Below, you will find the introduction to our book, The Connecticut Habeas Corpus Guide. Learn more about habeas corpus here.

Overview

[A] fundamental value determination of our society [is] that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.”

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 374, 372 (1970)

“Today, as in prior centuries, the writ [of habeas corpus] is a bulwark against convictions that violate ‘fundamental fairness.’”

Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 126 (1982)

The right to habeas corpus is guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. Article I, § 9 of the United States Constitution provides that, “[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Article First, § 12 of the Connecticut Constitution holds that, “[t]he privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; nor in any case, but by the legislature.” The state constitutional right is implemented through General Statutes § 52-466, et seq. and Practice Book § 23-21, et seq.

“The principal purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to serve as ‘a bulwark against convictions that violate “fundamental fairness.”’” Bunkley v. Commissioner , 222 Conn. 444, 460-61 (1992)(quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 127 (1982)), overruled in part on other grounds, Small v. Commissioner, 286 Conn. 707, 723-24, cert. denied sub nom., Small v. Lantz, 555 U.S. 975 (2008). “In order to demonstrate such a fundamental unfairness or miscarriage of justice, the petitioner [must] show that he is burdened by an unreliable conviction.” Bunkley v. Commissioner, 222 Conn. at 461.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Trial

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article First, § 8 of the Connecticut Constitution guarantee the effective assistance of counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Siemon v. Stoughton, 184 Conn. 547, 554 (1981)(Article First, § 8 guarantees effective assistance of counsel); see also Woods v. Commissioner, 85 Conn. App. 544, 549 (same), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 903 (2004).

The test for ineffective assistance of counsel at trial is set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The test requires the petitioner to establish that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687-94; see Phillips v. Warden, 220 Conn. 112, 132 (1991)(claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires petitioner to establish deficient performance and actual prejudice); see also Gonzalez v. Commissioner, 308 Conn. 463, 470 (2013); Michael T. v. Commissioner, 307 Conn. 84, 91 (2012).

“‘Unless a [habeas petitioner] [satisfies] both [Strickland prongs], it cannot be said that the conviction…resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.’” Aillon v. Meachum, 211 Conn. 352, 357 (1989)(quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687).

The habeas court can reject a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on either prong of Strickland. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697; Nardini v. Manson, 207 Conn. 118, 124 (1988).

Habeas Corpus Table of Contents

Here are all of the pages related to our habeas corpus book, so that you can read them in order if you would like.

1. Habeas Corpus Introduction
2. Deficient Performance
3. Prejudice
4. Cumulative Error
5. Structural Error and Per Se Prejudice 
6. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Sentencing
7. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Appeal
8. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Guilty Plea
9. Direct Consequences of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel on Guilty Plea
10. Indirect or Collateral Consequences
11. Custody and Venue
12. Pro Se Habeas Counsel
13. Authorizations
14. Obtaining Files
15. Conversations
16. Appellate Counsel’s Files
17. Trial Court Clerk’s File
18. Discovery and Transcripts
19. Private Investigations
20. Mental State Assessment
21. Forensic Testing
22. Expert Witnesses
23. Motion for Continuance
24. Amended Petition
25. Failure to Investigate for Trial
26. Failure to Investigate for Sentencing
27. Failures in Habeas Corpus
28. Failure to Communicate Plea Bargain
29. Failure to Recommend Plea Bargain
30. Other Failures
31. Failure to Move to Suppress
32. Failure to Competently Select Jurors
33. Failure to Object/Adequately Cross Examine
34. Failure to Call Witness
35. Failure to Object to Improper Summation
36. Failure to Give Competent Summation
37. Failure to File Request to Charge or Take Exceptions
38. Conflict of Interest
39. Perjured Testimony
40. Newly Discovered Evidence
41. Actual Innocence
42. Miller-Graham
43. Jail and Good Time Credit
44. Petitioner’s Discovery Request
45. Petitioner’s Discovery Request Example
46. The Evidence and Its Significance
47. Mitochondrial DNA Testing
48. Intensified Movement for Wrongfully Convicted to Prove Innocence
49. Incarceration When Innocent
50. DNA Testing and Actual Innocence
51. Due Process and Exculpatory Evidence
52. Respondent’s Discovery Request
53. Respondent’s Defenses: Jurisdiction
54. Respondent’s Defenses: Statute of Limitations
55. Respondent’s Defenses: Mootness
56. Respondent’s Defenses: Res Judicata
57. Respondent’s Defenses: Collateral Estoppel
58. Respondent’s Defenses: Procedural Default
59. Respondent’s Defenses: Successive Petition
60. Respondent’s Defenses: Retroactivity
61. Withdrawal of the Habeas Petition
62. Preparing for Trial
63. Subpoenas
64. Preparing the Client to Testify 
65. Habeas Trial Evidence
66. End of Trial
67. Habeas Appeal
68. Standard of Review