by David Kim

The Supreme Court of Connecticut unanimously held that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance to Tyquan Turner by neither contesting nor meaningfully challenging a GeoTime video that misleadingly used a person-shaped icon to portray Turner’s phone moving among incriminating locations based on historical cell site location information (“CSLI”). Counsel reasonably could forgo cross-examination in favor of using the CSLI witness’ concessions in closing, but he neither implemented that plan nor pursued another response. The prosecution identified the phone evidence as its strongest proof and made the animation central to closing and rebuttal. Because the remaining evidence was not overwhelming, the Court affirmed the habeas judgment granting Turner a new trial.

Background

On July 13, 2013, two assailants robbed Miguel Rodriguez of a gold chain and medallion and fatally shot him outside a Hartford residence. After Lorenzo Christian pawned Rodriguez’s jewelry, Turner asked Alexandra Colon, with whom he shared a child, to cash the resulting check. Colon then gave the proceeds to Turner. Weeks later, Turner fled from officers and dropped a cellphone that Colon identified as his. The carrier documented a number change on July 14, 2013.

At trial, Sprint custodian Ray Clark explained that call-detail records identify a call’s cell site but cannot pinpoint the phone. He estimated a site’s urban range at approximately two miles. Hartford police Sergeant Andrew Weaver testified that a phone generally uses the strongest, not necessarily the nearest, signal and that a site usually serves three 120-degree sectors. Weaver entered the phone’s CSLI into Oculus GeoTime. The resulting video placed a purple human silhouette on a Hartford map and moved it in straight lines from one sector center to another, including sectors the prosecutor connected to the pawn shop and the vicinity of the crime scene. Weaver acknowledged that the records located the phone only somewhere within a coverage area, not at a particular address or with a particular person.

The video and screenshots were admitted into evidence without objection. In closing, the prosecutor called the phone “the strongest piece of evidence” and described the video as “a virtual map as to what happened” before narrating the silhouette as Turner moving among the relevant locations. Trial counsel Walter D. Hussey focused on weaknesses in eyewitness identifications by Charlene Lara and Jose DeJesus. He briefly repeated Weaver’s concessions and suggested the phone belonged to Christian but did not explain that the animation conveyed precision and movement beyond CSLI’s actual capabilities. The jury acquitted Turner of murder but convicted him of felony murder, first-degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery. The trial court imposed 70 years’ imprisonment.

While Turner’s direct appeal was pending, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that expert CSLI evidence warrants a reliability hearing under State v. Porter, 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1058 (1998). State v. Edwards, 156 A.3d 506 (Conn. 2017). The Supreme Court later affirmed the rejection of Turner’s unpreserved evidentiary claim.

Turner’s habeas petition faulted Hussey’s limited CSLI preparation, the absence of a Porter request or objection to the maps, and the lack of meaningful questioning of Clark or Weaver. Hussey testified that he planned to avoid confronting Weaver and use his concessions in summation. Habeas testimony identified four possible responses: (1) retaining a defense expert, (2) seeking exclusion through a motion in limine, (3) cross-examining Weaver, or (4) requesting a Porter hearing. After concluding that Hussey’s omissions were deficient and prejudicial, the habeas court vacated Turner’s conviction and directed a retrial. The habeas court rejected Turner’s Porter-based prejudice theory because he had not established that a reliability hearing would eliminate the CSLI evidence altogether. The Commissioner of Correction timely appealed.

Analysis

Scope of Ineffective-Assistance Ruling

The Court began its analysis by addressing the Commissioner’s contention that the habeas judgment rested only on inadequate investigation and omitted cross-examination. Courts construe a judgment as a whole according to the trial court’s intent and give effect to implied as well as express determinations. Bauer v. Bauer, 60 A.3d 950 (Conn. 2013). A habeas theory is distinctly presented when it appears in the petition and is supported at trial with evidence and argument. Eubanks v. Commissioner of Correction, 188 A.3d 702 (Conn. 2018). Turner’s petition challenged admission of the maps; his expert testified that competent counsel would recognize and contest the video’s misleading features; Hussey acknowledged an unfair-prejudice objection; and Turner pressed the point in post-trial briefing.

The Court determined that the habeas court necessarily concluded that competent counsel had to challenge or otherwise respond to the GeoTime video and that an appropriate objection would have resulted in its exclusion at the criminal trial. See Conn. Code Evid. § 4-3. That rule permits exclusion when unfair prejudice or the danger of misleading jurors outweighs probative value. The Court characterized the habeas court’s memorandum of decision as “not a model of clarity” but determined that the habeas court’s findings about the video’s false precision and movement foreclosed the Commissioner’s reading. The successful theory therefore rested on the absence of any defense response, not solely on investigation or cross-examination. Importantly, the Court did not hold CSLI categorically inadmissible. The habeas court also rejected a prejudice theory based only on the omitted Porter hearing, and the Commissioner did not challenge the finding that the animation was misleading.

Deficient Performance

The Court began its deficient-performance analysis with the Sixth Amendment framework. Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Turner had to establish that counsel’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Under Strickland, courts reconstruct the circumstances while assessing conduct “from counsel’s perspective at the time” and presuming that disputed acts may reflect sound strategy, the Court noted. Strategic decisions following adequate investigation are virtually unassailable. When investigation is limited, professional judgment must reasonably support the limit. Because the inquiry is objective, a habeas court evaluates counsel’s stated rationale and other possible reasons for the conduct. Jordan v. Commissioner of Correction, 267 A.3d 120 (Conn. 2021).

The Court recognized that Hussey reasonably could focus the defense on weak eyewitness testimony and reserve Weaver’s concessions for closing. Hussey testified that he wished to avoid going “toe-to-toe” with Weaver. The Court acknowledged that other courts have approved strategies that minimize or forgo confrontation with a damaging witness when counsel follows through or seeks to avoid further harm. Resnick v. United States, 7 F.4th 611 (7th Cir. 2021); State v. Pandeli, 394 P.3d 2 (Ariz. 2017), cert. denied, 583 U.S. 1062 (2018); State v. Rhodes, 657 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 2003). Thus, the absence of cross-examination, considered by itself, did not establish deficient performance, according to the Court.

However, Hussey did not execute that strategy, the Court determined. His closing mentioned that Weaver could not identify the phone’s holder or exact route, but it did not address the broad coverage areas or explain that the silhouette’s linear travel and placement at specific locations exceeded what the data showed. Instead, counsel suggested that Christian owned the phone. The Court stated that this theory “bordered on the fanciful” given Colon’s identification and the subscriber records. Hussey also omitted every alternative identified at the habeas trial. The Court stressed that selecting a strategy is insufficient without implementing it. Thus, the Court concluded that by leaving the State’s central exhibit effectively uncontested, Hussey provided no meaningful adversarial response, and his performance fell outside the range of competent representation.

Prejudice

The Court next reviewed Strickland’s prejudice requirement. Prejudice required Turner to show that counsel’s error created a reasonable probability of a different verdict. The Court explained that a reasonable probability is one “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Jordan. The assessment considers the complete trial record and whether the error changed the evidentiary picture or had only a minor effect. An error is more likely to affect a verdict supported by limited proof than one supported overwhelmingly. Grant v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 A.3d 463 (Conn. 2026).

The Court determined that the remaining case against Turner was not overwhelming. Lara eventually admitted uncertainty about whether Turner had fired the shot. DeJesus saw the shooter for only seconds, initially described a hairstyle Turner did not have, and gave other inconsistent accounts. Colon connected Turner to the pawn-shop proceeds and identified the recovered phone, and the State offered evidence of flight, a changed number, and a false name. Even with that evidence, the CSLI proof remained the principal link between Turner and the homicide, according to the Court. The prosecutor repeatedly narrated the animation and told the jury that the phone was the prosecution’s strongest proof.

The unchallenged video was especially persuasive because expert evidence and technical visuals can exert substantial influence on jurors, the Court explained. State v. Raynor, 254 A.3d 874 (Conn. 2020); State v. Jackson, 224 A.3d 886 (Conn. 2020). Although Clark and Weaver described CSLI’s limits, the animation communicated exact location and continuous travel, and counsel provided no reason to question that representation. To establish prejudice from counsel’s failure to cross-examine a witness, a petitioner ordinarily must show how that witness would have testified. See, e.g., Jones v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 A.3d 237 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). Turner’s failure to present Weaver as a habeas witness did not preclude a prejudice finding because his claim rested on counsel’s broader failure to challenge the misleading evidence in any meaningful way, the Court stated.

Nor did Turner need new CSLI evidence. The criminal-trial record itself showed the disparity. Considering the weak identifications, the prosecutor’s reliance on the video, and the absence of a meaningful defense response, the Court concluded that a different verdict was reasonably probable.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment granting Turner’s habeas petition in part, vacating his conviction and ordering a new criminal trial. See: Turner v. Commissioner of Correction, 2026 Conn. LEXIS 210 (2026).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login