ÿWPC…m An(á.Äýä'c 3â°©5 ‡T.Ó?„°» ×4²ÍÇã’‚è‚k„éSz¯bÈýÌh"ãßv¾{˽×å8|uÙœÆFÚW#D_9`¥wÃé¡äÍçI{G¿Ëœ€ŸÎ•tÓfMB…laG -Wúõ‚µi\˾Â6l¡ó­G5=?—d&Ôoб”&ƒˆ5ß«ÊÕ¹†\Û_ÎzÒa†™@N‰'ÖŠ6ª§â- Å8H “bódë'§€—h\ €8¿ÕÁVÎz–4ñ"h‹jÀY¹~°1»3¿ÉeÀ‹‹2;ÂNP©HªQ<2€ç]2% j1ë2`›l™6ßQÕî‚0¢Ôvƒ+ôáèó¼Ò3µÇéw)£¥ç‡Ñjñ× Žx™ÈÐaæðïÊ„ÓÞòîgöì(¿¢ïHt¦¨jnï®0X¦”ÅU›Dúy@íUé¨ý˜œàN9ù¦ á‡Âz=#Uð¦uÁ¡3ÖbÞ( dëVâ{¿çŠ&ÁT5G¢=<ê¾F( µ©µ 7–Ø`Lypj˜Ã{²õ¬š—AÏì†Áì¢Vârq@Â'ÌÜlT6]º*ÁY/6xº&5CWLn]˜pŒLÆ`ÊØ—Â!ëÇ#!âUN %Q 0(WUFU.Åw@ó43GV mXo Œ 0=£ 0Fà 0P& 0Zv 0dÐ  4 0*A 1‡k &ò 7!NO"^ Q"ƒ]"]""à%"&&$&PJ& 1uš*&+"5- W-"d3"†3 0c¨3" 4 4"-4"O4Æq4 0e75"œ5ɾ5‡95¡:¶Ö<rŒ>ÞþAÏÜC 0C«J«J 0vîJ"dK"†K"¨KîÊKÊKÊKÊK"¸P"ÚP 72üP«.Q&ÙTU8ÿTO7UM†X|Ó\6ObS…f…f…f…f…f…f…f…fØg”öhÜŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjŠjEfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfmfm Bhm˜HP OfficeJet Series 600 Printer`˜,,,,`˜0xÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular<þ6X9`(Courier Š‹DŒDŽ‘D’“ăû*ment À„3|x“%ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€DX­XXXÔJudge€Driver€believed€that€his€jurisdiction€was€limited€to€theÐ ° Ðissue€concerning€Mr.€Pearlððs€status€as€a€special€deputy€sheriff.(ÿÿ$˜˜Ìà0 àà à(ÿÿ$™™à0 àà0 àà à((ÿÿ$ššà0 àà0 àà0 àà à(2ÿÿ$››à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà à(<ÿÿ$œœà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà à1(ÿÿ$  Ì(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. ÑÑÑ  Ñ -Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€DX­XXXÔJudge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€indicated€that€evidence€regarding€other€mattersÐ ° Ðand€issues€could€be€presented€at€a€later€date€(PC„R2.€2389).€€En+× yÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€DX­XXXÔThis€Court€has€repeatedly€acknowledged€that€cumulativeÐ ° Ðconsideration€under€òòÔ_ÔGunsbyÔ_Ôóó€requires€revisiting€claims€alreadyÐ ¤ô Ðdecided€in€a€prior€a€Rule€3.850€motion.€€òòÔ_ÔLightbourneÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,Ð xÈ Ð742€So.2d€238€(Fla.€1999).€€Even€this€Courtððs€recent€opinion€inÏòòJennings€v.€Stateóó,€782€So.2d€853,€861€(Fla.€2001)(ð ð[Ô_Ôo]verallÔ_Ô,€theÐ  p Ðcumulative€effect€of€the€alleged€òòBradyóó€violations€does€notÐ ôD Ðestablish€òòBradyóó€materialityðð),€held€that€cumulativelyÐ È  Ðconsideration€of€the€previously€presented€and€previously€rejectedÏclaims€was€required. Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ ÑÑÑ  Ñ FÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔOfficer€Perkinsðð€trial€testimony€comes€up€in€this€proceedingÐ ° Ðin€several€ways.€€First,€Mr.€Wright€does€contend€that€Mr.€PearlððsÏstatus€as€a€special€deputy€sheriff€clouded€his€judgment€andÏaffected€his€ability€to€adequately€represent€Mr.€Wright€and€Ïchallenge€Officer€Perkinsðð€testimony.€€Related€to€that€is€Mr.ÏWrightððs€claim€that€Mr.€Pearl€did€not€adequately€investigate€andÏlearn€of€the€available€impeachment€evidence.€€And€finally,€theÏState€failed€to€disclose€evidence€that€Officer€Perkins€hadÏpreviously€falsified€a€police€report€an€was€untrustworthy.€€TheseÏoverlapping€matters€have€a€synergistic€and€corrosive€effect€whenÏOfficer€Perkinsðð€trial€testimony€is€considered€cumulatively,Ïparticularly€in€light€of€Mr.€Pearlððs€courtroom€apology€to€OfficerÏPerkins.€€The€potential€for€damaging€cross„examination€expandsÏexponentially€when€Officer€Perkinsðð€role€in€the€criminalÏinvestigation€is€further€factored€in€to€the€analysis.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThe€State€returns€to€Mr.€Pearlððs€testimony€regarding€OfficerÐ ° ÐPerkins€on€page€15€of€the€Answer€Brief.€€However,€the€way€inÏwhich€the€State€bifurcates€its€discussion€of€the€testimonyÏregarding€Officer€Perkins€obscures€the€simply€fact€that€Mr.€PearlÏhad€failed€to€learn€from€Mr.€Wrightððs€family€the€exact€nature€ofÐ  p  ÐOfficer€Perkinsðð€threat€to€Mr.€Wrightððs€mother. Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔIn€the€Argument€section€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€says,Ð ° Ðð ðalthough€Freddie€Williams€was€called€by€the€defense€at€theÏevidentiary€hearing,€he€was€not€asked€about€any€special€deputyÏstatus€he€may,€or€may€not,€have€held.ðð€€Answer€Brief€at€50.€€InÏfact,€neither€Mr.€Wrightððs€counsel€nor€the€Assistant€StateÏAttorney€asked€Freddie€Williams€regarding€his€status€as€a€bondÏspecial€deputy.€€Since€the€Ô_ÔPellicerÔ_Ô€deposition€had€been€admittedÏwithout€objection€before€Freddie€Williams€took€the€stand€onÏDecember€8,€1997,€Mr.€Wrightððs€counsel€understood€that€the€StateÏwas€not€contesting€the€matter.€€Certainly,€the€Stateððs€decisionÏto€ask€no€questions€of€Freddie€Williams€about€his€status€as€aÏbonded€deputy€in€Putnam€County€was€consistent€with€not€contestingÏthe€issue.€€When€the€matter€came€up€in€closing€arguments,€Mr.ÏWrightððs€counsel€specifically€relied€on€Ô_ÔPellicerÔ_Ôððs€testimony€thatÏð ðFreddie€Williams€was€a€bonded€deputyðð€and€argued€FreddieÏWilliamsðð€status€as€a€special€deputy€ð ðaffected€his€judgmentðð€(PC„¼R2.€1051,€1052).€€And€in€fact€in€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€inÏresponse,€Assistant€State€Attorney€Fox€said€ð ðFreddie€Williams€hadÏone,ðð€referring€Ô_ÔPellicerÔ_Ôððs€testimony€regarding€Freddie€WilliamsððÏappointment€as€a€special€deputy€(PC„R2.€1086). Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑA, B,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#*&2Quick A.Úƒ+ÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€+Û Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ ¿Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThe€Stateððs€argument€is€a€variation€of€the€theme€thatÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔappearedÔ_Ô€in€the€Stateððs€closing€argument€in€the€circuit€court.€ÏThere,€the€State€maintained€that€the€issues€arising€from€theÏnewly€disclosed€public€records€are€ð ðminuteðð€in€comparison€to€theÏundisclosed€police€reports€presented€in€the€1988€(PC„R2.€1089).€ÏAccording€to€the€State,€since€the€big€stuff€was€already€rejectedÏand€thus€procedurally€barred€from€reconsideration,€the€newÏð ðminuteðð€stuff€cannot€warrant€relief.€€Of€course,€the€contentionÏstands€in€direct€contravention€of€òòÔ_ÔKylesÔ_Ô€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419Ð p À Ð(1995),€and€òòYoung€v.€Stateóó,€739€So.2d€560€(Fla.€1999),€two€casesÐ D ”  Ðnot€even€mentioned€in€the€Stateððs€Answer€Brief.€ Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThis€is€another€case€that€Mr.€Wright€relied€on€in€his€InitialÐ ° ÐBrief€that€is€not€even€mentioned€in€the€Stateððs€Answer€Brief. +Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔAnd€in€fact,€the€record€demonstrates€that€the€StateÐ ° Ðrecognized€below€that€there€had€been€a€failure€in€1988€to€fullyÏcomply€with€Chapter€119.€€Mr.€Wright€was€permitted€to€amend€withÏthe€new€documents.€€The€State€responded,€not€by€challengingÏwhether€the€documents€had€been€disclosed€before,€but€by€arguingÏthat€the€new€ð ðthings€that€the€Defense€has€found€here€today€areÏreally€quite€minuteðð€(PC„R2.€1089). ¬Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThese€proceedings€laid€the€foundation€for€claims€raised€by€Mr.Ð ° ÐWright€in€amendments€to€his€Rule€3.850€motion.€€During€the€1991„¼97€proceedings,€Mr.€Wright€obtained€new€evidence€that€had€notÏpreviously€been€provided€to€him€or€to€the€courts€at€the€time€ofÏprior€factual€determinations. hÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔIndeed,€Rule€3.850€was€designed€to€allow€consideration€ofÐ ° Ðwhether€the€factual€determinations€made€at€trial€and€reviewed€onÏappeal€were€erroneous€and/or€insufficiently€reliable€to€support€aÏconviction€and€or€sentence€of€death.€€òòSee€e.g.óó€òòYoung€v.€Stateóó,Ð Lœ Ð739€So.2d€553,€560€(Fla.€1999)(undisclosed€exculpatory€evidenceÏspecifically€called€into€question€factual€finding€of€cold,Ïcalculated€and€premeditated€that€had€been€affirmed€by€this€CourtÏon€direct€appeal);€òòState€v.€Millsóó,€788€So.2d€249€(Fla.Ð œ ì Ð2001)(newly€discovered€evidence€not€previously€available€requiredÏrevisiting€factual€resolution€of€the€defendantððs€challenge€toÏoverride€of€juryððs€life€recommendation). ÔÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔIn€successfully€arguing€to€exclude€the€testimony€of€FreddieÐ ° ÐWilliams€as€to€when€he€saw€the€police€reports€at€issue,€AssistantÏState€Attorney€Fox€indicated€that€whether€ð ðJudge€Perry€may€haveÏbeen€mistaken€in€his€interpretation€of€what€this€witnessÏtestified€to€in€a€prior€hearingðð€simply€did€not€matter€(PC„R2.Ï2528). ÅÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔWithout€elaboration,€the€State€cites€òòÔ_ÔMendykÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€707Ð ° ÐSo.2d€320,€322€(Fla.€1997),€and€òòJennings€v.€Stateóó,€782€So.2d€853,Ð ¤ô Ð861€(Fla.€2001).€€These€two€cases€involved€remands€for€ChapterÏ119€disclosures.€€And€in€both€cases,€the€defendant€was€permittedÏto€file€Rule€3.850€claims€arising€from€the€newly€disclosed€publicÏrecords.€€In€òòÔ_ÔMendykÔ_Ôóó,€this€Court€said,€ð ðGiven€that€the€informationÐ ôD ÐÔ_ÔMendykÔ_Ô€requested€either€could€not€be€located€or€never€existed,Ïthese€jury€instruction€and€ineffective€assistance€claims€ò òare€notÐ œ ì Ðbased€on€any€public€records€disclosureó ó€and€therefore€are€notÐ | Ì Ðcognizable€on€appeal€to€this€Court€after€our€limitedÌremand.ðð€707€So.2d€at€322€(Emphasis€added).€€Mr.€Wrightððs€claimsÏare€premised€upon€information€and€public€records€that€were€notÏknown€or€disclosed€at€the€time€of€this€Courtððs€1991€remand.