Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction
131 Conn. App. 671
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Thompson was convicted of reckless manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm; Meisler represented him at trial and the Supreme Court later affirmed.
- Thompson filed a pro se habeas petition, later amended, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel and improper exclusion of evidence.
- The habeas court denied certification to appeal after applying Strickland and related standards, approving Meisler’s performance.
- The underlying trial featured gunshot residue and crime-scene reconstruction testimony, Whelan statements, and cross-examination strategies challenged by Thompson.
- At habeas, Thompson offered new witnesses and experts (Gallow, Lavimoniere, Narchet, Diaczuk) and contested whether the defense was adequately investigated; the court rejected these challenges.
- The appellate court ultimately dismissed Thompson’s appeal, holding the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance: deficient performance | Thompson argues Meisler failed to thoroughly investigate impeaching Latour and key forensic evidence. | Meisler’s cross-examination and trial strategy were reasonable; no material evidence showed deficiency. | Meisler’s performance not deficient; no prejudice shown. |
| Exclusion of evidence and hearing on effectiveness | Buckley’s anticipated opinion and testimony on Meisler’s omissions should have been admitted; petition sought evidentiary value for witnesses’ claims. | Excluding expert opinion and weighting post hoc testimony was within the habeas court’s discretion. | No abuse of discretion; evidentiary rulings upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: performance and prejudice prongs)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 585 (Conn. Supreme Court, 2008) (appellate review of habeas determinations; mixed questions of law and fact)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (Conn. Supreme Court, 1994) (abuse of discretion standard for certification to appeal)
- Ostolaza v. Warden, 26 Conn.App. 758 (Conn. App. Ct., 1992) (acknowledges pretrial investigation diligence requirement)
- J.R. v. Commissioner of Correction, 105 Conn.App. 827 (Conn. App. Ct., 2008) (standard for reviewing habeas petitions in ineffective-assistance claims)