154 Conn.App. 686
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- In 1993 Taylor was accused of shooting and killing Jay Murray after driving Murray’s truck; witnesses saw the events, and Taylor’s fingerprints were found on the truck. He was convicted (1997) of murder and illegal firearm possession and sentenced to 60 years; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Taylor filed an amended habeas petition raising multiple ineffective assistance claims against trial counsel Kenneth Simon and appellate counsel Glenn Falk, plus claims that the trial court erred in responding to a sealed jury note and in its intent instruction for murder.
- Key contested evidence/issues: witness Wightwood’s identification; police reports/notes (Perez and St. Pierre); third‑party culpability witness Antoine Williams; fingerprint expert testimony of Zercie; and the trial court’s receipt, sealing, and response to a signed jury note during deliberations.
- The habeas court found most of Taylor’s asserted trial‑counsel failures were not deficient or not prejudicial; it found some deficient performance regarding the jury note but no prejudice. It also found appellate counsel’s performance was not ineffective and that the jury‑note claim was procedurally defaulted.
- Taylor appealed; the Appellate Court affirmed the habeas court’s denial of relief, agreeing that Taylor did not meet Strickland’s performance-and-prejudice requirements and that several claims were either unpreserved or inadequately raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to impeach primary ID witness (Perez report / St. Pierre document) | Simon should have called Perez or used his report to show inconsistent suspect descriptions; should have admitted St. Pierre’s written statement that Wightwood was "too drunk to make an identification." | Perez’s report did not clearly show Wightwood was the source of the discrepant description; St. Pierre’s testimony already conveyed the intoxication point and the document would be cumulative/hearsay. | Court: No deficient performance or no prejudice — petitioner failed to prove report would have impeached Wightwood; St. Pierre’s testimony gave the jury the substance of the document. |
| Failure to investigate/produce third‑party culpability (Antoine Williams) | Simon should have located and called Williams, who had post‑event suspicions about another individual (Bennefield). | No proof Williams was available to trial counsel in 1995–97 or that he would have given favorable, timely testimony; petitioner bears burden to show availability and likely helpfulness. | Court: No deficient performance — petitioner did not show availability or that testimony would have aided defense. |
| Failure to challenge or impeach fingerprint expert (Zercie) | Simon should have sought disclosure of basis, challenged admissibility or impeached Zercie’s opinion that Taylor’s prints showed he was the last to touch the truck. | Simon consulted an expert who confirmed the prints; trial strategy to avoid emphasizing the prints was reasonable; articles offered at habeas were inapposite and not shown to be reasonably available in 1997. | Court: No deficient performance or prejudice — counsel’s strategy reasonable and impeachment materials not shown to be available or effective. |
| Trial court sealed jury note, declined to show contents to counsel, and instructed jury without counsel input; appellate counsel failed to raise this on appeal | Sealing and unilateral reply violated Practice Book and constitutional rights; counsel should have objected and sought mistrial; appellate counsel should have raised it. Argues structural error or presumed prejudice. | The court’s response was a routine instruction to continue deliberating on the murder count before considering lesser offenses; jury was not deadlocked; sealing/response did not cause prejudice and counsel’s failure did not change outcome. | Court: Trial counsel performance was deficient re: note handling but no prejudice shown; appellate counsel ineffective‑on‑this‑ground claim fails; the jury‑note constitutional claim is procedurally defaulted and, on the merits, harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Ronder, 639 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1981) (trial court erred by responding to jury notes without disclosing contents to defense or consulting counsel)
- People v. O’Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270 (1991) (withholding juror note contents and administering coercive Allen charge was inherently prejudicial)
- State v. Taylor, 52 Conn. App. 790 (1999) (appellate decision affirming Taylor’s convictions)