WPCG n;?di3̱XJk _K'Dғ/Җr= QQ.\ y5`L֊ʲ ÉdDadnJ5A{6P(ԕY%X;JP;Qti9Hi4+@#p; Bgˇc­yltY?O9jE8~ >-BEƜD']`SDsi5wEyLީ%^=d{.Z\hսlEOG{!qf=9xEgXsWl4ʛGy#^.ROaxt빹Y1g;)'zilW-#UNM % 0:U*85^ !w)!4-!A!P! mR! 0~i! 0D!U+"&f((f-y-w`213 T7\7\76;<>N??AF ^gLLU>NN VO/P jQyQFuR bT;UUU lV WY lZZGpZZ T[UF\\F\ R] Jl]] r^_ j```m` lHaa lbb Zc-d f e e e e eqe Vgff `gg Rh>i V4j Zjj Xkkk3l j mwm \Pnn hoo hpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 0j/q/q 0Urr 0Us 0U t 0=^t D+t AQttEuuu 0Uuu  nu 0Ayu  u 0D)uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuufufVvfvf"wfw^wwwfLyLyfyyyyy^zzfv{v{v{v{f{{{{{{fB|B|B|B|B|^||f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bl~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~l~r~~~f~~^af^%%fffOOrf'f^fQfff^HP LaserJet 4100 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS., !USUS.,  _X+XXXBradyv.Maryland,    373U.S.83(1963)#XXXX+@#< 9Z+ Courier New  + ($USUS.,    3    _X1(XXXIthaslongbeenrecognizedthatineffectiveassistance  claimsandBradyclaimsareparallelclaims.See_ 5 _Statev.  _Gunsby_,670So.2d920(1996).Sincehabeasproceedingsarethe \ recognizedvehicleforassertingineffectiveassistanceof 2 counselinadirectappeal,logicdictatesthatitisthe X appropriatevehicleforassertingthattheStatesrepresentative . didnotcomplywithhisorherdueprocessobligationduringthe   directappeal.v, NU, E3|xU(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   K ($USUS.,    1    _X1(XXXTheabsurdityoftheStatespositioncanbestbe  understoodbyanalogytothemoreusualcontextinwhichBrady  and_Giglio_claimsarise.Attrial,itisverycommonforBrady \ claimstoinvolvethesuppressionofevidenceimpeachinga 2 Stateswitnesswhowassubjecttocrossexamination. ! Rogersv. X State,782So.2d373(Fla.2001).However,thefactthatthe . trialattorneydidchallengethewitnessasincredibledoesnot   precludethepresentationofameritoriousBradyor_Giglio_claim   ifandwhenitisdiscoveredthatadditionalimpeachmentwas `  suppressedbytheState. % Ԁ_Kyles_Ԁv.Whitley,514U.S.419(1995).  ($USUS.,    2    _X1(XXXThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthattheBradyobligation  continuesonintopostconviction. . Robertsv._Butterworth_,668  So.2d580(Fla.1996);_ 1 _Johnsonv._Butterworth_,713So.2d985 \ (Fla.1998). \\R3'Letter\ y ($USUS.,    4    _X1(XXXTheStatedoesatonepointassertthatMr.Wrights   specificcomplaintagainsttheStateisthatitdidnottell  thisCourtthatthejudgehadruledthetheftevidence \ inadmissiblethereby_preclud[ing_]thejuryfromknowingofthe 2 prisonterm_Westberry_Ԁwasafraidthathefaced....Petition X at13)(Answerat6).However,theStatemisstatedMr.Wrights . claim.Mr.Wrightasserted that JudgePerrysrulingprecluded   thejuryfromknowing oftheprisonterm_Westberry_Ԁwasafraid   thathefaced butforthegoodgracesofMr.Dunning (Petition |  at13)(emphasisadded).TheStatesmangledquotecompletely `   misrepresentsMr.WrightscontentionishisPetition. \\R3'Letter\ o ($USUS.,    5    _X1(XXXTheStatesassertionthat_Westberry_fearofcriminal  prosecutionforthecriminalscrapmetalbusinesswasan   unestablishedpossibilityissimplycontrarytotherecord. \ _Westberry_Ԁhastestifiedunderoaththathewas scaredofgetting 2 intotroubleaboutthis(PCR1.645).Moreover,whattheState X failedtodisclosewasthefactthatthetrialprosecutor,Mr . Dunning,gave_Westberry_Ԁ alimitedgrantofimmunity(PCR1.   