€€Ìà  àIn€òòJenningsóó,€this€Court€found€an€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðcounsel€claim€procedurally€barred€in€reliance€on€òòPope€v.€Stateóó,Ð €Ð  Ð702€So.2d€221,€223€(Fla.€1997),€because€there€was€no€accompanyingÏð ðallegation€of€newly€discovered€evidence.ðð€€782€So.2d€at€861.€ÏThat€is€most€assuredly€not€the€situation€here.€€Mr.€WrightÏalleged€and€proved€that€the€State€had€previously€failed€toÏdisclose€public€records€which€went€towards€his€claim€that€heÏreceived€a€constitutional€inadequate€adversarial€testing.€(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(-!2Vf$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ äÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔOf€course,€the€State€seeks€to€ignore€the€problems€that€ariseÐ ° Ðif€the€false€factual€determination€is€accepted€as€truth.€€It€hasÏnow€been€revealed€that€Freddie€Williams€was€a€bond€special€deputyÏsheriff.€€This€is€new€evidence€that€was€discovered€as€a€result€ofÏthe€1997€public€records€depositions€stipulated€to€by€the€State.€ÏIf€we€are€to€assume€that€the€falsehood€is€true€(i.e.€FreddieÏWilliams€saw€the€òòBradyóó€material€pre„trial),€did€he€see€theÐ È  Ðdocuments€in€his€capacity€as€a€special€deputy.€€If€so,€then€JudgeÏPerryððs€assumption€that€Freddie€Williams,€as€Mr.€PearlððsÏinvestigator,€would€have€disclosed€what€he€saw€to€Mr.€Pearl€seemsÏto€no€longer€have€any€basis.€€Mr.€Pearl€unequivocally€said€thatÏhe€had€not€seen€the€documents.€€If€Freddie€Williams€did€notÏreveal€the€existence€of€the€òòBradyóó€material€to€Mr.€Pearl,€the€newÐ À  Ðevidence€of€Mr.€Williams€status€as€an€agent€of€the€Putnam€CountyÏSheriffððs€Office€shows€that€the€false€fact€does€not€defeat€Mr.ÏWrightððs€òòBradyóó€claim,€as€Judge€Perry,€another€special€deputyÐ <Œ  Ðfound. Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ i) ¡Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€DX­XXXÔDespite€the€well€known€standard€of€review€requiring€deferenceÐ ° Ðto€factual€determinations,€this€Court€has€not€hesitated€to€setÏaside€factual€determinations€previously€affirmed€when€newÏevidence€in€the€post„conviction€process€establishes€that€theÏprevious€factual€determinations€were€erroneous.€€For€example€inÏòòPorter€v.€Stateóó,€723€So.2d€191,€196€(Fla.€1998),€this€CourtÐ ôD Ðgranted€post„conviction€relief€on€a€judge€bias€claim€because€newÏevidence€established€that€this€prior€factual€resolution€of€theÏclaim€Ô_ÔwasÔ_Ô€in€error.€€Similarly,€in€òòÔ_ÔLightbourneÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€742Ð p À ÐSo.2d€238€(Fla.€1999),€new€evidence€required€revisiting€aÏpreviously€factual€resolution€of€a€òòBradyóó€claim. ÑÑÑ  Ñ<à09Z+‹ Courier New  EÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€DX­XXXÔThe€Stateððs€Answer€Brief€does€not€summarize€the€testimonyÐ ° Ðcontained€in€the€forty€(40)€depositions€that€were€introduced€intoÏevidence.€€Even€though€the€State€endeavored€to€summarize€theÏtestimony€of€each€witness€who€testified€in€person,€there€is€noÏsummary€in€the€Stateððs€Answer€Brief€of€any€of€these€fortyÏdepositions.€€Perhaps€in€preparing€the€Answer€Brief,€the€StateÏoverlooked€these€depositions.€€Nevertheless,€the€State€in€circuitÏcourt€did€stipulate€ð ðthat€the€depositions€can€be€used€in€lieu€ofÏlive€testimony.ðð€(PC„R2.€2515).€€By€the€Stateððs€stipulation€inÐ p À  Ðcircuit€court,€the€testimony€in€those€depositions€was€to€beÏconsidered€as€live€testimony.€ CÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThe€State€also€asserts€that€Mr.€Wright€did€not€present€anyÐ ° Ðargument€to€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€regarding€the€Stateððs€presentation€ofÏfalse€testimony€at€the€1988€evidentiary€hearing.€€However,€Mr.ÏWrightððs€counsel€addressed€the€change€in€his€Taylor€DouglasððÏtestimony€in€his€closing€argument€on€December€8,€1997€(PC„R2.Ï1027„28).€€Assistant€State€Attorney€Fox€responded€in€his€closing,Ïby€asserting€that€Douglas€had€not€previously€indicated€that€theÏpolygraph€was€the€basis€for€the€exclusion€of€Jackson€andÏÔ_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€as€suspect,€ð ðthere€was€indications€that€the€policeÏruled€him€out€not€simply€because€he€had€passed€the€polygraphððÏ(PC„R2.€1088).€€In€reply,€Mr.€Wrightððs€counsel€stated,€ð ðtheÏevidence€was€that€according€to€Taylor€Douglas,€Ô_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€andÏJackson€were€ruled€out€because€they€passed€polygraphÏexaminationsðð€(PC„R2.€1097).€€ rÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThe€State€does€point€out€that€ð ðWright€also€took€and€passed€aÐ ° Ðpolygraph,€however,€he€very€obviously€was€not€excluded€as€aÏsuspect.ðð€Answer€Brief€at€42€n.7.€€However,€Mr.€Wright€wasÏdropped€as€a€suspect€when€he€passed€the€polygraph.€€It€was€onlyÏwhen€Charles€Ô_ÔWestberryÔ_Ô€asserted€two€months€later€that€Mr.€WrightÏhad€confessed€to€him€that€Mr.€Wright€again€became€a€suspect€andÏwas€charged€with€the€murder.Ìà  àThe€State€also€asserts,€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]hatÔ_Ô€the€passage€of€a€polygraphÏwas€the€main€thing€the€witnesses€asked€in€1988€recalled€fiveÏyears€after€trial€does€not€mean€that€it€was€the€sole€or€onlyÏbasis€for€excluding€them€at€the€time.ðð€€Answer€Brief€at€42.€€OfÏcourse,€the€fact€that€the€State€has€never€been€able€to€come€upÏwith€a€basis€for€excluding€Jackson€and€Ô_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€that€is€notÏrebutted€by€the€police€reports€and€testimony€presented€in€circuitÏcourt€has€to€be€evidence€which€supports€Mr.€Wrightððs€claim€thatÏhe€was€denied€an€adequate€adversarial€testing€and€that€confidenceÏis€undermined€in€the€outcome.€€The€State€has€no€evidenceÏestablishing€that€Jackson€and€Ô_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€did€not€commit€thisÏmurder. ,Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThe€previously€undisclosed€evidence€includes€the€policeÐ ° Ðreport€indicating€that€Officer€Walter€Perkins€had€previouslyÏfalsified€a€police€report€and€was€fired€because€he€wasÏð ðuntrustworthy.ðð€€This€undisclosed€evidence€would€have€caste€aÏnew€light€on€Officer€Perkinsðð€trial€testimony€and€his€role€inÏarresting€Mr.€Wright€and€gathering€evidence€against€him.€€ThisÏnewly€disclosed€evidence€further€underscores€the€importance€ofÏthe€evidence€that€Officer€Perkins€had€threatened€Jody€WrightððsÏmother,€promising€to€make€her€sorry€she€had€those€boys.Ìà  àThe€previously€undisclosed€evidence€also€includes€numerousÏpolice€reports€detailing€violent€misconduct€committed€by€HenryÏJackson,€and€police€reports€regarding€Connie€Ray€Israel,€BobbyÏHackney,€and€Clayton€Hughes.€€All€of€this€was€discussed€moreÏextensively€in€the€Initial€Brief€and€not€addressed€at€all€in€theÏAnswer€Ô_ÔBrief.Ô_Ô IÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThis€Court€has€not€held€that€the€defendant€who€establishesÐ ° Ðthat€the€State€withheld€exculpatory€evidence€must€prove€ð ðaÏprobability€of€a€different€result.ðð€€òòRogers€v.€Stateóó. Ý ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThe€undisclosed€information€does€not€have€to€be€in€the€formÐ ° Ðof€admissible€evidence.€€òòRogers€v.€Stateóó,€782€So.2d€at€383€n.11. ŠÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔNeither€does€the€State€address€the€case€citations€presentedÐ ° Ðin€the€Initial€Brief€indicating€that€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€erroneouslyÏheld€Mr.€Wright€to€prove€due€diligence€of€trial€counsel€as€anÏelement€of€a€òòBradyóó€claim. ÒÝ ƒ7Vf$ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X­XXXÔThe€State€makes€the€assertion€that€the€error€in€excludingÐ ° ÐKathy€Waters€should€be€disregarded€because€the€testimony€ð ðcouldÏhave€hurt€Wright€just€as€much,€if€not€more€than,€it€would€haveÏhelped€him.ðð€€Answer€Brief€at€47.€€The€Stateððs€position€is€aÏstretch€given€that€the€trial€judge€described€the€testimony€asÏalmost€ð ðtailor„madeðð€to€assist€Mr.€Wright.€€Kathy€WatersÏtestimony€would€have€corroborated€Mr.€Wrightððs€version€of€theÏevents€and€impeached€Mr.€Ô_ÔWestberryÔ_Ôððs,€in€the€credibility€Ô_Ôbattle.Ô_Ô dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà8  àÔ€X­XXXÔà@¨ ¨ ìÐ Ð àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€FLORIDAˆÐ ° ÐÌà@´´!ìàCASE€NO.€SC00„1389ˆÌÌß?€Æà' ÐpdE4ÿp?ßÐ P ÐÌà@ðð"ìàJOEL€DALE€WRIGHT,ˆÌÌà@ìì*ìàˆà  àAppellant,ÌÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@ðð"ìàSTATE€OF€FLORIDA,ˆÌÌà@ìì*ìàˆà  àAppellee.ÌÌß?€Æà' xpdE4*p?ßÐ +{  ÐÌà@l l ìàON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTˆÌà@l l ìàOF€THE€SEVENTH€JUDICIAL€CIRCUIT,ˆÌà@  ìàIN€AND€FOR€PUTNAM€COUNTY,€STATE€OF€FLORIDAˆÌÌß?€Æà' 8pdE4]p?ßÐ ^® ÐÌÌß?€Æà' ØÀdEŒ À?ßÐ e ÐÌà@LLìàREPLY€BRIEF€OF€APPELLANTˆÌÌß?€Æà' ÀdEŒ ŸÀ?ßÐ  ð ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àMARTIN€J.€MCCLAINÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àSpecial€Assistant€CCRC„SouthÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àFlorida€Bar€No.€0754773Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à9701€Shore€Rd.€€Apt.€1„DÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àBrooklyn,€NY€€11209Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à(718)€748„2332ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àOFFICE€OF€THE€CAPITAL€COLLATERAL€Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àREGIONAL€COUNSEL€FOR€THEÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSOUTHERN€REGIONÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à101€N.E.€3rd€Ave.€Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àSuite€400Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àFt.