The Connecticut Supreme Court has dismissed a motion filed by a woman identified as Jane Doe, seeking to remove her name from the official transcripts of a criminal trial involving Saifullah Khan. This ruling, issued on September 22, 2026, clarifies the limits of a trial court's jurisdiction following a judgment of acquittal in criminal cases.
The case began in 2018 when Khan was acquitted of sexually assaulting Doe. During the trial, a judge ordered Doe to use her full name, despite a prior order allowing her to be referred to as Jane Doe. After Khan's acquittal, Doe sought to have her name redacted from the transcripts, claiming that the trial judge had made a mistake. However, the court ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to reconsider the previous ruling due to the acquittal.
Background
Saifullah Khan faced charges of sexual assault after a 2015 incident involving Jane Doe. Doe alleged that Khan raped her, while Khan maintained that the encounter was consensual. Before the trial, Doe requested that her identity be protected under Connecticut law, which allows victims of sexual assault to remain anonymous. A judge granted her request, allowing her to be referred to as Jane Doe during pretrial proceedings.
However, during the trial, a different judge ordered Doe to state her full name for the record. This ruling contradicted the earlier order, and Doe's name was recorded in the official trial transcripts. After Khan was acquitted, Doe discovered that her name was publicly available in these transcripts and filed a motion to open the case for the limited purpose of redacting her name.
The Ruling
The Connecticut Supreme Court, led by Justice McDonald, ruled that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Doe's motion. The court cited a previous case, State v. Butler, which established that trial courts do not have jurisdiction to open a final judgment after all criminal charges have been dismissed. The court stated, "the trial court had no authority to adjudicate the plaintiff in error’s motion to open, and, accordingly, this court dismissed the writ of error."
The ruling emphasized that once a trial court renders a judgment of acquittal, it loses jurisdiction over the case. The court also noted that while there are limited circumstances in which a trial court can retain jurisdiction, these apply only to cases involving convictions, not acquittals. Therefore, Doe's motion to open was dismissed because it sought to challenge a prior ruling rather than correct a clerical error.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for victims of sexual assault and the confidentiality of their identities in court proceedings. The court's decision reinforces the idea that once a criminal case is resolved with an acquittal, the trial court cannot revisit earlier rulings. This limits the ability of individuals like Doe to seek changes to court records after a case has concluded.
The ruling also clarifies the procedural avenues available for individuals who may wish to challenge prior court orders. The court indicated that Doe could have sought a writ of error in the Appellate Court instead of filing a motion in the trial court. This distinction highlights the importance of following the appropriate legal channels when seeking to address grievances related to court proceedings.
What's Next
While the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling dismisses Doe's motion, it does leave open the possibility for her to file a late writ of error in the Appellate Court. If she chooses to pursue this option, the Appellate Court would consider whether she has demonstrated good cause for the late filing and could review the earlier ruling regarding her name.