GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA ANDTHIS HONORABLE COURT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN , THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.PLEASE BE SEATED.
CHIEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING EVERYONE AND WELCOME TO THEFLORIDA SUPREME COURT. WE ARE VERY PLEASED THIS MORNING, TO HAVE SOME GUESTS IN THE COURTROOM . FIRST OF ALL , I WANT TO WELCOME THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH GRADE STUDENTS OF SOUTHLAKE CHRISTIAN ACADEMY FROM CLERMONT , FLORIDA. I UNDERSTAND MRS. SUSAN SIMPSON IS ESCORTING THE GROUP. WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREMECOURT. WE, ALSO , WANT TO WELCOME STUDENTS FROM THE LEGAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY IN LAKELAND, FLORIDA , AND I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR , CHARITY LANIER. SO WELCOME TO ALL OF YOU. COUNSEL , WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING READY ON THE FIRST CASE, SO WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ADO, WE WILL CALL THE CASE.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT . COUNSEL. FORWARD , PLY NAME IS MARTIN McCLAIN , AND I AM HERE TODAY REPRESENTING MR . MORDENTI ON HIS APPEAL OF THE DENIAL O F 3.850 RELIEF.
TELL US WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON.
IN THE TIME I HAVE, I AM GOING TO DISCUSS , AS MUCH AS I CAN, THE PROSECUTOR Y MISCONDUCT CLAIMS AND I WILL ALSO , AS MUCH AS TIME ALLOWS , ADDRESS THE COUNSEL A T GUILTPHASE.
CAN YOU TELL US HOW WE ARE ON 3.850 , ADDRESSING PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT CLAIMS, IS THAT BECAUSE THINGS CAME TO LIGHT THROUGH NEWEVIDENCE?
YES.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE HAVE DONE BEFORE? IS IT AN ACTUAL DIRECT PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT CLAIM , OR NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE?
CERTAINLY BRADY IS A FORM OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT , AND IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT FREQUENTLY AS BEING ESTABLISHED IN 3.850 PROCEEDINGS.
SO YOU ARE GOING TO DISCUSS , REALLY, THE BRADY ISSUE. THAT IS WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY --
THE BRADY /GIGLIO , WHEN I SAY PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND WITH THAT CLARIFICATION , AS TO THE BRADY AND GIGLIO VIOLATIONS THAT I HAVE ALLEGED , HOW MUCH NIECE CONDUCT -- HOW MUCH MISCONDUCT WILL THE COURT ACCEPT FROM THE PROSECUTOR ANDTHE STATE , RELATING TO ONE WITNESS , GAIL MILLIGAN.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OTHER THAN HER TESTIMONY , NO MONEY TRAIL OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT LINKED MR . MORDENTI TO THIS MURDER?
THAT'S CORRECT RESPECT AND THIS COURT SO ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE DIRECT APPEAL AND ALSO THIS COURT REMANDED FOR THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING , BOTH TIMES POINTING OUT THAT SHE WAS , IN ESSENCE , THE STATE'SCASE. THE ONLY SORT OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS AT ALLINVOLVED, WAS THE GUN THAT SHE INDICATED THAT SHE HADRECEIVED FROM MR . MORDENTI , IN HER ORIGINAL SWORN STATEMENT , SHE SAID SHE GOT IT BEFORE THE MURDER. AT TRIAL, SHE SAID SHE GOT IT AFTER THE MURDER, AND THERE WAS THE FBI TESTIMONY.
LET'S FOCUS RIGHT IN ON THE CLAIMS OF MISCONDUCT .
YES, YOUR HONOR. AS TO THE GIGLIO VIOLATION , FIRST OF ALL, THE CIRCUIT COURT FOUND AT LEAST ONE , ACKNOWLEDGING THAT, IN TERMS OF THE PRIOR STATEMENTS ABOUT WHEN SHE GOT THE GUN , THE JURY WAS MISLED AND NEVER BY ASED,THAT SHE HAD GIVEN A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT FROM HER TRIAL TESTIMONY. THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY ATTEMPTED TO ASK HER ABOUT IT. SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T REMEMBER MAKING A STATEMENT , AND CONVINCED THE COURT TO NOT LET HIM GO ANY FURTHER THAN THAT , AND WHEN HE TRIED TO ADDRESS IT I N HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT , BEFORE HE EVEN GOT THE WORDS OUT OF HER MOUTH , HIS MOUTH , MS. COX OBJECTED AND THE JUDGE WOULD NOT LET HIM BRING OUT OR MENTION IN HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT , THAT MS. MILLIGAN HAD GIVEN A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT REGARDING THAT POINT.IN ADDRESSING THE PREJUDICE FROM THAT , THE CIRCUIT COURT APPLIED THE BRADY MATERIAL IALITY STANDARD AND DID NOT DO THE GUZMAN STANDARD. THIS COURT ACKNOWLEDGED IS REQUIRED ON GIGLIO CLAIMS. THAT IS WHERE THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS ERROR HARMLESS BEYOND AREASONABLE DOUBT. IN THE ADMISSION -- IN ADDITION TO THAT , THE CIRCUITCOURT DID NOT ADDRESS MS. COX'S ARGUMENT THAT, ON FEBRUARY 20, MR . MORDENTI TOLD LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT HE HADNEVER HEARD OF MS. ROYSTON. THIS WAS NOT TRUE BECAUSE IN THE TAPED CONVERSATION OF MARCH 8 , IT WAS CLEAR THAT MR . MORDENTI KNEW WHO SHE WAS , SO ON FEBRUARY 20 , SHE LYING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT , AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE PRESENTED WAS AN INTERVIEW ON FEBRUARY 20. WHAT WAS SAID, IN TERMS OF LARRY ROYSTON , IS NOT PRESENTED. IN FACT , IN POSTCONVICTION WE LEARNED FROM THE POLICE REPORTS THAT MR . MORDENTI ON FEBRUARY 20, SAID, YEAH , I KNOW WHO MR . ROYSTON IS. GAIL GOT MY DAUGHTER A JOB WITH HIM AND SHE HAS TALKED T O ME ABOUT HIM , SO I KNOW WHO HE IS , SO KAREN COX SPECIFICALLY MISLED THE JURY , SAYING THAT HE SAID ON FEBRUARY 20 , HE HAD NO IDEA WHO LARRY ROYSTON WAS, AND THAT THIS WAS ONE OF HER SPECIFIC BASIS FOR WHY THEJURY SHOULD BELIEVE GAIL MILLIGAN AND NOT MR . MORDENTI ON THIS ISSUE. AND THERE WAS THE TOTAL IMMUNITY . SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE RECEIVED TOTAL IMMUNITY .
