Opinion ID: 6357297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the habeas trial

Text: At the habeas trial, the petitioner sought to establish that Michael Sherman had performed deficiently because he made no effort to learn the identity of the beau who Georgeann Dowdle claimed had been with her on the night of October 30, 1975, and to ascertain whether her beau could provide disinterested corroboration of the petitioner's alibi. To that end, he presented the testimony of Denis Ossorio, a seventy-two year old retired psychologist at the time of the petitioner's habeas proceedings. Ossorio testified that, in 1975, he resided in Greenwich and operated an employment related program for women. Ossorio further testified that he was at the Terrien home on the evening of October 30, 1975, visiting Dowdle, with whom he had a personal relationship. According to Ossorio, the petitioner and two of his brothers were also there that evening, watching television with James Terrien, and he joined them in the television room periodically when Dowdle was otherwise occupied with her daughter. Ossorio recalled leaving the Terrien residence at about midnight and was not sure whether the Skakels had left before him. Ossorio further stated that he was living  in Greenwich at the time of the petitioner's criminal trial and would have been available to testify, but no one from Sherman's  office or the office of the state's attorney ever contacted him. Ossorio also explained that, although he was aware that the petitioner had been charged with the victim's murder, he did not pay close attention to the trial itself and was unaware that his recollection of the events of the evening of October 30, 1975, had any particular significance to the case. The petitioner also presented the testimony of Michael Fitzpatrick, a prominent Connecticut attorney and past president of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association who specializes in criminal defense and civil litigation. Fitzpatrick testified that, on the basis of his expertise and experience in criminal law, it was his opinion that any reasonably competent criminal defense attorney, after receiving and reviewing Dowdle's grand jury testimony, absolutely would have ascertained Ossorio's identity and made reasonable efforts to locate and interview him. That investigation was required, according to Fitzpatrick, because it was incumbent on Sherman to confirm that Ossorio was present at the Terrien residence on October 30, 1975, and, if he in fact had been present, to ascertain whether his recollection of events would strengthen the petitioner's alibi defense. In particular, Fitzpatrick explained that, if Ossorio recalled that the petitioner was present at the Terrien home that evening, that testimony would have [made] it impossible for the state to argue in summation that there [was] not a single independent [alibi] witness in the case, which was one of the chief grounds the state asserted for rejecting the alibi. Fitzpatrick further testified that Sherman's failure to identify and interview Ossorio absolutely prejudiced the petitioner because it deprived [him] ... of the opportunity to present an independent alibi witness who would have significantly enhanced the  credibility of the petitioner's defense. On cross-examination, the respondent challenged Fitzpatrick's opinion that Sherman had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present Ossorio's testimony, but adduced no expert testimony of its own on that issue. Jason Throne, who served as Sherman's cocounsel at trial, also was a witness at the habeas trial. Throne testified that the petitioner's alibi was extremely important to the defense. When Thorne was asked if he and Sherman were eager to find anyone who could corroborate [the alibi], he responded, [a]bsolutely, without question. Throne further stated that, even more importantly, he and Sherman were especially eager to find a nonfamily member who could corroborate it because of the obvious concern that, because all of the alibi witnesses were family members, the jury would perceive all of [them] as having bias and a motivation to lie or distort facts or truth, which wasn't the case.... I wish that we had even a single witness that wasn't blood related to include in that group [who] could have testified to the same facts that everyone else testified to, to establish that [the petitioner] was not there the night of the murder. Sherman testified at the habeas trial, as well. When Sherman was asked whether the alibi was the petitioner's principal defense at trial, he responded, [a]bsolutely .... He also stated that it would have been very important to have an alibi witness who was not related to the petitioner and that, if he had located one, he would have had him testify, [w]ithout a doubt. Sherman also acknowledged reading Dowdle's grand jury testimony prior to trial, including her statement that her beau was with her at the Terrien home the evening of October 30, 1975. When Sherman was asked why he had never inquired into the identity of Dowdle's beau, he responded: I had no reason to suspect that he, in fact, would be helpful in that he saw  [the petitioner]  and the rest of the boys. In response to questioning from the respondent's counsel, Sherman indicated that, because Dowdle had testified before the grand jury that she really didn't venture out of the room on the evening of October 30, 1975, Ossorio, her guest, might well have stayed in the library, as well. Sherman also acknowledged that, because Dowdle recalled hearing but not seeing her Skakel cousins that evening, Ossorio also may not have seen the four boys.