€Lauderdale,€FL€€33301ÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àCOUNSEL€FOR€Ô_ÔAPPELLANTÐ  Ã'#/ ÐÓÓÙÙØØÑ8€­XXdÔXXdì8Ñà@ ìàò òÔ  ÔòòPRELIMINARY€STATEMENTó óóóÔ „ ԈР° Ðà  àThis€proceeding€involves€the€appeal€of€the€circuit€courtððsÏdenial€of€Mr.€Wrightððs€amended€motion€for€post„conviction€reliefÏfollowing€this€Courtððs€remand€for€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòWrightÐ À  Ðv.€Stateóó,€581€So.2d€882€(Fla.€1991).€€On€June€5,€2000,€theÐ h ¸ Ðcircuit€court€denied€Mr.€Wrightððs€claims€two€and€a€half€yearsÏafter€the€evidentiary€hearing€and€only€after€Mr.€Wright€filed€aÏpetition€for€a€writ€of€mandamus€with€this€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòWright€v.Ð `°  ÐStateóó,€Sup.€Ct.€Case€No.€SC00„1119.€€Citations€in€this€brief€toÐ X  Ðdesignate€references€to€the€records,€followed€by€the€appropriateÏpage€number,€are€as€follows:Ìà  àð ðR.€___ðð€„€Record€on€appeal€to€this€Court€in€first€directÏappeal;Ìà  àð ðPC„R1.€___ðð€„€Record€on€appeal€to€this€Court€from€1989Ïdenial€of€the€Motion€to€Vacate€Judgment€and€Sentence;Ìà  àð ðPC„R2.€___ðð€„€Record€on€appeal€to€this€Court€from€2000€Ïdenial€of€the€Amended€Motion€to€Vacate€Judgment€and€Sentence.Ìà  àAll€other€citations€will€be€self„explanatory€or€willÏotherwise€be€explained.ÌñSñò òòòà@xx!ìàCERTIFICATE€OF€FONTóóó óˆÐ @$& Ðà  àThis€brief€is€typed€in€Courier€12€point€not€proportionatelyÏspaced.€€€€€€€€ñSñÌÐ è%8!( ÐÓ  ÓÌà@ðð"ìàò òòòÔ  ÔTABLE€OF€CONTENTSó óóóÔ =ԈРX¨ ÐÌà€H!H!G(#àò òòòPageó óóóˆÐ À  ÐÌÓ€ Ý ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà  àÐ  X$¨& Ðà@<< ìàò òòòÔ  ÔTABLE€OF€AUTHORITIESó óóóÔ ÔˆÐ ° ÐÌà€H!H!G(#àò òòòPageó óóóˆÐ h ÐÌÓ€Ý ÓÌÌÐ  Ð  ÐØØÙÙÑ€*ÑÑ€"*ÑÑ€)* ÑÑ€** ÑÑ€C?ÄÑÑ€?ÄÑÑ€?Ä ÑÑ€*ÑÑ€$*ÑÑ€%*ÑÑ€-*Ñà@Œ Œ ìàò òREPLY€TO€STATEMENT€OF€THE€CASE€AND€FACTSó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àRule€9.210€of€the€Florida€Rules€of€Appellate€ProcedureÏprovides€that:€€ð ðThe€Answer€brief€shall€be€prepared€in€the€sameÏmanner€as€the€initial€brief,€provided€that€the€statement€of€theÏcase€and€of€the€facts€shall€be€omitted€unless€there€are€areas€ofÏdisagreement,€which€should€be€clearly€specified.ðð€€The€StatementÏof€the€Case€and€Facts€in€the€Answer€Brief€is€thirty„six€pagesÏlong.€€Nowhere€does€it€ð ðclearly€specifyðð€areas€of€disagreementÏwith€the€Statement€of€the€Case€contained€in€the€Initial€Brief.€€Ìà  àIn€reply,€Mr.€Wright€will€endeavor€to€clearly€specify€areasÏof€disagreement.€Ìà  àAt€page€2€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€quotes€from€thisÏCourtððs€1991€opinion€partially€affirming€the€denial€of€3.850Ïrelief€in€order€to€suggest€that€those€matters€affirmed€are€beyondÏreview€now.€€The€State€neglects€to€acknowledge€that€the€standardÏof€review€required€this€Court€to€accept€factual€determinationÏmade€by€the€circuit€court€after€an€evidentiary€hearing€unless€notÏsupport€by€competent€and€evidence.Ô_Ô׃B×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€òòSeeóó€òòShaw€v.€Shawóó,€334€So.2dÐ ð @" Ð13,€16€(Fla.€1976)(the€trial€court€has€a€superior€position€ð ðtoÏevaluate€and€weigh€the€testimony€.€.€.€based€upon€its€observationÏof€the€bearing,€demeanor,€and€the€credibility€of€the€witnessesðð).€ÏUnder€Florida€precedent,€this€Courtððs€acceptance€of€the€circuitÏcourtððs€factual€determinations€is€subject€to€be€revisited€whereÏnew€evidence€surfaces€to€establish€that€the€prior€determinationÏwas€factually€Ô_Ôwrong.׃2×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ  ð  Ðà  àAlso€on€page€2€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€skips€overÏentirely€the€proceedings€that€occurred€in€the€circuit€courtÏbetween€1991€and€1997.׃1Ì ×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€During€that€time€period,€the€PutnamÐ ˜è ÐCounty€Sheriffððs€Office€provided€a€plethora€of€public€recordsÏthat€had€not€been€provided€in€1988€when€all€public€records€wereÏfirst€requested€by€Mr.€Wrightððs€collateral€counsel.€€As€a€resultÏof€new€Chapter€119€disclosures,€Mr.€Wright€first€amended€hisÏ3.850€motion€on€December€11,€1991,€less€than€five€months€afterÐ à0 ÐÑ*Ñâ âÑÑÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñthis€Courtððs€mandate€issued€(PC„R2.€115).€€On€December€17,€1992,Ïthe€presiding€judge,€the€Honorable€B.J.€Driver,€severed€theÏð ð3.850€claims€which€warrant€evidentiary€hearing€developmentðð€ð ðsoÏthat€they€may€be€pursued€in€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction.ððÏ(PC„R2.€475).׃ ×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€February€24,€1993,€Mr.€Wright€filed€a€SecondÐ P   ÐAmended€3.850€Motion€in€light€of€disclosures€that€were€madeÏduring€the€December,€1992,€proceedings€before€Judge€Driver€(PC„¼R2.€480).Ìà  àThen€on€July€22,€1996,€Mr.€Wright€gave€notice€that€he€hadÏlearned€from€proceedings€on€May€3,€1996,€in€Manuel€Ô_ÔColinaÔ_Ôððs€case,Ïanother€capital€case€from€Putnam€County,€that€the€Putnam€CountyÏSheriffððs€Office€had€failed€through€a€systemic€error€to€fullyÏcomply€with€all€prior€Chapter€119€requests€made€by€the€Office€ofÏthe€Capital€Collateral€Representative€(PC„R2.€704).€€Mr.€WrightððsÏindicated€that€ð ðrenewed€effortsðð€had€been€made€to€obtain€ð ðthoseÏrecords€not€previously€revealed.ðð€(PC„R2.€704).€€Subsequently€onÏAugust€23,€1996,€Mr.€Wright€filed€a€Motion€to€Compel€seeking€fullÏaccess€to€all€Chapter€119€material€which€had€previously€beenÏrequested€in€Mr.€Wrightððs€case€(PC„R2.€706).€€At€the€òòHuffóó€hearingÐ €"Ð$ Ðon€October€15,€1996,€the€State€agreed€that€an€evidentiary€hearingÏwas€required€and€should€include:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓnot€only€on€Chapter€119,€but€on€all€issues,€itððs€justÏtime€to€litigate€this€case.€€I€mean,€we€have€a€numberÐ L(œ#+ Ðof€issues€to€do€or€allegations€that€theyððve€made,€itððsÏthe€Stateððs€request€that€we€just€go€ahead€and€do€themÏall,€I€think€the€Chapter€119€issue€can€be€resolved€atÏthat€time€along€with€everything€else.ÌÌÓ|!ÓÒ°` Ò(PC„R2.€719).€€Accordingly,€the€public€records€matter€was€set€forÏan€evidentiary€hearing,€along€with€the€rest€of€Mr.€WrightððsÏclaims.Ìà  àAt€the€commencement€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€March€3,Ï1997,€Mr.€Wright€asserted€that€the€Chapter€119€matters€raised€inÏthe€first€and€second€amended€3.850€motions€and€in€the€motion€toÏcompel€had€to€be€addressed€first.€€In€response,€Assistant€StateÏAttorney€Fox€stated:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓI€do€agree€with€the€reference€to€Ventura.€€The€supremeÏcourt€Ventura€case€in€which€the€court€indicated€thatÏpublic€records€issues€should€be€taken€up€first,€becauseÏif€something€turns€out€to€be€a€public€records€issueÏthat€could€have€affected€the€evidentiary€hearing,€thenÏyou€have€to€start€again,€so€I€agree€that€we€should€takeÏup€the€public€records€matter€now.ÌÌÓ¼$ÓÒ°` Ò(PC„R2.€2212).€€Ìà  àSubsequently,€Assistant€State€Attorney€Fox€stipulated€toÏallowing€Mr.€Wright€to€depose€sheriff€personnel€regarding€theÏChapter€119€matters€because€of€the€time€consuming€nature€of€theÏtestimony.€€At€a€later€point€in€the€hearing,€Assistant€StateÏAttorney€Fox€explained€that€as€a€result€of€the€stipulation,€aÏlarge€number€of€depositions€that€was€necessary€on€the€issue:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓAs€a€result€of€matter€that€occurred€on€Monday€weÏstipulated€to€converting€most€of€the€testimony€withÏregard€to€the€public€records€issues€and€tookÏdepositions.€€Weððve€been€plodding€along€as€best€we€can.€ÏAnd€I€didnððt€count€it,€but€25€[depositions]€soundsÏprobably€about€right.Ð p,À'0 ÐÑC?Ä Ñâ CâÑÑÑ  Ñâ CâÑ  ÑÌÓö'ÓÒ°` Ò(PC„R2.€2356).€€Assistant€State€Attorney€Fox€suggested€that€whileÏthe€deposition€continued,€the€Howard€Pearlððs€testimony€should€beÏpresented€as€scheduled.€€Assistant€State€Attorney€Fox€believedÏthat€the€rest€of€the€hearing€would€have€to€be€continued,Ïreconvening€at€some€point€in€the€future€after€the€rest€of€theÏpublic€records€depositions€had€been€completed€(PC„R2.€2358).Ìà  àFollowing€the€completion€of€the€public€records€depositionsÏin€September,€Mr.€Wright€filed€his€Third€Amended€3.850€Motion€onÏOctober€8,€1997€(PC„R2.€906).€€In€his€third€amendment,€Mr.€WrightÏrelied€upon€Chapter€119€records€disclosed€in€the€course€of€theÏdepositions.€€In€its€one€page€Response€filed€on€October€31,€1997,Ïthe€State€ð ðÔ_Ôurge[dÔ_Ô]€Ô_Ôth[eÔ_Ô€circuit]€court€to€move€forward€with€theÏevidentiary€hearing€scheduled€for€Monday,€December€8,€1997,€toÏfinally€resolve€all€of€the€allegations€in€this€case,€which€Ô_Ôha[dÔ_Ô]Ïbeen€too€long€delayed.ðð€(PC„R2.€968).Ìà  àBy€the€time€that€the€evidentiary€hearing€resumed,€Mr.€WrightÏhad€filed€three€amendments€to€his€3.850€motion€since€this€CourtððsÏremand€and€the€State€had€agreed€that€an€evidentiary€hearing€wasÏnecessary€to€consider€Mr.€Wrightððs€allegations.€€Thus,€the€StateÏhad€agreed€in€circuit€court€that€the€evidentiary€hearing€shouldÏcover€all€of€Mr.€Wrightððs€allegations,€not€simply€the€matter€thatÏhad€been€remanded€by€this€Court.Ìà  àAt€page€2€of€the€Stateððs€Answer€Brief,€the€State€discussesÏthe€March€3òòrdóó€€testimony€of€Captain€Clifford€Miller.€€In€thisÐ œ+ì&/ ÐÑ?Ä Ñâ âÑÑÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñdiscussion,€the€State€asserts,€ð ðJudge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€ruled€that€theÏissue€of€ðð[Ô_Ôw]hoÔ_Ô€was€Ô_ÔpolygraphedÔ_Ô?ðð€was€covered€in€the€priorÏhearing.ðð€(R.€2241).ðð€€However,€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€did€not€so€rule.