DO YOU THINK THAT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE JURY?
N O , IT WAS NOT.
DON'T YOU THINK SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS STILL SUBJECT TO OTHER THINGS?
ONLY AS TO PERCENTAGE RY.
S O -- PERJURY.
SO SHE WENT AND I N DESCRIBED AND SHE COULDN'T HAVE BLANKET IMMUNITY FOR EVERYTHING, EVEN THOUGH SHE SAID TOTAL IMMUNITY OF THE.
THAT SHE WAS NOT TO BE CHARGED WITH ANYTHING AND SHE LIED. THAT I S NOT TRUE.
IF SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD TOTAL IMMUNITY AND THAT SHOULD BE DIRECT KRECKTED. WOULDN'T SHE BE MORE IMPEACHABLE IF SHE HAD TOTAL IMMUNITY THAN IF SHE HAD USE IMMUNITY? MAYBE I AM MISSING SOMETHING. TELL ME WHERE THE PREJUDICEIS.
THE PREJUDICE IS THAT THE STATE NOW HAS A WAY O F EXPLAINING TO THE JURY WE CAN'T CHARGE HER. WE CAN'T CHARGE HER WITH THIS MURDER THAT SHE PARTICIPATED IN, BECAUSE SHE HAS IMMUNITY. WE ARE WATCHING. AND IF SHE SAYS SOMETHINGFALSE , WHERE WE CAN DO SOMETHING , WE WILL DO IT, BUT IN ORDER TO GET A CONVICTION, WE HAD TO DO THIS, AND ALSO --
THEY MADE THAT ARGUMENT?
YES , AND MS. COX INDICATED THAT , WHEN SHE FIRST QUESTIONED BY THE POLICE , SHE DIDN'T ASK ABOUT IMMUNITY. SHE WASN'T CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING HERSELF . THE POLICE OFFICER SPECIFICALLY SAID THE FIRST THING SHE SAID IS, IF YOU GIVE ME IMMUNITY , I WILL TALK .
NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CREDIBILITY. I AM JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE JURY WOULD FIND HER LESS CREDIBLE.
ALL PART OF THE SAME THING. MS. COX ARGUED THAT THIS WAS A NEGOTIATED IMMUNITY , THAT BEFORE SHE WAS PROMISED IMMUNITY , SHE STARTED COMING CLEAN. WELL , SHE WASN'T PROMISED IMMUNITY.
SO IT IS NOT REALLY THEFACT OF WHETHER IT WAS USE IMMUNITY. THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SHE RECEIVED THE IMMUNITY --
AND USING THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, USING THIS FACT THAT GAIL MORDENTI SAID SHE HAD TOTAL IMMUNITY, TO, IN ESSENCE , VOUCH FOR HER CREDIBILITY AND THE STATE'SCREDIBILITY.
I REALIZE THAT THERE ARE BUILDING BLOCKS AND YOU TALK ABOUT CUMULATIVE, BUT BECAUSE THERE IS LIMITED TIME AND BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALLEGED SO MANY VIOLATIONS, IF YOU HAD TO TAKE ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT EITHER WAS WITHHELD THAT WOULD HAVE YOU KNOW , REALLY MADE THE CASE OR BROKEN THE CASE , SORT OF LIKE IN CARDONA , WHERE WE WERE LOOKING AT A SERIES OF THINGS, CAN YOU TELL ME OR TELL US WHAT --
IT IS HARD TO FOCUS ON ONE, BUT IN TERMS OF THE GIGLIO , ITSEEMS TO ME THAT THE MISLEADING ABOUT THE INVOLVEMENT WITH BANK ROBBERS . THE LOWER COURT, T HE CIRCUITCOURT , SAID TECHNICALLY IT IS NOT FALSE . THE INVOLVEMENT WITH BANK ROBBERS.SEE, WHAT IS HELP SHE WAS HELPING CATCH BANK ROBBERS, BUT THE JURY WAS LED TO BELIEVE AT THIS TRIAL THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS HELPING THE BANK ROBBERS.
DID DEFENSE COUNSEL KNOW MR . MORDENT I'S INVOLVEMENT, THAT IS IN HELPING THE FBI GET MR . BARNES?
YES , IT DID.
WAS THAT BROUGHT OUT DURING ANY OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATIONOF ANYONE?
NO , IT WAS NOT, AND WHAT IS INTERESTING IS , AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING , THE ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY , SAID, WELL , OF COURSE YOU KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN HELPING THE FBI AGENTCATCH THE BANK ROBBERS , AND HE SAID YES , AND IN FACT YOU PRESENTED THAT TESTIMONY AND SHOWED THE JURY WHAT THE INVOLVEMENT WITH BANK ROBBERS WAS. HE SAID YES. THOUGH IN FACT , H E DIDN'T. AND THE FACT THAT SHARON BULRACK , IN HER EXAMINATION , SAID AND THOUGHT WOULD STRAIGHTEN THINGS OUT , BUT HE DIDN'T.
THAT IS ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS , I ASSUME.
I T SHARD T O SEPARATE OUT THE INEFFECTIVENESS FROM THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.
