Commissioner of Correction

The petitioner, who had been convicted of the crimes of murder and conspir- acy to commit murder, filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that his first habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the claim that the petitioner's due process rights were violated during his underlying criminal trial. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that the prosecutor failed to correct the allegedly false testimony of the state's key witnesses, S and V, that the state had not promised them anything in return for their cooperation and that they had not received any benefit in exchange for their cooperation. The habeas court rendered judgment denying the second petition, concluding that there was no due process violation, as the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the trial testimony of S and V regarding their coopera- tion agreements with the state was false, the agreements were thor- oughly explored on both direct and cross-examination, and at least one of the defense attorneys involved in the consolidated criminal trial of the petitioner and his codefendants was aware of the cooperation agree- ments. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the habeas court's judgment. The Appel- late Court concluded, inter alia, that the petitioner's due process rights under Napue v. Illinois (360 U.S. 264), and Giglio v. United States (405 U.S. 150), had not been violated because the agreements had been disclosed to defense counsel, and, therefore, the state was not required to correct the false testimony of S and V. Thereafter, the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the petitioner's due process rights were violated at his criminal trial when the prosecutor failed to correct the materially false testimony of S and V about benefits that the state had promised or provided to them in return for their cooperation, even though defense c

The petitioner, who had been convicted of felony murder in connection with the stabbing death of the victim inside the victim's home during what appeared to be a botched burglary, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that the state deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial insofar as it failed to correct the trial testimony of L, a former director of the state police forensic laboratory, that a red substance on a towel found in the victim's home after the murder tested positive for blood when no such test had been conducted and when subsequent testing conducted in connection with the present habeas action revealed that the red substance was not in fact blood. The habeas court rendered judgment denying the habeas petition. With respect to the petitioner's due process claim, the court concluded that, because L mistakenly but honestly believed that the towel tested positive for blood and, thus, did not give perjured testimony, the burden was on the petitioner to demonstrate that there was a reasonable probability of a different verdict if the correct evidence had been disclosed. Applying this standard, the habeas court determined that L's testimony was immaterial because, among other things, the state's criminal case against the petitioner did not rely on forensic evidence. Rather, the state proved its case primarily on the basis of testimony from witnesses who testified as to certain incriminating statements that the petitioner had made to them, testimony from neighbors of the victim that they heard a loud vehicle in the vicinity around the time of the murder, when the petitioner and his alleged accomplice, B, had stolen and were driving a vehicle without a muffler, and the testimony of the petitioner's girlfriend, who contradicted the petitioner's statements to the police regarding his whereabouts on the night of the murder. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed, claiming that the habeas court applied the incorrect sta