€ÏThe€transcript€page€cited€by€the€State€reflects€that€JudgeÏÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€asked,€ð ðbut€I€think€polygraph€has€already€been€covered€inÏthe€prior€hearing,€hasnððt€it?ðð€€(PC„R2.€2241).€€And€then€afterÏhearing€argument€in€response€to€his€question€and€after€taking€aÏbreak,€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€subsequently€ruled:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àAnd€while€I€am€somewhat€hesitant€because€I€thinkÏitððs€overly€broad€perhaps,€I€think€the€better€course€ofÏaction€is€to€get€it€all€over€with€in€this€proceedingÏeither€„€„€or€one€time,€put€it€that€way.€€NotÏnecessarily€this€proceeding,€but€one€time.Ìà ¸ àAnd€the€only€way€that€I€could€think€of€to€do€thatÏwould€be€to€allow€the€defense€to€ask€the€questions€thatÏthey€seem€to€want€to€ask.€€And€because€of€that€I€wasÏprepared€to€go€ahead€and€letððs€call€each€one€upÏindividually,€if€you€want€to€do€that€by€deposition,Ïthatððs€fine€with€me.€€If€you€think€that€would€be€moreÏbetter€use€of€everybodyððs€time,€the€people€here€as€wellÏas€yours,€we€can€do€that.€ÌÌÓ.3ÓÒ°` Ò(PC„R2.€2334„35).€€So€in€fact,€the€questioning€of€Captain€MillerÏwas€allowed€and€did€occur€in€the€deposition€conducted€on€March€5,Ï1997.€€That€deposition€was€admitted€into€evidence€as€Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€19€(PC„¼R2.€2519).׃E×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð €"Ð$ ÐÑ"* Ñâ "âÑÑÑ  Ñâ "âÑ  Ñà  àAt€page€3€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€addresses€the€MarchÏ3òòrdóó€testimony€of€John€Robinson,€the€evidence€custodian€for€theÐ X¨ ÐPutnam€County€Sheriffððs€Office.€€The€State€neglects€to€note€thatÏduring€the€examination€of€Mr.€Robinson,€he€acknowledged€that€inÏ1996€his€office€admitted€that€it€had€previously€failed€to€turnÏover€all€public€records€(PC„R2.€2278).€€The€State€also€neglectsÏto€mention€the€fact€that€Mr.€Robinson€was€subsequently€deposed€onÏSeptember€2,€1997,€and€that€the€deposition€was€introduced€intoÏevidence€as€Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€36€(PC„R2.€2518).Ìà  àAt€page€3€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€notes€that€defenseÏcounsel€moved€on€March€4,€1997,€for€a€continuance€of€the€JudgeÏPerry€issue.€€The€State€neglects€to€acknowledge€that€the€JudgeÏPerry€issue€was€first€raised€in€the€Second€Amended€3.850€MotionÏfiled€on€February€24,€1993.€€The€State€also€fails€to€acknowledgeÏthat€Mr.€Wright€filed€a€motion€for€leave€to€depose€Judge€Perry€onÏOctober€13,€1994€(PC„R2.€615).€€The€motion€was€premised€in€partÏon€word€of€Judge€Perryððs€ill€health.€€A€hearing€was€held€on€theÏmotion€for€leave€to€depose€Judge€Perry€on€March€13,€1995,€and€theÏmatter€was€taken€under€advisement€(PC„R2.€662).€€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_ÔÏnever€issued€a€ruling€on€the€motion.Ìà  àOn€page€4€of€the€Stateððs€Answer€Brief,€the€State€addressesÏð ðDefense€Counselððs€request€to€postpone€the€hearing€even€as€to€Mr.ÏPearl.ðð€€The€State€omits€the€basis€for€defense€counselððs€request.€Ð  )p$, ÐThe€record€demonstrates€that€defense€counsel€explained:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓMonday€òòóóevening€[March€3òòrdóó]€about€5:00€the€governorÐ X¨ Ðreset€the€execution€of€Mr.€Medina.€€Itððs€now€set€forÏMarch€25òòthóó.€€And€I€went€back€to€the€office€while€theÐ P Ðdepositions€were€going€on,€they€wanted€to€talk€to€meÏabout€something,€yet€another€warrant€on€a€case€out€ofÏJacksonville€[Leo€Jones]€„€„ÌÌà@-Dà*€*€*ˆÌÌAnd€I€know€that€itððs€sort€of€not€your€problem€whatððsÏgoing€on€in€these€other€cases,€but€it€really€conflictsÏme€terribly,€because€I€have€been€on€Mr.€Wrightððs€caseÏsince€1988.€€And€if€it€comes€to€choosing€Iððm€going€toÏbe€here€on€Friday€to€present€Mr.€Pearl,€because€I€haveÏthis€long€time€commitment€to€Mr.€Wright€and€I€will€doÏthat.Ó&>ÓÐ Ä ÐÒ°` Ò(PC„R2.€2352„54).€€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€then€ruled€that€he€wanted€toÏhear€ð ðanything€that€we€can€do€with€Mr.€Pearl€to€get€any€testimonyÏfrom€him€may€be€a€plusðð€(PC„R2.€2359).€€So€the€continuance€wasÏdenied€as€to€Howard€Pearl€and€his€testimony€was€set€to€be€heardÏon€March€7òòthóó.€€€Ð  \ Ðà  àAt€page€4€of€its€Answer€Brief,€the€State€asserts€ð ð[Ô_Ôo]nÔ_Ô€MarchÏ7,€1997,€Defense€Counsel€argued€that€the€evidentiary€hearing€wasÏto€encompass€issues€beyond€the€Howard€Pearl€Special€Deputy€issue,Ïthe€Judge€Perry€Special€Deputy€issue,€and€the€public€recordsÏissue.ðð€€This€was€nothing€new.€€Since€the€first€amendment€hadÏbeen€filed€in€1991,€Mr.€Wright€had€sought€an€evidentiary€hearingÏon€all€of€the€issues€raised€in€his€amended€motions.€€And€theÏState€in€the€òòHuffóó€hearing€on€October€15,€1996,€the€State€hadÐ L(œ#+ Ðagreed€that€all€of€the€issues€should€be€taken€up€at€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€The€State€did€not€oppose€Mr.€Wrightððs€viewÐ œ+ì&/ Ðof€the€scope€of€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€discussion€on€MarchÏ7,€1997,€concerned€the€agreement€earlier€in€the€week€as€to€theÏscope€of€Howard€Pearlððs€testimony€that€was€to€be€presented€onÏMarch€7òòthóó.€€As€stated€by€Assistant€State€Attorney€Fox:€Ð ¨ ø ÐÒ` °ÒÓÓJudge€Iððm€going€back€to€my€notes€from€Mondayððs€hearing,Ïand€I€may€not€have€taken€good€notes,€but€I€donððt€recallÏthat€as€being€„€„€in€fact,€we€revisited€the€issues€thatÏwe€had€before€this€court€on€Wednesday€when€the€defenseÏrequested€a€continuance€of€the€Howard€Pearl€issue.€€IÏdonððt€recall€the€things€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcClainÔ_Ô€is€talkingÏabout€coming€up€in€that€discussion.Ó‡FÓÌÒ°` Ò(PC„R2.€2379).׃×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ð@  Ðà  àAt€page€5€of€its€Answer€Brief,€the€State€says,€ð ðTheÏprosecutor€asserted€that€any€claims€other€than€the€special€deputyÏstatus€claim(s)€were€procedurally€barred.€Ô_Ô(RÔ_Ô€2389).ðð€€However,Ïthe€Stateððs€representation€is€not€accurate.€€Assistant€StateÏAttorney€Fox€stated€on€March€7,€1997:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓAnd€I€also€see€from€looking€through€the€file€and€havingÏhad€heard€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcClainÔ_Ô€that€they€did€have€these€otherÏclaims.€€I€believe€that€we€would€be€prepared€to€argueÏthat€these€claims€are€procedurally€barred,€but€I€donððtÏbelieve€that€Ô_ÔthatÔ_Ôððs€what€weððre€going€to€be€here€forÏtoday.ÌÌÒ°` JÒÓ)JÓ(PC„R2.€2389).€€This€statement€was€made€while€the€public€recordsÏdepositions€were€ongoing.€€The€last€of€these€depositions€were€notÏcompleted€until€September,€1997.€€At€the€December,€1997,Ïresumption€of€the€hearing,€the€State€did€not€challenge€in€any€wayÏthe€testimony€of€Jeff€Walsh,€an€investigator€for€Ô_ÔCCRÔ_Ô.€€Mr.€WalshÐ L(œ#+ ÐÑ?ÄÑâ âÑÑÑ  Ñâ âÑ  Ñspecifically€identified€numerous€documents€that€Captain€MillerÏfirst€provided€him€in€1991.€€These€documents€were€introduced€asÏÔ_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€46€(PC„R2.€2600„01).€€Mr.€Walsh€also€identified€an€accordionÏfile€folder€full€of€documents,€introduced€as€Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€47,€that€wereÏdisclosed€after€the€revelation€in€Manuel€Ô_ÔColinaÔ_Ôððs€case€that€theÏPutnam€County€Sheriffððs€Office€had€through€a€systemic€errorÏfailed€to€fully€comply€with€previous€public€records€requests€byÏÔ_ÔCCRÔ_Ô€(PC„R2.€2603).€€The€State€did€not€cross„examine€Mr.€Walsh,Ïand€the€State€presented€no€testimony€contesting€Mr.€WalshððsÏrepresentations€(PC„R2.€2608,€2649).Ìà  àAt€page€9€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€says€ð ðMr.€Pearl€didÏnot€call€ððthe€familyðð€to€testify€about€the€ððcontroversyðð€withÏPerkins€and€some€family€members€of€the€Wright€family€because€heÏððdidnððt€think€that€this€controversy€meant€anything€much.ðð€Ô_Ô(RÔ_ÔÏ2464).ðð€€Actually,€Mr.€Pearlððs€testimony€was€that€because€he€didÏnot€think€the€controversy€meant€much,€ð ðI€didnððt€call€the€familyÏto€talk€to€them.ðð€(PC„R2.€2464).€€Though€he€was€aware€of€someÏproblem€between€officer€Perkins€and€the€Wright€family,€he€did€notÏlearn€that€Officer€Walter€Perkins€had€threatened€Jody€WrightððsÏmother€by€indicating€that€he€would€make€her€sorry€that€Jody€hadÏever€been€born€(PC„R2.€2437,€2587„88).׃!×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€And€in€fact€at€trial,Ð Ð% !( ÐÑ)*Ñâ )âÑÑÑ  Ñâ )âÑ  ÑMr.€Pearl€apologized€to€Officer€Perkins€in€front€of€the€jury€forÏinitially€suggesting€in€his€questioning€that€Officer€Perkins€hadÏany€ill„will€for€Mr.€Wright€or€his€family€(R.€2351„70).׃d×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,Ð P Ðnot€only€was€the€effort€to€impeach€Officer€Perkins€and€theÏcriminal€investigation€abandoned,€the€apology€constituted€aÏdamaging€endorsement€from€the€defense€attorney.Ìà  àAt€page€13€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€says€that€at€oneÏpoint€during€the€examination€of€Howard€Pearl,€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_ÔÏsustained€an€objection€and€permitted€a€proffer€only,€ð ðnoting€thatÏthe€defense€was€ððtrying€to€reopen€the€other€issue€thatððs€alreadyÏbeen€closed.ðð€Ô_Ô(RÔ_Ô€2433).ðð€€In€fact,€the€full€quote€demonstratesÏJudge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôðð€understanding€of€the€cumulative€analysis€requiredÏunder€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔGunsbyÔ_Ôóó,€670€So.2d€920€(Fla.€1996):Ð à ÐÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Iððll€let€you€proffer€this,€but€theseÏproffers€youððre€trying€to€reopen€the€other€issue€thatððsÏalready€been€closed.