle, 215 Conn. 257, 269-71, 576 A.2d 139 (1990); see Gaines v. Manson, supra, 194 Conn. 518. The trial court is not faced with the Hobson’s choice of either dismissing all criminal charges or denying any relief whatsoever to a criminal defendant who possibly has been prejudiced as a result of the negligence of the state. See Dowd v. Cook, 340 U.S. 206, 209-10, 71 S. Ct. 262, 95 L. Ed. 215 (1951).

Rather, the trial court may fashion another remedy that appropriately ameliorates or offsets the prejudice that the defendant has suffered as a result of the unavailability of the evidence. See Gaines v. Manson, supra, 194 Conn. 517-18 (“[pjroof of unconstitutional impairment of the right to appeal empowers a court to fashion an order conditionally discharging the petitioner or otherwise fashioning the appropriate relief, short of immediate release, to which the petitioner may be entitled”). In some extreme cases, the trial court may have no choice but to dismiss the charges against the defendant. In another case, however, the appropriate remedy may differ, depending on the circumstances and the degree and type of prejudice to the accused.

Put simply, a trial court must decide each case depending on its own facts, assess the materiality of the unpreserved evidence and the degree of prejudice to the accused, and formulate a remedy that vindicates his or her rights. State v. Vaster, 99 Wash. 2d 44, 52, 659 P.2d 528 (1983). The ultimate question for the trial court in such a case is: What remedy best serves the interests of justice? See State v. Fain, 116 Idaho 82, *73096-97, 774 P.2d 252, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 917, 110 S. Ct. 277, 107 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1989); Commonwealth v. Henderson, supra, 411 Mass. 310.25

III

In this case, the record is clear that the trial court, in deciding the defendant’s motion to dismiss, attempted to apply a balancing test quite similar to the one we have defined today. In his appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant argued that, although the trial court had applied a balancing test, it had not applied that test correctly. Because the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court should have applied the Youngblood test, and not a balancing test, the Appellate Court never reached the merits of the defendant’s argument. We therefore must remand this case to the Appellate Court for further proceedings.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Appellate Court with direction to reconsider the defendant’s claim regarding the state’s loss of evidence.

In this opinion Peters, C. J., and Callahan and Katz, Js., concurred.

Borden, J.,

concurring. I agree with the conclusion of the majority opinion, and with much of its reasoning. More specifically, I agree that the bad faith of the police, in failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence, is not the sole determinant as to whether the defendant’s right to due process of law under article *731first, § 8, of our state constitution has been violated by that failure. Thus, for the reasons aptly stated by the majority, I agree with the majority’s rejection of the federal constitutional bad faith test, as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1988), reh. denied, 488 U.S. 1051, 109 S. Ct. 885, 102 L. Ed. 2d 1007 (1989), and with the adoption of the balancing test under the state constitution, as articulated by the majority. I write separately, however, to elaborate further some aspects of the majority opinion. Also, with respect to part II of the majority opinion, I think that the discussion of the possible remedies once a due process violation is found to have occurred in a specific case requires more than the majority provides.

I

I believe that the majority’s statement of the relevant facts is unduly truncated. Because the balancing test we adopt requires an assessment of the strength or weakness of the state’s and the defendant’s cases, the majority opinion should disclose all of the evidence on the basis of which that assessment should be made. In addition to those facts stated by the majority, I therefore add the following.

The only evidence linking the defendant to the crimes charged was the testimony of the victim identifying him as her assailant. According to that testimony, she had several opportunities to view the defendant. The first was at the phone booth, where he first approached and conversed with her. The second was as she was walking on the street and he was following her; she looked at him face to face as he was “across the street” from her while she walked in the middle of the road. The third was when, according to her testimony, he punched her in the mouth before sexually assaulting her. The *732fourth was shortly after the attack, while she was in a car being driven by her girlfriend’s husband, who had been passing by and picked her up and drove her to the police station. The fifth was some time after the assault, when, according to her testimony, she was riding on a bus and saw the defendant on the sidewalk; the victim was with her boyfriend, but told him not to accost the defendant, to “just leave it alone.” The sixth was at the time of the defendant’s arrest, when she saw the defendant on the corner of Stratford Avenue and East Main Street, as described by the majority.

The victim positively identified the defendant in the courtroom as her assailant. Furthermore, in her written statement to the police on the day after the assault, she described the defendant as follows: “He was P/R [Puerto Rican] male about 30 or 31 years old about 5 [feet] 7 [inches] tall [medium] build, he had brown eyes and brown hair. His hair was curly and short to his head. He was top heavy and had skinny legs. He had a mustache that came below his top lip. He had short stubby hands and his nails were all black like he was a mechanic, his finger nails were all covered with grease. He had a wedding band on his left hand that was diamond cut and it had three stars in it. His front teeth were straight but he had like a fang in the middle of the front teeth.” (Emphasis added.) Her testimony was consistent with this description. She described the defendant’s tooth as “like a fang. It was like it came in the middle of his mouth, straight down in the middle of his two front teeth.” A photograph of the defendant, taken on March 8, 1991, is consistent with this description, particularly indicating a mustache that falls below the outer edges of the defendant’s lips, and a distinctively pointed tooth in the center between his two top teeth. The victim identified this photograph *733as indicating what she meant by her description of the defendant’s front tooth.1

On the other side of the ledger, the victim’s credibility was not unassailable. She had been convicted of failure to appear in the first degree, larceny in the second degree, larceny in the first degree and larceny in an unspecified degree. Furthermore, before encountering the defendant, she had been drinking in a bar for approximately three and one-half hours, and had consumed five or more drinks consisting of “forty-three liquor and milk.” Although she denied being drunk, she admitted that she was “feeling good.”

There were, moreover, some inconsistencies in her testimony. Although she testified that she had never seen the defendant before, she told the police in her statement that, when he had approached her at the phone booth he had told her his name, that he knew her father, and that he knew that her father had been shot, which was in fact true. Also, although she testified that the defendant had punched her in the mouth, causing “bad” bleeding, the hospital report did not confirm that injury. Furthermore, although she testified that the defendant had penetrated her anally, and not vaginally, and had described the assault that way to both the police and the examining physician, the nurse’s notes also indicated her having reported a vaginal penetration.2

*734Ultimately, the trial court, having heard all of the evidence, believed the victim’s identification of the defendant. In finding that the state had proven “beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the defendant was responsible for the attack,” the court stated: “Her description was a very accurate and detailed one. There was plenty of opportunity, both outside the restaurant, at the phone booth and subsequently, for her to have seen this individual. The court heard her testimony, watched her as she identified the defendant very, very quickly and very adamantly as the person that was responsible.”

II

In footnote 7 of the majority opinion, the court correctly rejects the state’s argument that the defendant’s failure to seek inspection of the victim’s jacket reflected a total pretrial indifference by the defendant to the possible inspection and testing of any stains on the jacket. As it stands, however, the footnote ignores a valid consideration on the other side of the equation that ought to be mentioned, a factor that the trial court in fact did take into consideration in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The police returned the jacket to the victim on February 13, 1991, approximately one month before the defendant was arrested on March 11, 1991. A public defender was appointed to represent the defendant at his arraignment on that day.3 The defendant, however, did not take any procedural step specifically regarding the jacket until he moved to dismiss the state’s case at the end of the state’s presentation of evidence at trial on April 27, 1992, more than one year later.

*735Thus, although the state is properly faulted for returning the jacket to the victim, the defendant is not entirely without fault. It is at least possible that, had the defendant asked for the return of the jacket for testing as early as March, 1991, when the defendant was arrested and counsel was appointed to represent him, or, at the latest, in February, 1992, when his special public defender was appointed, the jacket could then have been retrieved from the victim. If the jacket had not been cleaned or otherwise irreparably contaminated, at that time it could have been tested for the presence of semen and for any forensic evidence that any semen would have yielded. My point is that, although certainly the greater fault is attributable to the state for the unavailability of the jacket, some fault may be attributable to the defendant.

Ill

In analyzing the issue before the court under the state constitution, the majority opinion cites and quotes from Chief Justice Zephaniah Swift, presumably as support for the “historical approach” that we have identified as a tool of analysis for interpreting our state constitution. See footnote 13 of the majority opinion; State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 685, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992). I agree that the historical approach is one of the applicable tools of analysis for such questions of interpretation, when that history sheds light on the constitutional question involved. I also agree that Chief Justice Swift’s writing can at times be a useful source for that inquiry. I decline to join the part of the majority opinion referring to Swift in this case, however, because the particular passage from Swift has nothing to do with the question of state constitutional law that this case poses.

In the passage that the majority quotes, Swift pointed out that Connecticut had wisely expanded counsel’s role *736from arguing points of law to include the investigation and presentation of facts. That is an important historical point with respect to the history of the right to counsel in this state, but I fail to see how that expansion of counsel’s role sheds any historical light on the question before us in this case, namely, the contours of the state’s obligation to preserve important evidence. It is true that both the expanded right to counsel and the preservation of evidence—by anyone, the state, the defendant, or a third party—aid in the search for truth. The same is true, however, for the rules of evidence, the right to cross-examine, the right to argue to the jury, and most other trial procedures. The fact that both the right to counsel and the obligation to preserve evidence serve the same general end does not mean that we can draw any useful historical lesson in this case from the writings of Chief Justice Swift.

IV

I decline to join the majority’s overly broad statement that “as the United States Supreme Court observed in Brady v. Maryland, [373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)], a court that truly seeks justice ought not to be concerned about the punishment of society for the misdeed of its agents and employees, but rather the ‘avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused. Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.’ ” (Emphasis added.) I fully agree with the propositions that courts must ensure that an accused is given a fair trial, that society wins when criminal trials are fair, regardless of their outcomes, and that justice suffers when an accused is treated unfairly. I am not quite sure, however, what it means to say that “a court that truly seeks justice ought not to be concerned about the punishment of society” for its agents’ *737misdeeds. It seems to me to be a rhetorical flourish that is open to many interpretations, from the benign to the mischievous.

Furthermore, whatever it means, it is not what the United States Supreme Court “observed” in Brady. The court was discussing its holding that suppression of material exculpatory evidence that the defendant had sought to discover violated his due process rights. The court had drawn this holding from its earlier decision in Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791 (1935), and the progeny of that decision. In Mooney, the court reversed a conviction that had been based on knowingly perjured testimony, and in Brady the court was analogizing those cases to its holding regarding the suppression of exculpatory evidence, regardless of the good faith of the prosecution. The court then stated: “The principle of Mooney v. Holohan [supra] is not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused. Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.” Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. 87.1 agree fully with this principle, but I disagree that it means what it is characterized to say in the majority opinion.

Finally, those statements in Brady were made in a different factual and legal context from this case. The Brady situation involves the suppression of exculpatory evidence. In that situation, we know that: (1) the evidence was suppressed—the state had it, and did not make it available to the defendant despite his request therefor; and (2) the evidence was in fact exculpatory, and the state knew it. In this case, by contrast: (1) the evidence was not suppressed, but was negligently given back to the victim by the state, and thus was just as *738unavailable to the state as it was to the defendant; (2) the nature of the state’s conduct, in the sense of whether it was done in good or bad faith, in losing the evidence is a factor to be weighed; and (3) we do not know, and can never know, whether the evidence was exculpatory or inculpatory—whether tests of the semen stains on the jacket would have exculpated or inculpated the defendant. Thus, we have no way of knowing whether the return of the jacket to the victim hurt the defendant or the state. I therefore think that the majority’s rhetorical flourish, which mischaracterizes the Brady court’s “observation,” is inappropriate, and I decline to join it.

V

My final remarks concern part II of the majority opinion, which is devoted to the remedies available to the trial court upon a conclusion that the state’s failure to preserve evidence amounted to a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. I think that some of the majority’s discussion warrants further elaboration.

A

I agree with the majority opinion that a trial court, having determined on a motion to dismiss or a motion to suppress that the state’s failure to preserve evidence violated the defendant’s due process rights, is not limited to the specific remedy sought by the defendant. I think, however, that the proposition is too broadly stated by the majority, because it implies that, even absent some suggestion by the defendant, the trial court has a sua sponte obligation to consider a remedy other than that sought by the defendant. I agree that, if a trial court does think of a different remedy than that sought by the defendant, it certainly has the power to impose it. I am loathe to imply, however, that a trial court, faced with a specific remedy sought in a specific motion, cannot also simply take the motion as presented *739and either grant or deny it. This point is particularly significant in this case because, when the defendant moved to dismiss after the state’s presentation of all of its evidence he asked only for dismissal, and did not ask for any other, less extreme sanction. He had not moved to suppress any evidence based on the loss of the jacket, and he did not request the court to employ the less drastic remedy of an adverse inference against the state in the court’s final determination of guilt or innocence. Thus, the trial court was never presented with a request to do anything but dismiss the case.

B

I also agree with the majority opinion that the appropriate remedy is a matter for the trial court in the first instance, and that the ultimate test is: “What remedy best serves the interests of justice?” Since we are, appropriately in my view, giving guidance to the trial courts regarding this issue, however, I would also suggest that the available remedies fall on a spectrum. At the least drastic end of the spectrum would be a remedy or combination of remedies such as affording the defendant unusually broad latitude on cross-examination, or employing an adverse inference against the state, or both. See, e.g., State v. Marra, 222 Conn. 506, 515-16, 610 A.2d 1113 (1992). Another, more severe, remedy would be the suppression of some or all of the other evidence that the defendant was arguably hampered in challenging as a result of the loss of the evidence. The most drastic remedy would be dismissal of the prosecution. There could, of course, be other remedies, or combinations thereof, at different points along the spectrum.

With respect to the remedy of dismissal, I would make it clear that, because it is the most drastic remedy available, it ought to be reserved for those cases in which no lesser remedy can plausibly vindicate the *740defendant’s right to a fair trial. We have referred to dismissal of the prosecution as a drastic remedy. State v. Bergin, 214 Conn. 657, 662, 574 A.2d 164 (1990). Although I agree that there may be cases in which dismissal of the prosecution would be the only appropriate remedy for the violation of the defendant’s due process rights, I would reserve that most drastic remedy for the most drastic and prejudicial violations.

This principle is particularly important in a case such as this because we are dealing with the unknowable. We can never know whether the loss of the evidence, the jacket in this case, in fact harmed the defendant or helped him. This is so because, as plausible as it is that forensic tests on the jacket could have exonerated him, it is equally plausible that they could have inculpated him. Thus, the trial court, in dismissing the case, would be dismissing a case in which the fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was available. Indeed, in the case at hand, the trial court found precisely that.

