Date: 12-31-1995

Case Style:

State of Connecticut v. Scott T. Lewis

Case Number: CR-95-402583

Judge: Riley

Court: District Court, New Haven Connectocut

Plaintiff's Attorney: New Haven County Connecticut State's Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney: John Williams

Description: New Haven, Connecticut Defendant, Scott Lewis, age 25, and Stefon Morant, age 21, were accused killing Ricardo Tuner, age 43, and his roommate Lamont Fields who were found shot to death on October 11, 1990. The decedents were allegedly dealing cocaine. A .357 caliber pistol was used to kill them.

The murders went unsolved for months and a $20,000 reward was offered for information leading to an arrest but produced nothing. In January 1991, Detective Vincent Raucci took over the investigation of the crimes. Shortly thereafter Ovil Ruiz claimed that Scott Lewis and Morant, who were alleged to be drug dealers were charged with killing Turner and Field.

Lewis pled not guilty and claimed that he was at work at the time at a printing company at the time of the killings.

According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:`

"On October 11, 1990, Ricardo Turner and Lamont Fields were shot and killed in their apartment at 634 Howard Avenue in New Haven, Connecticut. The State charged Scott Lewis and Stefon Morant with the murders and tried them separately in Connecticut Superior Court. Morant was tried first and convicted of both murders.

At trial, the State did not introduce any eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence against Lewis. The government's key witness, Ovil Ruiz, was the only witness who directly implicated Lewis in the murders. Ruiz testified at trial, in substance, as follows. On the night of the murders, Ruiz drove Lewis and Morant to 634 Howard Avenue and waited in the car while they went inside. While he was waiting, he heard gunshots. Lewis and Morant then returned to the car with gym bags containing drugs and cash. Ruiz later overheard a conversation in which Lewis admitted to shooting Turner and Fields. And two to three weeks after the murder, Ruiz saw Lewis throw a gun into the river near the Chapel Street Bridge.

Outcome: On May 10, 1995, the jury convicted Lewis on two counts of murder and two counts of felony murder, one as to each victim. The Superior Court sentenced Lewis principally to 120 years' imprisonment.

On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed Lewis's convictions for the murders but vacated his felony murder convictions on double jeopardy grounds.

In 1996, Ruiz, Ortiz, Roque and Martinez all recanted their statements as false and the product of coercive intereviews by Raucci.

On January 9, 2001, Lewis filed a pro se habeas petition in Connecticut Superior Court. He raised three claims: (1) newly discovered evidence that Ruiz perjured himself; (2) a Brady violation based on the State's failure to disclose evidence of Ruiz's prior inconsistent statements and Raucci's coaching of Ruiz's testimony; and (3) newly discovered evidence of alibi testimony. In support of his petition, Lewis included transcripts of Sweeney's testimony at the Morant hearing.

The Connecticut Superior Court denied Lewis's petition. With respect to Lewis's Brady claim, the state habeas court concluded that “not only was all exculpatory evidence furnished to the defense, but also the alleged evidence was available by due diligence to the defense.” The state habeas court determined that Raucci only provided Ruiz with “insignificant facts”—such as the location of the apartment on Howard Avenue, the color of the buildings, and the make of Lewis's car—and that “the information provided by Detective Raucci ... did not disclose the names of the petitioner or Morant.” Notably, the state habeas decision omitted any reference to Sweeney's testimony that Ruiz initially denied having any knowledge of the murders, that he was parroting what Raucci told him, and, critically, that after he changed his story to inculpate Lewis, Ruiz told Sweeney that he did so because “Raucci said he was gonna let him go.”

Pursuant to Section 52–470(g) of the Connecticut General Statutes, Lewis, acting pro se, petitioned a justice on the Connecticut Supreme Court for certification to appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court.3 On October 22, 2001, the certification was denied without opinion by a one-justice order. Lewis then filed an uncertified appeal with the Appellate Court. In support of his appeal, Lewis provided the Appellate Court with transcripts from his criminal trial, the probable cause hearing, and Sweeney's testimony at the Morant hearing; the state habeas court decision; and excerpts from the FBI investigation discussing Ruiz's relationship with Raucci. On November 19, 2002, a three-judge panel of the Appellate Court issued a per curiam opinion, dismissing Lewis's appeal on the grounds that he failed to include the transcript from his state habeas trial before Judge Zoarski and thus failed to provide an adequate record for review.

