Background
Christopher Reh was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect after a 2015 incident in which he drove into police cruisers and struck an officer. He had asserted the affirmative defense based on bipolar-disorder symptoms and was committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board for up to thirty-five years.
Reh later sought habeas relief, alleging that his criminal trial lawyer, Bruce Lorenzen, inadequately advised him about the consequences of pursuing the affirmative defense. He also challenged several habeas-court evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of a proposed expert on police response, the limitation of certain testimony, the denial of additional witnesses, and the refusal to reopen evidence for a dashcam video.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition. The habeas court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings: Reh’s proposed expert lacked demonstrated qualifications to testify about police procedures and responses to mental-health crises; other excluded or limited evidence was irrelevant, speculative, unsupported by foundation, cumulative, or not material to the habeas issues.
The court also held that Reh failed to prove deficient performance by Lorenzen. Crediting Lorenzen’s testimony, the habeas court found that counsel had explained the restrictive nature of commitment, the treatment process, and the possibility that its length would depend on Reh’s compliance. Reh’s pretrial canvass further established that he understood he could be confined in a psychiatric hospital and that commitment could potentially be extended indefinitely. Counsel was not required to explain every possible detail of life at Whiting, such as particular daily restrictions or privileges.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petitioner must establish that proposed evidence is relevant to the asserted ineffective-assistance claim, not merely to a hypothetical retrial.
- An expert may be excluded when the proponent does not demonstrate specialized knowledge on the precise subject of the proposed testimony.
- Advice about an insanity-defense disposition need not include every possible treatment condition or facility restriction when those consequences depend on later evaluations and treatment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the weight Connecticut courts give to a criminal defendant’s pretrial canvass and to habeas-court credibility findings when evaluating claims that counsel inadequately explained an insanity-defense disposition.
It also limits efforts to turn a habeas proceeding into a reconstruction of the underlying criminal trial when the proposed evidence is cumulative or does not bear on counsel’s alleged deficient performance.