PALMER, J.

**95The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court deprived the defendant, Ernest Harris, of his right to due process under the federal and state constitutions when it denied his motion to suppress an out-of-court and subsequent in-court identification of him by an eyewitness to the crimes of which the defendant was convicted. The defendant was charged with felony murder and first degree robbery, among other crimes, after he and an accomplice, Emmitt Scott, allegedly robbed Ruben Gonzalez (victim) and Jose Rivera at gunpoint and Scott shot and killed the victim. The trial court denied the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress an identification that Rivera had made of the defendant while the defendant was being arraigned in an unrelated robbery case, as well as any in-court identification that Rivera might later be asked to make of the defendant. Following a trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of one count each of felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree.1

*123On appeal,2 the defendant claims that the trial court violated his due process rights under the federal constitution3 by denying his motion to suppress Rivera's out-of-court and in-court identifications of him because, contrary to the conclusion of the trial court, the former was the product of an unnecessarily suggestive procedure and neither was reliable. The defendant further claims that, even if the state's use of Rivera's out-of-court and in-court identifications did not violate his **96due process rights under the federal constitution, the admission of those identifications violated his due process rights under the state constitution, which, the defendant contends, are more protective than his federal due process rights. Although we agree with the defendant that the out-of-court identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, we also conclude that Rivera's identification of the defendant was nevertheless sufficiently reliable to satisfy federal due process requirements. Accordingly, for purposes of the federal constitution, the defendant was not entitled to suppression of those identifications. We further conclude that the due process guarantee of the state constitution in article first, § 8,4 provides somewhat broader protection than the federal constitution with respect to the admissibility of eyewitness identification testimony but that, in the present case, the trial court's failure to apply the state constitutional standard that we adopt today was harmless because the court reasonably could not have reached a different conclusion under that more demanding standard. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the defendant's claims.5 After working together during the night shift at a warehouse in the town of Newington, the victim drove Rivera back to Rivera's home in the Fair Haven section of the city of New Haven, arriving at about 3 a.m. on July 31, 2012. The victim and Rivera were rolling a blunt in the victim's car when the defendant and Scott approached on either side of the vehicle. Scott, who was standing on the passenger side, demanded that Rivera roll down the **97window, and both the victim and Rivera were then ordered out of the car. The victim and Rivera initially refused to exit the car but did so after Scott struck Rivera on the head with his gun. After the defendant and Scott searched the victim and Rivera for cash and valuables, the defendant rummaged through the car's interior for two to three minutes, during which Scott kept his gun pointed at Rivera. When the defendant found $600 and a cell phone in the center console, he said "[b]ingo," and he and Scott began to walk away. As they were leaving, the victim shouted from behind them, "I'll remember your face," whereupon Scott turned and shot the victim twice, killing him. The entire incident lasted approximately ten minutes. *124Jeffrey King, an officer with the New Haven Police Department (department), was the first officer on the scene, arriving at approximately 3:30 a.m. At that time, Rivera provided King with a description of the shooter, Scott. With respect to the lighting, the crime scene was so well lit by nearby streetlamps and house lights that King did not need to use a flashlight in connection with his investigation, despite the early morning hour.

Rivera was then taken from the crime scene to police headquarters, where he was interviewed by Detective Nicole Natale. At that time, Rivera described the shooter's accomplice-who had been standing on the driver's side of the vehicle and whom he would later identify as the defendant-as an African-American male with a thin build, approximately six feet, one inch, or six feet, two inches, in height, approximately twenty-six or twenty-seven years old, with short cropped hair, and as wearing a white t-shirt and blue jeans.

Eight days later, on August 8, 2012, after learning that Scott was a suspect in several Fair Haven robberies, Natale performed a sequential photographic lineup for Rivera that included Scott's photograph. Rivera failed to identify Scott as one of the assailants. Later that day, **98a fingerprint found on the front driver's side door of the victim's car was identified as belonging to the defendant. Although Natale used the fingerprint to obtain a photograph of the defendant through a police database, she never presented the defendant's photograph to Rivera in a lineup procedure or otherwise. On August 10, 2012, a fingerprint found on the front passenger's side door of the victim's car was identified as belonging to Scott.

Thereafter, the police learned that both the defendant and Scott were due to be arraigned on unrelated charges in court in New Haven on August 13, 2012. Robert Lawlor, an inspector with the state's attorney's office in the judicial district of New Haven, accompanied Rivera to the courthouse on that day so that Rivera could observe the arraignments and possibly identify the two men who had accosted him and the victim. Although Lawlor knew that the defendant and Scott were to be arraigned, he did not inform Rivera of that fact, and he never made Rivera aware of the defendant's name. The defendant and Scott were among fourteen arraignees who were being detained pending arraignment; the other twenty arraignees who appeared that day had not been in custody prior to their arraignment. Lawlor and Rivera both sat in the front row of the courtroom's public gallery, with Lawlor seated six seats away from Rivera. From his vantage point, Rivera watched the defendant, Scott, and the twelve other custodial arraignees-all of them handcuffed and surrounded by marshals-enter the courtroom single file through a door located only five feet away from him. Rivera recognized the defendant and Scott "as soon as they walked through the door."6 Once he was outside **99the courtroom, Rivera told Lawlor with "[n]o hesitation" that he was "100 percent positive those are the two suspects .... I will never forget it." Lawlor responded that, in fact, they "may be" the suspects, at which point the two men left the courthouse.

Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress Rivera's identification of him at *125the arraignment proceeding and any subsequent identification that he might be asked to make of the defendant at trial. The trial court held a hearing on the motion and denied it in an oral ruling the following day, concluding that the arraignment identification procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive. At trial, Rivera testified and identified the defendant as the driver's side assailant.

In a supplemental memorandum of decision issued after the trial, the court reiterated its finding that the identification procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive because, of the thirty-four total arraignees, fifteen were African-American males, which matched the description Rivera gave to Natale the morning of the murder. The trial court also supplemented its oral ruling with a finding that, even if the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, the identification itself was reliable under the totality of the circumstances. In support of this conclusion, the trial court observed the following: Rivera had approximately ten minutes to observe the assailants during the commission of the crimes; the area was well illuminated despite the late hour, and the assailant's face was not covered; the car's interior dome light shone on the assailant's face while he searched inside the car; Rivera was only a few feet from the assailant and had a clear view of him; Rivera was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the incident and otherwise was alert and attentive during the commission of the crime; Rivera's description of the assailant was specific in regard to his approximate age, height, weight, hairstyle, skin tone **100and clothing; Rivera was 100 percent certain that the defendant was one of the perpetrators; and the length of time between the crime and Rivera's identification of the defendant was only about two weeks.

I

The defendant first claims that the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress Rivera's in-court and out-of-court identifications violated his due process rights under the federal constitution because they both were the product of an unnecessarily suggestive arraignment identification procedure and were not reliable under the totality of the circumstances. The state contends that the trial court properly admitted Rivera's identification testimony after correctly determining that the identification procedure at issue was not unduly suggestive and that, even if, contrary to the trial court's finding, that procedure was impermissibly suggestive, Rivera's identification of the defendant at the arraignment proceeding was nonetheless reliable under all of the circumstances. We agree with the defendant that the procedure that the state used to obtain Rivera's identification of the defendant was unnecessarily suggestive. We also conclude, however, that that identification was reliable under all of the relevant circumstances and, consequently, that it was admissible and did not require the suppression of Rivera's in-court identification of the defendant.

A

At the outset, we briefly summarize the well established legal principles that govern our analysis of the defendant's federal constitutional claim. "In the absence of unduly suggestive procedures conducted by state actors, the potential unreliability of eyewitness identification testimony ordinarily goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and is a question for the jury. See [e.g.]

**101Perry v. New Hampshire , 565 U.S. 228, 248, 132 S.Ct. 716, 181 L.Ed. 2d 694 (2012)...."

*126State v. Dickson , 322 Conn. 410, 419, 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2263, 198 L.Ed.2d 713 (2017)."A different standard applies when the defendant contends that an in-court identification followed an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure that was conducted by a state actor. In such cases, both the initial identification and the in-court identification may be excluded if the improper procedure created a substantial likelihood of misidentification. [See] Perry v. New Hampshire , supra, at [238-39, 132 S.Ct. 716]." State v. Dickson , supra, at 420, 141 A.3d 810.

The test for determining whether the state's use of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure violates a defendant's federal due process rights derives from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers , 409 U.S. 188, 196-97, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed. 2d 401 (1972), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113-14, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed. 2d 140 (1977). As the court explained in Brathwaite , fundamental fairness is the standard underlying due process, and, consequently, "reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony ...." Id., at 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243. Thus, "the required inquiry is made on an ad hoc basis and is two-pronged: first, it must be determined whether the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive; and second, if it is found to have been so, it must be determined whether the identification was nevertheless reliable based on examination of the totality of the circumstances." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marquez , 291 Conn. 122, 141, 967 A.2d 56, cert. denied, 558 U.S. 895, 130 S.Ct. 237, 175 L.Ed. 2d 163 (2009). Furthermore, "[b]ecause the issue of the reliability of an identification involves the constitutional rights of an accused ... we are obliged to examine the record scrupulously to determine whether the facts found are adequately **102supported by the evidence and whether the court's ultimate inference of reliability was reasonable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ledbetter , 275 Conn. 534, 547, 881 A.2d 290 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1082, 126 S.Ct. 1798, 164 L.Ed. 2d 537 (2006) Nevertheless, "[w]e will reverse the trial court's ruling [on evidence] only [when] there is an abuse of discretion or [when] an injustice has occurred ... and we will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's ruling.... Because the inquiry into whether evidence of pretrial identification should be suppressed contemplates a series of [fact bound] determinations, which a trial court is far better equipped than this court to make, we will not disturb the findings of the trial court as to subordinate facts unless the record reveals clear and manifest error." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 548, 881 A.2d 290. Finally, the burden rests with the defendant to establish both that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and that the resulting identification was unreliable. State v. Ortiz , 252 Conn. 533, 553, 747 A.2d 487 (2000).

B

Mindful of these principles, we first consider whether the trial court correctly determined that the identification procedure that the state used in the present case was not unnecessarily suggestive. We previously have acknowledged the potential for suggestiveness that inheres in arraignment identification procedures generally. See, e.g., State v. Payne , 219 Conn. 93, 107, 591 A.2d 1246 (1991) ("we recognize the potential for suggestiveness inherent in an arraignment identification"); State v. Hinton , 196 Conn. 289, 295, 493 A.2d 837 (1985) ("we have recognized that an arraignment identification may be 'suggestive' "); see also *127State v. Ledbetter , 185 Conn. 607, 613, 441 A.2d 595 (1981) ("[t]he mischief involved in the arraignment observation is the real possibility that the victim of one crime, armed with the **103knowledge that the suspect is being charged with another crime, possibly of the same character, is more likely to leap to the conclusion that the person being arraigned in front of him committed both crimes").7 Although arraignment identification procedures are not invariably so suggestive as to be per se impermissible; see, e.g., State v. Hinton , supra, at 295-97, 493 A.2d 837 ; we are persuaded that the procedure employed in the present case was unnecessarily suggestive.

Courts must consider two factors in determining whether an identification resulted from an unnecessarily suggestive procedure.8 "The first factor concerns the composition of the [identification procedure] itself. In this regard, courts have analyzed whether the [subjects] used were selected or displayed in such a manner as to emphasize or highlight the individual whom the police believe is the suspect." State v. Marquez , supra, 291 Conn. at 142-43, 967 A.2d 56. Of course, whatever procedure is utilized, the state is not required to ensure that the defendant and the others who comprise the array look exactly alike; what is required, rather, is that the array does not single out the defendant from the others. See id., at 161-63, 967 A.2d 56 ; see also State v. Taylor , 239 Conn. 481, 499-500, 687 A.2d 489 (1996) ("there exists no constitutional mandate that gives the defendant the right to a photographic array of look-alikes"), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121, 117 S.Ct. 2515, 138 L.Ed. 2d 1017 (1997) ; State v. Vaughn , 199 Conn. 557, 564, 508 A.2d 430 ("[a]ny array composed of different individuals must necessarily contain certain differences"), cert. denied, **104479 U.S. 989, 107 S.Ct. 583, 93 L.Ed. 2d 585 (1986). "The second factor, which is related to the first but conceptually broader, requires the court to examine the actions of law enforcement personnel to determine whether the witness' attention was directed to a suspect because of police conduct.... In considering this [factor, the court should] look to the effects of the circumstances of the pretrial identification, not whether law enforcement officers intended to prejudice the defendant."9 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marquez , supra, at 143, 967 A.2d 56.

With respect to the first prong of the test, we disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the arraignment procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive because that conclusion was based on a clearly erroneous factual finding. Specifically, the trial court found that the composition of the corporeal array10 was not unnecessarily *128suggestive because, of thirty-four total arraignees, fifteen of them matched Rivera's description of the driver's side assailant with respect to race (African-American) and gender (male). The court's conception of the array as consisting of the thirty-four arraignees, however, was significantly broader than the actual, operative array from which Rivera identified the defendant.

Rivera testified that Lawlor told him that "we may have suspects in the court" and that "there's going to be a group of guys coming out, and let me know if you can identify somebody that is coming out those doors ."

**105(Emphasis added.) Indeed, as we have explained, when Lawlor brought Rivera into the arraignment courtroom, he directed Rivera to sit in the front row of the gallery to ensure that he had a clear and unimpaired view of the door through which the custodial arraignees would be entering. Thus, even if we were to assume that all twenty noncustodial arraignees were in the courtroom and identifiable as arraignees during the period of time that Rivera himself was in the courtroom, it is apparent that they only could have been seated next to or behind Rivera and that they were not among the group of arraignees entering the courtroom through the door to which Rivera's attention had been directed. Furthermore, although the testimony conflicted as to how many arraignments Rivera and Lawlor actually observed, there simply is no evidence from which to conclude that they were present for the arraignment of any of the noncustodial arraignees who were African-American males.11 We conclude, therefore, that the trial court incorrectly treated the array as being comprised of all thirty-four arraignees. The proper starting point for the trial court's analysis of the composition of the array, rather, should have been the fourteen custodial arraignees, only nine of whom were African-American males.12

**106*129The defendant claimed before the trial court that none of those fourteen custodial arraignees was an appropriate filler. In support of this contention, the defendant adduced the testimony of Jennifer Dysart, a psychology professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a recognized expert in the field of eyewitness identification. Dysart opined that all of the arraignees were inappropriate fillers due to the marked dissimilarities between each of those arraignees and Rivera's original description of the driver's side assailant as a thin, African-American male, approximately six feet, one inch, or six feet, two inches, tall, and about twenty-six or twenty-seven years old. Dysart ruled out female and non-African-American arraignees, leaving nine custodial arraignees who were African-American males. Dysart then eliminated those remaining nine arraignees, either because they were as much as six inches shorter than the person whom Rivera described as the suspect, weighed far more than the suspect, or were significantly older than the suspect. Relying on Dysart's testimony, the defendant renews his claim that the array was manifestly inadequate.