756).Furthermoreunder 9 Davisv.Alaska,415U.S.308(1974),   theabilitytoconfrontawitnessaboutmattersthatmaysuggest `  amotiveisnotdependentuponestablishingthatthewitnesswill 6   concedethathismotiveisassuggested. m ($USUS.,    6    _X1(XXXInfact,_Westberry_Ԁindicatedto_Paige_Ԁthathebelievedthat  Mr.Wrighthadbeentalkingandmakingtrouble_(R_.2473). ' ($USUS.,    7    _X1(XXXActually,theStatedownplaystheblatantmisrepresentation  madebytheStateinthedirectappeal.TheStatenowsaysthat  ondirectappealtheStatemerelyasserted thattheobjection \ cametoolatetopreserve(Answerat9,n.1).However,the 2 Stateondirectappealfalselyargued [_n]o_Ԁobjectionwasmadeat X trialtothetestimonyofthiswitness(DirectAppealAnswer . Briefat26).Theargumentwasnotthattheobjectionwaslate;   theargumentwasthatitneverhappenedatall.Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)1  ($USUS.,    9    _X1(XXXTheStatealsocites B Statev.Gaines,770So.2d1221,1227  (Fla.2000).InGaines,thisCourtrecognizedthatthetrial  courtwasvestedwithbroaddiscretiontoconsidermotionsto \ suppressthatwerenotpreservedbythefilingofthemotionpre 2 trial.ThiswouldseemtosupportMr.Wrightscontentionthat, X whencounselaskedforleaveofthecourttomakehismotionto . suppressinatardyfashionandleavewasgrantedwithout   objection,theStatewaivedanyobjectiontothetardinessofthe   motionandthetrialcourtsdecisiontoexcusecounsels `  tardinesswasbinding. , ($USUS.,    10    _X1(XXXThedecisionscitedbyMr.Wrightincluded: N Mooneyv.  _Holohan_,294U.S.103(1935); P Bergerv.UnitedStates,295U.S.  78(1935); R _Alcorta_Ԁv.Texas,355U.S.28(1957); T _Napue_Ԁv. \ Illinois,360U.S.264(1959); U _Giglio_Ԁv.UnitedStates,405U.S. 2 150(1972);_ W _Grayv._Netherland_,518U.S.152(1996). !USUS.,  _X+XXXRogersv.State,    782So.2d373(Fla.2001)#XXXX+=#  ($USUS.,    13    _X1(XXXTheStatealsoseemstosuggestthattheprosecutorsfalse  argumentwasharmlessbecausesurelythejurycouldhavefigured  itout.However,theStatesargumentoverlooksthefactthat \ thejurysoughtareadbackofPatricia_Lasko_stestimonyand 2 includedinthatrequestanindicationthatitwantedtohearDr. X _Latimer_stestimonyagain(R.2907).  ($USUS.,    14    _X1(XXXTheStateengagesinapersonalattackuponundersigned  counselinafootnoteattheendofitsargumentonthisclaim  (Answerat31,n.8).TheStateassertsthattheargumentsmade \ onMr.Wrightsbehalf againsttheStatesrepresentativesare 2 outrageous!TheStateasksforsanctionsagainstundersigned X counsel. .   Forundersignedcounsel,itisoutrageousthatMr.Wright,a   manthatundersignedcounselisconvincedisinnocent,hasbeen   forcedtoremainedondeathrowforover18yearsforacrimehe `  didnotcommit.Inthiscase,thereisnorealquestionthat 6   exculpatoryevidencewaswithheldfromthedefenseandthusnot  \  heardbythejury.Moreover,trialcounselacknowledgedthathe  2  providedinferiorrepresentation.Mr.Wrightdidnotreceivean   adequateadversarialtestingattrialoronappeal.Yet,he   remainsondeathrow.  ($USUS.,    11    _X1(XXXInsteadtheStatecitesdecisionsfromthisCourtinvolving  qualitativelydifferentprosecutorialcomment. [ Rogersv.State,  783So.2d980,1003(Fla.2001)(atissueweretheprosecutors \ commentsduringthepenaltyphaseregardingherfathers 2 participationinDesertStorm); ] Simsv.State,681So.2d1112 X (Fla.1996)(atissueweretheprosecutorscommentsreferringto . C* C thedefendantasaliar); _ Fordv.State,802So.2d1121,1132   (Fla.2001)(atissuewereprosecutorscommentsmisstatingthe   lawanddisparagingmitigationandsympathy); a Thomasv.State, `  748So.2d970,984(Fla.1999)(atissuewereprosecutors 6   commentsregardingdefensecounselsdislikeofpoliceand  \  solicitoustreatmentofhisclient).Thesecasessimplyarenot  2  relevanttoanargumentthattheprosecutordeliberately   presentedfalseormisleadingevidenceandargumenttothejury   inordertoobtainaconviction.Rogers v. State, 782 So.2d 373 (Fla. 2001)1  ($USUS.,    15    _X1(XXXThepagelimitationsdonotpermitMr.Wrighttoaddress  allofthemisrepresentationsoffactandlawcontainedinthe  Answer.FormattersnotaddressinthisReply,hereliesupon \ thePetitionandtherecordtorefutetheStatesarguments.