MIGUEL VEGA v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, SC 21017

Judicial District of Tolland

Habeas; Whether, Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Its Progeny, Prosecutor Has Responsibility, in Absence of Actual Knowledge, to Check Files in Unrelated Cases for Exculpatory or Impeachment Material Related to Trial Witness; And, If Not, What Is Scope of Prosecutor's Responsibility. In 2016, the petitioner was convicted of various crimes in connection with a home invasion and the shooting of two victims. The petitioner subsequently filed this habeas action alleging, among other things, that he was deprived of his rights to due process and a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by the state's failure to disclose that Alice Phillips, who was one of its key witnesses, had testified falsely in the 2009 unrelated trial of Kurtis Turner, that the state was on notice that exculpatory impeachment evidence existed in 2009, and that the evidence was not disclosed to the defense. The habeas court rejected the claim and denied the petitioner certification to appeal. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Court (224 Conn. App. 652), which dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Court first found that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner certification to appeal. The Appellate Court then held that the petitioner could not prevail on his claim that the habeas court improperly determined that he was not deprived of his rights to due process and to a fair trial in violation of Brady because the state failed to disclose that Phillips had testified falsely in Turner’s criminal trial. The Appellate Court found that, pursuant to State v. Guerrera, 331 Conn. 628 (2019), the prosecutor was not required to search the file in Turner’s unrelated criminal case to exclude the possibility that the file contained exculpatory information. The Appellate Court further found that there was no evidence presented and no findings made by the habeas court that the prosecutor had actual knowledge or cause to know of the existence of Brady material in Turner’s file; the prosecutor’s lack of memory as to whether he had exculpatory information regarding Phillips did not, without more, equate to affirmative proof of any fact; and there was no evidence at the habeas trial, and the habeas court made no factual finding, that the petitioner's counsel had made a specific request for that information, which was required in order to trigger the state's examination of that file under the circumstances of this case. The petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's decision, which the Supreme Court granted as to the issues of whether (1) the Appellate Court correctly concluded that, pursuant to Brady and its progeny, a prosecutor has responsibility, in the absence of actual knowledge, to check files in unrelated cases for exculpatory or impeachment material related to a trial witness; and (2) if not, what is the scope of the prosecutor's responsibility.