Findings and Conclusions of the Habeas Court On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the habeas court concluded that Sherman's performance was constitutionally deficient in that Sherman failed to identify Ossorio and to present his testimony to the jury. According to the habeas court, Ossorio's testimony supported the petitioner's claim that, during the likely time of the murder, he was away from Belle Haven, as he indicated. To the [habeas] court, Ossorio was a disinterested and credible witness with a clear recollection of seeing the petitioner at the Terrien home on the evening in question. He testified credibly that not only was he present in the home with Dowdle and that he saw the petitioner there, but that he lived in the area throughout the time of the trial and would have readily been available to testify if asked. The habeas court further concluded that Sherman was on notice from Dowdle's grand jury testimony that she was in the company of another person at the Terrien home, and she had identified this person as her beau.... Had ... Sherman made reasonable inquiry, he would have discovered Ossorio and gleaned that Ossorio was prepared to testify that the petitioner was present at the Terrien home during the evening in question. He would have  learned, as well, that Ossorio was a disinterested and credible witness. 17 (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  The habeas court further concluded that the petitioner's defense was prejudiced by Sherman's failure to call  Ossorio because, if the jury had heard his testimony, there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. The habeas court based that determination, in part, on the fact that the state's attorney had vigorously contested the petitioner's claimed absence from the area [of the murder] between the hours of 9:15 ... and 11:15 p.m. Indeed, a fair reading of [the state's attorney's] closing argument suggests that he, too, acknowledged the strength of evidence that the victim likely had died at approximately 10 p.m. For example, while [the state's attorney] argued to the jury that the time of death was not integral to the charging document and that the [jurors] could find the petitioner guilty even if they believed his alibi, [the state's attorney] strenuously argued that the petitioner had not, in fact, gone to the Terrien residence as [he] claimed, and that it was the [petitioner's] presence at the crime scene at approximately 10 p.m. that likely caused ... [Helen Ix'] dog to bark in such an unusually disturbed manner. Additionally, even though the [state's attorney] adduced evidence that the time of death could have been any time between 9:30 p.m. [on October 30] and 1 a.m. ... the next day, there was weighty evidence that the murder took place while the petitioner claimed to have been absent from the Belle Haven area. Finally, with respect to the issue of prejudice, the habeas court noted that the jury deliberated for four  days, beginning on June 4, 2002, and reach[ed] a verdict on June 7, 2002. During the jury's deliberations, on June 5, 2002, the jury asked to have read back the testimony of Julie Skakel, Andrea Shakespeare and ... Ix. With this request, the jury also provided a note, which stated in [relevant] part: 'We would like to limit ... Ix' testimony to the discussion of who was in the driveway and who left in the car.' Significantly, the focus of the testimony of each of these witnesses was whether the petitioner had left the Belle Haven area at approximately 9:15 p.m. in the Lincoln [Continental] to go to the Terrien residence. Thus, even though the [trial] court charged the jury that [it] need not fix the time of death in order to find the petitioner guilty, the jury showed particular interest in the petitioner's whereabouts between 9:15 ... and 11:15 p.m. Given the weighty evidence that the victim was murdered in the time range of 9:30 ... to 10 p.m. on October 30, 1975,  the importance of the petitioner's alibi defense to the fact finders cannot fairly be discounted. And, given the importance of the petitioner's alibi defense, its persuasiveness would have been greatly enhanced by the testimony of Ossorio, an independent and credible witness to the petitioner's presence at the Terrien household during the relevant evening hours of October 30, 1975. On the basis of these and other related findings, the habeas court concluded that Sherman's failure to call Ossorio as a witness entitled the petitioner to a new trial.