%\  `&Times New Roman  !USUS.,  _X+XXX_Kyles_Ԁ_v._ԀWhitley,    514U.S.419(1995)#XXXX+=#$ Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXWilsonv.Wainwright,    474So.2d1162(Fla.1985)#XXXX+@#&Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1985)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXX_Giglio_Ԁv.UnitedStates,    405U.S.150(1972)#XXXX+@# < ($USUS.,    8    _X1(XXXInterestingly,theStateverycarefullydoesnotdefendthe  wordsthatwerewrittenintheStatesAnswerBriefondirect  appealthatnoobjectionhadbeenmadeatall.TheState \ positionsimplyboilsdowntoaclaimthatsurelythisCourt 2 figuredoutthattheStatesAnswerBriefwaswrongwithoutbeing X soadvisedbyeitherparty.(Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)1page page chapter volume footnote endnote  !USUS.,  _X+XXXRobertsv._Butterworth_,    668So.2d580(Fla.1996)#XXXX+@#-Roberts v. Butterworth, 668 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1996)1  ($USUS.,    12    _X1(XXXTheStatescontentionignoresthelimitationsimposedby  theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsjurisprudence.Aprosecutoris  notpermittedtoknowinglymakeafalseargumentevenifthe \ defensecounselhasfailedtopresenttheevidencenecessaryto 2 provetheargumentisfalse. !USUS.,  _X1(XXXJohnsonv._Butterworth_,    713So.2d985(Fla.1998)#XXXX1(@#0Johnson v. Butterworth, 713 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1998)1 =#0Xd#   !USUS.,  _X1(XXXStatev._Gunsby_,    670So.2d920(1996)#XXXX1(@#4State v. Gunsby, 670 So.2d 920 (1996)1.Courier New Regular !USUS.,  _X+XXXDavisv.Alaska,    415U.S.308(1974)#XXXX+@#8Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974)1Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) !USUS.,  _X+XXXWilsonv.Wainwright,    474So.2d1162(Fla.1985)#XXXX+@#;Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 1981 !USUS.,  _X+XXX_Cannady_Ԁv.State,    620So.2d165(Fla.1993)#XXXX+@#=Cannady v. State, 620 So.2d 165, 170 (Fla. 1993)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXStatev.Gaines,    770So.2d1221(Fla.2000)#XXXX+@#AState v. Gaines, 770 So.2d 1221, 1227 (Fla. 2000)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXWrightv.State,    473So.2d1277(Fla.1985)#XXXX+@#CWright v. State, 473 So.2d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 1985)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXLongv.State,    517So.2d664(Fla.1987)#XXXX+@#ELong v. State, 517 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1987)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXWaterhousev.State,    429So.2d301(Fla.1983)#XXXX+@#GWaterhouse v. State, 429 So.2d 301 (Fla. 1983)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXMooneyv._Holohan_,    294U.S.103(1935)#XXXX+@#MMooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXBergerv.UnitedStates,    295U.S.78(1935)#XXXX+@#OBerger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXX_Alcorta_Ԁv.Texas,    355U.S.28(1957)#XXXX+@#QAlcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXX_Napue_Ԁv.Illinois,    360U.S.264(1959)#XXXX+@#SNapue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959)1Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) !USUS.,  _X1(XXXGrayv._Netherland_,    518U.S.152(1996)#XXXX1(@#VGray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXRogersv.State,    783So.2d980(Fla.2001)#XXXX+@#ZRogers v. State, 783 So.2d 980, 1003 (Fla. 2001)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXSimsv.State,    681So.2d1112(Fla.1996)#XXXX+@#\Sims v. State, 681 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1996)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXFordv.State,    802So.2d1121(Fla.2001)#XXXX+@#^Ford