Hartford — The image of murder victim Renee Pellegrino's body laid out on a Waterford cul-de-sac continues to haunt those involved with the case, including a defense attorney who argued before the state Supreme Court Thursday that his client, Dickie E. Anderson Jr., was wrongfully convicted of the crime.

Anderson, now 45, is serving a 60-year prison sentence for Pellegrino's murder and maintains his innocence, according to attorney Christopher Duby. Anderson's mother, sister and a longtime friend attended Thursday's hearing, though the appellant himself, who is being held at the Cheshire Correctional Institution, was not present.

Arguing before seven justices, Duby, who had represented Anderson at his 2012 trial in New London Superior Court, contended Superior Court Judge Arthur C. Hadden improperly granted the state's motion to try Anderson simultaneously for the murders of Pellegrino and Michelle Comeau. The facts of their cases were similar, but not similar enough, Duby argued.

Crime scene photos and testimony in the Pellegrino case were memorably shocking, Duby said.

"I've tried all manner of major felonies, and that one will always stick with me," Duby said. "There's a shock element to the Renee Pellegrino evidence that just doesn't exist in the Michelle Comeau evidence."

The 12-member jury that convicted Anderson in the Pellegrino case could not reach a verdict in the Comeau homicide, but Duby contends the ruling to join the case wrongfully enabled the state to use the Comeau case to bolster the Pellegrino case. While attorneys prepared for trial, the state Supreme Court issued its opinion in State of Connecticut v. Leotis Payne, which held that prosecutors seeking to join cases need to prove the evidence in both was cross-admissible and that joining the cases did not substantially prejudice the defendant. In light of the new standard of proof, Judge Hadden held a second hearing and upheld his initial decision to consolidate the cases.

Police had found Pellegrino's naked body on Waterford Parkway South on June 25, 1997. Her killer posed the 41-year-old in a crucifix-like position: head bent to the left, arms outstretched, legs spread wide and bent at the knees, feet placed together. Comeau's body, also unclothed, was discovered on May 1, 1998, on New Park Avenue in Norwich. Arguing on behalf of the state Thursday, Deputy State's Attorney Marissa Goldberg said there was evidence that Comeau's body "was in the process of being posed" when the killer was interrupted. A state trooper had testified at Anderson's trial that Comeau's arms were stretched out to the sides, her head "to one side," and her feet about 6 inches apart.

"There was evidence to show Michelle Comeau was pushed from a car," Duby argued. "She wasn't posed. Renee Pellegrino was certainly posed."

Noting he intended no disrespect to the victims, Duby said, "These kinds of murders occur. To say they were committed by the same person is wrong."

In his 2011 argument to join the cases, New London prosecutor Stephen M. Carney had included a list of similarities between the two cases, ranging from the victims' lifestyles —addicted prostitutes —to the way they were fatally strangled and their bodies laid out on remote stretches of road for others to discover.

The evidence at trial, including DNA that tied Anderson to the Pellegrino homicide, showed he knew both women and was with them in the hours before their death.

Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers seized on one of the most unique issues linking the case. 

"One of the similarities was manual strangulation and ligature, which I guess is not that common," Rogers said.

Autopsies on both victims indicated their killers had used their hands and a ligature, such as a rope or belt. Former Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver had testified at the trial that use of both manners of strangulation is relatively rare.

Carney did not specify the exact manner of strangulation in his motion to join the cases, so it is unclear whether the justices will be able to use it as they consider whether the state met the burden of proof required to join the cases.

At the conclusion of Thursday's arguments, attorneys on both sides said they were encouraged by the questions the justices asked. The court does not have a set deadline for issuing rulings.

k.florin@theday.com

Twitter: @KFLORIN