183 Conn. App. 852
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Petitioner Johnny Dupigney was convicted of murder and related firearm offenses for the January 24, 1995 shooting of Morris Lewis; three eyewitnesses (D’Abreau, Aisha Wilson, and Nick Padmore) identified Dupigney at trial.
- At trial, Padmore gave a taped statement and signed a photograph identifying Dupigney; Wilson and D’Abreau corroborated aspects of the shootings.
- Dupigney was sentenced to an effective 70-year term; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Years later Dupigney filed a habeas petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including failure to (1) visit/investigate the crime scene and (2) prepare the defense investigator Michael O’Donnell.
- The habeas court denied relief under Strickland’s prejudice prong, finding no reasonable probability that better preparation would have produced a different outcome, emphasizing Padmore’s largely untarnished identification.
- On certified appeal, Dupigney challenged only the prejudice finding related to counsel’s alleged investigative and preparation failures; the Appellate Court affirmed the habeas judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Dupigney's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to visit/investigate the crime scene and to prepare investigator O’Donnell prejudiced Dupigney under Strickland | Inadequate investigation/preparation meant D’Abreau’s eyewitness testimony could have been undermined (photos and better-prepared O’Donnell would show D’Abreau could not have seen the first shooting), which would have made the state’s case weak | The state’s case was strong and corroborated by Padmore and Wilson; undermining D’Abreau would not create a substantial likelihood of a different verdict | No prejudice: court held no reasonable probability the outcome would have been different; habeas denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Dupigney, 78 Conn. App. 111 (2003) (direct appeal summarizing facts and eyewitness identifications)
- State v. Dupigney, 295 Conn. 50 (2010) (postconviction discussion of DNA issues and strength of state’s evidence)
- State v. Dupigney, 309 Conn. 567 (2013) (further postconviction discussion affirming strength of identification evidence)
- Skakel v. Commissioner of Correction, 329 Conn. 1 (2018) (standard of review for habeas factfinding and mixed questions)
- Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664 (2012) (example where failure to investigate deprived petitioner of an alibi witness)
- Dieudonne v. Commissioner of Correction, 141 Conn. App. 151 (2013) (trial counsel’s failure to investigate and call corroborating eyewitness found prejudicial)
- Griffin v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 361 (2006) (strength of state’s case is significant in assessing Strickland prejudice)
- State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (1986) (admissibility principles for hearsay and prior statements)