166 Conn. App. 95
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Petitioner Carvaughn Johnson was convicted of murder and illegal firearm possession after a second trial; he received a 43-year sentence and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- At retrial the state’s key witness, Ralph Ford, recanted identification; prior inconsistent statements were admitted for substantive purposes.
- Petitioner’s habeas amended petition alleged: (1) trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest; (2) ineffective assistance for failing to present (a) third‑party culpability evidence (witness William Holly) and (b) alibi evidence (witnesses Joyce Johnson and Taylor Allen).
- Habeas court found no actual conflict but concluded trial counsel were ineffective for not calling Holly (third‑party culpability) and Johnson/Allen (alibi), vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.
- Commissioner of Correction appealed; the appellate court reversed the habeas court’s grant as to ineffective assistance, holding (a) Holly likely could have invoked the Fifth Amendment so his testimony was unreliable/precluded, and (b) counsel’s decision not to present the alibi witnesses was a conceivable, reasonable trial strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Holly to support a third‑party culpability defense | Holly would have testified that Ford had a gun matching the murder weapon; counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial | Counsel’s omission was strategic and, in any event, Holly likely would have invoked the Fifth Amendment or been subject to incriminating cross‑examination, so prejudice not shown | Held for defendant: petitioner failed to show Strickland prejudice; Holly likely could invoke Fifth Amendment and admissibility/prejudice were speculative |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling alibi witnesses Johnson and Allen | Johnson and Allen would have placed petitioner at home between ~10–11 p.m., creating reasonable doubt; counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial | Counsel reasonably declined to present a non‑rock‑solid alibi to avoid diverting attention from strengths of attack on Ford’s credibility and because the alibi might place petitioner near the scene | Held for defendant: counsel’s decision was a conceivable, reasonable trial strategy; performance not deficient under Strickland |
| Whether trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest affecting representation | Petitioner alleged supervisor Ullmann’s representation of Holly and advice not to cooperate created a conflict that excused prejudice showing | Habeas court found no adverse effect on counsel’s loyalty or decisions; Ullmann appointed private counsel for Holly and did not control trial strategy | Held for defendant: habeas court’s factual findings supported rejection of actual conflict claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to strategic choices; reasonableness inquiry)
- State v. Baltas, 311 Conn. 786 (standard for admissibility of third‑party culpability evidence)
- State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (use of prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence)
- In re Keijam T., 226 Conn. 497 (scope and evaluation of Fifth Amendment privilege)
- Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (Fifth Amendment protects answers that could furnish a link in chain of evidence)
- Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (privilege against self‑incrimination incorporated against the states)
- Michael T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 319 Conn. 623 (Strickland standards reiterated in Connecticut jurisprudence)