161 Conn.App. 434
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Adrian Peeler was convicted in 2001 of conspiracy to commit murder; state appellate decision summarizing the shootings and witness accounts is State v. Peeler.
- Key government witness Josephine Lee testified she saw Peeler enter the victims’ house and shoot; other evidence tied Peeler and his brother to a drug operation and to motive.
- At trial the defense did not call neighbor Norman Williams, who had testified earlier in Russell Peeler’s trial that he did not see Adrian at his residence on the relevant dates.
- Years later Peeler filed an amended habeas petition alleging (1) ineffective assistance for failing to call Williams, (2) Brady/failure-to-preserve claims regarding telephone and DEA records, and (3) actual innocence supported by a post‑trial alleged Lee recantation in mental‑health records and Williams’ prior testimony.
- The habeas court denied relief and refused to release or review Lee’s mental‑health records; Peeler sought certification to appeal and the habeas court denied certification. This appeal challenges that denial; the court dismisses the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Peeler’s Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to call Norman Williams | Williams’ prior testimony contradicted Lee; counsel knew of Williams and had no reasonable explanation for not calling him; his testimony would have changed the outcome | Counsel made reasonable strategic judgment given Williams’ credibility problems; habeas petitioner failed to present evidence of how Williams would have testified at Peeler’s trial or to show prejudice | Denied: habeas court reasonably found petitioner failed to present admissible evidence of what Williams would have testified and thus failed to prove prejudice under Strickland; denial of certification not an abuse of discretion |
| Due process / Brady — alleged failure to preserve/produce telephone and DEA records | Local landline and DEA records were exculpatory; their absence or limited admission prejudiced the defense | Records either were not shown to have been in state possession or producible by state; petitioner failed to prove materiality or prejudice; some records were admitted for limited purposes only | Denied: habeas court’s findings that petitioner failed to show possession, materiality or prejudice were reasonable; many arguments not preserved in petition for certification so appellate review limited |
| Actual innocence — Lee recantation (medical records) and Williams’ testimony | Lee later told clinicians she “made the whole thing up” and medical records (and Williams’ testimony) are newly discovered evidence proving innocence | Records were privileged, petitioner failed to authenticate or show statutory/Esposito exception; evidence was cumulative of impeachment already explored at trial and did not provide newly discovered affirmative proof of innocence | Denied: habeas court reasonably refused in camera review/admission given lack of consent, authentication, and that alleged recantation was cumulative and insufficient to meet the high clear‑and‑convincing standard for actual innocence |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (state’s obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (standard for appellate review after denial of certification to appeal in habeas cases)
- State v. Peeler, 267 Conn. 611 (trial/case facts on which conviction rested)
- State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166 (procedure for reviewing privileged records and possible disclosure to defendant)