James Hilton's 2001 New Haven Murder Conviction Returns to CT Supreme Court

New Haven Murder Conviction Returns to Connecticut Supreme Court

The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 6, 2026, in the habeas corpus appeal of James Hilton, who has served 25 years of a 65-year sentence for the 2000 murder of 19-year-old William Rodriguez in New Haven's Hill neighborhood. The case turns on a dispute over forensic evidence — specifically, whether Rodriguez was shot at point-blank range or from a distance.

Hilton, incarcerated at Cheshire Correctional Institution, participated in the arguments remotely. Civil rights attorney Alex Taubes represents him in the appeal.

The 2000 Shooting and Conviction

William Ariel Rodriguez was shot and killed on July 14, 2000, near the intersection of Truman Street and King Place in New Haven's Hill neighborhood. He was 19 years old. Hilton was convicted of the murder in 2001 and sentenced to 65 years in prison.

Hilton has consistently maintained that he was not the shooter. According to his attorneys, Hilton tried to intervene during a struggle over a firearm and attempted to save Rodriguez's life, not take it.

The Forensics Dispute

The central question before the Supreme Court is whether Rodriguez was shot at contact range or from a distance — a distinction that bears directly on who fired the weapon and how.

At trial, state medical examiner Arkady Katsnelson testified that the gun touched Rodriguez's skin when it fired, consistent with the state's theory that Hilton shot the victim at close range.

Hilton later obtained a forensic report from Dr. Cyril Wecht, a nationally recognized pathologist, who reached the opposite conclusion. Wecht examined the wound characteristics and declared that "the features of the wound are most consistent with a distance gunshot wound" and that "this could not have been a tight contact wound." Wecht died in 2024.

A lower habeas court judge reviewed Wecht's report and testimony and found the pathologist "not credible," denying Hilton's request for a new trial. That ruling is now before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

The appeal asks the high court to decide whether the habeas judge evaluated Wecht's testimony properly.

Taubes argued that the judge should have considered the totality of evidence — including whether Wecht's analysis, taken alongside all other evidence in the case, could have led a jury to a different verdict. Taubes contends that the standard should not simply be whether the judge found one expert more credible than another.

Assistant State's Attorney Laurie Feldman argued in defense of the lower court ruling, contending that Hilton found an expert witness whom the judge found not credible, and that the credibility determination was within the habeas court's purview. Under that view, a single rejected expert opinion is not sufficient to warrant a new trial.

The Supreme Court's decision is pending.

Context and Stakes

Habeas corpus proceedings allow people who have been convicted to challenge the constitutional validity of their imprisonment after all direct appeals have been exhausted. In Connecticut, habeas cases often involve claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, or prosecutorial misconduct.

The Hilton case raises a narrower question about the standard courts should apply when evaluating expert testimony in habeas proceedings — specifically, how much weight a habeas judge's credibility finding should carry when the expert presents scientific evidence the jury never heard.

Hilton was 33 years old at the time of his conviction. He has now served more than two decades behind bars. A ruling in his favor would not automatically free him but could result in a new trial.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has not indicated when it will issue its decision.

Got a tip? Reach out to us at tips@thequinnipiacpost.com.