330 Conn. 1
Conn.2018Background
- In 2001 Greene and others committed a shooting; Greene was tried and convicted on multiple counts and sentenced to 65, later 60, years. Key state witness Markeyse Kelly pleaded guilty to nonhomicide charges and testified against Greene at trial.
- At trial Kelly gave fragmented answers implying uncertainty about any specific sentencing benefit for testifying (e.g., “nope,” “I ain't got no deal”); defense counsel cross-examined and emphasized that Kelly had received a favorable plea.
- After conviction Greene exhausted direct appeal (some convictions reversed/resentenced) and brought a second habeas petition alleging: (1) Napue/Giglio violation because the prosecutor failed to correct Kelly’s allegedly false/misleading testimony; (2) Brady violation for nondisclosure of a promised/anticipated lenient sentence recommendation; and (3) that the habeas court erred in denying a capias after Kelly failed to appear at the habeas trial.
- At the habeas trial the prosecutor (Alexy) and defense counsel (Carty) testified that Alexy had disclosed the plea to defense before trial and that there was no specific sentencing agreement; the plea hearing transcript showed the prosecutor would recommend a 10-year sentence and that sentencing would be left to the judge.
- The habeas court found Kelly’s trial testimony was not false or substantially misleading in context, that the state had not promised a specific sentence pretrial, and denied the requested capias; the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor violated due process by failing to correct Kelly’s allegedly false testimony (Napue/Giglio) | Kelly denied having a “deal” or understanding that cooperation would benefit him; prosecutor should have corrected false/misleading testimony | Kelly’s statements, read in context, referred only to uncertainty about the specific sentence; no categorical denial of a plea or benefit; prosecutor had no duty to correct | Court held testimony was not false or substantially misleading in context; no Napue/Giglio violation |
| Whether nondisclosure of the state’s intent to recommend a lenient sentence violated Brady | Alexy knew he would recommend a lower sentence and failed to disclose that intent, depriving Greene of impeachment material | No evidence Alexy had a pretrial intention to recommend a specific sentence; favorable recommendation at sentencing alone does not prove a preexisting promise | Court held petitioner failed to prove any undisclosed pretrial promise or intent; no Brady violation |
| Whether habeas court abused discretion by denying issuance of a capias for Kelly after he failed to appear | Kelly was served with subpoena and had material evidence (signed statement); capias should have been issued to compel attendance | Investigator made limited efforts to locate Kelly; no evidence the failure to appear was not warranted; court has discretion and may deny capias | Court held denial was within discretion: no abuse given circumstances and petitioner’s own lack of follow-up |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (state must not allow false testimony to go uncorrected when it affects due process)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence including promises or inducements to witnesses must be disclosed; false testimony must be corrected)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady covers impeachment evidence)
- United States v. Harris, 498 F.2d 1164 (3d Cir. 1974) (uses “substantially misleading” standard for prosecutor’s duty to correct witness testimony)
- United States v. Bigeleisen, 625 F.2d 203 (8th Cir. 1980) (cooperator’s categorical denial of any benefit required correction; failure violated Napue)
- State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 (2010) (discusses prosecution’s duty under Napue/Giglio/Brady and the scope of disclosure)
- Adams v. Commissioner of Correction, 309 Conn. 359 (2013) (explains relevance of witness interest in testimony and governing standards)