Hilton v. Commissioner of Correction

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted of murder, among other crimes, in connection with the shooting death of the victim, filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel and first habeas counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate the opinion of K, the associate medical examiner who had performed the victim's autopsy. At the petitioner's criminal trial, a key issue was whether the fatal shot that caused the victim's death had been discharged at close range or from a distance, and K opined during the criminal trial that the barrel of the gun that was used to shoot the victim had been touching the victim's skin when the gun was fired. At the petitioner's first habeas trial, his counsel presented the expert testimony of C, the chief medical examiner, and D, a forensic scientist, in support of the petitioner's claim that trial counsel had failed to adequately cross-examine K and to present expert testimony on the petitioner's behalf. The first habeas court rejected the petitioner's claim and denied the first habeas petition. At his second habeas trial, the petitioner presented the testimony of W, an expert in forensic pathology, who disagreed with K's conclusion that the victim's fatal wound was a contact wound and testified that the victim had been shot from a distance. The second habeas court, after reviewing the prior testimony of K, C and D, and weighing W's testimony, found that neither W nor his conclusion about the shot distance was credible and rendered judgment denying the second habeas petition. The petitioner, on the partial granting of certification, appealed to the Appel- late Court, which dismissed in part the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the second habeas court's judgment. In so doing, the Appellate Court rejected the petitioner's claim that the second habeas court had failed to apply the proper standard for evaluating the credibility of expert witnesses, purport- edly set fort