v. State, 802 So.2d 1121, 1132 (Fla. 2001)1 !USUS.,  _X+XXXThomasv.State,    748So.2d970(Fla.1999)#XXXX+@#`Thomas v. State, 748 So.2d 970, 984 (Fla. 1999)1`:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXS#%\  `&Times New RomanS        S#%\  `&Times New RomanSXXX(-2$ !USUS.,  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(-2$ !USUS.,  (-2$ !USUS.,  ($    'dxd    C<< c(-2$ !USUS.,  (Vm$0   1($ \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ TTRX3' LetterX3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ TTRX3' LetterX3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ TTRX3' LetterX3' Letter3'Letter3'Letter88T \\R3'Letter\ d h  \R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ TTRX3' LetterX3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT \\R3'Letter\ TTRX3' LetterX3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ h  \R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ TTRX3' LetterX3' Letter3'Letter3'Letter&&T \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ \\R3'Letter\ TTRX3' LetterX3' Letter3'Letter3'Letter44T !USUS.,  _ X1(XXX3@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFFLORIDA  @!CASENO.SC012866 x  ?~'4 pdE41p?  2 @"JOELDALEWRIGHT,  = 0p x (#X0@*  Petitioner,    E.` hp x (#XE@tt)v. }  @!MICHAELW.MOORE, E  @` ` Secretary,FloridaDepartmentofCorrections, )y  0p x (#X0@*  Respondent. A E.` hp x (#XE ?~'4pdE4rp?  s @REPLYTOANSWERTOPETITIONFORWRITOFHABEASCORPUS f  ?~'4pdE4p?   p    `     h   MARTINJ._MCCLAIN_     `     h   SpecialAssistant_CCRC_ԄSouth      `     h   FloridaBarNo.0754773 k!   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#9701ShoreRd.Apt.1DO "(#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#Brooklyn,NY112093!#(#(#    `     h   OFFICEOFTHECAPITAL "K%    `     h   COLLATERALREGIONALCOUNSEL #/&    `     h   101N.E.3RDAVE.,SUITE400 $ '    `     h   Ft.Lauderdale,FL33301 % (    `     h   (954)7131284 &!)    `     h   COUNSELFOR_MR_.WRIGHT  S(#+ 3 38XXdd8 3     861(6XXdXXd8Vm  Vm 0        @"(#(#TABLEOFCONTENTS Vm ݌  Ќ     `     h      p      x   Page  j TABLEOFCONTENTS""J(#. _i_Ԉ $t 8   TABLEOFAUTHORITIES#H!H!G(#.  #ii   8   REPLYTOCLAIMI  #8"8"I(#.  #1 |    8 `  A. ` INTRODUCTION.#!!H(#.xx!` x` x#1 ( x       B. ` DIRECTAPPEALCHALLENGETOLIMITSONRIGHTOF  $     ` CONFRONTATION. !!H(#.$3     8 `  C. ` DIRECTAPPEALCHALLENGETOTHEINTRODUCTION V  OFMR.WRIGHTSINVOCATIONOFSILENCE#8"8"I(#.9` x` x#6 ,|  REPLYTOCLAIMII!!H(#. 10 (      B. ` FAILURETORAISEONAPPEALTHEPROSECUTORS    0 ` KNOWINGPRESENTATIONOFFALSEARGUMENTTOZ` (#` (#   0 ` MR.WRIGHTSJURY. #H!H!G(#.(` (#` (##10 0 8      ` 2. TheGlassJar.#!!H(#.HH'  #11 , 8   8       ` 3. TheTimeofDeath.#!!H(#.((+  #12  8   8       ` 4. RighthandedAssailant#!!H(#./  #13 4    `  8   8       ` 5. LatentPrints#!!H(#.&  #14 0 8   8       ` 6. ForeignHeadandPubicHairs#!!H(#.5  #14   8       8   CONCLUSION#!!H(#.` `   #15 8!" 8   CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE#!!H(#.hh#  #16 "4$   'b") @<<  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES     `     h      p      x  Page  x        #XXXX1(@#X1(XXX_Alcorta_Ԁv.Texas, \   355U.S.28(1957)#XXXX1(V#X1(XXX8"8"I(#.xx!10݈ 2 Ќ̌    x  Bergerv.UnitedStates,  .   295U.S.78(1935)8"8"I(#.xx!10x݈   Ќ̌    \  Bradyv.Maryland, `     373U.S.83(1963)""J(#.xx!2\w݈ 6   Ќ̌    9  _Cannady_Ԁv.State, 2    620So.2d165(Fla.1993)""J(#.(89T݈   Ќ̌    <  Davisv.Alaska, d    415U.S.308(1974)H!H!G(#."4,6<W݈ :  Ќ̌      Fordv.State, 6   802So.2d1121(Fla.2001)8"8"I(#.88)106݈   Ќ̌      _Giglio_Ԁv.UnitedStates, h   405U.S.150(1972) F(#."2,10݈ > Ќ̌      Grayv._Netherland_, :   518U.S.152(1996)8"8"I(#."10 ݈  Ќ̌       Johnsonv._Butterworth_, l   713So.2d985(Fla.1998)""J(#.