The petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences imposed in State v. Abrams, No. DBD-CR00-0110619-S on the ground that the assistant state's attorney assigned to his case deprived him of his "right[] to due process and to a fair trial" by engaging in various forms of "prosecutorial misconduct" during trial and during his closing argument. State v. Abrahams, 79 Conn. App. 767, 769, 831 A.2d 299, 302 (2003). On October 7, 2003, the Connecticut Appellate Court determined that although the prosecutor had engaged in two types of improper misconduct during closing argument, the plaintiff's trial was not fundamentally unfair.
Mr. Abrahams appealed his conviction to the Connecticut Appellate Court. See State v. Abrahams, 79 Conn. App. 767 (2003) (" Abrahams I"). Mr. Abrahams' only argument on direct appeal was that his constitutional rights to due process and to a fair trial were violated as a result of prosecutorial misconduct.See id. at 769. On October 7, 2003, the Appellate Court affirmed Mr. Abrahams' conviction.
The petitioner is also known as David A. Abrahams. His conviction in the case underlying his habeas petition was confirmed by this court in State v. Abrahams , 79 Conn. App. 767, 831 A.2d 299 (2003). Because, when the petitioner testified at the habeas trial, he identified himself as David Abrams and also indicated that his name has been misspelled in the record, we use the name David A. Abrams in this appeal.
After the [petitioner]'s gun jammed, as he left the scene, he told the victim, "I'm going to get you. I'm going to have somebody f*cking kill you."State v. Abrahams, 79 Conn.App. 767, 769-71 (2003). On direct appeal, the petitioner claimed that ". . . his constitutional rights to due process and to a fair trial were violated as a result of prosecutorial misconduct."
We did talk, meaning counsel and I, did talk about Malave, and the fact that the court, based upon that decision, will not give any type of missing witness instruction. However, counsel did request, and I did agree, that counsel can, pursuant to State v. Abrahams, 79 Conn. App. 767, 773, 831 A.2d 299 (2003) . . . we do not prohibit counsel from making appropriate comment in closing argument about the absence of a particular witness insofar as that witness' absence may reflect on the weakness of the opposing party's case. Such comment is allowed as long as counsel does not directly exhort the jury to draw an adverse inference by virtue of the witness' absence.
The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment on appeal. State v. Abrahams, 79 Conn.App. 767, 831 A.2d 299 (2003). The petitioner was represented by attorney Lisa Steele.
For these crimes, and a violation of probation, the petitioner received a total, effective sentence of fifty-one years imprisonment. The convictions were upheld on direct appeal, State v. Abrahams, 79 Conn.App. 767 (2003). This petition is the third habeas corpus action pursued by the petitioner in an attempt to overturn his convictions and sentence.
A review of the transcript indicates a diligent and effective effort to make the most of what little counsel had at his disposal. In the face of the Appellate Court's statement in affirming the petitioner's conviction that ". . . the case against the defendant was very strong, ( State v. Abrahams, 79 Conn.App. 767, 781 (2003)), the petitioner pronounced his expectation to display at trial a "pattern of truth."