Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction

Summary

This opinion is a dissent criticizing the majority for resolving the appeal on an unbriefed issue, reexamining habeas-court factual and credibility findings under a purportedly new de novo standard, and effectively advocating for the petitioner. The dissent would have deferred to the habeas court’s findings that the fire’s burn time could not be determined precisely and that the proposed alibi witness lacked credibility, which would defeat materiality of the undisclosed note. Justice Espinosa, dissenting, would have reversed the judgment granting the petitioner a new trial.