162 Conn.App. 606
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Petitioner Johnnie Arthur was convicted in 2009 of attempted murder, first‑degree assault, criminal possession of a firearm, and carrying a pistol without a permit after a 2007 shooting; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- State introduced cell‑phone call detail records (T‑Mobile) showing calls between the victim’s companion’s two phones around the shooting time and tower hits near Glade Street; detective testified these records placed the phones (and therefore the petitioner) near the scene.
- A note found during a jail visit to petitioner, effectively urging noncooperation, was admitted and read at trial; the victim identified petitioner from a photo array and at trial.
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Attorney Lawrence Hopkins) for failures related to the cell‑phone evidence (no Porter hearing, limited objection/cross‑examination, no expert) and for failing to call a taxi driver (Kidd) who had been at the scene.
- At the habeas hearing petitioner produced a radio‑frequency engineer and T‑Mobile custodian to challenge cell‑site precision; habeas court found counsel’s strategy credible and denied habeas relief, granting certification to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to investigate cell‑phone limitations | Hopkins didn’t research cell‑site limits; deeper investigation would have undermined state’s location inference | Claim not raised in operative petition; habeas court didn’t consider it | Not reviewed on appeal (procedural default) |
| Failure to request Porter (Daubert) hearing on cell‑site evidence | Hopkins should have moved for Porter to exclude or limit location testimony | Even if no Porter, petitioner can’t show a hearing would succeed or change outcome | No prejudice; habeas court correctly denied relief |
| Failure to call a cell‑phone expert / inadequate cross‑examination of custodian and detective | Expert or tougher cross would have shown records don’t pinpoint street location and would have created reasonable doubt | Counsel made tactical choice; petitioner’s own expert at habeas confirmed records still placed phone within ~1.7 miles and corroborated other evidence | No prejudice; strategic choices reasonable and result wouldn’t likely change |
| Failure to call taxi driver Kidd as defense witness | Kidd was disinterested and his statement conflicted with other witnesses, potentially exculpatory | Hopkins reasonably found Kidd unreliable and inconsistent; other eyewitnesses placed petitioner at scene | No ineffective assistance; decision to omit Kidd was reasonable trial strategy and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (Conn. 1997) (adopted Daubert framework for admission of scientific evidence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (test for admissibility of scientific expert evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Ledbetter v. Commissioner of Correction, 275 Conn. 451 (Conn. 2005) (discussing standard of review for ineffective assistance in habeas context)