IF THE DEFENDANT KNOWS, IT THEN IT IS HARD TO SAY THAT THAT IS A GIGLIO CLAIM, IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT THEDEFENDANT , MAY BE AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM, BUT HOW ABOUT ON BRADY ? IS THERE ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
JUST IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU SAID THERE , THE U.S. SUPREME COURT JUST LAST WEEK ANNOUNCEDTHAT THE PROSECUTION CANNOT MISLEAD , CANNOT HIDE EVIDENCE AND SAY IT IS THE DEFENDANT'SJOB TO FIGURE OUT THE PROSECUTOR HAS BREACHED HIS DUTY.
HOW DID THEY KNOW THE BANK ROBBERS, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST THE FBI IN CATCHING THE BANK ROBERS?
HOW DID H E KNOW?HE KNEW THAT BARRY CARM OWED I, THE F -- CARMODY, THE FBI AGENT , KNEW THAT HE HAD TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.
HOW DID MORDENTI KNOW THE BANK ROBBERS, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ASSIST THE FBI?
HE WAS A CAR SALESMAN. BANK ROBBERS CAME TO HIM TO PURCHASE A CAR. HE PURCHASED A CAR AND BRINGS IT BACK THE NEXT DAY AND SAYS IT IS NOT WORKING. CAN YOU GET IT FIXED AND GIVE ME A LONER. HE GIVES A LONER AND WORKS ON THE CAR, AND WHEN HE COMESBACK , HE RETURNS THE CAR ANDTAKES THE ORIGINAL CAR BACK , AND THEN MR . CARMODY TRACES IT TO THE OWNER , SO HE GOES TO MR . MORDENTI BECAUSE H E TRACES TO HIS BUSINESS, AND SO HE HELPS LOCATE BARNES IN COLORADO AND HIS ASSOCIATES IN COLORADO. SO THAT WAS HOW HE KNEW THEM, AND THE WHOLE CORRESPONDENT THING. THIS COURT FOUND I T WAS AN IMITATION OF THE MOB . HORACE BARNES TOLD HIM THAT MORDENTI SAID HE WAS IN THE MOB . IT WAS FOUND HARMLESS THAT IT WAS NOT A BANK ROBBER THAT HE HELPS THE FBI CATCH.
YOU HAVE LIMITED TIME. WITH YOU RU GOING TO ADDRESSTHE BRADY VIOLATIONS?
YES. IN TERMS OF THE BRADY VIOLATIONS, THE FIRST, WELL , THERE IS THE DATE BOOK , THERE ARE STATEMENTS AND HANDWRITTENNOTES THAT KAREN COX MADE FROM MICHAEL MILLIGAN , STATEMENTS FROM GAIL MORDENTI , AND THEN THERE IS ALSO THE EXPARTE , OBTAINING THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE WAIVER RELATING TO CONVERSATIONS WITH HIS LAWYER. TURN TO GET DATE BOOK , I THINK IT IS MOST SIGNIFICANT. THE DATE BOOK ESTABLISHES THE ENTIRE TIME LINE THAT GAIL MORDENTI USED AT TRIAL , AS TO WHAT HAPPENED WHEN. IT IS JUST WRONG.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT GAIL MORDENTI, I ASSUME , KEPT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH EVENTS AS THEY HAPPENED.
RIGHT, OONA AT SOME POINT IT WAS TURNED OVER --
SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE GAVE IT TO KAREN COX PRIOR TO TRIAL AND KAREN COX SAID THAT, YES, SHE DID HAVE POSSESSION OF IT , AND THE LOWER COURT FOUND THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED , SO THE ONLY ISSUE IS AS T O MATERIALITY. AND SECONDLY THE COURT DID NOT EVER DO A CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS , TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER BRADYMATERIAL, BUT IN TERMS OF IT FELT THE TIME LINE THAT SHE WOVE AT TRIAL, SHE HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE KNEW. MICHAEL MILLIGAN MOVED IN WITH HER AT THE BEGINNING OF APRIL. AND SO SHE MADE EVERYTHING HAPPEN IN HER TIME LINE THAT SHE TESTIFIED TO , PRIOR TO HIM MOVING IN WITH HER. SO SHE INDICATES THAT THE LUNCHEON HAPPENED LATE FEBRUARY, EARLY MARCH. SHE ACKNOWLEDGES IN 2001 , THE DATE BOOK SHOWS IT HAPPENED APRIL 11.
WHAT IS THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE? I MEAN THE MURDER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE IN JUNE , CORRECT?
YES. JUNE 7.
SO THE PLANNING COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE ANY TIME BEFORE THAT TIME, S O WHAT IS THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF APRIL MEETING , VERSUS A FEBRUARY OR MARCHMEETING?
WELL , FIRST , HER CREDIBILITY IS THE CASE , AND THE FACT THAT SHE IS GIVING UNTRUTHFUL TESTIMONY IS IMPEACHMENT IN AND OF ITSELF, BUT SECONDLY IT GOES BEYOND THAT I N CREATING OTHER AVENUES OF IMPEACHMENT THAT SHE, IN FACT, WAS LIVING WITH MICHAEL MILLIGAN WHEN THE LUNCHEON HAPPENED. WHO ARE WE GOING TO TURN TO FOR HELP?
COULD YOU RELATE THE LUNCHEON T O HER SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LUNCHEON ON APRIL 11 , WITH THE STATEMENT TO THEPOLICE ON APRIL 12.
YES. THAT IS ANOTHER POINT. THAT, AND IN FACT, KAREN COX , IN HER ARGUMENT, IS SAYING SHE , GAIL MORDENTI HAD FINANCIAL PROBLEMS IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH . THEY ARE CURED BY MAY 1 , WHEN SHE STARTS WORKING AT T AND D , WHICH IS ANOTHER GIGLIO ASPECT , BUT THE QUESTION OF GAIL MORDENTI 'S FINANCIAL CONDITION IS VERY MUCH AT ISSUE, TO TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY SHE OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THIS, AND WHY SHE CLAIMS THAT LATER SHE LOST INTEREST IN IT, BECAUSE SHEDIDN'T NEED TO DO IT, BUT WHEN YOU CHANGE THE DATE OF WHEN IT HAPPENED , THEN I T FITS INTO OTHER THINGS , AND ON APRIL 12 , SHE WAS BEING QUESTIONED REGARDING THE MISSING $200,000 FROM FORTUNA BANK. SHE INDICATED WHEN SHE TESTIFIED BELOW AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING , THAT ON APRIL 11, SHE WOULD HAVE KNOWNSHE WAS GOING TO BE QUESTIONED, A AND SHE GAVE A STATEMENT ON APRIL 1 2 THAT JACK BARTLY WAS THE ALBATROSS AROUND HER NECK, AND SHE BLAMED FOR THE MISSING $20,000 , YET JACK HARTLEY IS THE VERY FIRST PERSON SHE WENT TO, TO SEE IF HE WOULD COMMIT THE MURDER.