(2 ݈ B Ќ̌    !  _Kyles_Ԁv.Whitley, >   514U.S.419(1995)""J(#."1!)!݈  Ќ̌     "  Longv.State, p !   517So.2d664(Fla.1987)""J(#.(9 "&"݈ F!" Ќ̌    "  Mooneyv._Holohan_, "B$   294U.S.103(1935)8"8"I(#."10"#݈ #% Ќ̌    #  _Napue_Ԁv.Illinois, t% '   360U.S.264(1959)8"8"I(#."10#$݈ J&!( Ќ̌    $  Robertsv._Butterworth_, 'F#*   668So.2d580(Fla.1996)""J(#.(2$%݈ ($+ Ќ̌    %  Rogersv.State, x*%-   782So.2d373(Fla.2001)""J(#.(1% &݈ N+&. Ќ $,t'/ Ќ    &  Rogersv.State,    783So.2d980(Fla.2001)8"8"I(#.(10&'݈  Ќ̌    '  Simsv.State, 2   681So.2d1112(Fla.1996)8"8"I(#.88)10''݈ X Ќ̌    (  Statev.Gaines,     770So.2d1221(Fla.2000)""J(#.88)8((݈   Ќ̌    )  Statev._Gunsby_, 6     670So.2d920(1996)""J(#.hh#2))݈  \  Ќ̌    *  Thomasv.State,     748So.2d970(Fla.1999)8"8"I(#.(10**݈   Ќ̌    p+  Waterhousev.State, :    429So.2d301(Fla.1983)""J(#.(9p++݈ `  Ќ̌    V,  Wilsonv.Wainwright,     474So.2d1162(Fla.1985)H!H!G(#.88)1,7V,q,݈  Ќ̌  Wrightv.State, >   473So.2d1277(Fla.1985)""J(#.88)9 d  ,-/ .* + ; 2 4?9Nnn Gf.-+J2E0L1  : @<<  REPLYASTOCLAIMI    A.0  Introduction. x(#(#   TheStatefailstomeaningfullydiscussMr.Wrights @ assertionthatithasanobligationtocomplywithdueprocessin  < thecourseofadirectappeal.TheStatesdiscussionislimited   todescribingMr.Wrightsassertionsas whollyinappropriate D   because theunderlyingsubstantiveissues...werepresented @  byhiscounselonappeal(Answerat3)._ #  1      _ԀTheStatearguesthat   Mr.Wrightseeks animproper_relitigation_Ԁofanissueuponwhich H  thisCourthasalreadyruled(Answerat4). D   However,Mr.Wrighthasassertedthatjustashabeas  proceedingsarethepropermeansforseekingtochallengethe L adequacyofappellatecounselsadvocacyondirectappeal,habeas H proceedingsmustbethepropervehicleforchallengingthe  conductoftheStateduringthedirectappeal.See ' Wilsonv. P Wainwright,474So.2d1162(Fla.1985).Here,Mr.Wrightasserts L thatinformationvitaltothisCourtsresolutionofMr.Wrights   directappealwaswithheldfromthisCourtbytheState.The T!" resultingquestionthatmustbeanswerediswhetherthe #P$  TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letter   518U.S.152(1996)8"8"I(#.3'LetterT   principlesenunciatedin  Bradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83(1963),  and * _Giglio_Ԁv.UnitedStates,405U.S.150(1972),applyduringa \ directappeal._ #  2      _ԀMusttheStatesrepresentativecomplywiththe X dictatesofBradyand_Giglio_whilearguingondirectappeal   beforethisCourt?Ifso,thenhabeasproceedingsmustbethe `  appropriatevehicleforvindicatingabreachoftheStates  \  directappealobligation._ #  3      _Ԁ     TheanalysisofBradyand_Giglio_claims,ofnecessity d  requiresrevisitingpreviouslypresentedcontentionsinorderto `  determinewhethertheinformationwithheldfromthisCourtduring   thedirectappeal,impactedtheresolutionoftheappeal.Here, h Mr.Wrighthasbeendeniedanewtrialbecausepertinent d informationwasnotdisclosedbytheStateduringthedirect  appealinviolationofdueprocess.Giventhatthisinformation l waswithheldfromthisCourtbytheStateduringthedirect h appeal,reconsiderationoftheissuesthatwereimpactedbythe  Statesbreachofdueprocessisrequired. p   B.0  DirectAppealConfrontationClauseClaim .(#(#   InPointIofMr.Wrightsinitialbriefondirectappeal, x Mr.Wrightarguedthatthetrialjudgehadcommittedreversible $t errorinlimitinghisrighttocrossexaminevariouswitnesses   calledbytheState(InitialBriefonDirectAppealat10).One |  ofthewitnessesspecificallydiscussedintheargumentraisedon ( x  directappealwasCharles_Westberry_.OneofMr.Wrights $  contentionsasto_Westberry_ԀwasthatMr.Wrightwasprecluded   fromasking_Westberry_Ԁwhetherhisscrapmetalbusinesswas ,|  criminalinnatureinordertoexplore themotiveoftheStates ( chiefprosecutionwitness(R.2190).Intheinitialbriefto  thisCourt,Mr.Wrightargued Appellantfurthersubmitsthat 0 suchtestimonywaspropertodemonstratethat_Westberry_s , testimonywasinfluencedbythehopethathisillegalactivity,  knownbythepoliceandtheprosecutor,wouldnotresultin 4 chargesbeingfiledif_Westberry_Ԁtestifiedfavorabletothe 0 State(InitialBriefat15).     