164 Conn.App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Michael Myers was convicted by a jury in 2008 of first‑degree manslaughter with a firearm and related counts; this court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
- During voir dire the prosecutor used a peremptory strike to remove D, an African‑American venireperson; the defense raised a Batson objection. The prosecutor gave three race‑neutral reasons for the strike (prior New Haven arrest, D’s son prosecuted in Milford where prosecutor formerly worked, and D’s ‘‘wild’’ youth possibly producing empathy for defendant).
- The trial court found the prosecutor’s reasons facially race neutral and not pretextual; this court on direct appeal rejected Myers’ facial Batson challenge but declined to review a disparate‑treatment claim as unpreserved.
- Myers filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to preserve the disparate‑treatment Batson claim (i.e., failure to compare D to four accepted, non‑black venirepersons C, F, V, and L).
- At the habeas trial the court assumed, without deciding, potential deficiency but found Myers failed to prove prejudice because the other venirepersons were not similarly situated to D; the habeas court denied relief and certification to appeal.
- This appeal challenges the habeas court’s denial of certification, arguing counsel’s failure to preserve the disparate‑treatment claim caused prejudice because C, F, V, and L were similarly situated to D.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myers) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to preserve a Batson disparate‑treatment claim | Counsel failed to preserve a timely Batson disparate‑treatment comparison of D to C, F, V, L | The venirepersons were not similarly situated to D; no prejudice from failure to preserve | Habeas court reasonably found no prejudice; certification properly denied |
| Whether D and the accepted jurors were similarly situated for Batson purposes | D’s arrest/family criminal history and other traits were comparable to C, F, V, L, so counsel could have shown pretext on appeal | The facts differ materially (type, timing, and context of arrests; family involvement; prosecutor’s personal connection) | The court held the jurors were not similarly situated; petitioner failed to show reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Whether the habeas court abused discretion in denying certification to appeal | The underlying question is debatable among jurists and merits review | The issue is not debatable; habeas decision was not an abuse of discretion | Certification denial affirmed; appeal dismissed |
| Standard for assessing Batson comparisons and prejudice in ineffective assistance claims | A preserved comparison showing similarly situated white jurors would establish pretext and prejudice on appeal | Batson requires nuanced, contextual similarity; petitioner bears burden to show both deficiency and Strickland prejudice | Court applied Batson and Strickland principles and found no prejudice; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory strikes based solely on race violate equal protection)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (comparability of jurors need not be exact; similar characteristics relevant to pretext analysis)
- State v. Edwards, 314 Conn. 465 (Conn. 2014) (review of Batson steps and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (standard for appellate review of habeas denial of certification)
- State v. Myers, 126 Conn. App. 239 (Conn. App. 2011) (direct appeal decision rejecting facial Batson challenge and finding disparate‑treatment claim unpreserved)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (racial discrimination in jury selection undermines confidence in jury neutrality)