*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** BRYAN JORDAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 42250) Lavine, Prescott and Sheldon, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who previously had been convicted of the crimes of man- slaughter in the first degree with a firearm and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel, D, provided ineffective assistance. He claimed, inter alia, that D was deficient in failing to adequately investigate and present available witnesses in support of his claim of self-defense and by failing to raise the defense of third-party culpability. D died prior to the petition- er’s habeas trial and, thus, the habeas trial did not hear testimony regard- ing D’s investigative efforts, trial strategy, or other tactical decisions. The habeas court rendered judgment granting the habeas petition, from which the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held: 1. The habeas court improperly concluded that D provided constitutionally deficient representation with regard to the petitioner’s self-defense claim: the petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that D’s investigation or decision not to call certain witnesses constituted deficient performance as he failed to present testimony regarding D’s investigative efforts and, thus, failed to overcome the strong presumption that D engaged in an objectively reasonable investigation, and he failed to present any evidence regarding D’s trial strategy and, thus, failed to overcome the presumption that any decision not to call certain witnesses was sound trial strategy; furthermore, the habeas court’s conclusion that the witnesses who testified at the habeas trial were credible and could have lent additional support to the petitioner’s claim of self- defense was premature in the absence of a determination that D’s perfor- mance was deficient. 2. The habeas court improperly determined that D provided ineffective assistance because she failed to pursue a third-party culpability defense: the court failed to consider …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
New User Registration
*Required field