Ruiz v. Commissioner of Correction, 195 Conn.App. 847

Petitioner Jesus Ruiz was convicted of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child; at trial the court allowed the child victim N to testify via videotape outside Ruiz's presence after a Jarzbek hearing.
Pamela Goldin, N’s therapist of ~2 years, testified at the Jarzbek hearing that N had weak language skills, severe anxiety, low self-esteem, and would likely ‘freeze’ or be intimidated if required to testify in Ruiz’s presence. The trial court found the state met its Jarzbek burden and granted the motion.
Ruiz later filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Ivers and Casale) for (1) failing to adequately cross-examine Goldin at the Jarzbek hearing and (2) failing to present a defense expert (Dr. David Mantell).
On initial habeas review the court analysed prejudice only; the Appellate Court remanded for proper consideration of prejudice and, if needed, deficient performance. On remand the habeas court found no deficient performance and denied relief; Ruiz appealed.
The Appellate Court affirmed, holding counsel reasonably challenged Goldin on multiple fronts, tactical choices in cross-examination are protected from hindsight review, expert testimony was not required at Jarzbek, and presenting Mantell without court approval to interview N would have been unlikely to undermine Goldin.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel performed deficiently by not more thoroughly impeaching/cross-examining Goldin at the Jarzbek hearing	Ruiz: counsel failed to expose Goldin as biased, unqualified, nonforensic, and lacking a proper background assessment of N	State: counsel did challenge Goldin on those points; cross-examination strategy was reasonable and tactical	Held: No deficiency — counsel attacked Goldin’s focus, methods, qualifications; tactical line of questioning is not second-guessed
Whether counsel was deficient for not presenting defense expert Dr. Mantell at the Jarzbek hearing	Ruiz: Mantell would have shown Goldin’s evaluation was nonstandard and unreliable	State: defense expert could not interview N without court permission (Marquis); Mantell would have offered generalized protocol testimony and likely not undercut Goldin	Held: No deficiency — filing Marquis motion and withholding Mantell absent court approval was reasonable strategy; expert testimony not required at Jarzbek
Whether prejudice was established from alleged counsel errors	Ruiz: claimed the Jarzbek ruling (and thus trial fairness) was affected by counsel’s failures	State: no deficient performance shown, so prejudice analysis unnecessary	Held: Court declined to find deficiency; therefore did not reach prejudice (no relief)

State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683 (Conn. 1987) (sets Jarzbek test allowing videotaped child testimony outside defendant’s presence when reliability would be compromised by confrontation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 (Conn. 1989) (expert testimony not required at Jarzbek; lay caretakers can offer probative insight)
State v. Bronson, 258 Conn. 42 (Conn. 2001) (explains when additional expert evaluation may be required post-direct-examination under specific facts)
State v. Marquis, 241 Conn. 823 (Conn. 1997) (procedure for court-ordered evaluation/interview of child by defense expert)
Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (Conn. 2008) (reminder that habeas petitioners must satisfy both Strickland prongs)