Jose Morales v. Bridgeport CT

The government contends that Jose Morales’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit. Specifically, the government contends that Morales’s trial counsel failed to raise the issue of juror bias on appeal.

During the trial, the jury was not specifically instructed to consider the object of the conspiracy. Instead, the jury was allowed to consider facts that could be considered in determining whether Morales possessed a drug that was listed in the statute. In addition, the court did not prohibit the public from being present in the courtroom.

When it came to the actual deliberations, Magistrate Judge Fitzsimmons acted as a ministerial role and did not preclude the jury from assessing the facts that pertain to the conspiracy count. However, the court did not permit the jurors to view any evidence from the jail cell and denied requests for a full review.

Morales claims he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and that the trial court violated his rights. He argues that the court impermissibly enhanced his sentence by imposing a narcotics conspiracy sentence. For the purposes of sentencing, the trial court made a reasonable inference that the jury found Morales guilty of a narcotics conspiracy.

Among the grounds that he presents on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus are his contentions that the court improperly closed the courtroom during jury selection, that he was deprived of a proper opportunity to present his claims on appeal, and that his attorney provided ineffective legal representation during the trial. All of these arguments fall short of establishing that a requisite showing of cause has been made.

In his petition for a writ, Morales argued that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issue of juror bias during the trial. According to Morales, the trial counsel did not advise him to raise the issue during the trial, but did not mention it to him until after the trial was over.

In response to these arguments, the government maintains that Morales’s claim of ineffective counsel is without merit and that Morales waived his right to a fair trial by pleading not guilty to the murder charge. Further, the government asserts that the defendant’s claim is barred by the doctrine of harmless error. That is, a constitutional error is not applicable if the error is not “harmless.”

Aside from the arguments mentioned above, Morales also maintains that he is being wrongfully incarcerated in lieu of a bond of more than $5 million. This is in addition to the criminal charges he is facing for narcotics trafficking, tampering with physical evidence, and the commission of a crime of violence. Currently, he is being held in a state prison in Cheshire.

Despite these arguments, Morales’s case remains pending in Superior Court in Milford. He is due back in court in January. Until then, police continue to search for his daughter Vanessa. Several billboards around New Haven and Bridgeport still show the face of Vanessa Morales.