**107The state does not seriously challenge this aspect of Dysart's testimony or otherwise contend that the physical characteristics of a sufficient number of the custodial arraignees were sufficiently similar to those of the defendant so as to satisfy principles of due process. The state's primary contention, rather, is that the physical attributes of the custodial arraignees are relatively unimportant in view of the fact that, according to Rivera, he identified the defendant as the assailant immediately upon observing him.

Although, as we noted previously, perfection in the selection of identification fillers is not required, the physical differences between the suspect and the custodial arraignees in the present case were clearly significant enough "to emphasize or highlight the individual whom the police believe[d] [was] the suspect." State v. Marquez , supra, 291 Conn. at 143, 967 A.2d 56 ; see also G. Wells & D. Quinlivan, "Suggestive Eyewitness Identification Procedures and the Supreme Court's Reliability Test in Light of Eyewitness Science: 30 Years Later," 33 Law & Hum. Behav. 1, 7 (2009) ("[r]esearch consistently supports the view that using fillers who do not fit the eyewitness' previous verbal description of the culprit dramatically increases the chances that an innocent suspect who fits this description will be mistakenly identified"). Indeed, the array was overly suggestive by any measure. Cf. State v. Payne , supra, 219 Conn. at 107-108, 591 A.2d 1246 (approving arraignment identification procedure involving eight arraignees of sufficient similarity to defendant); State v. Hinton , supra, 196 Conn. at 292, 493 A.2d 837 (approving arraignment identification procedure involving seven arraignees of sufficient similarity to defendant). Moreover, the fact that Rivera identified the defendant immediately upon seeing him at the arraignment is essentially irrelevant for purposes of this prong of the test, which implicates only the physical characteristics of the suspect and those of the other African-American male custodial **108arraignees. Because none of those custodial arraignees was sufficiently similar *130to the defendant in height, weight and age, the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive. We therefore must decide whether the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to preclude Rivera's identification testimony as violative of federal due process principles may nevertheless be sustained on the ground that Rivera's identification of the defendant at the arraignment proceeding was reliable under the totality of the circumstances. See, e.g., Manson v. Brathwaite , supra, 432 U.S. at 113, 97 S.Ct. 2243. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, we conclude that it was.

C

An identification that is the product of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure will nevertheless be admissible, despite the suggestiveness of the procedure, if the identification is reliable in light of all the relevant circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Marquez , supra, 291 Conn. at 141, 967 A.2d 56. As mandated in Neil v. Biggers , supra, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, and reiterated by the court in Manson v. Brathwaite , supra, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, for federal constitutional purposes, we determine whether an identification resulting from an unnecessarily suggestive procedure is reliable under the totality of the circumstances by comparing the "corrupting effect of the suggestive identification" against factors including "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the [identification], and the time between the crime and the [identification]." Manson v. Braithwaite , supra, at 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243, citing Neil v. Biggers , supra, at 199-200, 93 S.Ct. 375. The trial court made express findings regarding each of these so-called Biggers factors, which we now address in turn.

With respect to the first two Biggers factors, the trial court found that Rivera had "ample time"-approximately **109ten minutes-to observe the assailant from a "very close" distance-no more than a few feet-in a well lit area. The trial court further found that Rivera was clearheaded and attentive during his encounter with the assailant, who had nothing covering his face or head and otherwise made no effort to disguise himself. These findings strongly support the trial court's conclusion concerning the reliability of Rivera's identification of the defendant as the perpetrator notwithstanding the state's use of a flawed identification procedure.

The defendant, however, challenges the trial court's findings as clearly erroneous. In particular, he maintains that "[t]he lighting conditions were poor; it was 3 a.m., and the closest streetlight was on the opposite side of the street." He also claims that Rivera and the other assailant were on opposite sides of the vehicle, the interior of the vehicle also was dark, and Scott pointed a gun at Rivera throughout the encounter. Having carefully reviewed the record, we disagree with the defendant that the trial court's findings concerning Rivera's opportunity to observe the defendant are unsupported by the evidence. Despite the hour and the location of the street lights, the trial court reasonably concluded that there was sufficient light in the area such that Rivera had a good view of the suspect for a considerable period of time. Indeed, the fact that King, the responding officer, chose not to use a flashlight because the scene was so well lit belies the defendant's argument that the lighting conditions were insufficient to afford Rivera an adequate opportunity to observe the defendant. Nor was Rivera's ability to view the defendant diminished by *131the distance between the two men. As the trial court found, Rivera and the defendant were on opposite sides of the vehicle, only a few feet apart. See G. Wells & D. Quinlivan, supra, 33 Law & Hum. Behav. 9-10 (explaining that facial perception does not begin to diminish until distance of approximately twenty-five **110feet). In addition, the trial court reasonably credited testimony adduced by the state establishing that the interior dome light of the car shone on the defendant's face while he was searching inside the car.

The record also fully supports the trial court's finding that Rivera was both alert and attentive during the encounter. Rivera testified that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense, and he further explained that he consciously tried to record a memory of both assailants' appearances so that he could later retaliate against them for the robbery.13 We previously have recognized that a finding of reliability may be bolstered by the witness' conscious effort to focus on the face of his assailant. See State v. Ledbetter , supra, 275 Conn. at 553-54, 881 A.2d 290. The trial court was entitled to credit Rivera's testimony in this regard.

In attempting to call into question the propriety of the trial court's finding regarding Rivera's level of attentiveness, the defendant relies on Dysart's testimony concerning the "weapon focus" effect, a phenomenon whereby "the reliability of an identification can be diminished by a witness' focus on a weapon ...." State v. Guilbert , 306 Conn. 218, 237, 49 A.3d 705 (2012) ; see also N. Steblay, "A Meta-Analytic Review of the Weapon Focus Effect," 16 Law & Hum. Behav. 413, 414 (1992) ("Weapon focus refers to the visual attention that eyewitnesses give to a perpetrator's weapon during the course of a crime. It is expected that the weapon will draw central attention, thus decreasing the ability of the eyewitness to adequately encode and later recall peripheral details." [Emphasis omitted.] ). On cross-examination, however, Dysart acknowledged that the weapon focus effect may diminish the longer a witness **111is confronted with a weapon because, in such circumstances, the witness also has a longer and therefore better opportunity to perceive details other than the weapon. As we have explained, the trial court found that Rivera observed the defendant for ten minutes. Thus, even if the trial court fully credited Dysart's testimony about the weapon focus effect, the court reasonably could have concluded that, under the circumstances, that phenomenon did not operate to appreciably impair Rivera's ability to focus his attention on the perpetrators themselves.

With respect to the third Biggers consideration, the accuracy of the eyewitness' description of the offender, we agree with the state that Rivera's description of the assailant was both specific and accurate, and included the individual's race (African-American), gender (male), body type (thin), approximate height (six feet, one inch, to six feet, two inches), approximate age (twenty-six to twenty-seven), hair style (short, cropped), and facial hair style (light). This detailed description conforms with considerable accuracy to the information in the record concerning the defendant's physical appearance.

The fourth relevant consideration under Biggers, the level of certainty that Rivera displayed with respect to his identification of the defendant, also strongly favors the state's contention that Rivera's identification *132was reliable for purposes of the analysis required under the federal constitution. Rivera demonstrated not just high confidence in his identification, but "100 percent" certainty immediately after identifying the defendant and before receiving any feedback from Lawlor.14 In addition, the defendant's expert, Dysart, testified that concern about a witness' potentially inflated confidence in **112an identification may be reduced when the witness' confidence level is recorded before any confirmatory comments by officials conducting the identification procedure, as in the present case.

Contrary to the defendant's claim, we agree with the trial court that the final Biggers factor, namely, the length of time between the crime and the identification, provides no persuasive reason for questioning the reliability of Rivera's identification of the defendant. Two weeks passed from the date of the offense until Rivera was given the opportunity to identify the defendant as a perpetrator at the defendant's arraignment on unrelated charges. In a previous case, we held that the reliability of an identification was not compromised when made in connection with an unduly suggestive arraignment procedure conducted less than one month after the crime; State v. Payne , supra, 219 Conn. at 109, 591 A.2d 1246 ; and we have reached the same conclusion despite a delay of two and one-half months between the crime and an identification following the eyewitness' viewing of an unnecessarily suggestive photographic array. See State v. Howard , 221 Conn. 447, 455, 604 A.2d 1294 (1992) ; see also State v. Parker, 197 Conn. 595, 600, 500 A.2d 551 (1985) (dictum indicating that identification made ten months after commission of crime would not necessarily render identification unreliable); State v. Fenn , 16 Conn. App. 318, 323, 547 A.2d 576 ("[a]s for the time factor, since only two weeks had elapsed between the attack on the victim and her identification of the defendant, the assault was still fresh in her mind"), cert. denied, 209 Conn. 822, 551 A.2d 757 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1031, 109 S.Ct. 841, 102 L.Ed. 2d 973 (1989). In light of this prior precedent and the findings by the trial court in present case, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the two week period between the date of the crime and Rivera's identification **113of the defendant undermined the reliability of that identification.

For these reasons, we will not disturb the trial court's conclusion that, even if Rivera's identification of the defendant was the product of an unnecessarily suggestive procedure, as we have determined it was, the identification nevertheless was reliable, for purposes of the federal constitution, under the totality of the circumstances. Consequently, the defendant cannot prevail on his federal due process claim that the trial court improperly denied his motion to preclude testimony concerning that identification.

D

Having concluded that the trial court properly found that Rivera's pretrial identification of the defendant was sufficiently reliable to pass muster under the federal constitution, it follows that the trial court also was correct in denying the defendant's motion to suppress Rivera's subsequent in-court identification. "[W]hen the defendant contends that an in-court identification followed an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure that was conducted by a state actor ... both the initial identification and the in-court identification may be *133excluded if the improper procedure created a substantial likelihood of misidentification." State v. Dickson , supra, 322 Conn. at 420, 141 A.3d 810. In concluding that Rivera's identification of the defendant was reliable, however, we necessarily have rejected the defendant's contention that the procedure that produced it created a substantial likelihood of misidentification, such that it would be fundamentally unfair for the state to use it against the defendant. See Manson v. Brathwaite , supra, 432 U.S. at 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243 ("reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony"); see also State v. Marquez , supra, 291 Conn. at 144, 967 A.2d 56 ("[t]he phrase 'very substantial risk of irreparable **114misidentification' must be understood as the overall standard for suppressing an out-of-court identification"). It follows, therefore, that, because Rivera's out-of-court identification of the defendant was reliable, and therefore admissible, that identification, although the product of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure, cannot be deemed to have so tainted the reliability of Rivera's in-court identification as to preclude the state from using it. See, e.g., State v. Dickson , supra, at 430-31, 141 A.3d 810 (explaining that in-court identification of defendant is admissible when prior out-of-court identification of defendant also is admissible). For that reason, we also reject the defendant's challenge to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress Rivera's in-court identification of him.

II

We next address the defendant's contention that he was entitled to suppression of Rivera's out-of-court and in-court identifications under the due process provision of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution.15 In support of his claim, he contends that that provision affords greater protection than the federal due process clause with respect to the admissibility of an eyewitness identification following an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure.16 The defendant urges us to **115reject the federal constitutional framework set forth in Neil v. Biggers , supra, 409 U.S. at 199-200, 93 S.Ct. 375. According to the defendant, it is now apparent that the five factors that comprise the Biggers test are not fully adequate and that, for state constitutional purposes, we should adopt either the reliability standard that the Supreme Court of Utah applies for purposes of that state's constitution; see State v. Ramirez , 817 P.2d 774, 781 (Utah 1991) ; or the framework advocated by the amici curiae, the Connecticut Innocence Project and the Innocence Project, *134which incorporates aspects of the standards applied by courts in Alaska, New Jersey and Oregon. See Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395, 427 (Alaska 2016) ; State v. Henderson , 208 N.J. 208, 288-89, 27 A.3d 872 (2011) ; State v. Lawson , 352 Or. 724, 761-63, 291 P.3d 673 (2012).17 We conclude, as a matter of state constitutional law, that it is appropriate to modify the Biggers framework to conform to recent developments in social science and the law. See part II A of this opinion. Accordingly, as we explain in part II B of this opinion, we endorse the factors for determining the reliability of an identification that we identified as a matter of state evidentiary law in State v. Guilbert , supra, 306 Conn. at 253, 49 A.3d 705 ; and we adopt the burden shifting framework embraced by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Henderson for purposes of allocating the burden of proof with respect to the admissibility of an identification that was the product of an unnecessarily suggestive procedure.18 **116A

For purposes of ascertaining the contours of the protections afforded under our state constitution, we employ a multifactor approach that we first adopted in State v. Geisler , 222 Conn. 672, 684-85, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992). We consider six nonexclusive factors to the extent relevant, including (1) the text of the operative constitutional provisions, (2) historical insights into the intent of the constitutional framers, (3) related Connecticut precedent, (4) persuasive relevant federal precedent, (5) persuasive precedent of sister state courts, and (6) contemporary understandings of applicable economic and sociological norms, including relevant public policies. See id. Frequently, as in the present case, we analyze these factors to determine whether, in any given case, the state constitution provides greater protection to this state's citizens than the federal constitutional minimum.19 See, e.g., State v. Ledbetter , supra, 275 Conn. at 560, 881 A.2d 290 ; see also State v. Santiago , 318 Conn. 1, 46 n.38, 122 A.3d 1 (2015) (explaining that Geisler test is "a scheme by which we organize and review, for purposes of state constitutional challenges, the various types of considerations that may bear on any question of first impression").

