210 Conn.App. 492
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Rodney Chase lived temporarily in a family home; the child victim (Z., born 2004) alleged sexual assault by Chase after Christmas 2011 and disclosed it about three weeks later.
- Chase was tried and convicted of first‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child; two fourth‑degree convictions were later vacated for instructional error.
- At trial the state presented two forensic interview experts (Donna Meyer and Theresa Montelli); defense presented Dr. Suzanne Sgroi, who criticized the forensic interview technique and lack of certain interview instructions.
- Chase filed a habeas petition alleging Attorney Howard Gemeiner provided ineffective assistance by (a) failing to familiarize himself with delayed‑disclosure literature, (b) failing to retain/present an expert on delayed disclosure, and (c) inadequately cross‑examining the state’s delayed‑disclosure expert.
- The habeas court found Gemeiner’s trial preparation and strategic choices credible and concluded performance was not deficient; it denied the petition and granted certification to appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel's familiarity with delayed‑disclosure research | Chase: Gemeiner failed to learn relevant forensic interview protocol and disclosure literature | Respondent: Gemeiner had substantial experience, researched the issue, and consulted materials; habeas court credited him | Court: Chase failed to overcome presumption of competent preparation; no deficient performance |
| Failure to consult or present expert on delayed disclosure | Chase: Gemeiner did not retain/present an expert to rebut delayed‑disclosure reasoning | Respondent: Gemeiner retained Dr. Sgroi and used her to rebut the state’s experts on interview technique | Court: Record and credibility findings show Sgroi was retained; counsel’s use of her was not deficient |
| Adequacy of cross‑examination of the state's expert (Montelli) | Chase: Cross was unfocused and inadequately challenged delayed‑disclosure testimony | Respondent: Counsel strategically reserved topics for cross and questioned Montelli on key points | Court: Choice of topics was a tactical decision after investigation and is virtually unchallengeable |
| Prejudice from alleged deficiencies | Chase: Emphasizing delayed disclosure would have led jury to disbelieve the disclosure | Respondent: No proven deficient performance, so prejudice not reached | Court: Habeas court did not reach prejudice after finding no deficiency; appeal affirms that conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664 (strategic choices after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable)
- Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction, 332 Conn. 615 (there are many reasonable ways to provide effective assistance)
- Cancel v. Commissioner of Correction, 189 Conn. App. 667 (deference to counsel; presumption of reasonable professional assistance)
- Taft v. Commissioner of Correction, 159 Conn. App. 537 (informed strategic decisions on cross‑examination are virtually unchallengeable)
- Budziszewski v. Connecticut Judicial Branch, 199 Conn. App. 518 (habeas judge is sole arbiter of witness credibility)