Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction

Summary

Justice Palmer dissented from the conclusion that trial counsel's failure to investigate and present evidence concerning the petitioner's sexually transmitted diseases did not prejudice him. In his view, the petitioner established both deficient performance and a reasonable probability that the omitted medical records and expert testimony would have created reasonable doubt, particularly because the prosecution's case depended largely on the victim's testimony. Justice Palmer would have reversed the Appellate Court and ordered a new trial.