Carmon v. Commissioner of Correction
175 A.3d 60
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 1994 a shooter fired into Charlene Troutman’s apartment, killing her granddaughter and paralyzing Troutman; two eyewitnesses (Stanley and Jones) identified Adam Carmon as the shooter at trial.
- Carmon was convicted of murder, first‑degree assault, and illegal firearm possession and sentenced to an effective 85 years; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Over many years Carmon filed multiple habeas petitions; this case is his fourth habeas petition, asserting (inter alia) a Brady violation, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial impropriety, and actual innocence based on a fingerprint analysis report.
- A February 1994 police fingerprint report (produced to Carmon in response to a 2009 FOIA request) indicated Arthur Brantley’s right index fingerprint was identified on an empty ammunition box found outside a nearby church; this report was not presented at Carmon’s criminal trial.
- The habeas court dismissed some claims as procedurally defaulted or abandoned and found the fingerprint report, even if undisclosed or newly discovered, was not material and did not establish prejudice or actual innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady violation — nondisclosure of fingerprint report | The withheld fingerprint report showing Brantley’s prints on a cartridge box was favorable exculpatory evidence that the state suppressed | Either the state did disclose or, even if not, the report was not material and would not have changed the outcome | Assumed arguendo suppression but held report was not material under Brady; no due process violation |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to discover/present report | Trial and prior habeas counsel were deficient for not investigating or presenting the report | Even if counsel were deficient, Carmon cannot show prejudice because the report was not material | Denied — petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland |
| Actual innocence — newly discovered evidence (fingerprint report) | The Brantley identification is new evidence establishing Carmon’s innocence | The report only shows Brantley’s prints on an empty box near the scene and does not refute eyewitness IDs or other evidence tying Carmon to the gun | Denied — report does not meet the clear‑and‑convincing standard or demonstrate no reasonable finder of fact would convict |
| Procedural defaults / successive petition defenses | N/A (Carmon contended merits could be reached) | Respondent asserted defaults and successive‑petition defenses on various counts | Court dismissed some counts as procedurally defaulted or abandoned; on merits, remaining claims denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard—performance and prejudice)
- Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745 (standard for freestanding actual innocence claims)
- Horn v. Commissioner of Correction, 321 Conn. 767 (discussion of new, irrefutable evidence and actual innocence standard)
- Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 225 (Brady/Strickland materiality and review standards)
- Breton v. Commissioner of Correction, 325 Conn. 640 (materiality test equivalence between Brady and Strickland)
- State v. Ortiz, 280 Conn. 686 (materiality standard under Brady)
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (outlining Brady elements)