196 Conn.App. 490
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Early-morning drive after an after-hours club: victims Dederick “DJ” Jiminez (survived) and Hiram “Sito” Martinez (killed) were in a tan Honda with defendant Tyrone Rosa; Jiminez identified Rosa as the shooter at trial.
- Rosa testified at trial that an unknown gunman put a gun to his head while he urinated nearby and that he heard shots; he did not give that account to police earlier.
- Investigators recovered a sweatshirt and sweatpants roughly 600 feet from the car; items were sent for DNA testing.
- At trial the sweatshirt had not yielded a CODIS match; two weeks after the jury’s guilty verdict the prosecutor notified defense counsel that the sweatshirt matched the DNA profile of Javier Otero, a convicted felon who was not incarcerated at the time of the shootings.
- Rosa argued on appeal that the late disclosure of the CODIS match violated Brady (favorable, suppressed, material evidence) and would have supported a third‑party culpability defense and impeached the State’s key eyewitness.
- The trial court denied post‑verdict relief; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding the CODIS match was not material and therefore no Brady violation that undermined confidence in the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rosa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether late disclosure of the CODIS match violated Brady | Disclosure timing was not material to guilt; evidence admitted at trial supported verdict | The CODIS hit to Otero was favorable, was not disclosed until after verdict, and was material because it would support an unknown‑shooter defense and impeach Jiminez | Held for State: even assuming favorability and suppression, CODIS match was not material and did not undermine confidence in verdict |
| Reviewability / preservation: whether claim can be raised on appeal | Trial counsel had opportunity to raise Brady; procedural posture preferred motion for new trial | Asked Golding review for unpreserved constitutional claim due to rectified record showing documents | Held: Claim reviewable under Golding; court addressed merits (materiality) despite unpreserved status |
| Whether CODIS match would permit a viable third‑party culpability defense | N/A (State emphasized lack of link) | Match to Otero would have supported third‑party culpability and impeached witness ID | Held: Connection between Otero and crime too tenuous (distance of sweatshirt, no link to victims, no evidence Otero was present), so third‑party defense would not have been viable |
| Appropriate remedy (new trial / judgment of acquittal) | Evidence at trial supported verdict; no relief warranted | Late DNA disclosure warranted new trial or acquittal in interests of justice | Held: No relief; denial of post‑verdict motion affirmed because nondisclosed evidence not material |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (three Brady components: favorable, suppressed, material)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality standard: undermines confidence in outcome)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standard for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Ortiz, 280 Conn. 686 (Conn. 2006) (materiality under Brady is mixed question; plenary review with deference to trial judge)
- State v. Dupigney, 295 Conn. 50 (Conn. 2010) (DNA on peripheral item far from scene was not dispositive in light of strong inculpatory evidence)
- State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700 (Conn. 2000) (procedure for evidentiary hearing when post‑verdict evidence bears on Brady)
- United States v. Zagari, 111 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1997) (trial judge findings given great weight in Brady materiality assessment)
- State v. Bryan, 193 Conn. App. 285 (Conn. App. 2019) (review of unpreserved Brady claims when record is sufficient)