Robinson v. Commissioner of Correction, 167 Conn. App. 809

Robinson was convicted in 2008 of murder and criminal possession of a firearm; the state's case relied heavily on alleged out‑of‑court confessions and witness credibility, with no murder weapon or forensic link.
At trial Detective Jerry Bilbo testified that Robinson "refused to speak" to him after arrest; defense did not immediately object or move for a mistrial but cross‑examined Bilbo about the right to remain silent and his failure to document the refusal.
On redirect the prosecutor elicited that it was Robinson’s constitutional right not to speak and that it was not unusual for Bilbo not to document such refusals; defense followed with recross to emphasize that silence need not be documented.
The trial court denied a delayed motion for mistrial, gave a curative jury instruction that jurors must not hold silence against Robinson, and barred the prosecutor from arguing Robinson’s silence; Robinson was convicted and sentenced to 50 years.
Robinson’s habeas petition alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to immediately object or move for a mistrial over Bilbo’s testimony; the habeas court found counsel’s tactical choice to cross‑examine and seek a curative instruction reasonable and denied relief and certification to appeal.

Issue	Robinson's Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not immediately objecting or moving for mistrial after testimony that Robinson refused to speak to police	Counsel should have immediately objected or moved for mistrial under Doyle/Plourde; failure was deficient and prejudicial	No Doyle violation because silence was postarrest but pre‑Miranda; counsel’s tactical choice to cross‑examine and obtain curative instruction was reasonable	Habeas court did not abuse discretion; counsel’s performance not deficient; appeal dismissed

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (use of post‑Miranda silence to impeach violates due process)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and implied assurance that silence will not be used against a suspect)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Plourde, 208 Conn. 455 (1988) (applies Doyle framework under Connecticut law)
Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (standard for habeas certification and appellate review)
Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction, 89 Conn. App. 850 (2005) (counsel’s choice to cross‑examine about postarrest silence can be reasonable trial strategy)