Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction, 189 Conn. App. 556

John Brewer was convicted of murder and firearm possession; sentence total 60 years; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Brewer filed multiple habeas petitions; this appeal arises from consolidated proceedings challenging effectiveness of prior habeas counsel (Bansley) for not alleging trial counsel (Cizik) was ineffective.
Two principal alleged trial-counsel failures: (1) not consulting a forensic pathologist to reconstruct the shooting to contradict eyewitness Gregory Hunter; (2) not objecting to admission of prior inconsistent statements by Jason and Michael Greene.
At the habeas trial, forensic expert Dr. Mark Taff testified the wound trajectories suggested a shooter in front/right of the victim; trial medical examiner Dr. Katsnelson testified wounds were front-to-back, right-to-left and consistent with movement—both experts agreed on many points.
Trial counsel Cizik had consulted criminalist Dr. Peter DeForest who advised a reconstruction was not feasible given scene evidence; Cizik and Bansley both testified they strategically declined to object to the Greenes’ prior statements because their inconsistencies undermined the witnesses’ credibility.
The habeas court found neither trial counsel nor prior habeas counsel performed deficiently nor caused prejudice; this appeal challenges the habeas court’s rejection of the two ineffective-assistance claims against Bansley.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bansley was ineffective for not alleging Cizik failed to consult a forensic pathologist to reconstruct the scene	Brewer: a reconstruction would have discredited Hunter and undermined the verdict	Respondent: Cizik reasonably relied on DeForest who said reconstruction was infeasible; no duty to keep searching for another expert	Court: No ineffectiveness—reliance on DeForest was reasonable and the medical examiner’s testimony provided materially similar evidence
Whether Bansley was ineffective for not alleging Cizik failed to object to admission of Greenes’ prior inconsistent statements	Brewer: failure to object allowed harmful substantive evidence before the jury	Respondent: admission exposed inconsistencies that helped defense impeachment; objection not needed and could be tactically unwise	Court: No ineffectiveness—trial counsel’s strategic decision to admit impeachment evidence was reasonable and not prejudicial

Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (recognizes habeas-on-habeas claim and requires proving ineffectiveness of both habeas and trial counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (law on substantive use of inconsistent statements)
Nicholson v. Commissioner of Correction, 186 Conn. App. 398 (defense counsel may rely on expert opinion and is not required to search for another expert)