Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court considered whether the state violated the petitioner's due process rights under Brady, Giglio, and Napue by failing to disclose an alleged leniency agreement with an accomplice witness and by failing to correct the witness's testimony concerning that agreement. The court assumed, without deciding, that an agreement may have existed but held that any nondisclosure was immaterial because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the witness's testimony was substantially corroborated and impeached. The court affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment and declined to adopt the petitioner's proposed supervisory rule requiring disclosure of certain representations to cooperating witnesses.
Holdings
- The court declined to decide whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification because an alternative ground independently foreclosed habeas relief.
- Even assuming the state failed to disclose an agreement with Soler and failed to correct Soler’s testimony concerning it, the evidence was immaterial because there was no reasonable likelihood that disclosure would have affected the jury’s judgment.
- The court declined to exercise its supervisory authority to require the state to disclose every representation concerning the potential ultimate disposition of a cooperating witness’s pending criminal case before the witness testifies.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Connecticut needed to decide whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal.
- Whether the alleged undisclosed leniency agreement between the state and Soler, and the state’s failure to correct Soler’s testimony denying such an agreement, were material under Brady and violated due process.
- Whether the court should exercise its supervisory authority to require disclosure of representations concerning the potential disposition of a cooperating witness’s pending criminal case before the witness testifies.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (21)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)(followed)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972)(followed)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269-70, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217 (1959)(followed)
- State v. Marquez, 291 Conn. 122, 967 A.2d 56 (2009), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 895 (2009)(followed)
- Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 129, 135-36, 7 A.3d 911 (2010)(followed)
- State v. Ortiz, 280 Conn. 686, 717-20, 911 A.2d 1055 (2006)(followed)
- State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173, 185-86, 989 A.2d 1048 (2010)(followed)
- State v. Jordan, 314 Conn. 354, 370-71, 102 A.3d 1 (2014)(followed)
- Jones v. State, 328 Conn. 84, 102-03, 177 A.3d 534 (2018)(followed)
- State v. Wilcox, 254 Conn. 441, 455, 758 A.2d 824 (2000)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.