Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction, 166 A.3d 815

Luis Diaz was convicted in 2007 of murder and related firearm offenses based primarily on eyewitness testimony (McIntosh, Ortiz, Jefferson); no physical evidence or recovered gun tied him to the crime.
Ortiz (state witness) was incarcerated, testified he saw Diaz shoot the victim, denied any promises from the prosecutor at trial but said he hoped his cooperation would be considered for sentence relief.
Several months after Ortiz’s trial testimony, the prosecutor (Stein) agreed to not oppose Ortiz’s sentence modification application; the court later reduced Ortiz’s sentence.
Diaz filed a habeas petition alleging (1) Brady/Napue/Giglio violations for failure to disclose an express or implied agreement with Ortiz (and failure to correct Ortiz’s allegedly false testimony), and (2) ineffective assistance by prior habeas counsel for failing to pursue the Brady claim.
The habeas court found no undisclosed pretrial understanding between Ortiz and the state, credited Stein’s and Ortiz’s denials of any pretrial deal, denied relief, and refused certification to appeal; Diaz appealed that certification denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution violated Brady/Napue/Giglio by failing to disclose an express or implied pretrial agreement with Ortiz (and by not correcting false testimony)	Diaz: Stein implicitly promised to support Ortiz’s sentence modification before Ortiz testified; that understanding was favorable impeachment evidence and should have been disclosed; Ortiz’s trial denials were false and should have been corrected	State: No undisclosed pretrial agreement existed; Stein only offered to acknowledge cooperation, made no promises about sentence review before trial; Stein’s later concurrence in the modification was prompted by post-trial threats to Ortiz	Court: No abuse of discretion—factfinder credited testimony that no pretrial deal existed; post-trial acquiescence did not create a Brady duty at trial; Napue claim not properly raised below so not considered
Whether prior habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to identify/press the Brady claim regarding Ortiz	Diaz: Prior counsel should have discovered and litigated the implied-agreement Brady claim	State: Even if counsel underperformed, Diaz cannot show prejudice because no Brady violation occurred	Court: Denial of certification proper—no prejudice shown because court found no Brady violation

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory or impeaching evidence)
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (state must correct false testimony that could affect jury verdict)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (promise to a witness must be disclosed; false testimony about inducements requires correction)
Adams v. Commissioner of Correction, 309 Conn. 359 (2013) (materiality standards and heightened prejudice rule when false testimony is used)
State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 (2010) (Brady includes impeachment evidence and unwritten understandings)
Elsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App. 144 (2011) (existence of agreement between witness and state is factual; petitioner bears burden)
Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (standard for appellate review when habeas court denies certification to appeal)