Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 153 A.3d 1264

Background

In 1993 Devon Taylor was tried and convicted of murder and criminal possession of a firearm; he received a 60‑year sentence. Key witness Ronald Wightwood identified Taylor; Wightwood and another witness were present at the shooting.
Taylor filed an amended habeas petition alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance by trial counsel Kenneth Simon for failing to object to the trial court’s sealing of a jury note and to request to view it; the habeas court found Simon’s performance deficient on that point.
The sealed jury note, authored by the foreperson during the third day of deliberations, reported a vote split and referenced a juror proposal to compromise; the court told the jury to continue deliberating, to decide the murder count unanimously before considering lesser included offenses, and sealed the note without disclosing its contents to counsel.
The habeas court concluded that, although Simon’s performance was deficient regarding the note, Taylor failed to prove prejudice under Strickland; the Appellate Court affirmed; Taylor sought and obtained limited certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court on two questions regarding burden and prejudice.
Taylor argued the sealing/handling of the note amounted to structural error and/or excused his burden to show prejudice under Cronic; the State urged harmless‑error analysis and that Taylor failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taylor was excused from proving prejudice for counsel’s failure to object to the sealing/withholding of the jury note	Taylor: sealing denied his right to be present/assist counsel and was structural or triggered Cronic presumptions of prejudice	State: ex parte communications and similar errors are subject to harmless‑error review; Taylor bears burden to show prejudice under Strickland	Held: Claim of structural error/prospective Cronic relief was procedurally defaulted; harmless‑error/Strickland prejudice required and Taylor bore burden to prove it
Whether counsel’s failure to object to the sealed note met Cronic’s second exception (complete failure to test prosecution) so prejudice should be presumed	Taylor: Simon’s omission meant adversarial testing failed, so prejudice presumed	State: Cronic’s second exception applies only to complete failures to test the case, not isolated errors; issue not raised below	Held: Issue not preserved for review; in any event Cronic’s second exception narrowly applied and not met here
Whether Simon’s failure to introduce a document showing Wightwood was intoxicated amounted to ineffective assistance	Taylor: evidence would have impeached identification reliability	State: the impeachment material was effectively presented to the jury via cross‑examination and testimony; no deficiency shown	Held: Appellate Court and habeas court concluded no deficient performance; claim rejected
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not seeking unsealing or raising issues about the note on appeal	Taylor: Falk should have moved to unseal and argued the note handling	State: no evidence Falk considered or abandoned the issue; and because no prejudice shown, appellate omission not ineffective	Held: Claim not preserved for review or unsupported; habeas and Appellate Court rejection affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (circumstances in which prejudice may be presumed)
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) (Cronic exceptions are narrow; presumed prejudice rare)
State v. Lopez, 271 Conn. 724 (2004) (structural error analysis and when defects infect trial framework)
State v. Wooten, 227 Conn. 677 (1993) (ex parte judge–juror communications are subject to harmless‑error review)