€€The€door€has€been€closed€by€theÏsupreme€court€already,€the€prior€3850€and€the€findingsÐ ´ ÐÑ**Ñâ *âÑÑÑ  Ñâ *âÑ  Ñof€Judge€Perry€on€these€same€issues€weððre€talking€aboutÏright€here.ÌÌà ¸ àMR.€Ô_ÔMCCLAINÔ_Ô:€Your€Honor,€again,€all€I€can€say€isÏState€v.€Ô_ÔGunsbyÔ_Ô€indicates€that€when€you€have€newÏinformation€and€you€have€to€consider€otherÏconstitutional€claims€you€cannot€consider€them€inÏisolation€and€you€have€to€have€a€full€picture.ÌÌà ¸ àTHE€COURT:€I€think€youððre€going€beyond€the€scopeÏagain,€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcClainÔ_Ô.ÌÌÒ°` jXÒÓxXÓ(PC„R2.€2434).Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ  ð  Ðà  àAt€page€15€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€says€ð ðDefenseÏCounsel,€without€even€attempting€to€present€evidence€through€Mr.ÏPearl,€stated€what€he€believed€Mr.€Pearl€would€indicate€wereÏdeficiencies€in€his€performance€in€Mr.€Wrightððs€case€Ô_Ô(RÔ_Ô€2438„¼39).ðð€€Perhaps,€the€State€is€unaware€of€the€record€which€wasÏbefore€the€circuit€court€from€the€1988€hearing€and€which€isÏbefore€this€Court.€€Mr.€Wright€relied€on€the€record€from€thatÏproceedings€as€the€basis€for€his€proffer.€€In€fact,€Howard€PearlÏtestified€in€1988€that:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓI€failed€to€prove,€and€I€had€the€proof€in€my€hand,€thatÏjar€was€in€fact€the€property€of€Jodyððs€mother.€€IÏfailed€to€do€it.€€It€was€a€lapse,€a€mistake.€€I€just€„ÏI€canððt€explain€it€to€you.€€It€is€as€if€it€passed€outÏof€my€mind,€perhaps€due€to€the€pressure€of€otherÐ €"Ð$ Ðmatters€during€the€trial.€€But€I€cannot€explain€it.€€ItÏwas€inferior€performance.ÌÌÓØ^ÓÒ°` Ò(PC„R1.€819„20).€€Moreover,€the€State€in€circuit€court€did€notÏdispute€the€accuracy€of€the€proffer€made€by€Mr.€Wrightððs€counsel.€ÏThe€State€simply€argued€that€Judge€Perryððs€ruling€in€1989Ïprecluded€consideration€of€the€evidence€regarding€Mr.€PearlððsÏperformance€as€counsel.€€Ìà  àAt€page€18€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€asserts€HowardÏPearl€ð ðððÔ_Ôcontinue[sÔ_Ô]€to€be€a€special€deputy,€doing€the€very€sameÏthing€I€had€been€doing€which€was€to€carry€a€concealed€firearmÏwhen€I€wanted€to.ðð€Ô_Ô(RÔ_Ô€2453).ðð€€However,€the€full€answer€andÏfollow€up€question€demonstrate€that€Mr.€Pearl€had€meant€to€useÏthe€word€ð ðcontinued,ðð€as€in€past€tense,€because€as€he€explainedÏhe€resigned€his€position€as€a€special€deputy€sheriff€in€the€lateÏ80's€and€is€no€longer€a€special€deputy€sheriff:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àAà  àNo.€€I€continue€to€be€a€special€deputy,€doingÐ ´ Ðthe€very€same€thing€I€had€been€doing€which€was€to€carryÏa€concealed€firearm€when€I€wanted€to.€€It€didnððt€changeÏin€ðð93€when€I€was€relieved€from€15€years€in€capitalÏcases.€€Of€course,€by€then€I€was€no€longer€a€specialÏdeputy€sheriff.ÌÌà ¸ àQà0  àYou€resigned€in€1989?Ѐ"Ð$(#(# ÐÌà ¸ àAà0  àI€think€late€ðð87€or€early€ðð88.Ð($x&(#(# ÐÌÒ°` ácÒÓïcÓ(PC„R2.€2454).€€Thus,€when€the€his€status€became€an€issue,€Mr.ÏPearl€resigned€his€position€as€a€special€deputy€sheriff.€Ìà  àAt€page€21€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€turns€to€theÏresumption€of€the€evidentiary€hearing€on€December€8,€1997,€andÏdiscusses€Mildred€Thomasðð€proffered€testimony€following€theÐ p,À'0 ÐStateððs€hearsay€objection.€€The€State€neglects€to€acknowledgeÏthat€after€the€proffer,€Mr.€Wrightððs€counsel€argued€Ô_ÔofrÔ_Ô€theÏtestimonyððs€admission,€saying€that€Ms.€Thomasðð€testimony€went€toÏthe€prejudice€suffered€by€Mr.€Wright€because€Mr.€Pearl€as€aÏresult€of€his€status€as€a€special€deputy€failed€to€zealouslyÏpursue€exculpatory€evidence€in€the€possession€of€law€enforcement.€ÏCounsel€also€asserted€that€Ms.€Thomasðð€testimony€was€important€inÏconfirming€the€sequence€of€events€that€were€later€testified€to€byÏher€daughter,€Kim€Holt€Ô_ÔHollimanÔ_Ô,€and€would€have€been€available€toÏrebut€any€claim€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔHollimanÔ_Ôððs€memory€was€in€error.€€AfterÏlistening€to€Mr.€Wrightððs€argument€as€to€why€Ms.€Thomasðð€evidenceÏshould€be€admissible,€the€judge€indicated€he€ð ðmight€reconsiderððÏhis€ruling€after€hearing€all€the€evidence€(PC„R2.€2514).Ìà  àAt€page€22€of€the€Answer€Brief€when€discussing€the€admissionÏinto€evidence€of€the€forty€public€records€depositions,€the€StateÏsays,€ð ðThe€State€agreed€ððfor€purposes€of€saving€time,ðð€but€didÏnot€agree€that€everything€there€was€admissible,€and€reserved€theÏright€to€object€to€inadmissible€matter.€Ô_Ô(RÔ_Ô€2515„16).ðð€€However,Ïthe€State€made€no€objections€when€the€depositions€were€admittedÏinto€evidence€(PC„R2.€2518„22).€€They€depositions€were€admittedÏin€their€entirety,€and€any€and€all€objections€were€waived.Ìà  àOne€of€the€depositions€admitted€into€evidence€in€itsÏentirety€was€the€deposition€of€Walter€Ô_ÔPellicerÔ_Ô€who€had€been€theÏSheriff€of€Putnam€County€at€the€time€of€Mr.€Wrightððs€1983€trialÏand€at€the€time€of€the€1988€post„conviction€hearing€(Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€40).€Ð p,À'0 ÐIn€Sheriff€Ô_ÔPellicerÔ_Ôððs€deposition,€he€testified€under€oath€thatÏFreddie€Williams,€the€trial€investigator€on€Mr.€Wrightððs€case,Ïhad€been€a€bonded€deputy€in€Putnam€County€(Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€40€at€19).€ÏDuring€the€deposition,€Assistant€State€Attorney€Fox€had€no€cross„¼examination€and€registered€no€objections€to€this€testimony.Ô_Ô׃#×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ P   Ðà  àAt€page€22€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€misrepresents€theÏtestimony€of€Freddie€Williams€when€it€says€ð ðhe€first€saw€thatÏdocument€at€ðð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€first€hearing€we€hadðð€when€they€ððwere€all€inÏthe€state€attorneyððs€office.ðð€Ô_Ô(RÔ_Ô€2526)ðððð€€In€fact,€the€recordÏestablishes€quite€clearly€that€Mr.€Williams€testified€that€he€hadÏnot€seen€the€documents€in€question€prior€to€Mr.€Wrightððs€trial:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àQà  àIn€looking€at€that€document,€is€that€aÐ è8 Ðdocument€that€had€been€provided€to€you€prior€to€Mr.ÏWrightððs€trial?€Ì€Ð d´ Ðà ¸ àAà0  àNo.а(#(# ÐÌà ¸ àQà0  àWhen€did€you€first€see€it?ÐX¨(#(# ÐÌà ¸ àAà  àThe€first€hearing€we€had,€we€were€all€in€theÐ P Ðstate€attorneyððs€office.ÌÌà ¸ àà  àMR.€FOX:€€Your€Honor,€Iððm€sorry€to€interrupt,Ïbut€I€believe€I€need€to€object.ÌÌÒ°` “rÒÓ¡rÓ(PC„R2.€2526).€€In€responding€to€the€objection,€Mr.€WrightððsÏcounsel€made€clear€that€he€was€presenting€the€evidence€in€orderÏto€establish€that€the€factual€determination€by€Judge€Perry€thatÏFreddie€Williams€had€seen€the€documents€in€question€before€Mr.ÏWrightððs€trial€was€factually€wrong.€€The€documents€were€seen€inÏthe€State€Attorneyððs€Office€immediately€prior€to€the€October,Ï1988,€evidentiary€hearing,€years€after€Mr.€Wrightððs€trial:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àMR.€Ô_ÔMCCLAINÔ_Ô:€And€for€the€record€I€do€takeÏexception€in€that€in€this€instance€it€is€clear€JudgeÏPerryððs€order€is€wrong€on€the€basis€of€„€„ÌÌà ¸ àTHE€COURT:€Youððve€already€argued€that€to€theÏsupreme€court,€Mr.€Ô_ÔMcClainÔ_Ô.ÌÌà ¸ àMR.€Ô_ÔMCCLAINÔ_Ô:€I€didnððt€have€Mr.€Williams€sitting€onÏthe€witness€stand€able€to€verify€what€I€am€saying.€€IÏsimply€had€a€cold€record€in€an€appellate€court.€€AndÏthe€proper€place€for€that€part€of€the€motion€for€newÏtrial€is€in€the€trial€court,€in€the€circuit€court.€€IÏcanððt€file€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€in€the€FloridaÏSupreme€Court.ÌÌÒ°` ¾vÒÓÌvÓ(PC„R2.€2533).Ìà  àAt€page€24€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€again€inaccuratelyÏdescribes€Mr.€Williamsðð€testimony.€€The€State€says,€ð ðIn€regard€toÏðða€statement€by€Charlene€Luce,ðð€Mr.€Williams€said€he€did€notÏremember€it.ðð€€In€fact,€Mr.€Williamsðð€testimony€was,€ð ðI€donððtÐ œ+ì&/ Ðremember€this€document,ðð€and€then€he€explained,€ð ðIf€itððs€on€ourÏinventory€we€got€it;€if€itððs€not€on€there€we€didnððt€get€it.ðð€(PC„¼R2.€2534).€€The€inventory€was€introduced€as€Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€13€(PC„R2.Ï2413).€€This€was€consistent€with€Mr.€Pearlððs€testimony€that€theÏinventory€demonstrated€that€the€document€was€not€received.Ìà  àAt€page€27€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€seems€to€suggestÏthat€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€sustained€the€Stateððs€objection€to€WandaÏBrownððs€testimony,€ð ðThe€State€and€the€Ô_ÔpostconvictionÔ_Ô€judge€agreedÏthat€everything€previously€presented€should€be€considered€withÏanything€new€presented€in€the€instant€hearing,€however,€noÏtestimony€on€the€previously€decided€matters€should€be€re„¼presented.€Ô_Ô(RÔ_Ô€2567).ðð€€In€fact,€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€allowed€theÏtestimony€after€hearing€argument,€ð ðTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€IððllÏlet€you€go€ahead€then.ðð€€(PC„R2.€2570).Ìà  àAt€page€28€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€describes€theÏtestimony€of€Leon€Wells,€ð ðAccording€to€Mr.€Wells,€the€Ô_ÔJacksonsÔ_ÔÏððwere€terrible€bad€boys,ðð€but€ððI€was€just€as€bad€they€was.ðð€Ô_Ô(RÔ_ÔÏ2575„76,€2578).€€Actually,€the€State€has€spliced€two€separateÏcomments€together€to€create€a€false€impression€of€Mr.€WellsððÏtestimony.€€At€one€point€in€his€testimony,€Mr.€Wells€explainedÏhis€experiences€with€Henry€Jackson€in€school€when€they€would€ð ðboxÏall€the€time.€€I€think€I€came€out€better€in€every€time€we€fought,Ïbecause€I€was€just€as€bad€as€they€was.ðð€€(PC„R2.€2575„76).€ÏLater,€Mr.€Wells€discussed€Henry€Jacksonððs€conduct€as€an€adultÏwhen€he€filed€a€complaint€with€the€police€concerning€an€incidentÐ p,À'0 Ðat€a€store€that€Mr.