IT IS THE FIRST TIME SHE MEETS WITH ROYSTON IS APRIL 1 1 , AND NONE OF THAT IS, I MEAN , THAT , HER TIME LINE, THEN --
HER TIME LINE IS COMPLETELY WRONG , WHICH RAISES QUESTIONSABOUT WHY SHE WOULD GO TO JACK HARTLEY , THE PERSON SHE HAS JUST INDICATED IS THE ALBATROSS AROUND HER NECK , WHOM SHE HAS IMPLICATED AS HAVING STOLE THE $200,000. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST PERSON SHE WOULD GO TO.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE MARSHAL HAS JUST REMINDED.
BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN , THE PREJUDICE PRONG FOR A BRADYVIOLATION IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PREJUDICE PRONG FOR A GIGLIO VIOLATION, ISN'T IT?
OUTCOME , REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF DIFFERENTOUTCOME , BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS LESS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT . IN OTHER WORDS IT RAISES A TO CAST THE CASE IN A WHOLE NEW LIGHT AND I SUBMIT IT CASTS THE CASE IN A WHOLE NEW LIGHT AND IMPEACH ES HER CREDIBILITY. AND IN TERMS OF THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM, THIS IS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO HAD BEEN A LAWYER FOR THREE YEARS, HAD DONE TWO DUI TRIALS , AND ONEAG BATTERY TRIAL .
WAS HE THE SOLE ATTORNEY IN THIS CASE?
HE WAS NOT THE SOLE ATTORNEY. 45 DAYS BEFORE H E WENT TO TRIAL, HE HIRED SOMEBODY TO WORK ON THE PENALTY PHASE, MR . RICHARD WATTS, AND MR . WATTS TESTIFIED THEY WERE UNPREPARED FOR TRIAL, AND CERTAINLY MR . ADDY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE MADE MANY MISTAKES. THE LOWER COURT IN ANALYZING , SAID THERE WASN'T DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE.WHEN YOU ANALYZE WHY HE SAID IT WASN'T DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE , HE SAID IT IS NOT PREJUDICE, SO HE SORT O F MIXESTHE TWO TOGETHER , AND I SUBMIT,WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS CASE, IT WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE ADVERSARIAL TESTING. BOTH THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY DID NOT DO AN ADEQUATE JOB. THANK YOU.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. BOB LANDRY REPRESENTING THESTATE OF FLORIDA IN THIS APPEAL.
WOULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR. THIS IS ABOUT MONEY AND A MURDER-FOR-HIRE. AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID , ALLEGED TO BE PAID , WAS $17,000 OR TEN?
WELL --
$17,000. IS THERE A MONEY TRAIL TO MR. MORDENTI?
NO. THERE IS THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT , APPARENTLY , THE , THAT WAS THAT MR. ROYSTON WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY $10,000.
BUT THAT IS ESTABLISHED THROUGH GAIL MORDENTI , CORRECT?WHAT I AM ASKING YOU , IS THERE ANY PHYSICAL MONEY TRAIL THAT SHOWS THAT MR . MORDENTI RECEIVED MONEY FOR THIS , LET ME FINISH, FOR THIS MURDER,OTHER THAN THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF GAIL MORDENTI?
NO. THERE WAS N O PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ALONGTHOSE LINES.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT , IF THERE WAS EVER A CASE WHERETHE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESSWOULD BE CRUCIAL , THIS WOULD BE THE CASE?
WELL --
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
I WOULD AGREE THAT GAIL MORDENTI WAS AN IMPORTANT WITNESS , CERTAINLY IN THE CASE.
HOW MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, IF THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND THE SOLE PERSON THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHETHER THIS MAN HAS A DEATH PENALTY IS GAIL MORDENTI , HOW COULD THEREBE A CASE WHERE CREDIBILITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN IN THIS CASE?
WELL , I MEAN , I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MEASURE OTHER CASES . IT SEEMS TO ME THAT GAIL MORDENTI WAS VIGOROUSLY EXAMINED AND CROSS-EXAMINED AND THROUGHOUT HER DEPOSITION. SHE GAVE, LIKE , FIVE VOLUMES OF DEPOSITION. SHE WENT INTO GREAT DETAIL A S TO ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TESTIMONY THAT CAME OUT , BOTH IN DEPOSITION AND AT TRIAL , WAS THE FACT THAT ROYSTON WAS AGREEABLE TO PAY $10,000 FOR THE HIT. THAT SHE INDICATED TO HIM THAT SHE COULD FIND SOMEONE WHO , FOUND, GOT HER EX-HUSBAND ANDMR . MICHAEL MORDENTI TO DO ITTHE. MORDENTI AGREED TO DO IT.
DID SHE TESTIFY AT TRIALTHAT , BEFORE SHE GOT HER EX-HUSBAND, THAT SHE TRIED SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE FIRST?
YEAH. THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT SHE HAD APPROACHED, I THINK , TWO OR THREE OTHER PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR NAMES WERE, BUT SHE APPROACHED TWO OR THREE OTHER PEOPLE.
AND THAT SHE DID THIS , SHESAID AT TRIAL , BETWEEN FEBRUARY AND MARCH , THAT SHE WAS DOING THAT, CORRECT?
WELL , SHE THOUGHT AT TRIAL , THAT SHE HAD HAD HER DISCUSSION WITH MR. ROYSTON AROUND FE BRUARY , MARCH AREA TIME FRAP.
