Brown v. Comm'r, Dep't of Corr.

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: MICHAEL P. SHEA, U.S.D.J.
• Docket Number: 3:21-cv-0752 (MPS)
• Decision Date: 01 August 2022
• Citation: Brown v. Comm'r, Dep't of Corr., 3:21-cv-0752 (MPS) (D. Conn. Aug 01, 2022)
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER BROWN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondent.

1

CHRISTOPHER BROWN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondent.

No. 3:21-cv-0752 (MPS)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 1, 2022

RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

MICHAEL P. SHEA, U.S.D.J.

Petitioner Christopher Brown, an inmate incarcerated at Cheshire Correctional Institution in Cheshire, Connecticut, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254. On January 24, 2014, a jury of the Connecticut Superior Court found Brown guilty of kidnapping in the second degree in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-94 (a) and conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the second degree in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-94 (a). The trial judge sentenced Brown to a total effective term of forty years incarceration, execution suspended after twenty-three years, followed by five years conditional discharge. Brown sought post-conviction relief including a new trial pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-270. In his motion for new trial, Brown argued that a new trial was necessary due to (1) the discovery of new impeachment evidence concerning Karina Reed-O'Meally,^[1] who did not testify at Brown's trial but assisted the police officers in their investigation of the kidnapping and testified at Brown's co-defendant's trial, and (2) the State's failure to disclose the new impeachment evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 83 (1963). The trial court denied Brown's motion for new trial. Brown appealed the trial court's decision on the ground of newly discovered evidence but did not challenge the trial court's decision on the Brady issue. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial, and the Connecticut Supreme Court denied review of the Connecticut Appellate Court's decision. Now, Brown, who is representing himself, challenges his conviction and sentence under Section 2254, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his motion for new trial and that the new impeachment evidence regarding Reed-O'Meally necessitates a new trial. See ECF No. 1 at 22-32; ECF No. 18 at 2. Brown does not raise the Brady issue in his Section 2254 petition. On October 22, 2021, the Commissioner of the Department of Correction (“Commissioner”) filed a motion to dismiss Brown's Section 2254 petition. ECF No. 10. For the reasons below, the Court grants the Commissioner's motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Conviction and Sentencing

Based on the evidence presented at Brown's jury trial, the Connecticut Appellate Court found that the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. State v. Brown, 161 Conn.App. 483, 485 (2015).

In the early morning of August 4, 2012, the defendant, Christopher Anthony Brown, and two associates abducted the victim, Neville Bar, and brought him to an abandoned building located at 27 Glendale Avenue in Hartford. The defendant and his two associates brought the victim to the basement of 27 Glendale Avenue, tied his wrists and ankles with rope, and threatened him at gunpoint, demanding to know where he kept his supply of marijuana and cash. During the incident, the defendant and his associates stabbed the victim in the leg, hit him in the face with a gun several times, and tortured him by melting a plastic water bottle onto his arms. Before leaving the abandoned basement, the three men took the victim's wallet, which contained $700, tied him with a blanket and a string of Christmas lights, and left him in a bathtub.

On the morning of August 5, 2012, Hartford police officers found the victim in the basement of 27 Glendale Avenue after a neighbor heard him screaming for help. When discovered, the victim was standing in the bathtub, covered in feces and urine, and bound by rope, the string of Christmas lights, and the blanket. He was confused and could only provide disjointed answers to police questioning about the incident and the identity of his assailants. He was then sent to Hartford Hospital for treatment of his wounds and dehydration.

Later that day, Hartford police Detective Richard Salkeld visited the victim at the hospital at which time the victim informed Salkeld that the three assailants were black Jamaican men, one of whom had a “milky-white” left eye.

Following his conversation with the victim, Salkeld spoke to the victim's wife, Margaret Bar, and his niece, Karina Reed. Reed informed Salkeld that she knew a Jamaican male who had recently been evicted from 27 Glendale Avenue, but still used that location as a place to party. She identified the Jamaican male as “Banit” and described him as having only “one eye.”