€Wells€managed.€€It€is€then€that€Mr.€Wells€wasÏasked€if€he€had€anything€else€to€say€regarding€Henry€Jackson,€andÏhe€said€ð ðthey€were€terrible€bad€boys.ðð€(PC„R2.€2578).Ìà  àAt€page€28€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€notes€thatÏAssistant€State€Attorney€Fox€objected€to€the€testimony€of€KimÏHolt€Ô_ÔHollimanÔ_Ô.€€The€State€neglects€to€acknowledge€that€JudgeÏÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ôðð€immediate€response€was€ð ðIððll€let€you€continue.ðð€(PC„R2.Ï2580).€€Accordingly,€the€testimony€was€received€into€evidence.Ìà  àAt€page€30„31€of€the€Answer€Brief,€the€State€discusses€theÏtestimony€of€Jeff€Walsh.€€The€State€neglects€to€acknowledge€thatÏthe€public€records€Mr.€Walsh€received€in€July€of€1991€fromÏCaptain€Miller€of€the€Sheriffððs€Office€were€introduced€intoÏevidence€without€objection€as€Exhibit€46€(PC„R2.€2595).€€TheÏState€also€fails€to€acknowledge€that€Mr.€Walsh€testified€thatÏwhen€the€documents€were€handed€to€him€by€Captain€Miller,€Mr.ÏWalsh€was€told€by€Captain€Miller€that€these€documents€had€notÏbeen€previously€provided€to€the€Ô_ÔCCRÔ_Ô€(PC„R2.€2600„01).€€Mr.€WalshÏreviewed€Mr.€Wrightððs€files€and€verified€the€accuracy€of€thisÏrepresentation.€€Mr.€Walsh€understood€from€Captain€Miller€thatÏthese€were€the€only€documents€that€Ô_ÔCCRÔ_Ô€had€not€previouslyÏreceived€regarding€Mr.€Wrightððs€case€(PC„R2.€2601).€€TheÏdocuments€appearing€in€Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€46€were€the€basis€of€the€new€evidenceÏclaims€contained€in€the€first€amended€3.850€motion€filed€onÏDecember€11,€1991€(PC„R2.€115).Ìà  àThe€State€also€neglects€to€note€that€Mr.€Walsh€obtained€inÐ p,À'0 ÐÑ*Ñâ âÑÑÑ  Ñâ âÑ  ÑÔ_Ô1996Ô_Ô€additional€public€records€after€it€was€revealed€ð ð[Ô_Ôd]uringÔ_Ô€aÏhearing€relating€to€public€records€in€the€matter€of€State€v.ÏÔ_ÔColinaÔ_Ô€.€.€.€that€a€thorough€and€complete€search€really€was€neverÏcompleted€upon€a€receipt€of€a€records€request€letter€from€Ô_ÔCCRÔ_ÔððÏ(PC„R2.€2603).€€In€fact,€the€1996€records€request€referred€toÏð ðwhat€was€disclosed€during€the€Ô_ÔColinaÔ_Ô€caseðð€(PC„R2.€2603).Ìà  àThe€State€has€also€neglected€to€note€that€an€ð ðaccordion€fileÏfolder€of€materialsðð€was€turned€over€by€the€Sheriffððs€Office€inÏNovember€of€1996€and€during€the€forty€1997€depositions€that€wereÏintroduced€into€evidence€(PC„R2.€2603).€€The€State€also€neglectedÏto€acknowledge€that€the€entire€accordion€file€was€introduced€intoÏevidence€as€Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€47€(PC„R2.€2596,€2603).€Ìà  àÔ_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€47€was€actually€introduced€into€evidence€before€Mr.ÏWalsh€took€the€stand.€€Collateral€counsel€stated€on€the€record:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓAnd€Iððm€going€to€have€one€of€the€composites€and€perhapsÏsubject€to€a€discussion€with€Mr.€Fox,€whatððs€the€bestÏway€to€do€it€„€„€these€are€the€documents,€itððs€kind€ofÏthick,€that€are€related€to€the€1997,€October€of€ðð97Ïamended€3.850.€€And€these€were€the€documents€that€wereÏreceived,€I€believe€from€the€sheriffððs€department,€someÏof€them€were€jail€records.€€And€I€again€think€thereððsÏno€question€that€these€came€from€the€state,€itððs€just€aÏquestion€of€Mr.€Walsh€testifying€as€to€whether€he€hadÏreceived€them€before€they€were€turned€over€in€theÏcourse€of€the€proceedings€earlier€this€year€and€lateÏlast€year.ÌÌÒ°` ÍÒÓÛÓ(PC„R2.€2596).€€Assistant€State€Attorney€Fox€responded,€ð ðHowever,Ïyou€want€to€do€it,€thatððs€fine€with€meðð€(PC„R2.€2596).€ÏThereupon,€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€admitted€Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€47€into€evidence.€€Ìà  àMr.€Walsh€testified€that€he€personally€reviewed€thoseÐ œ+ì&/ ÐÑ$*Ñâ $âÑÑÑ  Ñâ $âÑ  Ñmaterials€and€determined€that€none€of€the€documents€contained€inÏÔ_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€47€had€previously€been€disclosed€by€the€Sheriffððs€Office:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àQà  àNow,€have€you€gone€through€those€documentsÐ P Ðthere€and€compared€them€to€prior€disclosures€to€Ô_ÔCCRÔ_Ô€inÏthe€Joel€Dale€Wright€case?ÌÌà ¸ àAà0  àYes,€I€have.ÐP  (#(# ÐÌà ¸ àQà  àAnd€are€those€documents€that€had€notÐ ø H  Ðpreviously€been€disclosed?ÌÌà ¸ àAà0  àYes.ÐtÄ (#(# ÐÌÒ°` Ó’ÒÓá’Ó(PC„R2.€2604).€€The€State€did€not€object€to€this€testimony€or€theÏexhibits€that€were€introduced.€€Assistant€State€Attorney€FoxÏconducted€no€cross„examination€of€Mr.€Walsh€(PC„R2.€2608).€€And,Ïthe€State€called€no€witnesses€to€rebut€Mr.€Walshððs€very€clear€andÏuncontested€testimony€that€documents€were€received€in€1991€thatÏhad€not€previously€been€disclosed€and€that€additional€documentsÏwere€received€in€late€1996€and€1997€that€had€not€been€previouslyÏdisclosed.Ìà  àAt€page€33€of€the€Stateððs€Answer€Brief,€the€State€discussesÏthe€testimony€of€Joel€Dale€Wright€at€the€December,€1997,Ïproceedings.€€In€its€discussion,€the€State€neglects€to€mentionÏthat€besides€being€asked€about€pre„trial€knowledge€of€the€specialÏdeputy€status€of€Mr.€Pearl€and€Judge€Perry,€Mr.€Wright€was€alsoÏasked€if€he€had€known€of€Freddie€Williamsðð€connection€with€theÏPutnam€County€Sheriffððs€Office€(PC„R2.€2640).€€Mr.€WrightÏindicated€that€he€had€not€known€of€Freddie€Williamsðð€status,€butÏthat€he€would€have€objected€had€he€been€advised€(PC„R2.€2641).€Ð œ+ì&/ ÐÑ%*Ñâ %âÑÑÑ  Ñâ %âÑ  ÑThe€State€also€neglects€in€its€Answer€Brief€to€acknowledge€thatÏAssistant€State€Attorney€Fox€had€no€questions€for€Mr.€Wright€andÏconducted€no€cross„examination.Ìà  àIn€its€Answer€Brief€at€page€34,€the€State€skips€from€theÏclose€of€the€evidence€at€the€December,€1997,€evidentiary€hearingÏto€the€June€5,€2000,€decision€from€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€denying€RuleÏ3.850€relief.€€The€State€does€not€address€the€closing€argumentsÏthat€the€parties€gave€on€December€8,€1997.€€Accordingly,€theÏState€omits€reference€to€Assistant€State€Attorney€FoxððÏacknowledgment€that€Mr.€Wright€had€received€public€records€inÏ1991€and€in€1996„97€that€had€not€previously€been€disclosed:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓAnd€the€additional€things€that€the€Defense€has€foundÏhere€today€are€really€quite€minute.€€In€fact,€comparedÏto€the€things€that€were€already€argued€in€1988,€whichÏJudge€Perry€found€and€the€Supreme€Court€adopted€wereÏhighly€speculative€in€nature€in€terms€of€whether€theyÏare€actually€exculpatory.ÌÌSo,€the€additional€things€that€the€Defense€have€foundÏdonððt€change€anything.€Ì€€ÌÒ°` œÒÓœÓ(PC„R2.€1089).Ìà  àThe€State€also€omits€from€its€Answer€Brief€any€discussion€ofÏthe€two€and€a€half€year€lapse€between€the€end€of€the€evidentiaryÏhearing€and€the€circuit€courtððs€ruling.€€In€fact,€the€ruling€onlyÏissued€after€Mr.€Wright€filed€a€mandamus€action€in€this€CourtÏchallenging€the€delay.€€And€then,€the€order€denying€suddenlyÏÔ_ÔappearedÔ_Ô€ten€days€later€and€was€three€pages€long€(PC„R2.€1137).Ìâ âà  àÐ È*&. ÐÑ-*Ñâ -âÑÑÑ  Ñâ -âÑ  ÑÑ€'*ÑÑ€9*ÑÑ€8*ÑÑ€@* ÑÑ€:*ÑÑ€?*Ñà@´´!ìàò òARGUMENTS€IN€REPLYˆÐ ° Ðâ âà@$ìàINTRODUCTIONó óˆÐ pÀ Ðà  àThe€State€in€its€Answer€Brief€attempts€to€slice€and€dice€Mr.ÏWrightððs€claims€into€small€bite„size€nuggets€that€the€StateÏargues€are€either€insignificant,€procedurally€barred,€or€both.Ô_Ô׃.×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ԀР€ Ð ÐFortunately€for€Mr.€Wright,€this€Courtððs€precedent€does€notÏsupport€the€manner€in€which€the€State€attempts€to€avoid€dealingÏwith€the€Mr.€Wrightððs€claims.׃0Ì ×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Evidence€supporting€Rule€3.850Ð xÈ  Ðclaims€that€was€not€disclosed€by€the€State€in€a€timely€manner€isÏnot€procedurally€barred€from€consideration€once€the€evidence€inÏfact€surfaces.€€Once€disclosed,€it€must€be€heard€and€considered.€ÏòòVentura€v.€Stateóó,€673€So.2d€479,€481€(Fla.€1996)(ð ða€defendantÐ h Ðâ âshould€be€allowed€to€amend€a€previously€filed€rule€3.850€motionÐ À Ðafter€requested€public€records€are€finally€furnishedðð).׃/×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ ° Ðâ âcourts€of€this€State€are€still€required€to€be€concerned€withÏadministering€justice.Ìà  àWhat€is€most€troubling€regarding€the€Stateððs€Answer€Brief€isÏthat€the€State€in€endeavoring€to€save€this€conviction€seems€to€beÏnot€the€least€concerned€with€the€basic€American€principles€ofÏtruth€and€justice.€€Mr.€Wright€has€attempted€to€present€proofÏthat€at€the€heart€of€the€previous€denial€of€his€òòBradyóó€claim€was€aÐ H˜  Ðfalse€fact,€a€finding€by€the€circuit€court€judge€that€was€simplyÏfalse,€and€false€testimony€from€a€law€enforcement€officer.€€TheÏState€argues€in€response€that€ð ðthe€ððwhat€Freddie€Williams€knewÏwhenðð€component€of€this€issue€is€procedurally€barredðð€(AnswerÏBrief€at€41)€and€that€the€judge€did€not€specifically€state€thatÏhe€was€relying€on€the€false€testimony€that€Jackson€and€Ô_ÔStricklandÔ_ÔÏhad€passed€polygraphs€(Answer€Brief€at€42).€€The€State€neverÏargues€that€the€previously€found€fact€is€true;€it€simplyÏmaintains€as€the€State€did€below,€true€or€not€we€are€stuck€withÏthat€determination€regardless€of€whether€available€evidence€showsÏthat€the€determination€was€factually€wrong.׃3X×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Nor€does€the€StateÐ €"Ð$ ÐÑ'*Ñâ 'âÑÑÑ  Ñâ 'âÑ  Ñcontest€the€fact€that€the€testimony€that€Jackson€and€Ô_ÔStricklandÔ_ÔÏhad€passed€a€polygraph€was€false.Ìà  àThe€whole€premise€behind€the€post„conviction€processÏembodied€in€Rule€3.850€is€to€revisit€factual€matters€in€a€timelyÏfashion€in€order€to€insure€that€justice€is€properly€administered.