THE REASON THAT I AM MOST CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DATE BOOK IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW, IF HER FIRST MEETING WITH ROYSTON IS O N APRIL 1 1 , SHE , AND THEN SHE, NOW WE KNOW THAT IS THE CASE OF HER DATE BOOK , THAT ON APRIL 12 , WHEN SHE GIVES A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE , SHE ALREADY HAS, SHE IS SAYING THESE THINGS ABOUT THIS OTHER GUY, I FORGET, WHAT IS HIS NAME? THE PERSON SHE CLAIMS SHE FIRST WENT TO .
ROYSTON APPROACHED HER.
BEFORE , AFTER ROYSTON APPROACHED HER AND SHE SUPPOSEDLY, WHO WAS THE FIRSTPERSON SHE SAID SHE WENT TO?
SHE WENT TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. GUARDLY , PERHAPS, MAYBE .
B Y APRIL 12 , SHE IS SAYING THIS GUY IS AN ALBATROSS AROUND HER NECK. ISN'T IT SIGNIFICANT THAT , I F HER FIRST MEETING IS O N APRIL 11 THAT , THE TIME LINE COLLAPSES AND THAT A JURY WOULD FIND THERE TO BE SOME SUSPICIOUS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT HER TRUTHFULNESS IN ALL OF THIS.
SHE WAS ASKED ABOUT GOUTLY AND THE ALBATROSS STATEMENT AND ALL OF THAT , AND HER TESTIMONY WAS THAT SHE WAS YOU KNOW , AT ONE POINT, SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT GOUTLY, THAT HE WAS TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE BUSINESS AND NOT RETURNING IT. THAT PRECIPITATED THE ALBATROSS COMMENT. SHE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT SHE APPROACHED --
WHAT MR . McCLAIN'S POINT IS , I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT POINT, IS THAT IF THE FIRST MEETING WITH ROYSTON WAS ON APRIL 11, HOWCOULD SHE HAVE ALREADY GOT , BY APRIL 12 , SHE IS ALREADY DISCARDING THE PERSON THAT SHE SAYS WAS THE FIRST OF SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT SHE WENT TO?
WELL , I THINK THAT HER RECOGNITION THAT THE STATEMENT, THE LUNCHEON HAD OCCURRED IN APRIL RATHER THAN AS SHE HAD ORIGINALLY REMEMBERED , FEBRUARY OR MARCH , SIMPLY YOU KNOW , PUTS EVERYTHING BACK A LITTLE BIT. I MEAN, SHE, THEN , GOES TO THE STATEMENT FOR EXAMPLE , IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE FINANCIAL LAWSUIT AND ALL OF THAT , THAT TURNED OUT TO BE SHE WAS , LIKE , GAVE A WITNESS STATEMENT ON THAT THE. IT WAS NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER THAT INVOLVED HER. SHE WAS A CIVIL WITNESS TO THAT, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT I THINK IN THE DEFENSE EXHIBIT , 58 OR WHATEVER I T I S , A CONGRATULATORY LETTER TO HER FROM THE BANK OR SOMETHING, SAYING THAT THANK S FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER .
SO THE STATE , THERE I S EVIDENCE THAT GAIL MORDENT I WAS EXPERIENCING IN THOSE MONTHS BEFORE THE MURDER , SOME SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL --
SHE TESTIFIED A T TRIAL THAT SHE HAD FINANCIAL PROBLEMS THAT, SHE HAD TO FILE BANKRUPTCY I , AND THAT SHE -- BANKRUPTCY, AND THAT SHE HAD MONEY CONCERNS AND MONEYPROBLEMS AT AROUND THIS TIME PERIOD.
AND WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT MICHAEL MORDENTI HAD MONEY PROBLEMS AROUND THE SAME PERIOD?
WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT HE? JUST TESTIMONY O F , GAIL MORDENTI'S TESTIMONY THAT WHEN SHE APPROACHED MICHAEL, TO ASKIF HE KNEW OF ANYONE THAT COULD DO IT , AND HE SAI D TO HER HECK, FOR $10,000 , I WOULD DO IT MYSELF.
THAT IS OUT OF HER MOUTH.
THAT IS OUT OF HER MOUTH.
I MEAN , SHE COULD JUST AS WE WILL HAVE SAID THAT SHE TALKED TO HER BOYFRIEND MICHAEL MILLIGAN , AND HE SAID FOR $10,000 , HE WOULD DO IT. SHE COULD HAVE SAID ANYBODY IN THE WORLD, BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING LINKING MICHAEL MORDENTI TO THIS CRIME, OTHER THAN --
YOU ALSO HAVE THE 13-MINUTETAPED PHONE CALL ON THE ROYSTON CELL PHONE, TO THE MORDENTI BUSINESS, THE DAY OF THE MURDER, AND YOU HAVE --
WASN'T THAT KIND OF EXPLAINED , BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME DEAL ABOUT SELL ING A BOAT THAT MR . ROYSTON HAD AND THAT MR . MORDENT I MAY OR MAY NOTHAVE AGREED T O SELL OR ATTEMPT TO SELL THIS BOAT FOR HIM?
WELL , AT TRIAL , THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT WAS WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WHO WAS ON THE RECEIVING END OF THE PHONECALL. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT SOMEONE ELSE MAY HAVE BEEN CALLED AT THE MORDENTI AND ASSOCIATES BUSINESS AND PICKED UP THE PHONE AND TALKED ABOUT SOMETHING . CERTAINLY THERE ARE --
SO SOMEONE ELSE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ANSWERED THEPHONE. THAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE AT I KNOW WAITED FROM MR . -- CONTINUE WAITED FROM MR . -- A T IT INUATED FROM MR . MICHAEL MORDENTI.
THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE AT TRIAL, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE THE TAPED PHONE CALL THAT GAIL MORDENTI MADE T O MICHAEL , AFTER SHE GAVE HER SWORN STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF HER --
WHAT WAS REVEALED ON THAT TAPE?
