STEPHEN S. v. Commissioner of Correction, 134 Conn. App. 801

Stephen S. was convicted at a criminal trial of multiple counts of sexual assault, risk of injury to a child, and unlawful restraint based largely on the victim’s testimony.
The victim, Stephen S.’s daughter, was examined by Yale Child Sexual Abuse Clinic staff; the examining nurse testified the exam was normal.
At trial, the prosecution presented medical and social-welfare witnesses detailing red flags and indicators of abuse; defense cross-examined those witnesses.
Stephen S. filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to consult with experts and to introduce or challenge medical/psychological evidence.
The habeas court found no deficient performance or prejudice; the trial lawyer had consulted two experts and made strategic trial choices.
On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court reviews de novo the ineffective-assistance standard (Strickland) and defers to trial counsel’s strategic decisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s expert consultation was deficient	McQuillan failed to consult adequately with medical/child-abuse experts.	McQuillan reasonably consulted Rau and Zeman and acted within strategic judgment.	No error; consultations were adequate and not deficient.
Whether trial counsel’s avoidance of certain expert testimony prejudiced	Mantell and other experts could have offered alternative explanations to the victim’s behaviors.	McQuillan reasonably decided not to introduce those experts or records to avoid harming the defense.	No prejudice; strategic decisions were reasonable.

Michael T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 122 Conn. App. 416 (2010) (limits on expert-need guidance in child-sex abuse cases; relied on for expert-consultation necessity)
Peruccio v. Commissioner of Correction, 107 Conn. App. 66 (2008) (dicta: failure to use any expert can indicate ineffective assistance in some cases)
Pavel v. Hollins, 261 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2001) (pretrial expert consultation essential when physical evidence is central)
Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588 (2d Cir. 2005) (medical expert testimony critical where abuse cases rely on medical evidence)
Lindstadt v. Keane, 239 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (failure to consult an expert contributed to ineffective assistance)
Eze v. Senkowski, 321 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2003) (consultation with an expert on abuse indicia is critical)
Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction, 131 Conn. App. 671 (2011) (counsel may rely on prosecution witnesses and strategic trial choices)
Doehrer v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 774 (2002) (reiterates deference to trial strategy and reasonable professional judgment)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test: deficient performance and sufficient prejudice)