Thereafter, Lewis sought review by the Connecticut Supreme Court through a
petition for certification, which was denied on January 14, 2003 without discussion.

Lewis then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut seeking relief based on the ground that the State denied his constitutional right to a fair trial when it withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The district court granted the petition and the court affirmed, concluding that the State violated Brady when it failed to disclose to the defense that a witness had repeatedly denied having any knowledge of the murders and only implicated petitioner after a police detective promised to let him go if he gave a statement in which he admitted to being the getaway driver and incriminated petitioner and another individual.

The district court therefore directed the Commissioner of Correction of the State of Connecticut to release Lewis from its custody “within sixty (60) days of the date of this Ruling and Order, unless the State of Connecticut within those 60 days declares its written intention ... to retry [Lewis] on the charges against him....” Id. at 208–209. On February 14, 2014, the parties submitted a joint motion to release Lewis, which was granted by the district court. Accordingly, on February 26, 2014, the district court signed a writ ordering Lewis's release. The State timely appealed. The Untied States Circuit Court for the Second Circuit Affirmed on June 22, 2015.

On August 15, 2016, Lewis sued the City of New Haven and others on civil rights violation theories under 42 U.S.C. 1983. That claim was settled for an $9.5 million.

Defendant was in custody from 1991 to June of 2015.

In 2023, the State of Connecticut awarded Lewis $5.5 million in state compensation.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Wrongful convictions based on false testimony secured by dirty cops is more frequent than most people would think but it happens frequently. Exonerations: Several documented cases, including this case, show convictions overturned due to police misconduct, including pressuring or coercing witnesses to change their testimonies, fabricating evidence, or even threatening or intimidating witnesses. The Innocence Project, for example, has identified police misconduct as a factor in nearly 50% of its exoneration cases. Studies and reports: Research and reports have revealed patterns of problematic police practices. A 2014 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that a "significant number" of wrongful convictions stemmed from witness misidentification, often influenced by suggestive police questioning. A 2020 report by the New York City Bar Association detailed widespread examples of police officers manipulating and pressuring witnesses. Whistleblower accounts: Former police officers and investigators have come forward with firsthand accounts of witnessing or being pressured to engage in misconduct, including manipulating evidence or witness statements. Challenges and complexities: Difficulty in proving: Due to the nature of the act, it's often challenging to definitively prove police solicitation of false testimony. Much relies on witness accounts, which can be contested, and physical evidence might be lacking. Motivations and context: While some cases involve malicious intent, others may involve overzealousness, pressure to solve cases, or even a flawed belief in the suspect's guilt. Understanding the context and motivations behind such actions is crucial. Limited data and underreporting: The full extent of the problem is difficult to grasp, as not all instances are documented or reported. Fear of retaliation, lack of awareness, and complex legal situations can all contribute to underreporting. Current efforts and solutions: Training and reform: Police departments are increasingly implementing training programs to emphasize ethical conduct, proper witness interviewing techniques, and the importance of documenting interactions. Reforms aimed at increasing transparency and accountability are also being pursued. Independent oversight: Calls for independent oversight bodies to investigate allegations of police misconduct are gaining traction. Such bodies could provide more impartial investigations and hold officers accountable for wrongdoing. Legal and prosecutorial measures: Laws criminalizing police misconduct, including perjury and fabrication of evidence, are crucial deterrents. Additionally, holding prosecutors accountable for not disclosing evidence of police misconduct can further incentivize ethical behavior. Overall, while the specific scale of police solicitation of false testimony remains somewhat unclear, the documented cases and research highlight a concerning trend. Continued efforts in training, reform, oversight, and legal measures are essential to address this issue and ensure fair and just outcomes in the criminal justice system.