BASICALLY , SHE SAYING , HEY, I HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED TO COME DOWN HERE TO TALK TO THE STATE ABOUT THIS. I NEED TO , WHAT SHOULD I DO? SHOULD I CALL LARRY? WHAT IF THEY WANT TO GIVE ME A POLYGRAPH. WHAT IS MY , WHAT SHOULD I DO? I A M IN A BAD SITUATION.
WHY WASN'T THE DIARY TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE?
THE TESTIMONY AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS , I THINK KAREN COX TESTIFIED THAT SHE DIDN'T RECALL , THAT SHE DIDN'T RECALL WHETHER , TOO MANY YEARS HAD PASSED SINCE THE TIME OF TRIAL , THAT SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS OR WASN'T GIVEN OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LICHBLT WHETHER IT WAS OR WASN'T. IN OTHER WORDS, DID SHE CLAIMTHAT SHE DID TURN IT OVER?
SHE HAD NO RECOLLECTION. SHE HAD NO SPECIFIC EXPLANATION AS TO , LIKE I DELIBERATELY DIDN'T GIVE IT OR ANYTHING LIKE.THAT.
IN ELICITING THE -- IN LISTING THE DISCOVERY REQUEST , THERE WERE ITEMS LISTED. WAS IT LISTED IN THE DISCOVERY RESPONSES?
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS ANYTHING IN THE RECORD ON THAT .
IS FROM A LONG LIST OF OTHER HE ENUMERATIONS OF DISCOVER RESPONSE?
I DON'T KNOW THE RECORD DOES OR NOT. THIS CASE WAS TRIED YEARS AGO, AND IN TERMS OF THE DISCOVERYAND ALL OF THAT , WHAT HAD HAPPENED WAS MR . ADD I HAD INHERITED -- MR . ADY HAD INHERITED THE CASE FROM PREVIOUS COUNSEL , MR . BARRYCOHEN , WITH PREVIOUS FILES FROM MR . COHEN, AND THEY HAD DONE A LOT OF THINGS LIKE DEPOSITIONS.
WHAT ABOUT THE DIARY? OBVIOUSLY IT IS CLEARLY IMPORTANT.THERE IS A WRITTEN RECORD OF WHAT SHE WAS DOING AT A CRITICAL TIME. OBVIOUSLY IT IS SOMETHINGIMPORTANT. AND I ASSUME THAT , I F IT CORROBORATED THE STATE'S POSITION IN THE CASE , IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN IMPORTANT THINGFOR THE WITNESS TO HAVE BROUGHT AND SAID NOT ONLY DIDTHESE THINGS HAPPEN , BUT HERE IS MY WRITTEN RECORD MADE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH , SO WHAT IS THE STATE'S POSITION ABOUT THIS?
WELL , THE STATE A POSITION -- WELL , THE STATE'S POSITION IS THAT IT WASN'T TURNED OVER . IT WAS , NOT TURNED OVER B Y KAREN COX. GAIL MORDENTI , I THINK, TESTIFIED THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT SHE HAD GIVEN IT TO THE STATE. WHETHER SHE HAD GIVEN IT T O LAW ENFORCEMENT OR THE PROSECUTOR OR WHATEVER.
SO THE STATE CONCEDES THATTHERE WAS A VIOLATION. IS THAT CORRECT?
THE STATE CONCEDES THAT APPARENTLY IT WAS NOT TURNED OVER. I MEAN , I DON'T --
ISN'T THAT A VIOLATION?
WELL, THEN , THAT GETS TOTHE POINT OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS MATERIAL.
HOW ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHERENTRIES THAT ARE THERE THAT REFERENCE TO PURCHASING TICKETS AND THE ENTRIES, WITH REGARD TO THE DATE OF THE MURDER? EVEN IF WE DISREGARD THE 11th. I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THERE.
THERE IS ANOTHER ENTRY ON JUNE 7.
THAT IS THE DATE OF THEMURDER IN THIS CASE.
YEAH. AND THERE IS AN ENTRY IN THERE , IN WHICH A COMMENT IS MADE TOTHE EFFECT O F CALL ABOUT TICKET . AND GAIL MORDENTI TESTIFIES AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT SHE RECALLED WHAT THAT WAS ALLABOUT IS THAT MICHAEL MILLIGAN HAD BEEN GETTING A LOT OF SPEEDING TICKETS AROUND THAT TIME AND SHE WAS CALLING AS A REMINDER TO HER TO CALL ABOUT. THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT IN --
WAS THERE ANY ABILITY TO VERIFY THOSE TICKETS, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS A TRUE STORYOR NOT. MY POINT IS , THE DATE BOOK HAD BEEN DISCLOSED EARLIER , DEFENSE COUNSEL WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE T O TAKE HERDEPOSITION BE FOLLOW-UP ON THE REASONING.
WELL POSSIBLY THEY COULDHAVE SAID WHAT DOES THIS MEAN AND SHE WOULD HAVE SAID, PRETTY MUCH , I GUESS , ARGUABLY HER MEMORY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER EARLIER THAN LATER.
BUT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION OF SHE WOULD HAVE SAID "I G UESS ." THAT SHOULD NOT BE, DON'T WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL PROBLEM?
WELL , I MEAN , I THINK IN TERMS OF THE JUNE ENTRY , REALLY THEY HAVEN'T DEMONSTRATED THE MATERIALITYTHAT IS REQUIRED .
HOW ABOUT HER LIVE-IN BOYFRIEND AND THE INFORMATIONWITH REGARD TO A VEHICLE BEING TAKEN THERE THE -- TAKEN NEAR THE MEXICAN BORDER AND HER LIVE-IN , MR. MILLIGAN , BEING IN MEXICO AT OR ABOUT THAT DATE. DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?
