Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง 54-102kk
( P.A. 03-242, S. 7.)
Reasonable probability under Subsec. (b)(1) means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome; a petitioner may succeed by demonstrating a reasonable probability that he or she would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory DNA evidence had been available. 295 C. 50. In light of determination that defendant did not establish “reasonable probability” under Subsec. (b), trial court properly denied petition under Subsec. (c). Id., 74. Under Subsec. (b)(1), petitioner was not entitled to DNA testing as there was no reasonable probability that petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory DNA test results had been obtained prior to trial because even if the court assumed the most favorable result from DNA testing, it would not have undermined the confidence in the verdict given the strength of the state’s case against petitioner. 309 C. 567. Subsec. (b)(1) requires court to consider the effect of the most favorable result possible from DNA testing of evidence, and in this case, petitioner did not establish a reasonable probability under Subsec. (b)(1) because evidence amply supported conclusion that petitioner, in fact, committed the crimes. 129 CA 833, see also Id., 842. Subsec. (a) requires petitioner to make a preliminary showing supported by a reasonable basis in fact that the evidence sought to be tested likely contains biological material. 131 CA 846.