319 Conn. 623
Conn.2015Background
- Petitioner (Michael T.) was convicted of first‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury based on allegations by a then‑six‑year‑old girl (E) who later disclosed abuse after a school presentation; medical testing showed trichomonas in E and her mother.
- E was interviewed multiple times; a second recorded forensic interview occurred about a year after initial medical diagnosis and included additional, detailed statements consistent with trial testimony. The defense prevented introduction of that video at trial.
- At trial the state presented four experts on trichomonas and child disclosure reliability; defense cross‑examined them but did not call a defense expert on child suggestibility or interview contamination. The defendant testified and denied the allegations; jury convicted.
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an expert (e.g., Suzanne Sgroi) to challenge interview techniques and child suggestibility; habeas court granted relief. The Appellate Court affirmed; Supreme Court remanded for consideration of the suggestibility issue; on remand the Appellate Court again affirmed.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed whether counsel’s omission was objectively unreasonable or a reasonable strategic choice, focusing on the risk that calling an expert would have opened the door to admission of the recorded prior consistent interview, which would have bolstered E’s credibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Michael) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not calling an expert on child suggestibility and reliability of delayed disclosures | Counsel should have called an expert; absence deprived jury of critical rebuttal evidence and prejudiced outcome | Reasonable strategy to avoid admitting the second forensic‑interview video as a prior consistent statement; cross‑examination could advance suggestibility points | Held for defendant: counsel’s choice was a reasonable strategic decision; performance not constitutionally deficient |
| Whether counsel’s failure was unreasonable due to inadequate investigation into expert utility | Petitioner: counsel failed to investigate or consult an expert, so decision was uninformed | Commissioner: record does not show lack of investigation; trial counsel’s cross‑examination shows awareness of suggestibility issues; strong presumption of adequate investigation | Held for defendant: petitioner failed to prove counsel did not investigate; presumption of reasonable professional judgment stands |
| Whether expert testimony would have been inadmissible or novel | Petitioner: expert testimony would have been admissible and helpful | Commissioner: even if admissible, the strategic harm (video admission) outweighed benefits; novel tactic not required | Court did not need to decide admissibility or novelty because strategy justified omission |
| Whether omission was prejudicial under Strickland prejudice prong | Petitioner: reasonable probability of a different outcome if expert had testified | Commissioner: even without expert, defense effectively impeached via cross‑examination and closing; no reasonable probability of different result | Court did not reach prejudice prong after finding performance reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑pronged ineffective assistance test requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (reviewing courts must consider range of reasons counsel may have had; deference to strategic choices)
- Williamson v. Moore, 221 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir.) (declining to find counsel unreasonable where calling witnesses would likely have produced conflicting, damaging evidence)
- Michael T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 84 (Conn.) (prior Supreme Court decision remanding for consideration whether failure to call expert on child suggestibility was ineffective assistance)