Skip to content

Christopher Grannis

Era:1980s
State:Connecticut
Support
No image available

Biography

Christopher Grannis was an anti-nuclear protester individually named in the May 9, 1981 newsletter as held over the weekend following the April 25 Electric Boat submarine-launch protest in Groton, Connecticut. The five who continued refusing to give their ages were later released on recognizance after a contempt hearing.

Christopher Grannis was an anti-nuclear protester individually named in the May 9, 1981 newsletter as held over the weekend following the April 25 Electric Boat submarine-launch protest in Groton, Connecticut. The five who continued refusing to give their ages were later released on recognizance after a contempt hearing. The May 9, 1981 newsletter individually names this person among five anti-nuclear protesters held over the weekend after the April 25 demonstration at Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, where the submarine Corpus Christi was launched. They refused to supply their ages. On Monday they still declined to cooperate, and New London Superior Court Judge Francis Quinn initially imposed fifty days for contempt. After discussion, the five were released on their own recognizance pending trial. The fifty-day term was not fifty days actually served. The source establishes weekend custody but does not print the exact release date; no calendar-relative endpoint or total is invented.

Contemporary source, PDF page 3.

Case

Charges: Disorderly conduct; contempt for refusal to provide age
Arrested: Apr 25, 1981
Incarcerated: Apr 25, 1981
Sentence: The May 9, 1981 newsletter individually names this person among five anti-nuclear protesters held over the weekend after the April 25 demonstration at Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, where the submarine Corpus Christi was launched. They refused to supply their ages. On Monday they still declined to cooperate, and New London Superior Court Judge Francis Quinn initially imposed fifty days for contempt. After discussion, the five were released on their own recognizance pending trial. The fifty-day term was not fifty days actually served. The source establishes weekend custody but does not print the exact release date; no calendar-relative endpoint or total is invented.
Judge: Francis Quinn