On the basis of the descriptions provided by the victim and Reed, Salkeld searched the Hartford Police database for black Jamaican men associated with 27 Glendale Avenue. That search revealed that the defendant had recently been a resident of 27 Glendale Avenue. A physical description of the defendant in the police booking system indicated that one of the defendant's eyes was “whited over.”

In the morning of August 6, 2012, Hartford police Detective Renee LeMark-Muir received information from a registered confidential informant who, in the past, had provided the police with credible and reliable information that had led to the identification and location of suspects. The confidential informant told LeMark-Muir that on August 5, 2012, Reed had contacted the informant, asked whether the informant had information regarding the abduction of the victim, and asked whether a Jamaican male known as “Banit” had been involved. The informant told the detective that the informant had then spoken to the defendant, whom the informant knew by his street name “Banit.” The informant stated that the defendant had confessed to kidnapping, tying up, beating, and melting a plastic bottle on the victim. The informant also stated that the defendant did not believe that the victim would identify him or his two associates because the victim was afraid of them.

On the basis of the results of the police database search, the descriptions of the assailants from the victim and Reed, and the information from the confidential informant, Hartford police Detective David Ritcher prepared a photographic array consisting of eight photographs, one photograph of the defendant and seven of black men of similar age, appearance, and dress. To further make uniform the appearance of the individuals and eliminate the distinct characteristic of the defendant's eye, Ritcher blacked out the left eye of each individual in the photographic array.

At approximately noon, on August 6, 2012, Ritcher and Salkeld visited the victim in the hospital. They administered the standard witness identification instructions and also gave the victim a form containing the same instructions. The victim initialed each instruction and signed the form, indicating that he understood each instruction. The detectives then presented the photographic array to the victim, who selected the photograph of the defendant, whom he knew as “Banit.” He then provided the police with a signed voluntary statement stating “this is the guy who robbed me and kidnapped me.”

The defendant was subsequently arrested pursuant to a warrant and charged in a five count long form information with: kidnapping in the second degree in violation of § 53a-94 (a); assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a)(2); robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a)(4); conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the second degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-94 (a); and conspiracy to commit assault in the second degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-60 (a)(2).

Id. at 485-87.

On January 24, 2014, the jury found Brown guilty of “kidnapping in the second degree in violation of § 53a-94 (a), and conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the second degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-94 (a).” Id. at 491; Brown v. State, No. HHDCV166073284, 2018 WL 5046176, at *9 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 20, 2018). On April 16, 2014, the trial judge sentenced Brown to “to a total effective term of forty years incarceration, execution suspended after twenty-three years, followed by five years conditional discharge.” Brown, 161 Conn.App. at 491; Brown, 2018 WL 5046176, at *1.

B. Motion for New Trial in State Court^[2]

On November 16, 2016, Brown filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-270, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial based on (1) the newly discovered evidence that Bar's niece, Karina Reed-O'Meally, “was aware that assisting the police in a criminal matter would render her eligible for relief in a pending deportation case,” and (2) the State's “failure to disclose as exculpatory evidence that Ms. Reed-O'Meally had previously requested a letter from law enforcement authorities confirming her assistance in order to obtain deportation relief.” Brown, 2018 WL 5046176, at *1, *13; see also Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-270 (“The Superior Court may grant a new trial of any action that may come before it, for.. .the discovery of new evidence ....”). Reed-O'Meally did not testify at Brown's trial, but she did testify at the trial of Brown's co-defendant, Damian Williams, who was also known as “Angel,” on June 2, 2015 and June 5, 2015. Brown, 2018 WL 5046176, at *9; Brown v. Warden, No. CV15-4006898-S, 2022 WL 2697537, at *8-9 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 11, 2022). Reed-O'Meally's testimony at the Williams's trial served as the basis for the newly discovered evidence claim in the motion for new trial. Brown, 2018 WL 5046176, at *9. Williams was acquitted. Id.

i. Reed-O'Meally's Testimony at the Trial of Brown's Co-Defendant

On June 2, 2015, Reed-O'Meally testified at Williams's trial that when the police...