Crocker v. Commissioner of Correction
10 A.3d 1079
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Shawn Crocker seeks habeas relief from a judgment denying his third amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
- Court previously affirmed denial of his first habeas petition; representations by trial counsel, appellate counsel, and habeas counsel are at issue.
- Second trial involved admission of Jenkins’ transcript and other eyewitness evidence linking Crocker to the murder.
- Habeas court denied claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and related constitutional challenges; Crocker appeals.
- Petitioner contends habeas counsel failed to raise: (i) ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel, (ii) Brady exculpatory evidence, (iii) investigation of exculpatory information, (iv) double jeopardy claim after second trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas counsel’s failure to raise trial/appellate ineffectiveness is prejudicial | Crocker | Salvatore failed to raise viable ineffectiveness claims | No prejudice; claims lacked merit |
| Whether admission of Jenkins’ Outlaw-based identification was prejudicial | Crocker | Outlaw issue not proven; evidence largely cumulative | Prejudice not shown; no Strickland prejudice |
| Whether Brady exculpatory evidence was improperly withheld | Crocker | Talton testimony did not amount to Brady material | No Brady violation; no prejudice under Strickland |
| Whether failure to investigate Ernest Henry statements was ineffective | Crocker | Strategic decision not to rely on Henry’s statements was reasonable | Counsel’s strategy not deficient; no prejudice |
| Whether double jeopardy violation occurred in second trial due to prosecutorial conduct | Crocker | Prosecutor’s remarks not shown to intend mistrial; no double jeopardy | No merit to double jeopardy claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Outlaw, 216 Conn. 492 (1990) (precludes improper use of out-of-court identifications when unavailability for cross-exam exists)
- State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (1986) (laying out four-part reliability test for prior inconsistent statements (Whelan))
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance; deficiency and prejudice)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence; materiality standard)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (narrow double jeopardy exception for prosecutor-induced mistrial)