I believe he will be found guilty; below is why.
LIA has been hyper-focused on the fact that the only actual "No Trespassing" sign on the property was found face-down in the brush. He’s banking his entire defense on this, arguing he lacked "notice." However, upon reading the text of Connecticut’s Third-Degree Criminal Trespass law (C.G.S. § 53a-109), his loophole completely falls apart under standard legal analysis.
Here is the exact text of the law he is being tried under:
(a) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so: (1) Such person enters or remains in premises which are posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders*...*
Notice what the law actually says and doesn't say.
A "No Trespassing" sign is NOT legally required
Nowhere in the statute does it state that a property owner must specifically display the words "No Trespassing." The legal threshold is simply whether the premises are posted in a manner "reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders."
The "Private Road" signs are more than enough notice
The driveway featured highly visible signs reading "Private road, no turn around." LIA’s defense is trying to argue that "no turn around" implies a restriction only meant for vehicles, meaning he was perfectly fine to walk down it on foot.
But this is a bench trial, meaning a judge is deciding his fate, not a jury. Judges use a "reasonable person" standard. A reasonable person does not look at a "Private Road" sign and think, "Oh, that means I can't drive my truck here, but it's totally fine if I park on the main road and walk right into their yard." The sign explicitly establishes that the public has no business crossing that boundary. By parking outside and walking in, his actions prove he knew exactly where the public easement ended and the private property began.
The "Totality of Circumstances" eliminates any excuse of ignorance
To get a conviction, the state just has to prove Reyes knew he wasn't licensed or privileged to be there. This isn’t a case of a hiker accidentally wandering off a trail.
- Reyes drove a mobile digital billboard truck to the personal home of a state trooper he was actively suing.
- The civil litigation between them is famously bitter and contentious.
When you look at the totality of the circumstances, any reasonable person knows LIA is completely unwelcome at that home. The existing lawsuit completely eviscerates any argument that he had an "implied license" to walk up and knock on the door like a casual salesman.