187 Conn. App. 160
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- In 1996 Ham was convicted of murder and related offenses; the state’s timeline placed the shooting at ~2:20 a.m.; Ham arrived at the hospital and was registered at 2:49 a.m.
- Sergeant Diane Langston testified at trial initially that she was dispatched to the hospital at 2:05 a.m., which would have supported an alibi; on recollection (after being recalled) she corrected that dispatch time to 2:48 a.m., producing her notebook and the police activity log.
- Ham later filed multiple habeas petitions; in the operative (third amended) petition he alleged Brady violations (prosecutor suppressed impeachment/exculpatory evidence about Langston) and claimed ineffective assistance (trial counsel Dow; prior habeas counsel Carpenter failed to pursue Dow-related claims).
- Ham asserted the prosecutor knew (or should have known) that Langston had an internal affairs history—including a 1992 officer-involved fatal shooting (Ronald Carney)—and that the prosecutor asked Langston to obtain records contradicting her initial testimony.
- The habeas court found (1) no credible proof the prosecutor knew Langston was subject to prosecution or instructed her improperly; (2) Langston’s corrected testimony was corroborated by police and hospital records; (3) withheld evidence (if any) was not Brady-material; and (4) prior habeas counsel’s failure to pursue the Dow-related claim caused no Strickland prejudice.
- Appellate court dismissed Ham’s appeal from the denial of certification to appeal, agreeing the Brady and ineffective-assistance-on-habeas claims lacked merit and were not debatable among jurists of reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor violated Brady by failing to disclose impeachment/exculpatory evidence about Langston (internal affairs history and request to obtain records) | Ham: prosecutor knew of Langston’s internal affairs history and asked her to find evidence contradicting her initial testimony; nondisclosure was favorable and material | State: no credible evidence prosecutor knew Langston faced prosecution; records corroborated Langston’s corrected testimony; any withheld info lacked materiality | Denied certification: even assuming suppression, evidence was not material under Brady and would not undermine confidence in the verdict |
| Whether prosecutor knowingly presented false testimony from Langston (or failed to correct it) | Ham: Langston’s corrected testimony and her account of how it arose were false or produced at prosecutor’s direction | State: Langston voluntarily reviewed notes and logs; both parties (and judge) engaged with the timing issue at trial; prosecutor did not knowingly present false testimony | Denied: habeas court’s findings that prosecutor did not knowingly present false testimony were supported; claim incongruous given trial record |
| Whether trial counsel Dow rendered ineffective assistance in failing to adequately impeach Langston’s recall testimony | Ham: Dow failed to investigate internal affairs file, dispatch records (computer/reel-to-reel) and to impeach Langston, causing prejudice | State: Dow cross‑examined Langston vigorously; hospital and department records corroborated corrected testimony; proposed inferences (motive to fabricate) were unreasonable | Denied: petitioner failed Strickland prejudice prong—alternative avenues would not likely have changed verdict |
| Whether prior habeas counsel Carpenter rendered ineffective assistance by abandoning the Dow-related claim | Ham: Carpenter knew of supporting impeachment material and abandoned the claim without adequate investigation | State: Even if Carpenter erred, Ham cannot show prejudice because Dow’s alleged failings were not prejudicial | Denied: habeas court reasonably found no prejudice under Lozada/Strickland; certification properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable material violates due process when material)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1989) (standard for appellate review where habeas court denies certification to appeal)
- Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 225 (2015) (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability of a different result)
- Greene v. Commissioner of Correction, 330 Conn. 1 (2018) (discussion of Brady materiality and effect on confidence in verdict)
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (1992) (habeas-on-habeas framework; must show both habeas and trial counsel ineffective)