€ÏRule€3.850€proceedings€were€designed€to€permit€the€presentationÏof€evidence€that€the€factual€determinations€made€at€trial€andÏreviewed€on€direct€appeal€or€in€previous€Rule€3.850€proceedingsÏwere€erroneous€and/or€insufficiently€reliable€to€support€aÏconviction€and€or€sentence€of€death.€€òòSee€e.g.óó€òòYoung€v.€Stateóó,Ð ˜è Ð739€So.2d€at€560€(undisclosed€exculpatory€evidence€specificallyÏcalled€into€question€factual€finding€of€cold,€calculated€andÏpremeditated€that€had€been€affirmed€by€this€Court€on€directÏappeal);Ô‡DX­XXX­Ô€òòPorter€v.€Stateóó,€723€So.2d€at€196€(this€Court€grantedÐ 8ˆ Ðpost„conviction€relief€in€a€successive€petition€on€a€judge€biasÏclaim€because€new€evidence€established€that€this€Courtððs€priorÏfactual€resolution€in€a€prior€post„conviction€motion€was€inÏerror);€òòÔ_ÔLightbourneÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€742€So.2d€at€247€(new€evidenceÐ Ø (" Ðrequired€revisiting€a€factual€resolution€of€a€òòBradyóó€claim€made€inÐ €"Ð$ Ða€prior€Rule€3.850€proceeding);€òòState€v.€Millsóó,€788€So.€2d€at€250Ð ($x& Ð(new€evidence€that€co„defendant,€not€Mills,€was€triggerman).Ìà  àSimilarly,€the€State€in€steadfastly€maintaining€that€allÏissues€other€than€the€one€that€this€Court€identified€in€itsÏopinion€remanding€are€ð ðbeyond€the€scope€of€the€remand,€and€so,Ï[are]€not€properly€before€this€Honorable€Court,ðð€(Answer€Brief€atÐ p,À'0 ÐÑ:*Ñâ :âÑÑÑ  Ñâ :âÑ  Ñ40)€conveniently€overlooks€the€record€below.€€The€StateððsÏposition€ignores€the€fact€that€the€State,€not€only€did€not€makeÏthis€argument€below,€but€conceded€that€the€other€issues€wereÏproperly€raised€in€amended€Rule€3.850€motions€and€should€be€heardÏat€the€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€Stateððs€real€argument€below€wasÏthat€Judge€Perry€had€considered€the€big€stuff€in€1988€and€did€notÏgrant€relief,€and€so€relief€should€not€be€granted€now.Ìà  àThe€State€in€its€strained€efforts€to€minimize€and/or€Ô_ÔavoidÔ_ÔÏMr.€Wrightððs€constitutional€claims€never€addresses€the€forest,Ïthe€plethora€of€evidence€supporting€his€claim€of€innocence€andÏimplicating€Henry€Jackson€and€Clayton€Ô_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô.€€It€is€thisÏfailure€that€is€that€is€both€troubling€and€deafening.€€As€Mr.ÏWrightððs€counsel€argued€in€his€reply€closing€on€December€8,€1997,Ïin€circuit€court€in€response€to€the€Stateððs€same€failing€below:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓAnd€what€is€important€to€note,€what€Mr.€Fox€did€notÏargue,€because€he€didnððt€argue€Mr.€Wrightððs€guilt€wasÏoverwhelmingly€established,€he€didnððt€argue€thatÏclearly€Jackson€and€Ô_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€had€nothing€to€do€withÏthis€homicide.€€He€didnððt€argue€the€facts.€€Instead€heÏwants€to€hide€behind€technicalities€and€say€this€manÏshould€be€executed€because€someone€didnððt€do€somethingÏsooner€about€this.Ô#†X­XXDX­J®#ÔÐ ¬!ü# ÐÌÒ°` ¶ÒÓ&¶Ó(PC„R2.€1091).ò òÐ T#¤% Ðó óà@””%ìàò òARGUMENT€Ió óˆÐ ü$L ' Ðò òà  àA.€Scope€of€remand.ó óÐ ¼& ") Ðà  àThe€State€first€contention€as€to€Argument€I€is€that€theÏargument€in€its€entirety€is€procedurally€barred€ð ðbecause€it€isÏbeyond€the€scope€of€the€remand,€and€so,€is€not€properly€beforeÐ Ì+'/ ÐÑ9*Ñâ 9âÑÑÑ  Ñâ 9âÑ  Ñthis€Court.ðð€€Answer€Brief€at€40.Ô_Ô׃4×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€The€Stateððs€position€was€notÐ ° Ðadvanced€below.€€In€circuit€court,€the€State€conceded€at€the€1996ÏòòHuffóó€hearing€that€all€of€Mr.€Wrightððs€should€be€heard€at€anÐ P Ðevidentiary€hearing€(PC„R2.€719).€€This€included€the€claimsÏraised€by€Mr.€Wright€in€his€1991€amended€motion,€in€his€1993Ïamended€motion,€and€in€his€1996€motion€to€compel.€Ìà  àWhen€the€evidentiary€hearing€commenced€in€March,€1997,€theÏState€did€not€contest€that€all€of€Mr.€Wrightððs€claim€should€beÏheard.€€In€fact,€the€Stateððs€representative€specificallyÏacknowledged€that€òòVentura€v.€Stateóó,€673€So.2d€479€(Fla.€1996),Ð ˜è Ðapplied€and€required€the€circuit€court€to€entertain€claimsÏarising€from€newly€disclosed€public€records€(PC„R2.€2212).€ÏAccordingly,€the€State€agreed€that€it€was€necessary€to€deposeÐ à ÐÑ8*Ñâ 8âÑÑÑ  Ñâ 8âÑ  ÑPutnam€County€Sheriff€personnel€in€order€to€ascertain€whatÏdocuments€had€yet€to€be€turned€over€to€Mr.€Wrightððs€counsel.Ìà  àIn€fact€at€the€conclusion€of€evidentiary€hearing€inÏDecember,€1997,€Assistant€State€Attorney€Fox€acknowledged€thatÏMr.€Wright€had€properly€raised€new€matters€based€upon€the€publicÏrecords€received€in€1991€and€the€additional€records€received€inÏ1996„97:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓAnd€the€additional€things€that€the€Defense€has€foundÏhere€today€are€really€quite€minute.€€In€fact,€comparedÏto€the€things€that€were€already€argued€in€1988,€whichÏJudge€Perry€found€and€the€Supreme€Court€adopted€wereÏhighly€speculative€in€nature€in€terms€of€whether€theyÏare€actually€exculpatory.ÌÌSo,€the€additional€things€that€the€Defense€have€foundÏdonððt€change€anything.ÌÌÒ°` è¿ÒÓö¿Ó(PC„R2.€1089).€€The€Stateððs€argument€has€no€merit€and€was€waivedÏin€the€circuit€court.€€Argument€I€is€properly€before€this€Court.Ìà  àò òB.€False€facts.ó óÐ à0 Ðà  àNext,€the€State€addresses€Mr.€Wrightððs€contention€that€theÏprior€resolutions€of€his€claim€that€he€did€not€receive€anÏadequate€adversarial€testing€was€premised€upon€ð ðfalse€facts.ðð€ÏThe€State€first€turns€to€Judge€Perryððs€1989€determination€thatÏFreddie€Williams€saw€the€alleged€òòBradyóó€material€in€advance€of€theÐ @$& Ðtrial€and€that€no€constitutional€deprivation€occurred.€€The€StateÏnotes€that€Mr.€Wright€challenged€that€finding€on€appeal€andÏargues€that€ð ðthis€Courtððs€specific€adoption€of€the€trial€courtððsÏorder€shows€that€this€Court€rejected€the€claim.ðð€Answer€Brief€atÐ à*0&. ÐÑ?* Ñâ ?âÑÑÑ  Ñâ ?âÑ  Ñ41.€€However,€this€Courtððs€standard€of€review€required€this€CourtÏto€acceptance€the€factual€finding€unless€unsupported€by€competentÏand€substantial€evidence.€€That€is€not€the€same€thing€asÏdetermining€that€Judge€Perryððs€factual€finding€was€correct.€€WeÏnow€know€from€Freddie€Williamsðð€proffered€testimony€that€JudgeÏPerryððs€finding€was€factually€wrong.€€The€State€had€in€itsÏpossession€exculpatory€evidence€that€was€not€disclosed€to€theÏdefense.€€The€matter€must€be€revisited.€òòSeeóó€òòThe€Florida€Bar€v.Ð H˜  ÐÔ_ÔFeinbergÔ_Ôóó,€760€So.2d€933,€939€(Fla.€2000)(ð ðTruth€is€critical€inÐ ð@  Ðthe€operation€of€our€judicial€systemðð).׃;×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˜è Ðà  àThe€State€also€attacks€Mr.€Wrightððs€claim€that€Judge€PerryððsÏ1989€denial€of€relief€was€premised€upon€false€evidence€presentedÏâ âby€the€State€that€Henry€Jackson€and€Clayton€Ô_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€passedÐ à Ðpolygraph€examinations€while€providing€each€other€alibis.׃F×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° Ðâ âHere,€the€State€chooses€to€focus€on€the€language€of€Judge€PerryððsÏorder,€arguing€that€it€is€not€clear€why€the€judge€concluded€Mr.ÏWrightððs€claim€ð ðis€highly€speculative€in€nature.ðð€Answer€Brief€atÏ42.€€However,€the€focus€should€be€on€the€Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔtestimonyÔ_Ô€presented€byÏthe€State€in€1988€which€was€false:ÌÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àQà  àDid€you€consider€whether€Mr.€Ô_ÔStricklandÔ_Ô€mayÐ  ð  Ðhave€been€lying€for€Mr.€Jackson?ÌÌà ¸ àAà  àOf€course€thatððs€always€a€possibility.€€AndÐ l  Ðof€course€both€of€them€had€agreed€to€take€a€polygraphÏwith€no,€no€problem€with€that.€€And€they€ran€very€cleanÏon€the€polygraph€that€neither€one€of€them€was€involvedÏwith€the€Lima€Ô_ÔPaigeÔ_Ô€Smith€murder.ÌÌà ¸ àQà  àYou€find€polygraph€examinations€to€be€veryÐ d Ðreliable€though?ÌÌà ¸ àAà0  àYes.Ðà(#(# ÐÌÒ°` “ËÒÓ¡ËÓ(PC„R.€504).Ìà  àApparently,€the€Stateððs€position€is€that€it€does€not€matterÏif€law€enforcement€testify€falsely€absent€specific€and€clearÐ ˆØ Ðreliance€on€the€false€statement€by€the€finder€of€fact.€€However,Ïthat€is€not€the€position€that€United€States€Supreme€Court€hasÏadopted.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔGiglioÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150€(1972);€òòÔ_ÔNapueÔ_ÔÐ P Ðv.€Illinoisóó,€360€U.S.€264€(1959).€€The€presentation€of€falseÐ ¨ ø Ðtestimony€requires€a€reversal€unless€the€State€proves€the€errorÏharmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòÔ_ÔStricklerÔ_Ô€v.€Greeneóó,€527Ð ø H  ÐU.S.€263,€298„99€(1999)(Ô_ÔSouterÔ_Ô,€J.,€concurring€in€part€andÏdissenting€in€part).€€The€State€has€made€no€effort€to€demonstrateÏthat€its€presentation€of€false€testimony€in€the€course€of€theÏ1988€evidentiary€hearing€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.׃G×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Accordingly,€the€resulting€determination€by€Judge€PerryÐ @ Ðmust€be€revisited.Ìà  àò òC.€Previously€undisclosed€exculpatory€evidence.ó óÐ à Ðà  àThe€State€chooses€to€not€address€the€fact€that€full€ChapterÐ P  ÐÑ@*#Ñâ @âÑÑÑ  Ñâ @âÑ  Ñ119€compliance€had€not€occurred€at€the€time€of€the€1988Ïevidentiary€hearing.Ô_Ô׃H×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€In€circuit€court,€this€failure€was€notÐ X¨ Ðcontested€after€the€forty€(40)€public€records€depositions€wereÏconducted.€€Accordingly,€the€new€evidence€must€evaluatedÏcumulatively€with€the€evidence€presented€in€1988.€€òòJennings€v.Ð P   ÐStateóó,€782€So.2d€at€861€(ð ðthe€cumulative€effect€of€the€òòBradyóóÐ ø H  Ðviolations€does€not€establish€òòBradyóó€materialityðð).€Ð  ð  Ðà  àò òD.