349 Conn. 733
Conn.2024Background
- Edgar Tatum was convicted of murder in 1990; conviction based substantially on cross-racial eyewitness identification evidence.
- Eyewitnesses had previously identified a different person as the shooter; later identified Tatum in a highly suggestive in-court procedure.
- After several unsuccessful habeas petitions, Tatum filed his fifth habeas petition, arguing recent developments in the science of eyewitness identification called his conviction into question and should be applied retroactively.
- The habeas court and Appellate Court held that the new rules from State v. Guilbert and State v. Dickson were not to be applied retroactively to his case on collateral review, citing the doctrine of res judicata and nonretroactivity.
- On further review, the Connecticut Supreme Court developed a new exception to the retroactivity framework and considered whether Dickson and Guilbert should apply retroactively in Tatum’s case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of Guilbert (expert testimony on eyewitness ID) | Guilbert announced a watershed procedural rule that should apply retroactively | Guilbert is evidentiary, not constitutional; does not apply retroactively | Not retroactive; Guilbert is an evidentiary, not constitutional rule |
| Retroactivity of Dickson (first-time in-court ID) | Dickson announced a constitutional rule; retroactivity necessary for fundamental fairness and accuracy | Dickson should not apply retroactively; footnote in Dickson forecloses retroactivity | Retroactive; Dickson's rule is constitutional and applies retroactively when criteria of new exception are met |
| Application of res judicata to due process and innocence claims | Res judicata should not bar new claims based on advances in science and substantive legal change | Res judicata bars relitigation of identification issues already raised and decided | Res judicata does not bar application of new constitutional rule under new exception where petitioner previously raised claim |
| Adoption of new exception to retroactivity (Teague exception) | Necessary to apply new rules resulting from scientific advancement if previously advocated by petitioner | No new exception warranted; maintain finality and nonretroactivity | Court adopts a third exception for retroactivity: applies when new constitutional rule is based on scientific developments and petitioner previously advocated the rule |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2012) (establishes admissibility of expert testimony on the scientific reliability of eyewitness identifications for jury consideration)
- State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410 (Conn. 2016) (rules that first-time, in-court identifications without prior reliable nonsuggestive procedures violate procedural due process)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (sets the federal framework for retroactivity of new constitutional rules on collateral review)
- State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721 (Conn. 1991) (petitioner’s own direct appeal; previously upheld suggestive identification procedures)
- State v. Harris, 330 Conn. 91 (Conn. 2018) (Connecticut Constitution offers greater protection than federal standard for eyewitness identification testimony)