WELL , KAREN COX , YEAH , WAS ASKED ABOUT A NOTATION THAT SHE APPARENTLY HAD INTERVIEWED OR TALKED TO MR. MILLIGAN , AND GAIL MORDENTI , ON MARCH 10 OR 11 , AND SHE SAID SHE WAS SCRIBBLING SOME NOTES, AND THERE WAS A NOTATION TO THE EFFECT OF MICHAEL MORDENT I APPARENTLY HAVING CALLED ABOUT A CAR THAT WAS USED IN A BANK ROBBERY IN NEW MEXICO , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS TRYING T O ASK KAREN COX AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS OBVIOUSLY INDICATED THAT MILLIGAN WAS OBVIOUSLY DOWN THERE TO PICK UP A CAR IN A BANK ROBBERY, AND SHE SAID THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS SAYING. I WAS SIMPLY SAYING THAT THERE HAD BEEN A CALL FROM MORDENTI AND ABOUT A CAR. NOW , YOU HAVE GOT TO REMEMBER THAT MORDENT I AND OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED , HAD TO DO WITH AUTO AUCTION . I WON'T SAY HORACE BARNES, BUT ALL OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN DEALS WITH MR . MORDENTI , SO THE SUGGESTION THAT MILLIGAN IS DOWN IN NEW MEXICO OR SOMETHING , PICKING UP A CAR OR SOMETHING , IS , YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE HOW ANY OF THAT CAN DEMONSTRATE ANY MATERIALITY , A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF A DIFFERENT RESULT IN THIS CASE.
ISN'T THE PROBLEM THAT WHAT WE DON'T DO OR WHAT WE SAID WE DON'T DO IS YOU LOOK AND PICK EACH THING OUT SEPARATELY AND SAID THAT ALONE DOESN'T UNDERMINE OUR CONFIDENCE UNDER GIGLIO. THAT ALONE, ISN'T HARMLESS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. BUT DON'T WE HAVE TO LOOK , WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WE DO NEED, ONCE WE FIND ANYVIOLATION , EITHER A BRADY OR A GIGLIO , THAT WE NEED TO, THEN , DO A CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF WHAT ALL THESE LITTLE PIECES MAY HAVE DONE , IN , PERHAPS , PAINTING TO THE JURY , A DIFFERENT AND VERY DISTRESSING PICTURE THAT GAIL MORDENTI WAS PINNING THIS ON MICHAEL MORDENTI BUT THAT IN FACT , THERE IS A DOUBT AS TO WHETHER HE IS THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY KILLED THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE, AND THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS SITUATION.WE DON'T HAVE EYEWITNESSES. WE DON'T HAVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. WE HAVE ONE WOMAN'S WORD, AND NOW WE HAVE GOT SEVERAL DIFFERENT PIECES OF EVIDENCE , EITHER WITHHELD O R MISREPRESENTED , THAT COULD CHANGE WHAT THE JURY FELT ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF GAIL MORDENTI.
I AGREE THAT EITHER IT SHOULD BE A CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE VARIOUS ASPECTS O F THE BRAID OR GIGLIO CLAIMS. I DISAGREE THAT, TAKEN TOGETHER SINGLY OR IN COMBINATION , CASTS DOUBT AS TOTHE CORRECTNESS O F THE DECISION-MAKING. COUNSEL REFERRED, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE COMMENT. HE WAS VERY UPSET ABOUT THE COMMENTS THAT GAIL MORDENTI MADE ABOUT INVOLVEMENT WITH BANK ROBBERS. NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS ACTUALLY GIVEN, GAIL MORDENTI WAS SAYING THAT, WHEN SHE TALKED TO THE DEFENDANT OVER THEPHONE , HE SAID, HE SAID THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN SOME KIND OF INVESTIGATION WITH A BANK ROBBERY , WHICH IS TRUE. IT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.
DIDN'T KAREN COX , THROUGH HER CLOSING, MAKE IT SOUND LIKE HE WAS INVOLVED AS A BANK ROBBER , AS OPPOSED TO AN INVESTIGATION?
WELL , I DON'T THINK, I MEAN , I DON'T THINK THAT SHE ARGUED THAT. I THINK WHAT SHE WAS BASICALLY ARGUING WAS THAT YOU KNOW , CERTAINLY KAREN, THAT CERTAINLY GAIL MORDENTI IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN THEDEFENDANT , AND LOOK WHAT SHE DID. SHE CAME FORWARD , AND TOLD THE TRUTH AND ALL OF THAT.
BUT SHE DIDN'T, SO THEEVIDENCE THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY HELPING IN A BANK ROBBERY , HIMSELF , AS FAR AS INVESTIGATING IT , NOT ONLY THAT IS EITHER A CLAIM OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN THAT THE COUNSEL DIDN'T BRING THAT FORT , AND CERTAINLY IN THE PENALTY PHASE, THAT HE WAS HELPING, BUT IT WAS N O KNOWLEDGE THAT, IN FACT , THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT, IF ANYTHING, WAS , HAD N O HISTORY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT HISTORY O F CRIME , WAS HIMSELF, ASSISTINGIN A BANK ROBBERY INVESTIGATION.
WELL , I THINK IT IS, THE COMMENT THAT IS MADE AT THETIME OF TRIAL , INURES TO THE DEFENDANT'S BENEFIT THAT , HE IS INVOLVED WITH AN INVESTIGATION WITH THE BANK ROBBERY. THE , AT PENALTY PHASE , MR . WATTS TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS CONFIDENT OR HE HAD A GOOD FEELING THAT MR . MORDENTI WAS, THE JURY HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT MR. MORDENTI WAS RELATIVELY CRIME FREE, UP UNTIL THAT POINT, AND THAT IS PART OF THE REASON WHY HE DIDN'T REQUEST A SPECIAL INSTRUCTION ON NO SIGNIFICANT HISTORY, A MITIGATOR WHICH WAS FOUND , BY THE TRIAL COURT, BECAUSE OF THAT , ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE STATE COULD HAVE PUT ON REBUTTAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THATHE DID HAVE SOME --
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE INSIGNIFICANT -- THE IN SIGNIFICANCE OR HOW YOU EXPLAIN AWAY THE FACT THAT THE STATE'S INTERVIEW WITH ROYSTON'S ATTORNEY, THAT , INDICATING THAT THERE WAS A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP THAT GAIL HAD HAD AND WANTED IT TO CONTINUE HOW THAT, THAT BRAID MATERIAL , AND HOW SHOULD WE LOOK AT THAT, AND ALSO AS TO THE CLAIM THAT GAIL MORDENTI MADE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS REGARDING THE GUN THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY USED IN THE CRIME , AND WHEN SHE RECEIVED THE GUN. THOSE TWO.