€Cumulative€consideration.ó óÐ H˜  Ðà  àThe€State€contends€that€any€evidence€presented€at€the€1988Ïcannot€ð ðprovide€a€basis€for€relief€herein.ðð€Answer€Brief€at€43.€ÏThis€contention€flies€squarely€in€the€face€of€this€CourtððsÏprecedent€requiring€cumulatively€evaluation€of€all€undisclosedÏexculpatory€evidence.€€òòJennings€v.€Stateóó,€782€So.2d€at€861;Ð ¨ø ÐòòÔ_ÔLightbourneÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€742€So.2d€at€247.€€When€new€exculpatoryÐ P  Ðevidence€is€disclosed€by€the€State€in€post„conviction,€cumulativeÏconsideration€must€be€given€to€any€previously€litigated€òòBradyóóÐ  ð Ðevidence€to€determine€whether€all€of€the€undisclosed€exculpatoryÏevidence€cumulatively€undermines€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€theÏÔ_Ôtrial.׃S×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ P Ðà  àò òE.€òòBradyóó€material€includes€conclusions€and€inferences.ó óÐ ¨ ø Ðà  àThe€State€asserts,€ð ðThe€State€submits€that€conclusions€thatÏcould€be€drawn€from€evidence,€or€the€lack€of€evidence,€are€notÏcovered€by€òòBradyóó.ðð€€Answer€Brief€at€43.€€However,€this€CourtððsÐ ¸  Ðjurisprudence€indicates€that€the€question€is€whether€the€StateÏpossessed€exculpatory€ð ðinformationðð€that€it€did€not€reveal€to€theÏdefendant.׃QP×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòYoung€v.€Stateóó,€739€So.2d€at€553.€€If€it€did€and€itÐ ° Ðdid€not€disclose€this€information,€a€new€trial€is€warranted€whereÏconfidence€is€undermined€in€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€€In€makingÏthis€determination€ð ðcourts€should€consider€not€only€how€theÏStateððs€suppression€of€favorable€information€deprived€theÏdefendant€of€direct€relevant€evidence€but€also€how€it€handicappedÏthe€defendantððs€ability€to€investigate€or€present€other€aspectsÏof€the€case.ðð€€òòRogers€v.€Stateóó,€782€So.2d€at€385.€€This€includesÐ H˜  Ðimpeachment€presentable€through€cross„examination€challenging€theÐ ð @" Ðð ðthoroughness€and€even€good€faith€of€the€[police]€investigation.ðð€ÏòòÔ_ÔKylesÔ_Ô€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€446.€€Information€regarding€ð ðcoachingððÐ X¨ Ðof€State€witnesses€is€òòBradyóó€material€because€it€gives€the€defenseÐ P Ða€tool€to€argue€against€the€witnessðð€credibility.€€òòRogers€v.Ð ¨ ø ÐStateóó,€782€So.2d€at€384.€Ð P   Ðà  àò òF.€The€burden€of€proof€under€òòBradyóó.ó óÐ ø H  Ðà  àAs€Mr.€Wright€noted€in€his€Initial€Brief€at€62,€JudgeÏÔ_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€held€that€in€order€to€prevail€on€his€claim€that€he€didÏnot€receive€a€constitutionally€adequate€adversarial€testing,€Mr.ÏWright€had€to€prove€ð ðthat€the€result€of€the€trial€would€have€beenÏdifferentðð€(PC„R2.€1139).€€The€State€responds,€ð ðCollateralÏcounselððs€claim€that€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€employed€the€wrong€standardÏwhen€he€held€ððit€was€Mr.€Wrightððs€burden€to€use€previouslyÏundisclosed€evidence€to€prove€that€the€result€of€the€trial€wouldÏhave€been€differentðð€is€obviously€incorrect€in€light€of€the€plainÏlanguage€of€òòJenningsóó€to€the€contrary.ðð€€Answer€Brief€at€44€n.9.€€Ð  ð Ðà  àThis€Court€explained€the€proper€standard€when€it€ordered€aÏnew€trial€because€of€a€òòBradyóó€violation€in€òòRogers€v.€Stateóó,€782Ð ð @" ÐSo.2d€at€385.€€There,€this€Court€found€ð ðthe€cumulative€effect€ofÏthe€suppression€of€the€materials€discussed€above€indeedÏundermines€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ðð€€Because€ofÏthat€finding,€a€new€trial€was€ordered.€€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€did€notÏemploy€that€standard€in€Mr.€Wrightððs€case.Ìà  àò òG.€Other€things.ó óÐ à*0&. Ðà  àThe€State€argues,€ð ðto€prevail,€Wright€has€to€show€not€only€aÏprobability€of€a€different€result,€but€ððother€things.ðððð€AnswerÏBrief€at€45.׃I×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€State€says€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]mongÔ_Ô€those€ððother€thingsðð€isÐ P Ðthe€requirement€that€Wright€show€that€the€undisclosed€evidenceÏcould€not€have€been€found€by€Wrightððs€counsel€had€he/sheÏexercised€due€diligence.ðð€Answer€Brief€at€45.€€For€this,€theÏState€provides€no€case€citation.׃R,×Ý ƒ5ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р ð  Ðà  àIn€fact,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€granted€certiorariÏreview€in€òòÔ_ÔStricklerÔ_Ô€v.€Greeneóó,€527€U.S.€263€(1999),€to€decideÐ ð@  Ðwhether€trial€counselððs€due€diligence€was€an€element€to€be€provedÏin€order€to€obtain€relief€for€a€òòBradyóó€violation.€€The€SupremeÐ @ ÐCourt€indicated€that€trial€counselððs€diligence€was€not€an€elementÏof€a€òòBradyóó€claim,€as€this€Court€noted€in€òòÔ_ÔOcchiconeÔ_Ô€v.€Stateóó,€768Ð à ÐSo.2d€1037,€1042€(Fla.€2000).€€òòSeeóó€òòHoffman€v.€Stateóó,€Case€No.Ð 8ˆ ÐSC94072,€ð"ð€So.2d€ð"ð€(Fla.€July€5,€2001)(òòÔ_ÔStricklerÔ_Ôóó€ð ðsquarely€placedÐ à0 Ðthe€burden€on€the€State€to€disclose€to€the€defendant€allÏinformation€in€its€possession€that€is€exculpatoryðð€Slip€at€10).€ÏJudge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€erred€in€his€legal€analysis.Ìà@XX%ìàò òARGUMENT€IIó óˆÐ €"Ð$ Ðà  àThe€State€chooses€to€ignore€the€uncontested€evidenceÏpresented€in€circuit€court€that€Freddie€Williams€was€a€bondedÏdeputy€sheriff€in€Putnam€County,€precisely€what€Howard€PearlÏtestified€would€be€a€problem.€€The€State€in€its€closing€argumentÏbelow€conceded€that€Freddie€Williams€was€a€special€deputy€sheriffÏin€Putnam€County.€€The€State€also€relies€on€James€GibsonððsÏtestimony€that€was€not€presented€to€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€in€this€case,Ïbut€is€mentioned€in€opinions€of€this€Court€in€other€cases.€ÏAnswer€Brief€at€55„56.€€The€State€havñŠñingñŠññ‹ñeñ‹ñ€chosen€not€to€presentÏthat€testimony€waived€ñŒñreliance€on€such€testimonyñŒñññitññ.Ìà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€in€this€brief€and€in€the€InitialÏBrief,€this€Court€should€vacate€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€decision.€€Ìà@$ìàò òARGUMENT€IIIˆÐ à Ðó óà  àThe€State€asserts€ð ðat€the€time€of€the€1997€evidentiaryÐ P  Ðhearing,€Wright€had€known€about€the€ððJudge€Perry€as€SpecialÏDeputyðð€issue€for€nearlyòòóó€ò òfive€yearsó ó.ðð€Answer€Brief€at€58€(bold€inÐ  ð Ðoriginal).€€That€is€correct.€€But,€the€State€overlooks€that€Mr.ÏWright€filed€an€amended€3.850€within€two€months€of€learning€ofÏthe€claim.€€And€when€he€learned€of€Judge€Perryððs€ill„health€inÏ1994,€he€filed€a€motion€seeking€permission€to€depose€Judge€PerryÏ(PC„R2.€615).€€The€motion€was€heard€and€Judge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€took€itÏunder€advisement€and€never€rule€on€the€motionñŽñ,€thereby€precludingÏMr.€Wright€from€obtaining€Judge€Perryððs€testimony€on€relevantÏmattersñŽñ€(PC„R2.€662).€€The€Stateððs€claim€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]hereÔ_Ô€is€no€claimÐ ø*H&. Ðthat€he€attempted€to€make€a€more€detailed€inquiry€on€the€subject,Ïbut€was€precluded€therefromðð€is€simply€not€true.€€That€isÏprecisely€what€happened.Ìà  àThe€State€ignores€undersigned€counselððs€claim€that€when€heÏread€the€Initial€Brief€in€Randall€Scott€Jonesðð€appeal€filed€AprilÏ5,€2001,€he€learned€for€the€first€time€that€ñña€former€PutnamÏCounty€prosecutor,€ññRobert€Ô_ÔMcLeodÔ_Ôññ.ññ€had€testified€in€February€ofÏ2000€that€Judge€Perry€had€a€standard€practice€of€ex€parte€contactÏwith€the€State.€€Since€ñ‘ñthis€information€that€ñ‘ñno€State€actor€ever€disclosed€ñ’ñpreviouslyÏdisclosed€this€ñ’ñto€Mr.€Wright,€it€has€ñ“ñnow€ñ“ñbeen€raised€in€a€timelyÏfashion.€€For€the€reasons€stated€herein€and€in€the€Initial€Brief,ÏJudge€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô€order€should€be€vacated,€the€death€sentenceÏvacated,€and€the€1989€order€declared€void.€Ìà@””%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ 8ˆ Ðà  àMr.€Wright€simply€does€not€have€space€to€address€all€theÏmatters€set€forth€in€the€Answer€Brief€that€warrant€comment.€ÏAccordingly,€he€must€rely€upon€the€arguments€contained€in€theÏInitial€Brief.€€Ìà  àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein€and€in€the€Initial€Brief,€Mr.ÏWright€respectfully€urges€the€Court€to€reverse€the€lower€courtððsÏdenial€of€Rule€3.850,€vacate€his€sentence€of€death,€and€grant€himÏa€new€trial.Ìà@øøìàò òCERTIFICATE€OF€COMPLIANCE€AS€TO€TYPE€SIZE€AND€STYLEó óˆÐ 8)ˆ$, Ðà  àI€HEREBY€CERTIFY€that€this€Reply€Brief€of€Appellant€compliesÐ ø*H&. Ðwith€the€font€requirements€of€Fla.€R.€App.€Pro.€9.210(a)(2)€typedÏin€Courier,€12€point€type,€not€proportionally€spaced,€this€date,ÏNovember€14,€2001.Ìà@ÄÄìàò òCERTIFICATE€OF€SERVICEó óˆÐ ¨ ø ÐÓÓà  àI€HEREBY€CERTIFY€that€a€true€and€correct€copy€of€the€aboveÏhas€been€furnished€by€U.S.€Mail€to:€Judy€Taylor€Rush,€AssistantÏAttorney€General,€Office€of€the€Attorney€General,€444€Ô_ÔSeabreezeÔ_ÔÏBlvd.,€5òòthóó€Floor,€Daytona€Beach,€FL€32118.Ð ä 4  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMARTIN€J.€Ô_ÔMCCLAINÔ_ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSpecial€Assistant€Ô_ÔCCRCÔ_ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à9701€Shore€Rd.€Apt.€1„DÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBrooklyn,€NY€11209ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àOFFICE€OF€Ô_ÔCCRCÔ_Ô„SOUTHÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à101€Ô_ÔN.E.Ô_Ô€3òòRDóó€Ave.Ð X¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSuite€400Ìà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àFt.€Lauderdale,€FL€33301à Ð àÐ P Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÓÓúÓ