Wang trial showed judicial system at its best — but not everybody gets the same representation

Finally, it comes to an end. Seven years after he was arrested and charged with the murder of a coworker, Dr. Lishan Wang, 51, was convicted and in September is scheduled to be sentenced to 32 years in prison.

The long pre-trial proceedings limped to a conclusion that was obvious to everyone following them but Wang, who, in the end accepted a plea deal that will keep him behind bars until he is in his 70s. As a Chinese national, he will more than likely be deported when his sentence ends.

In a sometimes wacky saga that produced one step forward and two steps back between a flurry of motions, questions of mental health competency, and numerous judges, Wang was convicted but never pleaded guilty.

Wang pleaded nolo contendere — meaning he does not accept or deny responsibility but agrees to accept punishment — to first-degree manslaughter with a firearm and three other charges. He was originally charged with murder but the state agreed to reduce it to manslaughter. Wang also was convicted of attempted murder for shooting at Toor’s then-pregnant wife, who was not injured in the assault.

It was on April 26, 2010, that Wang, then 44, shot and killed Dr. Vajinder Toor outside Toor’s Branford condominium and then fired at Toor’s wife. Wang has maintained Toor unfairly cost him his job at a Brooklyn hospital where they had previously worked, and damaged his career. But he has consistently denied the charges against him.

Wang, now 51, has been in custody in jail and at psychiatric facilities since the day he shot Toor.

The pre-trial proceedings were a bravado display of our judicial system — one that showed the good and the bad and also the fairness and unfairness of the judicial system. Not many defendants are afforded the luxury of playing cat and mouse with the judicial system for seven years.

Wang appeared in court more times than can be counted; three New Haven Superior Court judges were involved with more than 400 motions filed by Wang — almost all of them ruled irrelevant by the various judges.

Twice, side issues had to be ruled on by the state Supreme Court as to whether Wang could be forcibly medicated and how his defense would be funded if he represented himself, which he did for more than a year.

Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Gene Calistro Jr. said, “The problem with this case is never getting it to trial.”

He was right. Seven years is a long time — too long.

To get an idea how long Wang and his attorneys worked the judicial system, let’s take a look at other highprofile cases.

On July 19, 2012, James Holmes walked into a theater in Aurora, Colorado, and opened fire with a AR-15 rifle, killing 12 and injuring 70 more. He was convicted three years later.

In another high-profile case here in Connecticut, Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters were murdered during a home invasion in Cheshire in July 2007.

Steven Hayes was convicted in 2010 and Joshua Komisarjevsky was convicted in 2011.

Wang and his public defenders pulled out all the stops to get him the most lenient deal. Prosecutors agreed to the plea deal because Wang’s attorney was going to have Wang evaluated for a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity — a process that could have taken another year.

So, in the end, the man who shot and killed his coworker, attempted to kill his coworker’s pregnant wife and when arrested had “two loaded ammunition clips on his person in addition to three handguns, 1,000 rounds of ammunition and a knife,” had public defenders who defended him so fiercely, he walked away from a murder charge.

We’re not sure but between court costs, hospital stays and doctors, the financial cost to prosecuting Wang had to be costly, not to mention the time and energy the pretrial proceedings took.

No one argues that Wang should not have been given due process but how long does a reasonable due process take?

We don’t know, but we just wish every defendant — particularly those who are lowincome and don’t carry a title before their name — were given the same access and determined representation when faced with similar charges.