Taft v. Commissioner of Correction
159 Conn. App. 537
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- 2001: Zoltan Kiss was shot and killed; petitioner Taft and Miguel Zapata were separately tried for the murder. Zapata’s trial occurred first.
- A gubernatorial $50,000 reward was offered for information leading to arrest/conviction; witnesses A, B, and C knew of/received portions of the reward and testified at both trials.
- At Zapata’s trial, O’Grinc recanted a prior inculpatory statement; Zapata’s counsel (O’Reilly) cross‑examined witnesses about the reward and elicited the recantation.
- Taft’s trial counsel (Skyers) did not attend Zapata’s trial, relied on O’Reilly’s representations, read only selected transcripts (not O’Grinc’s testimony), did not cross‑examine witnesses about the reward or O’Grinc’s recantation, and used a closing theme emphasizing presence but not participation.
- Taft was convicted of murder and conspiracy and sentenced to 45 years. He filed habeas claims of ineffective assistance (investigation, impeachment, and closing argument). The habeas court denied relief and certification to appeal; Taft appealed the denial of certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of counsel’s pretrial investigation (relying on co‑defendant’s counsel; not ordering full transcripts) | Skyers unreasonably relied solely on O’Reilly and failed to obtain Zapata trial transcripts (notably O’Grinc’s), so investigation was constitutionally inadequate. | Skyers consulted O’Reilly, reviewed relevant portions, and made an informed tactical decision not to pursue lines that proved unproductive at Zapata’s trial. | Counsel’s sole reliance on co‑defendant’s counsel raises a debatable deficiency, but Taft failed to prove prejudice; certification denial was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Failure to impeach witnesses (reward bias; O’Grinc recantation) | Skyers should have cross‑examined A, B, C about the reward and O’Grinc about his prior recantation to impeach credibility. | Skyers made a strategic decision not to impeach because cross‑examination would have opened harmful rehabilitation by the prosecutor and likely been more damaging than beneficial. | Court defers to Skyers’ informed tactical choices; no debatable claim shown—certification properly denied. |
| Closing argument conceding involvement | Skyers’ remark that one could be "not intimately involved" effectively conceded Taft’s participation and was deficient. | The remark fit a strategy conceding presence but denying participation; it did not concede guilt. | Counsel’s closing was a reasonable tactical choice consistent with defense; claim not debatable—certification properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Taft, 306 Conn. 749 (recitation of facts and direct appeal background)
- Rios v. Rocha, 299 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002) (reliance solely on co‑defendant’s investigation can be deficient)
- Alcala v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2003) (unreasonable to rely solely on prosecution’s investigation)
- Owens v. Dormire, 198 F.3d 679 (8th Cir. 1999) (failure to read co‑defendant’s transcript may be deficient)
- Westley v. Johnson, 83 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 1996) (counsel deficient for not reviewing co‑defendant trial transcript when witness would testify at defendant’s trial)