169 Conn. App. 405
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Wayne J. Jones was convicted (2006) of first‑degree sexual assault, first‑degree burglary and first‑degree kidnapping; sentenced to an effective 35 years (execution suspended after 25). Conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Jones filed a prior habeas petition (denied after trial in 2010). He then filed the present habeas petition (2012) alleging his trial counsel, Barry Butler, performed ineffectively regarding DNA evidence and that prior habeas counsel, Joseph Visone, was ineffective for failing to prove Butler’s alleged deficiencies.
- The underlying evidentiary focus was DNA recovered from a vaginal smear: state lab criminalists identified the petitioner’s full DNA profile in the sperm‑rich fraction; frequency estimate roughly 1 in 650,000 in the African‑American population; the petitioner’s cousin was excluded as a contributor.
- Trial counsel Butler testified to extensive experience with DNA cases, multiple meetings with Jones, pretrial investigation, moving to suppress the buccal swab, interviewing state experts, and a strategic decision not to commission independent testing.
- The habeas court found the petitioner’s testimony equivocal and credited Butler’s testimony; it found no evidence of laboratory impropriety or of exculpatory DNA that trial counsel failed to discover or present.
- The habeas court denied relief, concluding Jones failed to satisfy Strickland both as to trial counsel and, therefore, as to prior habeas counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Jones's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial counsel failed to adequately investigate/advise re: DNA and trial choice | Butler didn’t explain DNA evidence or law; Jones wouldn’t have gone to trial otherwise | Butler met multiple times, explained evidence and strategy; Jones insisted on mistaken‑identity defense | Denied — counsel’s investigation and advising were reasonable and credited by court |
| 2. Failure to seek independent DNA testing or preserve/explore DNA defenses | Independent testing would have produced exculpatory results or undermined state lab | No basis to expect different results; state testing was reliable; cousin excluded; independent testing speculative | Denied — no evidence an outside test would have changed outcome |
| 3. Inadequate pretrial motions and suppression efforts regarding DNA | Butler didn’t properly preserve or argue motions to suppress DNA | Butler filed and litigated a motion to suppress and challenged probable cause; record shows competent advocacy | Denied — motion practice adequate and within strategic bounds |
| 4. Inadequate cross‑examination/presentation at trial of lab witnesses | Butler failed to cross‑examine or present helpful expert testimony | Butler strategically chose focused cross‑examination and to confront state witnesses rather than generate potentially damaging additional evidence | Denied — tactical choices were reasonable; no proof of prejudice |
| 5. Prior habeas counsel ineffective for not raising above claims | Visone failed to prove Butler ineffective on DNA issues | Because Butler was not shown ineffective, Visone’s performance was not ineffective; Strickland must be satisfied twice | Denied — petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing as to trial counsel, so habeas counsel claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (2008) (state discussion of Strickland in Connecticut)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556 (2008) (prejudice and performance prongs explained)
- Ledbetter v. Commissioner of Correction, 275 Conn. 451 (2005) (counsel performance standard under Strickland)
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (1992) (requirements when alleging ineffective assistance of appellate/habeas counsel)
- Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 113 Conn. App. 378 (2009) (applying Strickland to claims against prior habeas counsel)
- State v. Clark, 170 Conn. 273 (1976) (discussion that limited cross‑examination can be sound trial strategy)