AstoMr.WrightscurrentclaimthattheStatewithheld 8!" pertinentinformationfromthisCourtduringthedirectappeal, "4$ theentiretyoftheStatesargumentcomesdownto: $& ` Moreover,WrightsclaimthathadtheStatetoldthis <&!( CourtoftheunestablishedpossibilitythatMr. 'b") _Westberry_Ԁwasafraidhemightgotoprisonforthe '8#* scrapmetaltheftsifhedidnottestifyagainstWright ($+ thatrevelationwouldhaverequiredthisCourttogrant )$, anewtrialiswhollywithoutmerit.Thelittle j*%- additionalvalueofthisallegedimpeachmentevidence @+&. wouldnothaveaffectedtheoutcomeoftheappeal. ,f'/  ,<(0 ` FF(Answerat7)._ #  4      _ԀTheStateinitsdesperateattempttopreserve  theconvictiontaintedbyseriousBradyand_Giglio_violations \ completelyoverlookstheimplicationsofthewithheld X information.  #  5      ׀ItwasnotjustCharlesWestberrywhowasatrisk   ofcriminalprosecution,buthiswife,PaigeWestberry,aswell. `  ThisfearwaspresentatthetimeofhisdiscussionwithPaige  \  whenWestberrytoldherthatMr.Wrighthadtoldsomeoneelse   thatWestberryhadbeenstealingproperty(R.2473).Atthat d  momentintime,CharlesWestberryhadreasontofearcriminal `  prosecution.Thejurydidnotknowthat.Anditwasatthat   momentintimethatMr.Westberryfirstclaimedthathehad h somethingonMr.Wright.TheundisclosedfactthatCharles d   TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letter   518U.S.152(1996)8"8"I(#.3'Letter   518U.S.152(1996)8"8"I(#.T   Westberryinfactreceivedimmunityforthescrapmetalbusiness  isproofofhisfearofcriminalprosecution. \   Infactinhisclosingargument,theprosecutoraskedthe X jurytoconsiderWestberryspossiblemotivesintestifying   againstMr.Wright: `  `  Iaskyoutoaskyourselftheultimatequestion:  \  WhyisCharlesWestberrygoingtosubmithimselfto  2  criminalprosecutionsothathecanalsosubmithis   friendtocriminalprosecution?    WhatssodastardlydidJodyWrightdotoCharles d  Westberrytomakehimdothat? H   Whattestimonyhaveyouhadthattherewas ,|  anythingsodastardlydonebyJodyWrighttoCharles ` Westberry?None.Nothing.  D  ThebiggesthintyougotwaswhenPaigeWestberry ( testifiedfortheDefensethatherhusbandsaidthat  thisDefendantwasgettinginthewayofhimanda  friend,DocRyster. Z ` _Cannady_Ԁv. d State,620So.2d165,170(Fla.1993). #  9      ׀TheStatesaction  constitutedanabandonmentofitsproceduralbarargument. l   TheStatethenassertsthatthisCourtnonetheless h /  /TRX3' LetterX3'Letter3'Letter3'Letter   518U.S.152(1996)8"8"I(#.T /  rejectedthemeritsoftheunderlyingclaim(Answerat10).  Absentfromthiscontentionisacitationtothedirectappeal \ opinion.Thisbecauseinthedirectappealopinionthereisno X plainstatementofthebasisofthisCourtsdenialofMr.   WrightsclaimthatDeputyPerkinswaspermittedtocommentupon `  Mr.Wrightsinvocationofsilence.AllthisCourtstatedwas  \   [w]erejecteachofappellantscontentionsandfindonlythe   issuesrelatingtotheexclusionofWaterstestimonyandthe d  admissibilityoftheWilliamsruleevidencemeritdiscussion. `   D Wrightv.State,473So.2d1277,1279(Fla.1985).     Further,theStatechoosesinitsAnswernottoaddressthe h applicationof F Longv.State,517So.2d664(Fla.1987),and d  H Waterhousev.State,429So.2d301(Fla.1983),bothcitedinthe  Petition.ThisseemstotacitlyacknowledgethatMr.Wrights l statementwasinfactaninvocationofhisrighttosilence. h @<<  REPLYASTOCLAIMII    B. 0  FailuretoRaiseonAppealtheProsecutorsKnowing   PresentationofFalseArgumenttoMr.WrightsJury .p !