151 Conn.App. 232
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- In 1996, Latin Kings and Neta gang members conspired to murder DeJesus; petitioner present at a meeting approving the killing.
- DeJesus was shot during a robbery on February 15, 1996; Terpack provided a statement implicating Rodriguez while incarcerated on an outstanding warrant.
- Rodriguez was arrested March 8, 1996, signed a written rights advisement, and gave a confession alleging planning and participation in the murder with others.
- He was charged with aiding and abetting murder, criminal attempt to rob, and felony murder; a jury found him guilty of aiding and abetting murder and acquitted on felony murder and attempted robbery; sentenced to 50 years.
- Rodriguez’s direct appeal affirmed; in 2005 he filed a four-count amended habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance and other issues; two habeas counts proceeded to trial with only Rodriguez and trial counsel testifying.
- At habeas, Rodriguez claimed trial counsel Moscowitz failed to investigate an alibi by calling witnesses (Sierra, Galante, Sully Lugo); the court ultimately rejected his claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel deficient for not investigating an alibi? | Rodriguez argues Moscowitz failed to investigate alibi witnesses. | Moscowitz contends no definite alibi testimony was offered and no specific testimony would have helped. | No deficient performance established. |
| Did the alibi testimony, if investigated, create a reasonable prejudice? | Alibi witnesses could have supported a different outcome at trial. | State asserts alibi evidence would be unlikely to change result given other corroborating record evidence. | Prejudice not shown; no reasonable probability of different result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calabrese v. Commissioner of Correction, 88 Conn. App. 144 (2005) (two-prong Strickland standard; necessity of prejudice)
- Poulin v. Commissioner of Correction, 103 Conn. App. 303 (2007) (requirement of prejudice and deference to counsel's method)
- Norton v. Commissioner of Correction, 132 Conn. App. 850 (2012) (beneficial testimony not shown; lack of proof of how testimony would help)
- Lambert v. Commissioner of Correction, 100 Conn. App. 325 (2007) (prejudice not established when witnesses not called or described)
- Hooks v. Commissioner of Correction, 61 Conn. App. 555 (2001) (ineffective assistance for failure to investigate not shown without witnesses' testimony)