Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Prevails! Finally!

One thing I did want to comment on (since it is a little close to home) is a decision handed down on February 24, 2005 by Judge Kaplan in the Judicial District of Tolland, reported today by the Law Tribune, granting a habeas petition. You have to understand how rare this occurrence is. Maybe 1 out of 100 habeas petitions are granted. Hence the shamelessly stolen title.

In Arrington v. State (State, not Warden, because Arrington was out on an appeal bond), the petitioner was convicted of negligent homicide with a motor vehicle [C.G.S. 14-222a] and sentenced to 6 months suspended after 60 days. The Petitioner claimed that his trial attorney failed to investigate his defense and failed to call two eyewitnesses that would have supported his defense.

Arrington was driving on a highway in a white tractor cab without the trailer attached. The state claimed that he veered into the right lane without signaling, causing the driver of an SUV in that lane to swerve toward the breakdown lane to avoid a collision. The driver of the SUV lost control of the vehicle, which rolled down an embankment, ejecting and killing the driver.

At Arrington's criminal trial, only two eyewitnesses testified. One was the decedent's passenger (and sister). The other was the driver who pursued Arrington and got his plate number. Both witnesses identified a photo of Arrington's white cab as the vehicle that caused the accident. Arrington did not testify.

Two other eyewitnesses gave written statements to Trooper Henry Arroyo. One said that he didn't see the vehicle that veered into the decedent's lane; he only heard a car horn. But the other witness, Barbara Raven, wrote that she observed a "big white 18 wheeler" veer into the right lane. Although the trooper testified that Raven told him several months later that she saw a tractor without a trailer, Griffin never spoke with her or investigated further. Neither side called Raven to testify at the criminal trial.

Judge Kaplan held that this failure to call the two potentially exculpatory witnesses was deficient performance by his trial attorney and the testimony of these eyewitness would have cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of Arrington. So he granted the habeas and ordered a new trial.