(#(# {  InhisPetition,Mr.Wrightarguedthatappellatecounsel *"z# wasineffectiveinfailingtoraiseachallengetothe #&% prosecutions deliberatedeceptionofcourtandjury(Petition % ' at24).Mr.WrightrelieduponnumerousdecisionsbytheUnited .'~") StatesSupremeCourtimposinguponprosecutorstheobligationto (*$+ refrainfromtheknowingpresentationoffalseormisleading *%- argument.InitsAnswer,theStatedoesnotaddressanyofthe 2,'/ * *TRX3'LetterX3' Letter3'Letterlbecausepertinent d informationwasno3'LetterT *  UnitedStatesSupremeCourtcasescitedbyMr.Wright._ #  10      _ԀThe  Stateobviouslypreferstoignoretheconstitutional \ underpinningstoMr.Wrightsunderlyingclaim.  #  11       X   2.0 ` TheGlassJar.  ` (#` (#   InhisPetition,Mr.Wrightarguedthatitappellatecounsel |  shouldhavechallengedthetrialprosecutorsargumentthatthe ( x  glassmoneyjarthatCharlotteMartineztestifiedhadbeeninMr. $  WrightspossessionmayhavebeentheoneWestberryclaimedMr.   WrighttookfromMs.Smith.TheStaterespondsbyasserting, ,|   theevidencesupportstheinferencethattheglassmoneyjarwas ( thattakenfromMs.Smith;however, inmakingsurehedidnot   violateanyethicalrules ,theprosecutorarguedthatitmightor L + +TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letterguedthatthetrialjudgehadcommittedreversible 3'Letterlbecausepertinent d informationwasnoT +  mightnotbethesamejar(Answerat20)(emphasisadded)./ #  12      ׀     Thesimplefactthattheprosecutormadethiseffortto not \ violateanyethicalrulesreflectsthefactthattheprosecutor X knewthattheglassmoneyjardidnotcomefromMs.Smiths   resident,butwasinfactaWrightfamilyheirloom.Therecord `  demonstratesthatthepartiesinvestigatedtheoriginsofthe  \  glassjarwhenitsurfaced.Afterconductinganinvestigation,   theprosecutordecidedtonotcallCharlotteMartinezandtonot d  presenttheglassjar.Itwasonlyafterthedefensedecidedto `  presenttheglassjarfullofmoneytodemonstratethatMr.   WrighthadnoneedtostealfromMs.Smithandonlyafterthe h defenseneglectedtopresenttheevidencethatthejarwasWright d familyheirloom,thatMr.Dunningseizedupontheevidenceto  presentanargumentthatheknewwasfalseormisleading. l   InAlcortav.Texas,355U.S.at31,theSupremeCourtfound h adueprocessviolationsaying, [i]tcannotseriouslybe  disputedthatCastillejastestimony,takenasawhole,gavethe p  jury[a]falseimpression.Thatholdingapplieshere.The !l" Statesfeebleargumentsthattheprosecutordidnottechnically "$ lieandthattheevidencebeforethejurydidnotprovethe t$& argumentwasfalseoverlooktherealitythattheprosecutor  &p!( ; ;TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letterguedthatthetrialjudgehadcommittedreversible 3'Letterguedthatthetrialjudgehadcommittedreversible T ;  knowinglycreatedafalseimpressioninordertobolsterthe  credibilityofCharles_Westberry_Ԁsothathecouldwinthecase. \   3.0 ` TheTimeofDeath. X` (#` (#   AstoMr.Dunningsmisrepresentationsofthemedical   examinersconclusionsregardingthetimeofdeath,theState |  asserts, [t]heStateisentitletopresentitsviewofthe ( x  evidence,includingreasonableinferencestherefrom,tothejury $  atargument(Answerat23).However,theUnitedStatesSupreme   Courthasmadecrystalclearthattheprosecutorisnotfreeto ,|  knowinglycreateafalseimpression.Alcortav.Texas. (   4.0 ` RighthandedAssailant. ` (#` (#   AstotheprosecutorsfalseargumentregardingDr. L Latimerstestimonyregardingtheassailantbeingrighthanded, H theStateasserts, [i]tappearsthatingoingoverthis  evidence,theprosecutormisspokewhenrelatingwhathandthe P doctorthoughtthemurdererusedifhewasstandinginfrontof L Ms.Smithwhenhestabbedher(Answerat25).Thisisa   concessionthattheprosecutorsargumentwasinfactfalse. T!"   