Moore v. Commissioner of Correction

Summary

The court held that favorable treatment given to a cooperating witness, without more, does not establish an underlying promise of leniency, but clarified that the duty to correct misleading testimony extends to implied, unwritten, or tacit cooperation agreements. Because the habeas record may have been developed under an overly narrow understanding of such agreements, the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the prosecutor's office's practices and their effect on the witnesses' testimony, while retaining jurisdiction. Justice Alexander, dissenting, would have affirmed because the credited testimony established that no agreement or mutual understanding existed and the record did not justify a sua sponte remand.