Henning v. Commissioner of Correction

Conn.June 14, 2019No. SC20137Cited 4 times

Plaintiff WinCommissioner of Correction

Case Details

Judge(s): Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Status: Published
Procedural Posture: appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the habeas court's denial of the petitioner's petition, finding that the state's failure to correct a forensic expert's false testimony about blood testing violated the petitioner's due process rights and entitled him to a new trial.

Excerpt

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

What This Ruling Means

**Henning v. Commissioner of Correction: Court Finds State Failed to Correct False Expert Testimony** This case involved a man convicted of felony murder who was seeking a new trial. He claimed the state violated his right to a fair trial by failing to correct false testimony from a forensic expert during his original criminal proceedings. The expert, a former director of the state police forensic laboratory, had given incorrect testimony about blood testing results on evidence found at the crime scene. The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the petitioner and reversed a lower court's decision. The court ruled that when the state failed to correct the forensic expert's false testimony about blood testing, it violated the defendant's constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. As a result, the court determined he was entitled to a new trial. While this case primarily deals with criminal law rather than employment, it highlights an important principle for all workers: the right to fair proceedings and accurate information in legal matters. For employees facing disciplinary actions or termination hearings, this ruling reinforces that false or misleading testimony from experts or officials should be corrected, and failure to do so can violate fundamental fairness rights.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wrongful Termination cases

Similar Rulings

Con Ed v. NLRB

U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938

Mixed Result

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951

Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia

11th CircuitMar 2019

Defendant Win

Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1945

Plaintiff Win

Read Full Opinion More Commissioner of Correction Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check Your Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.