Santos v. Commissioner of Correction, 151 Conn.App. 776

On May 21, 2003, Derek Hopson was shot at in a hospital parking lot; the bullet shattered his car window but missed him. Two witnesses identified a black man in a hooded sweatshirt as the attacker.
K-9 officer Mazzotta deployed his dog Dago, which tracked across streets to a Wesleyan University building where police found and arrested Santos about 0.3 miles from the shooting site; the dog pawed Santos’ back as the scent match.
Santos was tried in a court (bench) trial, convicted of attempted murder, and sentenced to 18 years; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal (State v. Santos).
In habeas proceedings Santos alleged trial counsel was ineffective for (1) withdrawing/successfully forgoing challenges and not presenting expert or foundational objections to the dog-tracking evidence, and (2) advising him to waive a jury so the trial judge who heard pretrial identification suppression would decide the merits.
The habeas court found counsel’s choices strategic and objectively reasonable (citing investigation, use of the tracking tape to impeach officers, and counsel’s view that Judge Holzberg would be the preferable factfinder) and denied relief; this appeal affirmed that ruling.

Issue	Santos' Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to contest K-9 tracking evidence	Counsel’s decision was unreasonable: he relied on lay judgment, failed to retain an expert, and the evidence harmed Santos’ defense; had he pursued suppression evidence would have been excluded	Counsel investigated (spoke to experts, collected literature, walked route), strategically used the tracking tape to impeach officers and support theory that the real shooter escaped; decisions were tactical	Trial counsel’s performance was not deficient; strategic choice to use the tape was reasonable, so no Strickland relief granted
Whether counsel was ineffective in advising Santos to waive a jury when the same judge heard pretrial ID suppression	Santos says counsel failed to advise risk that the judge, having heard pretrial inadmissible evidence, might be prejudiced at trial	Counsel discussed pros/cons; he reasonably believed Judge Holzberg would follow law and be a fair factfinder; defendants note practice prefers pretrial motions decided by assigned trial judge	Trial counsel’s advice was objectively reasonable; no deficient performance shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
State v. Rizzo, 303 Conn. 71 (2011) (judge’s exposure to pretrial evidence does not ordinarily disqualify him from serving as trial factfinder)
State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 (1987) (unsolicited pretrial evidence adverse to defendant does not, by itself, establish bias requiring recusal)
Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 149 Conn. App. 681 (2014) (discussion of Strickland standards and deference to counsel’s strategic choices)
State v. Santos, 104 Conn. App. 599 (2007) (direct appeal affirming Santos’ conviction)