TheStatethenarguesthatthereisnoevidencethatthe #P$ prosecutorsfalseargumentwasintentionallyfalse(Answerat $& 25).Theprosecutorjusthappenedtohavemisrepresentedthe X&!( medicalexaminersconclusionsoasnottoexcludeMr.Wrightas (T#* thekiller.Thefactthatthemisrepresentationwastothe )%, prosecutorsadvantageashetriedtowinthecaseis \+&. circumstantialevidenceofhisintent.Justasinacriminal -X(0 2 2TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letterguedthatthetrialjudgehadcommittedreversible 3'Letterguedthatthetrialjudgehadcommittedreversible T 2  prosecution,intentcanbeinferred.Here,theprosecutors  falseargumentwasononeofthedefensesbestargumentsthat \ Mr.Wrightwasnotthekiller.Moreover,theprosecutorsfalse X statementsastoothermattersandhiswillfulwithholdof   exculpatoryevidenceprovidesamplecircumstantialevidencethat `  Mr.Dunningwasonlyconcernedwithwinningaconviction._ #  13      _  \    5.0 ` LatentPrints.  ` (#` (#   Astotheprosecutorsmisstatementthat therewereonly   twopeoplethatwerenoteliminated(R.2711)asasourceof ,|  fingerprintsinMs.Smithshouse,theStatearguesthatifthe ( juryhadbeenpayingattentionitwouldnothavebeenmisledby  thisargument(Answerat27).ThisoverlooksthefacttheUnited 0 StatesSupremeCourthasimposedadutyupontheprosecutorto , notintentionalcreatefalseimpressions.Here,thatiswhatthe  prosecutordid,timeandtimeagain. 4   6.0 ` ForeignHeadandPubicHairs. 0` (#` (#   AstotheprosecutorsmisrepresentationofPatricia_Lasko_s   findingsregardingtheforeignheadhairsonthedressthatMs. T!" Smithwaswearingatthetimeofherdeath,theStatedoesnot #P$ disputethattheargumentwasfalseormisleading.Instead,the $& Statearguesthatitwasnotimportantbecausetrialcounsel X&!( failedtoadvisethejuryofthesignificanceofforeignhead  hairsonMs.SmithsdressthatdidnotcomefromMr.Wright \ (Answerat29).TheStatesargumentseemstounderscorethe X prejudicefromthefalseand/ormisleadingargument.Under   Alcortav.Texas,theStatedeliberatelycreatedafalse `  impressionthatthedefensefailedtocombat.Clearererroris  \  hardtoimagine,particularlywhenallofthefalseand/or   misleadingprosecutorialcommentsareconsideredcumulatively. #  14       d  @% CONCLUSION  `    ForthereasonsstatedhereinandinhisPetition,Mr. ( WrightrespectfullyrequeststhatthisCourtgrantanewtrial." #  15          IHEREBYCERTIFYthatatruecopyoftheforegoingPetition 0 forHabeasCorpushasbeenfurnishedbyUnitedStatesMail,first  , 4 4TRX3'LetterX3'Letter3'Letterriminalnatureofthescrapmetalbusinessandhad 3'Letterguedthatthetrialjudgehadcommittedreversible T 4  classpostageprepaid,toJudyTaylorRush,AssistantAttorney  General,OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral,444_Seabreeze_ԀBlvd.,5th \ Floor,DaytonaBeach,FL32118,onMarch22,2002. X    `     h   ?~' hdE5 h? 6   c E    `     h   MARTINJ.MCCLAIN c      `     h   SpecialAssistantCCRCSouth 9     0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#FloridaBarNo.0754773_ (#(#    `     h   9701ShoreRd.Apt.1D 5    0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#Brooklyn,NY11209 (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#(718)7482332 (#(#    `     h   OFFICEOFTHECAPITALCOLLATERAL =    0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#REGIONALCOUNSELFORTHEc(#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#SOUTHERNREGION9(#(#    `     h   101NE3rdAve.,Suite400     `     h   FortLauderdale,FL33301     `     h   (954)7131284 k    `     h   CounselforMr.Wright g   @  CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE  nsԈ o   Theundersignedcounselcertifiesthatthispetitionistyped )y usingCourier12font. O    `     h   ?~' hdEV!h? W!# !f!   `     h   MARTINJ.MCCLAIN !$