Michael T. v. Commissioner of Correction
144 Conn. App. 45
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Petitioner Michael T. convicted of first‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child based largely on (1) the child’s trichomonas diagnosis and (2) the child’s delayed disclosure implicating petitioner.
- At trial the state presented medical experts (testifying trichomonas is sexually transmitted) and an expert on children’s statements; defense cross‑examined but did not call a defense expert on child interview reliability or suggestibility.
- Petitioner filed habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present expert testimony challenging (a) medical testimony and (b) psychological reliability of the child’s disclosure.
- Supreme Court previously held no prejudice as to medical expert testimony (trichomonas could be acquired nonsexually was raised by cross‑examination/closing) and remanded for review of failure to present psychological/expert testimony about reliability of the child’s disclosure.
- At the habeas hearing petitioner’s expert (Dr. Sgroi) testified that multiple, leading, and accusatory interviews, plus the child’s developmental delays and rehearsal effects, materially undermined reliability; the habeas court credited this testimony and found trial counsel deficient and prejudicial for failing to call such an expert.
- Appellate court affirms: counsel’s failure to present a subject‑matter expert on child disclosure reliability was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland given the facts (multiple interviews, accusatory context, developmental issues, and relatively weak direct evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to call defense expert on child‑disclosure psychology was deficient performance under Strickland | Trial counsel was deficient for not presenting an expert to explain suggestibility, rehearsal, developmental delays, and contaminated interviews | Cross‑examination of state witnesses adequately informed jury on these psychological issues; no need for defense expert | Held: Failure was deficient under the case‑specific facts; expert was necessary to address issues not elicited at trial |
| Whether record supports findings of contaminated interviews and developmental delays | Sgroi and records show multiple leading interviews, parental prompting, warnings to stop questioning, and documented developmental/communication difficulties | Respondent says record lacks concrete evidence to support Sgroi’s claims | Held: Record contains ample evidence (multiple interviews, warnings, examiner statements, documented developmental issues) supporting habeas court findings |
| Admissibility of Sgroi’s expert testimony at trial | Testimony on factors affecting reliability of child disclosures is admissible and does not opine on ultimate credibility | Respondent argues admissibility at trial uncertain and was not litigated below | Held: Issue not raised at habeas; court notes such expert testimony is generally admissible to explain typical reactions/behaviors but must avoid opining on ultimate credibility; Sgroi’s testimony was of permissible type |
| Prejudice under Strickland — would expert testimony likely change outcome? | Given relatively weak case and centrality of victim credibility, expert testimony would have created reasonable probability of different verdict | Respondent did not persuasively rebut prejudice finding | Held: Habeas court reasonably found prejudice; confidence in conviction undermined by absent expert evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Michael T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 84 (Supreme Court remand regarding psychological‑expert issue)
- Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588 (expert consultation/call often required in sexual abuse cases where victim credibility is central)
- Pavel v. Hollins, 261 F.3d 210 (weak trial evidence means smaller quantity of prejudice can undermine confidence in conviction)
- State v. Robles, 103 Conn. App. 383 (admissibility of expert testimony on behaviors common to abused children; expert may not opine on particular victim’s credibility)