There are many elements to habeas corpus cases. One element is failure to move to suppress in Connecticut habeas corpus cases. You can learn more about this failure here.
A motion to suppress evidence illegally obtained by the police or their agents should happen pursuant to the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article First, §§ 7, 8 and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution; General Statutes § 54-33f; and Practice Book §§ 41-1, et seq. and 41-12, et seq.
Motion to Suppress
Also, a motion to suppress statements of the defendant illegally obtained by the police or their agents should happen pursuant to the 4th, 5th, 6 th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article First, §§ 7, 8 and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963); General Statutes § 54 – 1c; and Practice Book §§ 41 -1, et seq. and 41-12, et seq. Also see generally Colin C. Tait & Hon. Eliot D. Prescott, Tait’s Handbook Of Connecticut Evidence, § 8.16.5(e)(5th Ed. 2014).
A motion to suppress statements of the defendant illegally obtained by the police or their agents should also happen on evidentiary grounds, specifically, that said statements have irrelevance and/or unreliability, and/or that the prejudice to the defendant from their admission outweighs the probative value to the State.
See Code of Evidence, §§ 4-1 to 4-3 and 8-3; see also Perry v. New Hampshire , 565 U.S. , , 132 S.Ct. 716, 729 (2012)(“State and federal rules of evidence…permit trial judges to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact or potential for misleading the jury”); Also see State v. Rinaldi, 220 Conn. 345, 356 (1991)(trial judge has discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value gets outweighed by its potential for prejudice); In addition, see State v. Pappas, 256 Conn. 854, 888 (2001)(articulating the countervailing factors that may militate against the admission of probative evidence); Also see generally Colin C. Tait & Hon. Eliot D. Prescott, Tait’s Handbook Of Connecticut Evidence, §§ 4.7.2, 8.16.2 (5th Ed. 2014).
Accordingly, the failure to move to suppress evidence or statements may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. So, the Sixth Amendment and Article First, § 8 guarantee the effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Siemon v. Stoughton, 184 Conn. 547, 554 (1981)(Article First, § 8 guarantees effective assistance of counsel). In addition, such assistance includes, but is not limited to, the filing of pretrial motions necessary to protect the defendant’s rights and to ensure a fair trial.
See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Defense Function (3rd Ed. 1993), Standard 4-3.6 Prompt Action to Protect the Accused (“Many important rights of the accused can be protected and preserved only by prompt legal action…Defense counsel should consider all procedural steps which in good faith may be taken, including…moving to suppress illegally obtained evidence…”); see also Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.3 Diligence (“A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client”).
Defense Counsel Obligations
Also, when motions to suppress are filed, defense counsel has an obligation to ensure that such, “motions, statements of grounds, argument and discussion, the ruling of the court, and the reasons given by the court for its ruling, [are] all…made a part of the record.” ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Discovery and Trial by Jury (3rd Ed. 1996), Standard 15-3.6 Method of Making and Ruling on Motions and Objections; see also Practice Book §§ 5 -2, 5-5, 5-6, 41-1 to 41-7, 41- 12, et seq., 60-5; General Statutes § 52-208. Without an adequate record, even Golding review on appeal may be unattainable.
See State v. Aloi , 86 Conn. App. 363, 378 (2004)(“claims [must] be made at trial in order to be reviewed on appeal”), rev’d on other grounds, 280 Conn. 824 (2007); State v. Cosby, 6 Conn. App. 164, 173 (1986)(same); State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239 -40 (1989)(defendant can prevail on constitutional claim not preserved at trial only if, among other things, record is adequate to review the alleged error); see generally J. Purver & L. Taylor, Handling Criminal Appeals, § 35, p.63 (1980)(“It is…the obligation of trial counsel, whether anticipating the possibility of being appellate counsel or not, to make sure that everything of significance that occurs during any portion of the lower court proceedings (pre-trial motions, trial, sentencing) be entered as fully and accurately as possible in the record. This cannot be over-emphasized: appellate counsel can achieve no more than the trial record permits.” (Emphasis in original)).
If counsel’s failure to move to suppress evidence or statements is motivated by a sound trial strategy, counsel has not rendered ineffective assistance. See Williams v. Bronson, 21 Conn. App. 260, 262-68 (1990).