OKAY. AS TO TREVINO.
THAT WAS THE ATTORNEY FOR?
MR. ROYSTON. AFTER M R. ROYSTON COMMITTED SUICIDE , APPARENTLY THEY WERE NOT SURE AT THE TIME WHETHER HE COMMITTED SUICIDE OR WHETHER THERE WAS FOUL PLAY OR NOT, SO MR. AND -- SO MR . -- MRS. COX INTERVIEWED TREVINO .
HOW DID THE INTERVIEW, IN EXPARTE , AS I UNDERSTAND IT ,ORDTHAT'S RIGHT STATE COULD TALK TO HIM BUT THE DEFENSE WAS NOTA PART OF THAT?
WEL L , I A M NOT CERTAINABOUT THE SEQUENCE . IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TREVINO TOLD THE COXES THAT HE WAS ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND HE WOULDN'T TALK UNLESS HE GOT A COURT ORDER. APPARENTLY MR. AND MRS. COX WENT TO JUDGE BUCK LETTER AND JUDGE BUCK LETTER -- TO JUDGE BUCKLER AND JUDGE BUCKLER ENTERED AN ORDER SAYING THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION, IN LIGHT OF HIS DEATH. THEY THEN INTERVIEWED TREVINO , AND TREVINO STARTED ANSWERING QUESTIONS OF MR . COX ABOUT WHAT HIS CLIENT'S VERSION OF EVENTS WAS, WHAT HIS VERSION OF EVENTS WAS GOING TO BE , AND WHAT HIS VERSION OR HIS VIEW OF GAIL MORDENTI WAS, AND BASICA LLY ROYSTON 'S VIEW WAS THAT GAIL MORDENTI WAS MANIPULATIVE AND HAD, PERHAPS , GOTTEN ANOTHER HIT MAN , ROYSTON WAS CLAIMING THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. HE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. IT WAS ALL GAIL'S FAULT. BUT INTERESTINGLY - -
THERE WAS INDICATION. DID HE INDICATE THAT HE , THAT HIS CLIENT TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD HAD A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GAIL MORDENTI ?
I AM NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT HE SAID, I THINK HE SAID THAT HE THOUGHT THAT SHE WOULDHAVE WANTED TO MARRY HIM, TYPE OF THING. I DON'T KNOW IF , HOW MUCH DETAIL IS IN THE NOTES ABOUT THAT.
YOU DON'T THINK THAT, IS THAT , WHY ISN'T THAT BRADY? I MEAN, THERE IS NOTHING, THERE IS NOTHING , ROYSTON TESTIFIES OR TELLS HISATTORNEY THAT , PUTS THE BLAME ON MICHAEL MORDENTI , IS THERE?
WELL , THE COURT , LOWER COURT RULED THAT THIS WAS ALL , EVEN ADDY , MR . WATTS ADMITTED THAT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL. THEY COULDN'T HAVE USED IT. IT WAS ALL HEARSAY , FOR WHICH NO EXCEPTION EXIST TO SAY ALLOW --
INADMISSIBLE , BUT IT COULD HAVE LED TO IT IS DISCOVERABLE, AND THERE IS A DIFFERENT -- A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCOVERY AND ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE .
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO KNOW, SO THEY COULD HAVE PURSUED OTHER LEADS TYPE OF THING , BUT YOU HAVE GOT TO REMEMBER THAT THEY HAD INTERVIEWS, BOXES OF INTERVIEWS WITH EVERYBODY. THEY HAD TALKED TO EVERYBODY WHO KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE. SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE HAD , THOUGHT THERE WAS AN INNUENDO AS TO THERE HAD BEEN A RELATIONSHIP, BUT EVERYONE DENIED T I MEAN , WHEN YOU GOT TO IT, FOUND IT , QUESTIONING. AS TO THE GUN , JUSTICE PARIENTE ASKED A QUICKQUESTION ABOUT THE GUN. THE STATE'S VIEW OF IT IS THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. NEITHER GUN WAS A MURDER WEAPON. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WE ARE GOINGTO HAVE TO END ON THAT NOTE. WE HAVE GONE WELL OVER YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.MR . MARSHAL, HOW MUCH TIME ? OKAY. ABOUT THREE MINUTES. ABOUT THREE MINUTES. IS THAT WHAT YOU --
FIRST , THE VERY LAST THINGTHAT WAS JUST ADDRESSED , ONE WITNESS , JACK GARTHLY , WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED , HAD HE BEEN CALLED TO TRIAL , THAT HE WENT ON DATES WITH MORGAN AND MILLIGAN , BUT HE DIDN'T CALL HIM, SO THERE WAS EVIDENCE BUT NONE OF IT WAS PRESENTED, SO THERE WAS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AND MR . TREVINO ALSO INDICATED THAT MR . ROYSTON HAD THIS BOAT , SO IF YOU HAD THAT INFORMATION, THEN YOU CAN TRY TO GET FROM THE ESTATE , DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THIS BOAT. IN ADDITION TO THAT , I STILL CAN'T --
HOW IS THE STATE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT THE FACT THAT MR . ROYSTON HAD A BOAT, WOULD SOMEHOW BE IMPEACHING TO GAIL MORDENTY?
BECAUSE RAKER BRAWL WAS DEPOSED AS TO THE FACT THAT , THEY HAD DEPOSED HIM , REGARDING THE BOAT , AND A S TO WHERE THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE DEFENSE OR SOMETHING, IN FACT THERE WAS HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF KAREN COX'S INTERVIEW OF GAIL MORDENTI MILLIGAN , WHERE SHE ACKNOWLEDGES THERE WAS A BOAT BUT SHE WAS QUIBBLING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD EVER