We note, preliminarily, that this is not the first time that we have had occasion to consider whether the state constitution provides greater protection than the federal constitution in this realm. A dozen years ago, in State v. Ledbetter , supra, 275 Conn. at 560-69, 881 A.2d 290, we **117applied the Geisler factors and rejected the claim that *135our state constitution requires that we abandon the Biggers factors as the appropriate factors to consider in determining whether the product of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure is nevertheless reliable and, therefore, admissible. In reaching this conclusion, we reasoned that three of the Geisler factors, namely, the text of the relevant constitutional provisions, holdings of this state's appellate courts, and federal precedent, favored the state; id., at 561-63, 881 A.2d 290 ; that two such factors, the historical approach and the sibling state approach, were neutral; id., at 563, 881 A.2d 290 ; and that the sixth factor, contemporary economic and sociological considerations, favored the defendant; id., at 566, 881 A.2d 290 ; largely because credible scientific studies had indicated that the fourth Biggers factor, the level of certainty demonstrated by the eyewitness at the identification, generally is not a particularly reliable indicator of accuracy. See id.

In the present case, the defendant does not challenge our conclusion in Ledbetter that the virtually identical language of the state and federal constitutional due process provisions favors the state because that common language supports a determination that the provisions stem from a common source and, as a consequence, share a common meaning. See id., at 562 and n.18, 881 A.2d 290. The defendant also acknowledges that, as we concluded in Ledbetter , the historical approach is a neutral factor that favors neither party. See id., at 563, 881 A.2d 290. The defendant claims, however, that, in light of continuing scientific and legal developments, related Connecticut precedent, persuasive federal and sister state precedent, and relevant economic and sociological considerations now militate in favor of modifying the Biggers test for purposes of the state constitution.

We address each of these factors in turn in order to determine whether the Biggers framework provides **118adequate protection for purposes of our state constitution. We do so cognizant of the fact that, as we "previously [have] recognized ... mistaken eyewitness identifications are a significant cause of erroneous convictions; State v. Guilbert , supra, 306 Conn. at 249-50, 49 A.3d 705 ('mistaken eyewitness identification testimony is by far the leading cause of wrongful convictions'); and the risk of mistake is particularly acute when the identification has been tainted by an unduly suggestive procedure. United States v. Wade , 388 U.S. 218, 229, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) ('[t]he influence of improper suggestion upon identifying witnesses probably accounts for more miscarriages of justice than any other single factor-perhaps it is responsible for more such errors than all other factors combined' ...)." (Footnote omitted.) State v. Dickson , supra, 322 Conn. at 425-26, 141 A.3d 810.

We turn first to relevant Connecticut precedent. As we have explained, this court previously held in Ledbetter that the state constitution does not provide greater protection than the federal constitution in this context. See State v. Ledbetter , supra, 275 Conn. at 569, 881 A.2d 290. Since our decision in Ledbetter , however, this court has held that, as an evidentiary matter, and even in cases in which an identification was not preceded by an unnecessarily suggestive procedure, a defendant is entitled to present expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness testimony. We further held that such testimony "satisfies the threshold admissibility requirement ... that [it] ... be based on scientific knowledge rooted in the methods and procedures of science ... at least with respect to the following propositions: (1) there is at best a weak correlation between a witness' confidence in his or her identification and *136the identification's accuracy; (2) the reliability of an identification can be diminished by a witness' focus on a weapon; (3) high stress at the time of observation may render a witness less **119able to retain an accurate perception and memory of the observed events; (4) cross-racial identifications are considerably less accurate than identifications involving the same race; (5) memory diminishes most rapidly in the hours immediately following an event and less dramatically in the days and weeks thereafter; (6) an identification may be less reliable in the absence of a double-blind, sequential identification procedure; (7) witnesses may develop unwarranted confidence in their identifications if they are privy to postevent or postidentification information about the event or the identification; and (8) the accuracy of an eyewitness identification may be undermined by unconscious transference, which occurs when a person seen in one context is confused with a person seen in another." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Guilbert , supra, 306 Conn. at 253-54, 49 A.3d 705 ; see also id., at 237, 49 A.3d 705 ("[t]he science abundantly demonstrates the many vagaries of memory encoding, storage and retrieval; the malleability of memory; the contaminating effects of extrinsic information; the influence of police interview techniques and identification procedures; and the many other factors that bear on the reliability of eyewitness identifications" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

In reaching this conclusion in Guilbert , we explained that this court's determination in Ledbetter that the state constitution did not provide greater protection than the federal constitution "was premised in part on our reservations about scientific studies that we now find persuasive." Id., at 252, 49 A.3d 705. We also acknowledged "the tension between our reasoning and analysis in [ Guilbert ] and the reasoning and analysis of Biggers ...." Id. We concluded, however that there was no need to resolve that tension "because Biggers ... involved alleged due process violations predicated on the state's use of unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures, whereas [ Guilbert ] involv[ed] the admissibility **120of expert testimony on the fallibility of eyewitness identification testimony." Id., 252-53 n.33, 49 A.3d 705.

With the need to resolve the tension between Guilbert and Biggers now being squarely before us, we conclude that Guilbert provides the preferable framework for state constitutional as well as evidentiary claims involving the reliability of eyewitness identifications. First, although we do not necessarily agree with the defendant that our conclusion in Guilbert that, as an evidentiary matter, defendants are entitled to present expert testimony that "there is at best a weak correlation between a witness' confidence in his or her identification and the identification's accuracy"; id., at 253, 49 A.3d 705 ; necessarily conflicts directly with the Biggers directive that courts consider the eyewitness' level of confidence, we believe that the Guilbert approach provides courts with greater flexibility and specificity. Second, we identified in Guilbert several factors that may affect the reliability of an eyewitness identification that were not expressly recognized by the court in Biggers , including the witness' focus on a weapon, the level of stress at the time of observation, the problems of cross-racial identification, postevent exposure to information about the subject of the identification, and the potential for unconscious transference.20

*137Id., at 253-54, 49 A.3d 705. For the same reasons that we concluded in Guilbert that focusing the trial court's attention on these specific factors instead of on the more general Biggers factors would enhance the accuracy of the evidentiary inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification, we conclude that using the Guilbert framework would enhance the accuracy of the constitutional inquiry into the reliability of an identification **121that has been tainted by improper state conduct. Third, the Guilbert approach allows the reliability analysis to evolve as the relevant science evolves. See id., at 258, 49 A.3d 705 ("[These] variables are not exclusive. Nor are they intended to be frozen in time." [Internal quotation marks omitted.] ). Accordingly, we agree with the defendant that Guilbert supports the proposition that, under our state constitution, the Biggers analysis is inadequate to prevent the admission of unreliable identifications that are tainted by an unduly suggestive procedure.21

With respect to the next Geisler factor, persuasive federal precedent,22 the defendant contends that, although federal courts continue to be bound by the Biggers test, there are signs that a change may be in the offing. In support of this claim, he relies on Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Perry v. New Hampshire , 565 U.S. 228, 132 S.Ct. 716, 181 L.Ed. 2d 694 (2012), in which she took note of recent scientific studies demonstrating that, contrary to the assumption of Biggers that the accuracy of an identification correlates directly with the confidence of the eyewitness, in fact, confidence frequently "is a poor gauge of accuracy **122...." Id., at 264, 132 S.Ct. 716 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting); see also id., at 264 n.10, 132 S.Ct. 716 (citing studies). The defendant also contends that several other federal courts have expressed reservations about the assumption underlying the relationship between confidence and accuracy. See, e.g., Phillips v. Allen , 668 F.3d 912, 916 (7th Cir. 2012) (observing that amicus curiae in Perry had cited studies that had "called th[e] notion [that confidence is correlated with accuracy] into very serious question" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); Grayer v. McKee , 149 Fed. Appx. 435, 447-48 (6th Cir. 2005) (Gwin, J., concurring in the judgment) (observing that "[m]any [social science] studies demonstrate that there is no correlation between the confidence of the witness and the accuracy of the identification" [internal quotation marks omitted *138] ), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1059, 126 S.Ct. 1661, 164 L.Ed. 2d 403 (2006) ; Cossel v. Miller , 229 F.3d 649, 655 n.4 (7th Cir. 2000) (level of certainty at time of identification has little connection to accuracy when identification is preceded by unduly suggestive identification procedure); Abdur-Raheem v. Kelly , 98 F.Supp.2d 295, 306 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) ("[t]he value of at least two of the [ Biggers ] factors-accuracy of the witness' prior description and certainty at the confrontation-has been seriously questioned"), rev'd on other grounds, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001), cert. denied sub nom. Donnelly v. Abdur Raheem , 534 U.S. 1118, 122 S.Ct. 930, 151 L.Ed. 2d 892 (2002).23 Although we recognize that Biggers continues to provide the controlling framework for all federal courts, we agree with the defendant that these cases provide support for his contention that there is growing recognition that that test is flawed in **123some respects. Specifically, the cases support the notion that the Biggers assumption that confidence at the time of identification is correlated with accuracy is not always valid.

We next consider persuasive precedents of other state courts. As the defendant notes, several state courts have rejected the Biggers analysis under their respective state constitutions in favor of a more expansive standard. For example, in 2011, the Supreme Court of New Jersey concluded that, in light of recent scientific developments that "abundantly [demonstrate] the many vagaries of memory encoding, storage, and retrieval; the malleability of memory; the contaminating effects of extrinsic information, the influence of police interview techniques and identification procedures; and the many other factors that bear on the reliability of eyewitness identifications"; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Henderson , supra, 208 N.J. at 283, 27 A.3d 872 ; the Biggers test provided inadequate protection against the risk of misidentification. See id., at 285-86, 27 A.3d 872. Before reaching its conclusion, the New Jersey Supreme Court appointed a special master who, following extensive hearings conducted for the purpose of evaluating scientific and other evidence about eyewitness identifications, issued a comprehensive report containing numerous findings and recommendations. See id., at 217-18, 27 A.3d 872. On the basis of those findings and recommendations, the court in Henderson concluded that the New Jersey constitution required a new framework "that allows judges to consider all relevant factors that affect reliability in deciding whether an identification is admissible; that is not heavily weighted by factors that can be corrupted by suggestiveness; that promotes deterrence in a meaningful way; and that focuses on helping jurors both [to] understand and evaluate the effects that various factors have on memory ...." Id., at 288, 27 A.3d 872. With these criteria in mind, the court adopted the following framework: First, **124to obtain a pretrial hearing, the defendant has the initial burden of showing that some system variable24 undermined the reliability of the eyewitness identification. See id., 288-89, 27 A.3d 872. Second, if the defendant meets this burden, the state must then offer proof to *139show that the identification is reliable in light of all relevant system and estimator variables.25 Id., at 289, 27 A.3d 872. Third, if the state meets its burden, the defendant must then prove a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. Id. If the defendant meets that burden of proof, the identification must be suppressed. See id. ; see also Young v. State , supra, 374 P.3d at 427 (adopting procedure under Alaska constitution for determining admissibility of identification following unnecessarily suggestive procedure that "closely follows the [ Henderson ] framework").

The court in Henderson identified twelve nonexclusive and nonstatic estimator variables that courts should consider in determining the reliability of an identification that resulted from an unnecessarily suggestive procedure.26 See **125State v. Henderson , supra, 208 N.J. at 291-92, 27 A.3d 872. The court recognized that, contrary to the apparent assumption of the court in Biggers , "a [witness'] level of confidence, standing alone, may not be an indication of the reliability of the identification." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 241, 254, 27 A.3d 872. The court observed, however, that "[t]he [s]pecial [m]aster found that ... highly confident witnesses can make accurate identifications 90 [percent] of the time." (Emphasis in original.) Id., at 254, 27 A.3d 872. The court modified this Biggers factor accordingly. See id., at 292, 27 A.3d 872 (court should consider whether witness "express[ed] high confidence at the time of the identification before receiving any feedback or other information").

Similarly, in State v. Ramirez , supra, 817 P.2d at 774, the Supreme Court of Utah rejected the Biggers framework as being "scientifically unsupported" and adopted as a matter of state constitutional law a "more empirically based approach" designed to "allow a court to consider fully 'the totality of the circumstances' surrounding the identification ...." Id., at 780. The court in Ramirez noted that, although the factors that courts should consider "are generally comparable to the Biggers factors, they more precisely define the focus of the relevant inquiry."27

*140Id., at 781. Like the court in Henderson , the court in Ramirez rejected the court's assumption in Biggers that the certainty demonstrated by the eyewitness is invariably an indicator of the accuracy **126of the identification. See id. ; see also State v. Hunt , 275 Kan. 811, 818, 69 P.3d 571 (2003) (adopting Ramirez framework).28

Other state courts have concluded that any identification that is the result of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure is inadmissible per se under their respective state constitutions. See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 420 Mass. 458, 472, 650 N.E.2d 1257 (1995) ("[o]nly a rule of per se exclusion [of identifications resulting from unnecessarily suggestive procedures] can ensure the continued protection against the danger of mistaken identification and wrongful convictions"); id., at 462-63, 650 N.E.2d 1257 ( Biggers framework is not consistent with due process requirements of Massachusetts constitution); People v. Adams , 53 N.Y.2d 241, 250, 423 N.E.2d 379, 440 N.Y.S.2d 902 (1981) (adopting "rule excluding improper showups and evidence derived therefrom," which was required by New York constitution); State v. Dubose , 285 Wis. 2d 143, 165-66, 168, 699 N.W.2d 582 (2005) ("evidence obtained from an out-of-court **127showup is inherently suggestive and will not be admissible unless, based on the totality of the circumstances, the procedure was necessary," and admission of identification that resulted from unnecessarily suggestive showup violated Wisconsin constitution). In support of this conclusion, the Massachusetts and Wisconsin courts relied on scientific studies performed since Biggers that cast doubt on the reliability of eyewitness testimony. See Commonwealth v. Johnson , supra, at 467, 650 N.E.2d 1257 ("studies conducted by psychologists and legal researchers ... have confirmed that eyewitness testimony is often hopelessly unreliable"); State v. Dubose , supra, at 162, 699 N.W.2d 582 ("[recent] studies confirm that eyewitness testimony is often hopelessly unreliable" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

In State v. Ledbetter , supra, 275 Conn. at 534, 881 A.2d 290, this court concluded that Johnson , Adams and Dubose did not support the defendant's position because those cases "did not reach the issue of *141reliability." Id., at 565, 881 A.2d 290 ; see also id. ("like Massachusetts and New York, Wisconsin has not considered whether the Biggers factors [were in contravention of] its state constitution"). It is now clear to us, however, that these cases necessarily were premised on a determination that the Biggers reliability test provides inadequate protection against the risk of misidentification. See Commonwealth v. Johnson , supra, 420 Mass. at 469, 650 N.E.2d 1257 ("the admission of unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures under the [ Biggers ] reliability test would likely result in the innocent being jailed while the guilty remain free"); State v. Dubose , supra, 285 Wis. 2d at 164, 699 N.W.2d 582 ("it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for courts [using the Biggers analysis] to distinguish between identifications that were reliable and identifications that were unreliable"). Thus, although those courts did not expressly consider the possibility of adopting a reliability test that was more detailed and expansive than Biggers -the course that we are considering **128in the present case-the cases clearly support the proposition that the Biggers reliability test is inadequate, which is the necessary first step of our analysis. Accordingly, we now conclude that these cases support the defendant's position.

Finally, we note that the Supreme Court of Oregon has held as a matter of state evidentiary law that, when a defendant has filed a motion to exclude eyewitness identification evidence, the state must establish that the evidence is admissible under the ordinary rules of evidence. State v. Lawson , supra, 352 Or. at 761, 291 P.3d 673. If the state meets that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that, "although the eyewitness evidence is otherwise admissible, the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Id., at 762, 291 P.3d 673. In determining the probative value of eyewitness evidence, "trial courts must examine the relative reliability of [the] evidence produced by the parties .... The more factors-the presence of system variables alone or in combination with estimator variables29 -that weigh against reliability of the identification, the less persuasive the identification evidence will be to prove the fact of identification, and correspondingly, the less **129probative value that identification will have." Id., at 757, 291 P.3d 673. The court in Lawson emphasized that an unnecessarily suggestive procedure was not a prerequisite for the exclusion of the identification under this test.30 See *142id., at 746-47, 291 P.3d 673. The court also rejected the assumption in Biggers that confidence correlates to accuracy. Id., at 745, 291 P.3d 673 ("[u]nder most circumstances, witness confidence or certainty is not a good indicator of identification accuracy"); see also Brodes v. State , 279 Ga. 435, 442, 614 S.E.2d 766 (2005) (holding that, as matter of state evidentiary law, courts should no longer instruct juries that level of certainty is correlated to accuracy).

Thus, courts in Alaska, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Utah and Wisconsin have held as a matter of state constitutional law that the Biggers framework insufficiently protects against the risk of misidentification, and the courts of Georgia and Oregon have reached the same conclusion as a matter of state evidentiary law. Only two courts that have considered this issue have held that Biggers is consistent with their state constitutions. See State v. Buti , 131 Idaho 793, 799, 964 P.2d 660 (1998) (reliability factors under Idaho constitution are identical to Biggers factors); State v. Leclair , 118 N.H. 214, 218-20, 385 A.2d 831 (1978) (noting that Biggers test "is based on federal constitutional minima and does not preclude the states from adopting a per se rule under [s]tate law," and then applying Biggers test). In contrast to the courts that have rejected Biggers , however, the Idaho and New Hampshire courts did not engage in any analysis of recent scientific developments **130that have exposed the deficiencies of the Biggers reliability test. Upon close review of the various factors identified in the foregoing precedent, we are persuaded by the state cases that, as a matter of state constitutional and evidentiary law, have rejected the Biggers analysis as insufficient to protect against the risk that unreliable eyewitness identifications will be presented to the jury.

We next address the final Geisler factor, namely, contemporary understandings of applicable economic and sociological norms. As we have indicated, this court previously has concluded that this factor weighs in favor of the defendant's position. State v. Ledbetter , supra, 275 Conn. at 566, 881 A.2d 290 (contemporary economic and sociological considerations favor defendant's position because recent scientific research has exposed flaws in Biggers framework, particularly with respect to assumption that confidence is correlated with accuracy); see also State v. Guilbert , supra, 306 Conn. at 237, 49 A.3d 705 (recent scientific developments "abundantly [demonstrate] the many vagaries of memory encoding storage and retrieval; the malleability of memory, the contaminating effects of extrinsic information; the influence of police interview techniques and identification procedures; and the many other factors that bear on the reliability of eyewitness identifications" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). We continue to believe that this factor supports the defendant's claim that the Biggers framework provides inadequate protection under our state constitution.

In summary, we conclude that this state's precedent, persuasive federal and sister state precedent, and contemporary understandings of economic and sociological norms favor the defendant's claim concerning the inadequacy of the Biggers factors for purposes of the state constitution. The relevant state constitutional text favors retention of the Biggers factors. And the final **131consideration, namely, historical *143insights into the intent of the framers, is neutral. Upon careful consideration of these various factors and their relative import to the issue presented, we agree with the defendant that the Biggers framework is insufficiently protective of the defendant's due process rights under the state constitution. We therefore overrule our conclusion to the contrary in Ledbetter .

B

In light of the foregoing conclusion, we next must determine the proper framework, for state constitutional purposes, for evaluating the reliability of an identification that is the result of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure. Having reviewed the various approaches used by courts around the country, we conclude that the most appropriate framework is that adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Henderson , supra, 208 N.J. at 288-89, 27 A.3d 872. Pursuant to that framework, to obtain a pretrial hearing, the defendant has the initial burden of offering some evidence that a system variable undermined the reliability of the eyewitness identification. See id., at 288-89, 27 A.3d 872. If the defendant meets this burden, the state must then offer evidence demonstrating that the identification was reliable in light of all relevant system and estimator variables. Id., at 289, 27 A.3d 872. If the state adduces such evidence, the defendant must then prove a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. See id. If the defendant meets that burden of proof, the identification must be suppressed. See id. ; cf. State v. Ortiz , supra, 252 Conn. at 553, 747 A.2d 487 (under Biggers framework, "[t]he defendant bears the burden of proving both that the identification procedures were unnecessarily suggestive and that the resulting identification was unreliable" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

It bears emphasis that this framework does not differ significantly from our current approach because, under **132the latter, if the defendant has presented evidence that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive and the state has presented no evidence that the identification was nevertheless reliable, a court could not reasonably conclude that the identification should be admissible. Nevertheless, we recognize that the requirement that the defendant provide "some evidence" of suggestiveness may necessitate somewhat less evidence to trigger the admissibility inquiry than is required under the Biggers framework. State v. Henderson , supra, 208 N.J. at 288, 27 A.3d 872 ; see id., at 293, 27 A.3d 872 ("estimator variables [will] no longer be ignored in the court's analysis until it [finds] that an identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive"). We agree with the court in Henderson that this lower threshold is appropriate both because it "will provide more meaningful deterrence" and because "more extensive hearings will address reliability with greater care and better reflect how memory works." Id.

In the absence of evidence of a suggestive procedure or other extraordinary circumstances, however, we continue to believe that evidence relating solely to estimator factors that affect the reliability of the identification goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the identification. See Perry v. New Hampshire , supra, 565 U.S. at 237, 132 S.Ct. 716 ("[t]he [c]onstitution ... protects a defendant against a conviction based on evidence of questionable reliability, not by prohibiting introduction of the evidence, but by affording the defendant means to persuade the jury that the evidence should be discounted as unworthy"); see also id. ("juries are assigned the task of *144determining the reliability of the evidence presented at trial" unless "[the] evidence is so extremely unfair that its admission violates fundamental conceptions of justice" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); State v. Guilbert , supra, 306 Conn. at 251 n.31, 49 A.3d 705 (this court's "approach to eyewitness identification testimony [that **133is not tainted by improper procedure] is exactly the sort of approach that Perry encourages"); State v. Ledbetter , supra, 185 Conn. at 612, 441 A.2d 595 ("challenges [relating to the reliability of identifications that are not tainted by improper procedure] go to the weight rather than to the admissibility of the evidence"). Accordingly, like the court in Henderson , we conclude that a pretrial hearing ordinarily is not required when there is no evidence of a suggestive procedure. See State v. Henderson , supra, 208 N.J. at 293-94, 27 A.3d 872. Indeed, even the Supreme Court of Oregon, which concluded that an identification that was not preceded by a suggestive procedure may be inadmissible under that state's ordinary rules of evidence, has recognized that "trial courts will continue to admit most eyewitness identifications. That is so because, although possible, it is doubtful that issues concerning one or more of the estimator variables that [the court has] identified will, without more, be enough to support an inference of unreliability sufficient to justify the exclusion of the eyewitness identification. In that regard, [the court] anticipate[s] that when the facts of a case reveal only issues regarding estimator variables, defendants will not seek a pretrial ruling on the admission of the eyewitness identification." State v. Lawson , supra, 352 Or. at 762, 291 P.3d 673. Thus, that court recognized that evidence relating to estimator variables, standing alone, ordinarily will not render an identification inadmissible.

With respect to the reliability standard that the trial court must apply at a pretrial hearing, we are persuaded that the trial court should consider the eight estimator variables that this court identified in State v. Guilbert , supra, 306 Conn. at 253-54, 49 A.3d 705, which overlap considerably with the estimator variables that the court identified in Henderson .31 See footnote 26 of this opinion. As we **134recognized in Guilbert , these variables are neither "exclusive" nor "frozen in time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 258, 49 A.3d 705. Rather, both the defendant and the state may adduce expert testimony regarding recent scientific developments that cast light on particular factors, or that establish the existence of additional relevant factors, provided, of course, that the testimony meets the criteria for admissibility that we discussed in Guilbert . See id., at 257, 49 A.3d 705 (whether to permit expert testimony on reliability of eyewitness testimony is within discretion of trial court after considering qualifications of expert witness and scientific *145foundation for opinion).32 The parties may also present such testimony at trial. In addition, it may be appropriate for the trial **135court to craft jury instructions to assist the jury in its consideration of this issue. See id., at 257-58, 49 A.3d 705 (trial court retains discretion to give "jury instructions on the fallibility of eyewitness identification evidence," provided that "any such instructions should reflect the findings and conclusions of the relevant scientific literature pertaining to the particular variable or variables at issue in the case"); State v. Henderson , supra, 208 N.J. at 296, 27 A.3d 872 ("when identification is at issue in a case, trial courts will continue to provide ... appropriate guidelines to focus the jury's attention on how to analyze and consider the trustworthiness of eyewitness identification" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

With these principles in mind, we consider the defendant's claim that, if the trial court had applied the proper standard in the present case, it would have concluded that Rivera's identification of him should be excluded as insufficiently reliable. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court would have been precluded from considering the defendant's level of confidence. In addition, he contends, the trial court would have been compelled to consider the tendency of eyewitnesses to overestimate the duration and quality of their opportunity to view the perpetrator, Rivera's lack of sleep and the poor lighting at the scene of the crime, the tendency of fear and stress to impair perception and recall, the two week interval between the crime and the observation, Rivera's nonspecific description of the perpetrator's facial features, and the fact that Rivera and the defendant were of different races.

We disagree with the defendant's claim. Dysart testified at the suppression hearing and at trial that the presence of a weapon can divert an eyewitness' attention from the perpetrator's face to the weapon, that eyewitnesses may have difficulty identifying persons of a different race, that high levels of stress adversely affect the accuracy of an identification, and that, **136because the perpetrators in the present case were rifling through the car for much of the time, Rivera's opportunity to view them would have been relatively short. In addition, Dysart testified at trial that "there is a moderate relationship between accuracy and [confidence]" when the eyewitness immediately expresses high confidence after a nonsuggestive procedure, but that positive *146feedback can artificially inflate confidence and can lead witnesses to overestimate the quality of their opportunity to observe the perpetrator. Although the specific factors that Dysart addressed are not expressly included in the Biggers framework, that framework does direct the court to consider "the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime," "the witness' degree of attention," and "the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation ...." Neil v. Biggers , supra, 409 U.S. at 199, 93 S.Ct. 375. These general factors encompass the more specific reliability factors that we have identified in the present case and that were addressed by Dysart. Indeed, as the Supreme Court of Utah has observed with respect to the Ramirez reliability factors, which are similar to the factors that we have adopted; see State v. Ramirez , supra, 817 P.2d at 781 ; footnote 27 of this opinion; the factors that we have adopted "are generally comparable to the Biggers factors" and are merely intended to "more precisely define the focus of the relevant inquiry." State v. Ramirez , supra, at 781 ; see also State v. Hunt , supra, 275 Kan. at 818, 69 P.3d 571 ("[the Ramirez standard] should not be considered as a rejection of the Biggers model but, rather, as a refinement in the analysis"). Moreover, to the extent that the defendant contends that the trial court did not adequately consider the corrupting effect that the suggestiveness of the procedure had on Rivera's memory, nothing in Biggers or its progeny bars the trial court from considering evidence that the witness' memory has been affected by a suggestive procedure. To **137the contrary, Manson v. Brathwaite , supra, 432 U.S. at 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, directs that the reliability factors be evaluated in light of "the corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself." Id., at 114, 97 S.Ct. 2243.

There is no indication in the record that the trial court declined to consider any portion of Dysart's testimony because it believed that the evidence was not relevant under Biggers . Nor is there any evidence that the trial court believed that it was required under Biggers to assume that there is a correlation between confidence and accuracy under all circumstances, despite Dysart's testimony to the contrary. Rather, the trial court's finding that such a correlation existed in the present case was supported by Dysart's testimony that there is a "moderate" correlation between confidence and accuracy when confidence is expressed immediately after the identification and before the eyewitness has received any positive feedback. Although we have concluded that the identification procedure in the present case was suggestive-which, according to Dysart, can weaken the correlation between confidence and accuracy-Dysart did not testify that, if a procedure is suggestive in any manner and to any degree, that suggestiveness automatically and fully negates the correlation. The trial court's conclusion that Rivera's confidence was indicative of accuracy is also supported by the fact that Rivera's description of the defendant was, in fact, accurate. Finally, the defendant has not identified any evidence that he was prevented from presenting at the suppression hearing or at trial on the ground that it was not relevant under Biggers . Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court's application of the Biggers framework instead of the reliability standard that we have adopted in the present case was harmless because it is not reasonably possible that the court would have reached a different conclusion as to the admissibility of Rivera's identification under our **138new framework. See, e.g., State v. Montgomery , 254 Conn. 694, 718, 759 A.2d 995 (2000) ("[t]he state bears the burden of demonstrating that the constitutional error *147was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

PALMER, J.

This case is before us on a writ of error. The plaintiff in error 1 claims that the trial court improperly precluded him, either personally or through his attorney, from attending plea negotiations and other discussions involving the court, the state's attorney and defense counsel during in-chambers, pretrial disposition conferences in the criminal prosecution of Kyle Damato-Kushel, which is now pending in the judicial district of Fairfield. In that criminal case, Damato-Kushel is charged with various offenses arising out of her alleged sexual misconduct involving the plaintiff in error commencing when Damato-Kushel was a teacher's aide in the school system of the town of Stratford and when the plaintiff in error was a fourteen year old student attending a school in that town. The plaintiff in error claims that the trial court's ruling barring his attendance at the pretrial disposition conferences violated his right as a victim "to attend the trial and all other court proceedings the accused has the right to attend" under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, as amended by articles seventeen and twenty-nine of the amendments (Conn. Const., amend. XXIX

[b] [5] ). 2 The defendants in error, Damato-Kushel and the Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, maintain that the trial court correctly determined that such conferences, when they are conducted in chambers and off the record, 3 do not constitute "court proceedings the accused has the right to attend" within the meaning of amendment XXIX (b) (5) and, therefore, that the court properly precluded the plaintiff in error from attending them. We agree with the defendants in error and, accordingly, dismiss the writ of error.

The following facts and procedural history are undisputed. On the basis of allegations lodged by the plaintiff in error, Damato-Kushel was arrested and charged with sexual assault in the second degree, risk of injury to a child, sexual assault in the fourth degree, and tampering with a witness. Shortly thereafter, Attorney James Clark of the Victim Rights Center of Connecticut, Inc., filed an appearance in the criminal case on behalf of the plaintiff in error.

At Damato-Kushel's arraignment, her counsel noted that Clark had filed an appearance in the case and advised the court that he objected to Clark's presence at any pretrial disposition conferences held in chambers. The court sustained the objection, explaining that amendment XXIX (b) (5) allows a victim to attend only those court proceedings that the defendant has a right to attend, and concluding that, because a defendant has no right to attend in-chambers, "judicial [pretrial]" conferences-generally, only his or her attorney attends such conferences-a victim also has no right to attend those conferences.

Thereafter, the plaintiff in error filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that, contrary to the determination of the trial court, a victim does have a right to attend pretrial disposition conferences because, under Practice Book § 39-13, 4 the defendant is required to appear at such conferences. In the alternative, he maintained that, because counsel for a defendant attends a disposition conference solely as a representative of the defendant, the presence of such counsel at the conference is legally indistinguishable from the presence of the defendant, and, therefore, the fact that only counsel attends the conference is not a basis for denying the plaintiff in error the right to do so. Finally, the plaintiff in error argued that his exclusion from pretrial disposition conferences violated his right under amendment XXIX (b) (1) "to be treated with fairness and respect throughout the criminal justice process" because it would pre-vent him from responding to inaccurate statements made during those conferences. In response, Damato-Kushel argued that, contrary to the contentions of the plaintiff in error, a defendant has no right to attend in-chambers discussions between the presiding judge and the parties' attorneys and that permitting victims' attorneys to be present during such discussions would have an adverse chilling effect on pretrial plea negotiations.

The trial court subsequently granted the plaintiff in error's motion for reconsideration but denied the relief requested therein. In so ruling, the court acknowledged that a victim's right to attend court proceedings is "in parity with that of the defendant" but observed that Practice Book § 44-7 lists only five instances in which a defendant has the right to be present, none of which involves in-chambers, pretrial conferences. 5 In light of the nature of the proceedings enumerated in § 44-7, the court concluded that the term "court proceedings" under amendment XXIX (b) (5) was most reasonably interpreted to mean "proceedings on the record in open court." Although recognizing both that Practice Book § 39-13 requires that a defendant "appear at the time set for the disposition conference" and that the judge participating in that conference often takes an active role in the plea negotiations, the trial court disagreed that that provision also granted the defendant the right to be present at an off-the-record, in-chambers conference. The court also agreed with Damato-Kushel that the presence of the victim or his representative would undermine the ability of the parties to discuss the case openly and frankly, and observed that, because the victim's rights amendment obligates the state to keep the victim informed about the progress of the case and any potential disposition that may be the product of plea negotiations, excluding the victim from in-chambers conferences would not impair the victim's ability to express his views on any potential plea agreement resulting from those discussions.

Thereafter, the plaintiff in error brought this writ of error against the defendants in error, claiming that the trial court's ruling barring him from all future, in-chambers, pretrial disposition conferences violated his rights under amendment XXIX (b) (5). Damato-Kushel subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the writ as untimely and improperly filed, which this court denied. We then transferred the writ of error to the Appellate Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1, and that court ordered the parties to address, in addition to their other claims, "whether the trial court's interlocutory order precluding the victim from attending pretrial, in-chambers conferences concerning plea negotiations is a final judgment." We subsequently transferred the writ back to this court, also pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.

In this court, the plaintiff in error renews his contention in the trial court that in-chambers, pretrial disposition conferences are court proceedings that the accused-and thus the victim-have a right to attend under amendment XXIX (b) (5). Before turning to the merits of that claim, however, we first must address the claims of the defendants in error that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the writ of error because (1) the plaintiff in error was not aggrieved by the trial court's ruling and, therefore, does not have standing to bring a writ of error, and (2) the trial court's interlocutory ruling was not an appealable final judgment under the test established in State v. Curcio , 191 Conn. 27 , 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983), for determining whether a ruling constitutes such a judgment. See, e.g., State v. Skipwith , 326 Conn. 512 , 518-25, 165 A.3d 1211 (2017) (this court addresses matters concerning its appellate jurisdiction, such as aggrievement, prior to considering merits of writ of error); see also id., at 525 , 165 A.3d 1211 n.17 (leaving for another day question of whether victim can file interlocutory writ of error in cases in which there is alleged violation of victim's rights amendment). We address each of these contentions in turn.

I

Our rules of practice provide in relevant part that "[w]rits of error for errors in matters of law only may be brought from a final judgment of the superior court to the supreme court following ... a decision binding on an aggrieved nonparty ...." Practice Book § 72-1 (a) (1). The defendants in error assert that the plaintiff in error is not aggrieved by the trial court's ruling pre-venting his attendance at pretrial disposition conferences because the trial court never determined, "even preliminarily," that the plaintiff in error was, in fact, a " 'victim' " for purposes of the victim's rights amendment, 6 and, therefore, the plaintiff in error never had any constitutional rights that might be " 'injuriously affected' " by the actions of the trial court. In re Jonathan S. , 260 Conn. 494 , 503, 798 A.2d 963 (2002) ; see, e.g., id. ("the party claiming aggrievement must successfully demonstrate ... that its asserted interest has been specially and injuriously affected in a way that is cognizable by law" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). We disagree with this contention.

As the plaintiff in error observes, the issuance of an arrest warrant requires a finding of probable cause that a crime was committed by a particular defendant. See Practice Book § 36-1 (arrest warrant may be issued "if the judicial authority determines that the affidavit accompanying the application shows that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the accused committed it"). It is undisputed, moreover, that, in the present case, the arrest warrant application clearly alleged that Damato-Kushel's criminal misconduct was perpetrated against the plaintiff in error specifically. In such circumstances, we agree with the plaintiff in error that the arrest warrant constitutes a sufficient determination of his status as a victim to trigger the rights afforded by amendment XXIX (b) of the Connecticut constitution. See, e.g., State v. Stauffer , 203 Ariz. 551 , 553, 58 P.3d 33 (App. 2002) (victims' rights arise "on the arrest or formal charging of the person or persons who are alleged to be responsible for a criminal offense against a victim" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Furthermore, contrary to the assertions of the defendants in error, we see no inconsistency between this conclusion and our unwillingness to condone the use of the term "victim" during certain trial proceedings before a jury prior to conviction; see, e.g., State v. Cortes , 276 Conn. 241 , 249 n.4, 885 A.2d 153 (2005) (referring to complainant in jury charge as " 'victim' " was "inappropriate [when] the very commission of a crime [was] at issue"); because, in those circumstances, the jury must decide whether the complainant was, in fact, the victim of a crime perpetrated by the defendant. Nor have the defendants in error provided any authority requiring a more robust adjudicatory process for identifying victims under the victim's rights amendment than that required for the issuance of an arrest warrant.

The defendants in error next maintain that the ruling of the trial court was not a final judgment from which a writ of error may be brought. We also disagree with this claim. This court previously has held that "[a]n otherwise interlocutory order is appealable in two circumstances: (1) where the order or action terminates a separate and distinct proceeding, or (2) where the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them." State v. Curcio , supra, 191 Conn. at 31 , 463 A.2d 566 . Under Curcio 's second prong, the prong asserted by the plaintiff in error in the present case, "[a] presentence order will be deemed final for purposes of appeal only if it involves a claimed right the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 33-34, 463 A.2d 566 . Because the trial court in the present case excluded the plaintiff in error from all future, in-chambers, pretrial disposition conferences, it is clear that the alleged right to attend such conferences would be irretrievably lost if the plaintiff in error could not challenge the trial court's decision on an interlocutory basis.

The defendants in error argue, nonetheless, that, under State v. Longo , 192 Conn. 85 , 469 A.2d 1220 (1984), the denial of an alleged constitutional right to attend pretrial disposition conferences cannot constitute a final judgment or form the basis for an interlocutory appeal because the right itself is not clearly established. This argument misconstrues Longo . In that case, we explained that a defendant "must do more than show that the trial court's decision threatens him with irreparable harm. The defendant must show that that decision threatens to abrogate a right that he or she then holds." (Emphasis in original.) Id., at 91, 469 A.2d 1220 . On that basis, we concluded that the designation of youthful offender status, which lies purely within the discretion of the trial court, is on different footing than a right granted by the constitution, such as the "unqualified right to be free from double jeopardy"; id. ; and we further explained that an order that "plausibly" threatens to abrogate the latter is an appealable final judgment, whereas an order denying youthful offender status is not. Id., at 91-92, 469 A.2d 1220 .

Thus, Longo actually belies the claim of the defendants in error that the trial court's ruling in the present case is not a final judgment: the right to attend court proceedings as a victim, like the protection against double jeopardy, is a right granted by the state constitution, not a right that emerges only after the discretionary determination of the trial court. See State v. Skipwith , supra, 326 Conn. at 520 n.10, 165 A.3d 1211 (specific rights granted by amendment XXIX [b] are immediately effective). Furthermore, although we have held that "merely invoking" constitutional protections, "no matter how implausible or incongruous the claim might be," will not provide the basis for an interlocutory appeal; State v. Curcio , supra, 191 Conn. at 37 , 463 A.2d 566 ; the plaintiff in error has advanced a colorable claim that the constitutional right to attend court proceedings encompasses the right to attend in-chambers, pretrial disposition conferences. Because that right will be destroyed if appellate review is delayed until judgment is rendered in the underlying criminal case; see id., at 34, 463 A.2d 566 ; the trial court's ruling is a final judgment for purposes of the writ of error in this case.

Finally, the defendants in error argue that the victim's rights amendment itself bars the plaintiff in error from seeking any kind of appellate relief. See Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b) ("[n]othing in this subsection or in any law enacted pursuant to this subsection shall be construed as creating a basis for vacating a conviction or ground for appellate relief in any criminal case"). Following oral argument in the present case, however, this court rejected just such an argument in State v. Skipwith , supra, 326 Conn. at 524-25 , 165 A.3d 1211 , in which we held that nothing in the state constitution precludes victims from seeking relief for a violation of the victim's rights amendment by way of a writ of error. We explained that the language in the amendment barring appellate relief "merely prohibits this court from granting any relief that would directly affect the judgment in a criminal case or otherwise abridge the substantive rights of a defendant." Id. The relief that the plaintiff in error seeks in the present case would do neither. Although the defendants in error maintain that the presence of the plaintiff in error or his counsel at in-chambers, pretrial disposition conferences would adversely affect the plea discussions that occur in that setting, any such negative impact would occur before judgment has been rendered, and, thus, the judgment itself would not be adversely affected. Moreover, it cannot reasonably be maintained that the presence of the plaintiff in error or his representative at an in-chambers, pretrial disposition conference would so deter or discourage the state's attorney and Damato-Kushel from engaging in plea negotiations as to abridge any of Damato-Kushel's substantive rights. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to entertain the claims raised by the writ of error in the present case. 7 II

We turn now to the merits of those claims. The plaintiff in error contends that the trial court improperly excluded his attorney from in-chambers, pretrial disposition conferences at which the presiding judge, the state's attorney and Damato-Kushel's counsel engaged in plea negotiations, in violation of his "right to attend the trial and all other court proceedings the accused has the right to attend," as guaranteed by amendment XXIX (b) (5). 8 The defendants in error maintain that the trial court properly concluded that a victim's right to attend does not include off-the-record, in-chambers disposition conferences both because such conferences are not "court proceedings" and because the defendant has no right to attend them.

Amendment XXIX (b) of the Connecticut constitution provides in relevant part that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, a victim ... shall have ... (5) the right to attend the trial and all other court proceedings the accused has the right to attend, unless such person is to testify and the court determines that such person's testimony would be materially affected if such person hears other testimony ...." With respect to the contention of the defendants in error that the plaintiff in error has no right to attend the pretrial conferences at issue because they are not "court proceedings," as that term is used in amendment XXIX (b) (5), the term appears twice in the victim's rights amendment; see Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b) (5); see also Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b) (4) ("the right to notification of court proceedings"); but the term is not defined in the state constitution, in our statutes, or in any case of this court or the Appellate Court. At the time of the amendment, however, Black's Law Dictionary defined "proceeding" as, inter alia, "[a]n act [that] is done by the authority or direction of the court, agency, or tribunal, express or implied" and noted that it "may be used to describe any act done by authority of a court of law ...." Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) p. 1204. 9 The modifier "court" therefore might reasonably distinguish proceedings undertaken pursuant to the authority of a court of law, such as disposition conferences, 10 from those undertaken by an agency or other tribunal. On the other hand, "court proceedings" also may reasonably be construed to limit the "act[s] done by authority of a court of law"; id.; to those taking place within the physical bounds of a courtroom, as opposed to those acts, like the execution of a bench warrant, undertaken elsewhere. See Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1987) p. 299 ("court" may be "a place ... for the administration of justice"). 11 Because we cannot discern the meaning of the provision solely on the basis of the text of the amendment, we look to extratextual sources to guide our interpretation. Such evidence, however, does not definitively resolve the interpretative question posed by the claim of the plaintiff in error. On the one hand, we recognize that more than 90 percent of criminal cases in this state are resolved through plea bargains in any given year; see, e.g., Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut, Movement of Criminal Docket: Judicial District Criminal, July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, available at https://www.jud.ct.gov/statistics/criminal/Crim_JD_1016.pdf (last visited November 22, 2017); and that our rules of practice both require and provide structure with respect to disposition conferences. See Practice Book §§ 39-11 through 39-17. Accordingly, we hesitate to characterize such mandated conferences, which are conducted under the active supervision of the court itself, as anything other than "court proceedings." On the other hand, the conferences at issue in the present case are conducted informally and off the record, and, for that reason, we are hesitant to deem them court proceedings in the absence of reasonably clear evidence that we should do so. 12 We need not resolve this question, however, in light of our agreement with the alternative argument advanced by the defendants in error, namely, that the victim has no right to attend off-the-record, in-chambers disposition conferences because the defendant herself has no right to do so.

The text of amendment XXIX (b) makes clear that a victim's right to attend such conferences is wholly contingent on the defendant's right of attendance. See Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b) (5). This court has previously determined, however, in State v. Lopez , 197 Conn. 337 , 497 A.2d 390 (1985), that a defendant possesses no such right under our rules of practice. In that case, the defendant, Jose Lopez, claimed that the trial court improperly had excluded him from "a secret pretrial conference between the court, the [s]tate's [a]ttorney, and [defense counsel]," in which plea negotiations were conducted. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 348, 497 A.2d 390 . We rejected Lopez' claim, explaining that, "[a]lthough there may have been a disposition conference from which [Lopez] was excluded, under our established rules of practice neither [Lopez] nor the public is entitled to attend such a proceeding. In fact, under Practice Book §§ [ 39 - 1 and 39-2], the [state] is not permitted to engage in plea negotiations directly with a defendant who is represented by counsel, except with defense counsel's permission. [See Practice Book §§ 39-1 13 and 39-2 ]; 14 [s]ee also Practice Book § [ 39 - 14]. 15 Furthermore, Practice Book § [44-7] 16 does not include the disposition conference or plea negotiations among the specifically enumerated situations [in which] a criminal defendant has the right to be present." (Footnotes added and omitted.) State v. Lopez , supra, at 349-50, 497 A.2d 390 . Thus, Lopez -and, indeed, Practice Book § 44-7 itself-leaves no doubt that a defendant has no right to attend a disposition conference under our rules of practice. Moreover, the plaintiff in error makes no claim that he has a statutory or constitutional right independent of the victim's rights amendment to attend such a conference.

Contrary to the assertions of the plaintiff in error, our conclusion in Lopez that a defendant has no right to attend disposition conferences is fully consistent with the language of Practice Book § 39-13, 17 which requires that the defendant "appear at the time set for the disposition conference unless excused by the judicial authority"-a requirement that is itself expressly subject to the discretion of the court-and does not purport to create a right of attendance in the defendant supplementary to the rights of attendance enumerated in Practice Book § 44-7. Indeed, under our rules of practice, a disposition conference is intended to be a discussion between "[t]he prosecuting authority and counsel for the defendant"; Practice Book § 39-14 ; such that the requirement that a defendant "appear at the time set for the disposition conference"; (emphasis added) Practice Book § 39-13 ; indicates only that the defendant shall be present in the courtroom, not that she must be involved in or present at in-chambers plea negotiations. Requiring the defendant's appearance in court during the disposition conference serves the purpose of making the defendant available for consultation with counsel and, in the event that an agreement is reached, to enter the plea in open court in accordance with that agreement. 18 See Practice Book § 39-24 ; 19 see also Mass. R. Crim. P. 11 (a) and reporter's notes (defendant "shall be available for attendance" at pretrial conference so that his "assent to ... agreements may readily be obtained").

The plaintiff in error further claims that the attendance of counsel for the defendant during plea negotiations at a disposition conference is no different from attendance by the defendant personally for purposes of the victim's right of attendance under amendment XXIX (b). Again, we disagree.

Although it is well established that counsel often functions as an agent of the defendant; see, e.g., Monroe v. Monroe , 177 Conn. 173 , 181, 413 A.2d 819 , appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 801 , 100 S.Ct. 20 , 62 L.Ed.2d 14 (1979) ; it is equally well established that the privileges, rights, and responsibilities of counsel are not identical to those of the defendant. See, e.g., State v. Gore , 288 Conn. 770 , 779 n.10, 955 A.2d 1 (2008) (distinguishing fundamental rights that defendant must personally decide to waive from "tactical rights" that are waivable by counsel). In the present context, it is defense counsel's responsibility to engage in plea negotiations on behalf of the defendant, albeit in consultation with the defendant as counsel reasonably deems necessary and appropriate. Only the defendant, however, can actually enter a plea of guilty, and any such plea proceedings must be conducted on the record. See, e.g., Florida v. Nixon , 543 U.S. 175 , 187, 125 S.Ct. 551 , 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004) ("counsel lacks authority to consent to a guilty plea on a client's behalf"); see also Practice Book § 39-24. In light of this division of authority within the plea process itself, we decline to interpret the provision of the victim's rights amendment allowing the victim to be present at proceedings that "the accused has the right to attend"; Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b) (5); also to permit the victim to attend proceedings that counsel for the defendant, and not the defendant herself, has the right to attend. See Morehart v. Barton , 226 Ariz. 510 , 515, 250 P.3d 1139 (2011) (victims' argument that "their right to attend proceedings '[at which] the defendant has a right to be present' should include proceedings [at which] either the defendant or defense counsel is entitled to appear ... is refuted by the language of the [v]ictims' [b]ill of [r]ights ... which refer[s] to the 'defendant' rather than the 'defense' or 'defense counsel' ").

We also disagree with the plaintiff in error that excluding victims from off-the-record, in-chambers disposition conferences is contrary to the goals of the victim's rights amendment. An important purpose of amendment XXIX (b) (5) and other state constitutional provisions like it was to address the concern that victims were being unreasonably excluded from the courtroom at trial and other on-the-record proceedings. See, e.g., State v. Ticknor , Docket No. 1 CA-CR 11-0359, 2012 WL 1067236 , *3 n.4 (Ariz. App. March 29, 2012) (explaining that rule exempting victims from sequestration "gives effect" to attendance provision of victim's rights amendment to Arizona constitution); State v. Beltran-Felix , 922 P.2d 30 , 33-35, 38 (Utah App. 1996) (presence of victim at trial, as permitted by victim's rights amendment to Utah constitution, did not violate defendant's federal constitutional right to fair trial); National Victim Center, The 1996 Victims' Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of Victims' Rights Laws (1996) § 10, pp. 285-86 (identifying exclusion from trial as primary problem addressed by victim attendance provisions and noting "widespread misuse of the sequestration rule by defense attorneys" to remove from courtroom "anyone who may draw the sympathy of the jury"); Final Report of the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime (December, 1982) p. 80 (noting that "[t]ime and again ... victims ... were unreasonably excluded from the trial at which responsibility for their victimization was assigned," and recommending that, "as an exception to the general rule providing for the exclusion of witnesses, [victims and their families] be permitted to be present for the entire trial"); see also State v. Swinton , 268 Conn. 781 , 849, 847 A.2d 921 (2004) (state objected to defendant's request to sequester " '[a]ny and all potential witnesses' " on ground that defendant's request violated victims' right to be present under amendment XXIX); Conn. Joint Standing Committee Hearings, Judiciary, Pt. 13, 2005 Sess., pp. 3795, 3798, testimony of James F. Papillo (noting that victims were often precluded from attending youthful offender proceedings and explaining that proposed legislation implementing provisions of victim's right amendment, which presumptively allowed victims to attend such proceedings, would ensure that victims of crimes committed by youthful offenders were accorded all rights granted by that amendment); Conn. Joint Standing Committee Hearings, Judiciary, Pt. 4, 1988 Sess., p. 971, remarks of Representative Peter A. Nystrom (noting, in remarks on proposed legislation allowing representatives of homicide victims to attend proceedings involving prosecution of defendant, that victims and their representatives often were not "allowed to be in the court during the time of process of trial"). Consistent with this concern, amendment XXIX (b) (5) includes a provision carefully limiting the court's ability to sequester victims-in spite of otherwise mandatory sequestration rules and procedures 20 -by requiring that the court make a finding as to whether the victim's testimony would be "materially affected" by hearing other testimony.

By contrast, a victim's right to participate meaningfully in the plea bargaining process is safeguarded by other provisions of the victim's rights amendment-in particular, "the right to communicate with the prosecution" under amendment XXIX (b) (6), "the right ... to make a statement to the court" regarding any plea agreement prior to its acceptance under amendment XXIX (b) (7), and the broader, more encompassing right under amendment XXIX (b) "to be treated with fairness and respect throughout the criminal justice process ...." Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b) (1); see, e.g., State v. Thomas , 296 Conn. 375 , 390 n.11, 995 A.2d 65 (2010) (legislature sought to give victims " 'true role' " in plea bargaining process by giving victim right to be heard prior to acceptance of plea); S. Welling, " Victim Participation in Plea Bargains," 65 Wash. U. L.Q. 301 , 355 (1987) (arguing that victim's right to participate in plea bargains "is best defined as a right to be heard by the trial judge before the plea bargain is accepted"). To the extent that the plaintiff in error suggests that state's attorneys cannot be relied on to adequately communicate the information necessary for a victim to comment on the appropriateness of any plea bargain, we reject that assertion. We have every reason to believe that state's attorneys will fully discharge their constitutional, statutory, and professional responsibilities to victims; see Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b); 21 General Statutes § 54-91c ; see also A.B.A., Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function (4th Ed. 2015) standard 3-3.4 (i); 22 and that, in the unlikely case of a wilful failure to do so, such misconduct will not be taken lightly. See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Commission v. Smith , 442 Md. 14 , 31-32, 109 A.3d 1184 (2015) (prosecutor sanctioned for violating Maryland Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct by repeatedly and wilfully failing to communicate with victim). We note, finally, that considerations of public policy-as primarily reflected in court rules and practices, all of which are consistent with constitutional requirements-support our determination that a victim's right of attendance under amendment XXIX (b) (5) does not extend to off-the-record, in-chambers disposition conferences. For better or for worse, plea bargaining involving the court, the state and the defendant has become an important tool for the efficient and orderly disposition of our criminal court dockets. See, e.g., State v. Elson , 311 Conn. 726 , 776, 91 A.3d 862 (2014) (documenting "our state's extremely heavy reliance on plea bargaining in resolving criminal cases"); State v. Revelo , 256 Conn. 494 , 505, 775 A.2d 260 ("[w]hatever might be the situation in an ideal world, the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of [the] criminal justice system" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1052 , 122 S.Ct. 639 , 151 L.Ed.2d 558 (2001). Moreover, although many jurisdictions forbid or strictly limit judicial participation in plea conferences, practice and policy in Connecticut recognize that judges may play a valuable role in facilitating plea negotiations. 23 See State v. Revelo , supra, at 508 n.25, 775 A.2d 260 ("[i]t is a common practice in this state for the presiding criminal judge to conduct plea negotiations with the parties"); J. Turner, " Judicial Participation in Plea Negotiations: A Comparative View," 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 199 , 201, 214 (2006) (explaining that, unlike judges in many states, Connecticut judges "are actively involved in the negotiations as moderators and comment not only on the ultimate sentence acceptable to the court, but also on the merits of the case," and arguing that such "[a]ctive judicial participation" in plea negotiations may be "a better way to promote accuracy and fairness in plea bargaining"). We agree with the defendants in error that the likelihood of defense counsel being willing to engage candidly with the state's attorney and the presiding judge during plea discussions would be greatly diminished by the presence of the victim or the victim's representative at such conferences. In such circumstances, the judicial role in plea negotiations will be sharply reduced in contravention of our established public policy.

We therefore conclude that in-chambers, off-the-record disposition conferences between the prosecuting attorney, defense counsel, and the presiding judge are not "court proceedings the accused has the right to attend" under amendment XXIX (b) (5). Consequently, neither the victim nor his authorized representative has a right to attend them. 24

The writ of error is dismissed.

In this opinion ROGERS, C. J., and EVELEIGH, McDONALD, ROBINSON and VERTEFEUILLE, Js., concurred.

CONCURRENCE

ESPINOSA, J., concurring.

I agree with the majority that the victim's rights amendment; Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b); 1 does not confer on the plaintiff in error, M, 2 the right to have his attorney attend any in-chambers, informal plea discussions that may occur between the prosecutor, defense counsel and the presiding judge. I write separately, however, because I disagree with the majority's rationale. There are two flaws in that analysis, which I will discuss separately. First, the majority fails to address a misinterpretation of amendment XXIX (b) (5) that is embedded in the plaintiff in error's claim. The plaintiff in error did not request to personally attend any chambers plea discussions, but claimed only that he was entitled to have his attorney attend any such discussions. As I explain in this concurring opinion, I would reject the plaintiff in error's claim on the basis that the plain language of amendment XXIX (b) (5) guarantees personal attendance only and does not extend to the attendance of counsel. The majority, by assuming, with no analysis, that the guarantee of amendment XXIX (b) (5) extends to the attendance of counsel, fails to ask the most important and fundamental question presented in this writ-whether our state constitution guarantees that right to victims.

The second flaw in the majority's analysis is that it accepts the plaintiff in error's characterization of the chambers discussions at issue in this writ of error as "disposition conferences" pursuant to Practice Book § 39-13. The plaintiff in error strategically conflated these informal meetings with disposition conferences-which are formal, on record and held in court-in order to bolster his argument that such discussions are "court proceedings" pursuant to amendment XXIX (b) (5). The term "disposition conference," as I explain in this concurring opinion, refers to an in-court, on-the-record proceeding. 3 The rules of practice relied on by the majority to reject the claim of the plaintiff in error, therefore, are inapposite. For these reasons, I respectfully concur.

I begin with the relevant procedural background. During the arraignment of Kyle Damato-Kushel, the defendant in the underlying criminal case in which the plaintiff in error is the alleged victim, the court accepted Damato-Kushel's plea of not guilty. Defense counsel then noted that Attorney James Clark had filed an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff in error. Defense counsel objected to Clark "being present during the course of chambers pretrial discussions." The plaintiff in error opposed the objection on the basis that the victim's rights amendment guaranteed him the right to have Clark attend the judicial pretrials on his behalf. The trial court sustained the objection, on the basis that amendment XXIX (b) (5) guarantees that "the victim can be present at any proceeding where the defendant can be present and the defendant's not present at judicial pretrials. Their lawyers are, but the defendants aren't." By resting its ruling on the fact that Damato-Kushel had no right to be personally present, the trial court's ruling implicitly rejected the plaintiff in error's extension of amendment XXIX (b) (5) to the attendance of counsel.

In his motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff in error continued to press his claim that his attorney should be allowed to attend the judicial pretrials. Specifically, he asked that the court "reconsider its denial of his right to attend through counsel, disposition conferences (pretrials) in this case." 4 In support of the motion, he argued that the victim's rights amendment "grants the victim the right to have his attorney attend pretrials if the defendant's attorney has the right to do so. The attorneys are not attending personally, but only as substitutes for their respective clients." (Emphasis omitted.) At the hearing on the motion, Clark argued: "The constitution is quite clear that the victim, through an attorney-that's how we act in the court system-has a right to attend all court proceedings that the defendant has a right to attend. And it appears to me to be pretty straightforward that that means that [defense counsel] can attend that as the defendant, and, therefore, under the constitution I should be able to attend as the victim's attorney since individually we have no right to be there." Damato-Kushel responded that because she did not have a right to be personally present, amendment XXIX (b) (5) did not confer that right on the plaintiff in error. When the plaintiff in error replied by repeating his claim that his counsel should be allowed to attend any judicial pretrials, the court did not consider whether the right extended to the victim's counsel, but turned to the question of whether judicial pretrials constituted "court proceedings." The trial court's memorandum of decision, however, released the day after the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, rested its decision on the fact that Damato-Kushel did not have the right to personally attend any judicial pretrials. The ruling, therefore, implicitly assumed that the parallel right afforded to the victim by amendment XXIX (b) (5), was limited to personal attendance. Following the court's subsequent denial of his motion seeking its permission for his attorney to attend any judicial pretrials that may occur in the case, the plaintiff in error filed this writ of error, naming Damato-Kushel and the Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, as the defendants in error.

The first flaw in the majority's analysis of the question of whether amendment XXIX (b) (5) guarantees that a victim has the right to have victim's counsel attend any court proceedings that defense counsel may attend is readily resolved by reviewing the text of the constitutional provision. That review reveals that the plaintiff in error's interpretation runs afoul of two basic tenets of constitutional interpretation. Specifically, that interpretation would require us to supply language that is not in the constitutional text and would also render some of the express language of amendment XXIX (b) (5) superfluous. 5 The victim's rights amendment provides in relevant part that "a victim ... shall have ... the right to attend the trial and all other court proceedings the accused has the right to attend, unless such person is to testify and the court determines that such person's testimony would be materially affected if such person hears other testimony ...." Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b) (5). As I have already noted, amendment XXIX (b) (5) makes no reference either to the victim's attorney or to defense counsel. Instead, its scope is limited to the "victim," whose right to attend is limited to that enjoyed by "the accused." This court has stated that it does "not supply constitutional language that the drafter intentionally may have chosen to omit." Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell , 295 Conn. 240 , 273, 990 A.2d 206 (2010). The plaintiff in error relies on an interpretation of amendment XXIX (b) (5) that supplies language that is not there. That is, the plaintiff in error's interpretation reads amendment XXIX (b) (5) thusly: "a victim, either personally or through counsel ... shall have ... the right to attend the trial and all other court proceedings the accused, either personally or through counsel , has the right to attend, unless such person is to testify and the court determines that such person's testimony would be materially affected if such person hears other testimony ...."

Because the addition of the phrase "either personally or through counsel" cannot be reconciled with the express constitutional text, I reject the plaintiff in error's interpretation. Specifically, the victim's right to attend court proceedings is subject to a significant exception-the victim has the right to attend "unless such person is to testify and the court determines that such person's testimony would be materially affected if such person hears other testimony ...." This exception to the general rule presumes that the person whose attendance is secured by amendment XXIX (b) (5) is a person whose testimony could be "materially affected" if he or she hears other testimony. Accordingly, a person who is included within the meaning of the word "victim," is a person who potentially could be required to testify. That language would make no sense if the word "victim" is construed to include the victim's attorney, who would not be required to testify. Pursuant to the express language of amendment XXIX (b) (5), the victim's right to attend is extinguished entirely if "such person" is to testify and that testimony would be materially affected by attending the court proceeding. If the drafters had intended to include the victim's counsel in the meaning of "victim," surely they would instead merely have provided that, under those circumstances, the victim's right to attend was limited to attendance through counsel. Instead, the exception clarifies that the right to attendance is one that is personal to the victim and does not include attendance through counsel.

The interpretation of the plaintiff in error runs afoul of a second tenet of constitutional construction-it renders some of the language of the victim's rights amendment superfluous. We have explained: "In dealing with constitutional provisions we must assume that infinite care was employed to couch in scrupulously fitting language a proposal aimed at establishing or changing the organic law of the state.... Unless there is some clear reason for not doing so, effect must be given to every part of and each word in the constitution." (Citations omitted.) Stolberg v. Caldwell , 175 Conn. 586 , 597-98, 402 A.2d 763 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom. Stolberg v. Davidson , 454 U.S. 958 , 102 S.Ct. 496 , 70 L.Ed.2d 374 (1981). Construing the term "victim" to include the victim's attorney renders the qualifying clause "[that] the accused has the right to attend" superfluous. That clause limits the victim's constitutional right to attend, extending it only to court proceedings that "the accused has the right to attend ...." In a criminal case brought against a defendant, however, defense counsel cannot be excluded from any court proceedings. Accordingly, if amendment XXIX (b) (5) guaranteed that the victim's counsel may attend any court proceedings that defense counsel may attend, that guarantee would encompass all proceedings. That is, the victim's counsel would be guaranteed the right to attend all court proceedings in the case, without any need for the language limiting those proceedings to the ones that "the accused has the right to attend ...." Accordingly, the reasonable reading of amendment XXIX (b) (5) is that it guarantees a victim the right to personally attend any court proceedings that the defendant has the right to personally attend. Put another way, the right guaranteed to victims by amendment XXIX (b) (5) is the right to be present at court proceedings at which the accused has the right to be present.

My reading of amendment XXIX (b) (5) is consistent with our previous holding that "nothing in the victim's rights amendment itself or in subsequently enacted legislation explicitly makes victims parties ...." State v. Gault , 304 Conn. 330 , 347, 39 A.3d 1105 (2012). The victim's rights amendment merely gives victims the right to have a voice in the criminal prosecution and does not grant them party status. The limited right of participation conferred on a victim is evident from the amendment itself, which states with specificity the victim's rights-those rights are not equal to the defendant's. Id. ("although the legislature intended to create an avenue through which victims could appear in court proceedings and articulate their positions in regard to matters relating to their rights, it did not intend that victims were to have full party status").

Turning to the second flaw in the majority's analysis, I observe that rather than resolving the more fundamental question of whether amendment XXIX (b) (5) guarantees the right claimed by the plaintiff in error, the majority focuses on the question of whether the judicial pretrials constitute "court proceedings the accused has a right to attend" pursuant to amendment XXIX (b) (5). The majority holds that "the [plaintiff in error] has no right to attend off-the-record, in-chambers [judicial pretrials] because the defendant herself has no right to do so." 6 Accordingly, the majority does not resolve the question of whether the judicial pretrials constitute "court proceedings." In its discussion of this issue, the majority assumes, without any analysis, that the plaintiff in error correctly has characterized the informal, in-chambers plea discussions as "disposition conferences." As I previously have noted in this concurring opinion, the first reference to judicial pretrials as "disposition conferences" in the present case was in the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiff in error. That characterization bolstered his argument that the meetings were court proceedings that he had a right to attend. During the initial discussion of defense counsel's objection to Clark's attendance at the judicial pretrials, neither the court nor the attorneys referred to those informal discussions as the "disposition conference." Instead, both the attorneys and the trial judge referred to "chambers pretrial discussions," "judicial pretrials," and "chambers pretrials."

Rather than accept the plaintiff in error's characterization of judicial pretrials as disposition conferences, I would simply consider the nature of judicial pretrials, which are informal and off-the-record. These meetings are not court proceedings, but merely part of the apparatus by which the presiding judge moves the criminal case along. Accordingly, even if the right set forth in amendment XXIX (b) (5) extended to attendance through counsel, it would not apply to judicial pretrials.

The term "disposition conference" is not defined in the rules of practice. It is clear, however, that the term does not refer to in-chambers judicial pretrials. The governing rules of practice make clear that a disposition conference is an in-court, on-the-record, formal proceeding. Unless the case goes to trial, it will most commonly be resolved at the disposition conference-this cannot occur informally, behind closed doors, or in chambers. The case can be "disposed of" in the disposition conference only in court and on-the-record. It is not a "negotiation conference," or a "plea bargaining conference." Certainly, plea bargaining and negotiations precede the disposition conference. Negotiations between the parties can occur off-the-record, behind closed doors and at any time. Parties can bring an agreement to the presiding judge for approval off-the-record. The judge can make a judicial offer off-the-record. All of those events are undertaken with the goal of being able to dispose of the case on the record, in court. None of these events, however, resolves the criminal case. The disposition conference is the formal culmination of all of the efforts that precede it-discussions, plea bargaining, meetings with the presiding judge. The disposition of the case, however, must occur in the courtroom and on the record. 7

The rules of practice set forth the procedures governing the disposition of a criminal case without trial and set forth procedures governing, inter alia, plea discussions and agreements and disposition conferences. The presiding judge has the responsibility of overseeing the pretrial process, 8 and, as happened in the present case, will assign a case for a disposition conference, if possible, at the time of the defendant's arraignment. See Practice Book § 37-9 ("Any defendant who pleads not guilty shall be asked whether he or she desires a trial either by the court or by a jury. Pursuant to these rules, including Sections 44-11 through 44-17, the case shall be placed on the trial list and, where possible or necessary, assigned dates for a disposition conference, a probable cause hearing, and/or a trial."); see also Practice Book § 44-15 ("Upon entry of a not guilty plea, the judicial authority shall, whenever feasible, assign a date certain for the trial of such case, and in jury cases, for a disposition conference pursuant to Sections 39-11 through 39-13, and it shall advise all parties that they are to be prepared to proceed to trial or to a disposition conference on that date. If the setting of a definite date at the time of the not guilty plea is not feasible, the case shall be placed on a trial list of pending cases which shall be maintained by the clerk. Cases shall be placed on the trial list in the order in which the not guilty pleas were entered.").

The language of Practice Book § 37-9 is particularly instructive. There are three key proceedings for which the presiding judge assigns dates, if possible: the disposition conference, and, where applicable, a probable cause hearing, and/or the trial. All three of these proceedings are points at which the case can be disposed. If a defendant pleads guilty during the disposition conference, the case is resolved and there will be no need for either a probable cause hearing or a trial. If, in cases where a probable cause hearing is required, the court finds no probable cause, the case is resolved and there will be no need for a trial. All efforts in these proceedings are directed at disposing of the case-the disposition conference is a component of that process and is treated on a par with a probable cause hearing and the trial, both formal, in-court, on-the-record proceedings. It would make no sense for the rules of practice to designate, along with probable cause hearings and trials, the informal, off-the-record meetings that occur in the presiding judge's chambers when the case is scheduled for the pretrial docket.

The informality of the judicial pretrials is evident from the events that take place on the pretrial docket. Once the case is assigned for a disposition conference, it is placed on the pretrial docket for that date, and the parties who are scheduled to appear that day receive the list of cases on the docket. See Practice Book § 39-11 ("After conferring with the clerk, the presiding judge shall assign for disposition conferences so much of the jury trial list as he or she shall deem necessary for the proper conduct of the court and he or she shall direct the clerk to print and distribute a list of the cases so assigned to the appearing parties. The clerk shall schedule the conferences at times which will not interfere with the orderly calling of the court docket. Cases may also be assigned for a disposition conference at the time of the entry of a plea pursuant to Section 44-15.").

In the meantime, the prosecutor and defense counsel may engage in negotiations. See Practice Book § 39-1 ("[t]he prosecuting authority and counsel for the defendant, or the defendant when not represented by counsel, may engage in discussions at any time with a view towards disposition"). A defendant who, like Damato-Kushel, is represented by counsel, does not participate in plea discussions, and the prosecutor is barred from discussing plea negotiations with him or her. See Practice Book § 39-2 ("[t]he prosecuting authority shall not engage in plea discussions at the disposition conference, or at other times, directly with a defendant who is represented by counsel"). It is the duty of defense counsel to inform the defendant of any proposed plea agreement, and to conclude any agreement only with the defendant's consent. See Practice Book § 39-3 ("[d]efense counsel shall conclude plea agreements only with the consent of the defendant and shall insure that the decision to dispose of the case or to proceed to trial is ultimately made by the defendant").

On the day the court is conducting pretrials, the presiding judge calls each case listed on the pretrial docket and the attorneys report their appearances and the status of the case, including whether they need a continuance. The defendant's appearance is noted on the record. See Practice Book § 39-13 ("The prosecuting authority, the defense counsel, and, in cases claimed for jury trial, the defendant shall appear at the time set for the disposition conference unless excused by the judicial authority. Requests for postponements shall be made only to the presiding judge and shall be granted upon good cause shown." [Emphasis added.] ).

After the presiding judge has finished calling the cases, the court goes into recess, and the judge conducts the judicial pretrials, meeting with the attorneys for each case that was called in open court and was not continued. These meetings are generally conducted in chambers, but in some judicial districts an adjoining conference room is used. The order in which the attorneys meet with the presiding judge for the judicial pretrials is determined in an informal manner by the judge, according to practical concerns, including whether the parties need more time to confer prior to meeting with the presiding judge. During the judicial pretrial, the judge typically will address discovery and investigation issues. If the parties have reached an agreement without judicial intervention, they will advise the judge, who will decide whether the court will accept the agreement. Plea discussions between the parties commonly are ongoing, as they attempt to reach a plea agreement. See Practice Book § 39-14 ("[t]he prosecuting authority and counsel for the defendant should attempt to reach a plea agreement pursuant to the procedures of Sections 39-1 through 39-10"). If the parties are having difficulty arriving at a plea agreement, they may inform the judge during the pretrial and request assistance. If the judge deems it appropriate, he or she may extend a judicial offer during the judicial pretrial. These meetings are informal, practical, and aimed at moving the case along.

After all the judicial pretrials have been conducted for the day, the court is called back into session, and for each case, the court either gives the defendant the next court date, or takes the defendant's plea. If the court accepts the defendant's plea, on-the-record and in open court, the case has been disposed of, not before. Accordingly, because the informal discussions in judge's chambers, while undertaken with the goal of arriving at an ultimate disposition in the case, do not-and cannot-dispose of the case, they are not disposition conferences.

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur.