Julian Marquez v. Commissioner of Correction

Summary

The court affirmed the Appellate Court on the alternative ground that any undisclosed leniency arrangement between the state and the cooperating witness, and any failure to correct the witness's testimony about such an arrangement, was immaterial because there was no reasonable likelihood it affected the jury's verdict. The court therefore did not decide whether an agreement actually existed or whether the habeas court properly denied certification to appeal. The court also declined to exercise supervisory authority to require disclosure of all representations concerning a cooperating witness's potential disposition. Justice Palmer, concurring, agreed with the result but would have treated the informal leniency understanding as effectively an agreement requiring disclosure and urged written cooperation agreements or other safeguards.