Harris v. Commissioner of Correction
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 107
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Leeroy Harris was convicted of murder under §53a-54a and sentenced to 60 years, a judgment affirmed on direct appeal.
- The habeas petition was amended in 2009 alleging actual innocence based on new DNA testing results.
- Hearsay and physical evidence at trial included shoe blood evidence later retested and found not to match the victim, with fingernail scrapings providing only partial DNA profiles.
- The habeas court rejected Harris's actual innocence claim, including the adverse inference drawn from Harris's failure to provide a DNA sample.
- Harris claims ineffective assistance of counsel for not presenting an expert to challenge the child witness's identification; the court rejected this claim under Strickland.
- The standard of review for actual innocence follows a two-prong Miller framework, clarified by Gould and related Connecticut decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual innocence based on new DNA testing | Harris argues shoe blood evidence was the only link and its exclusion undermines the case | State asserts other circumstantial evidence remains compelling | Court upheld denial; no clear and convincing proof of actual innocence |
| Adverse inference from failure to provide DNA sample | Harris contends no notice for adverse inference and constitutional rights violated | Court relied on alternative grounds and addressed merits first | Affirmed on alternate ground; adverse inference not reached on notice issue |
| Ineffective assistance for not hiring an expert on child witness | Holden's failure to call an expert to attack child reliability prejudiced trial | No showing expert would have helped; speculation insufficient | Habeas court's decision denied on Strickland grounds; no deficient performance or prejudice |
| Relation of fingernail DNA testing to innocence claim | Additional DNA testing on fingernails could exonerate | Testing was relevant but inconclusive and did not prove innocence | Court allowed relevant testimony; no abuse of discretion in admitting DNA testing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745 (Conn. 1997) (two-prong actual innocence standard; clear and convincing evidence required)
- Gould v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 544 (Conn. 2011) (clarified Miller; affirmative evidence of innocence required)
- In re Dylan C., 126 Conn.App. 71 (Conn. App. 2011) (defines clear and convincing standard in context of innocence)
- Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn.App. 499 (Conn. App. 2004) (plenary review of ineffectiveness factual findings; credibility determinations by habeas court)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice prong for ineffective assistance)
- Eastwood v. Commissioner of Correction, 114 Conn.App. 471 (Conn. App. 2009) (failure to call witness evidence requirement to show what testimony would have shown)
- Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 92 Conn.App. 534 (Conn. App. 2005) (standard for ineffective assistance analysis in habeas context)
- Holley v. Commissioner of Correction, 62 Conn.App. 170 (Conn. App. 2001) (burden to show what benefit additional investigation would have revealed)