Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction

Summary

The dissent argues that appellate review of credibility findings in a habeas proceeding remains limited to clear error, including when the findings concern new expert testimony offered to establish ineffective-assistance prejudice or Brady materiality. It contends that the majority improperly created a de novo review exception, resolved issues neither party raised or briefed, and substituted its judgment for that of the habeas court. The dissent would conclude that the petitioner failed to prove that the expert testimony reliably established a fire-start time supporting his alibi. No separate opinion was provided.