MARTINEZ, Joaquin (W/M)

DC# 091882

DOB: 01/10/56

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Case # 96-l 465

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable J. Rogers Padgett

Trial Attorneys: Robert Fraser and Thomas Fox, Esq.

Direct Appeal Attorney: Peter Raben, Esq.

Date of Offense: 1 O/27 - 1 O/3 l/95

Date of Sentence: 05127197

Circumstances of Offense:

The bodies of Douglas Lawson and Sherrie McCoy-Ward were found in their home on

1 O/3 l/95, but their time of death was determined to be sometime between 1 O/27/95 and

10/30/95. Lawson died from gunshot wounds, while McCoy-Ward died from multiple

stab wounds.

The police did not find any weapons or any forensic evidence at the scene that would link

the crime to a suspect. A list of names and telephone numbers was found in the kitchen,

including a pager number for a person named "Joe." After the police left several numeric

messages on the pager, Sloane Martinez, the ex-wife of Joaquin Martinez ("Joe"), made a

telephone call to the police and told them that she had suspicions that her ex-husband was

involved in the murders of Lawson and McCoy-Ward. Sloane agreed to have her house

wired for audio and video recording, in an effort to get information from Martinez that

would implicate him in the murders. In conversations between Sloane and Martinez,

Martinez made several comments that could be interpreted as incriminating. The police

also made a transcript of the audio tape conversation.

Further circumstantial evidence implicating Martinez in the murders was given by Laura

Babcock, the ex-fiance of Martinez, who testified that on 10/27/95, Martinez told her that

he planned to get in touch with a friend named "Michael," who owed him money. When

Martinez returned later that night, he was wearing clothing that did not fit him properly

and he had a swollen lip and scraped knuckles.

Additional evidence implicating Martinez came from several jail inmates who testified

against Martinez, alleging that he admitted to committing the murders, attempted to

implicate another individual for the crimes, and paid one of the inmates $400 for

assistance with the case.

Martinez, J. 2

Trial Summary:

02/14/96

04/l 5197

04/l 6197

05127197

Indicted on the following charges:

Count I First-Degree Murder (Lawson)

Count II First-Degree Murder (McCoy-Ward)

Count III Armed Burglary

Jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts of the indictment

Jury recommended death for Count II of the indictment by a vote of 9-3

Sentenced as follows:

Count I Life imprisonment

Count II Death

Count III Life imprisonment

Retrial Summary:

06/06/O 1 Acquitted at retrial

Florida Supreme Court - Direct Appeal

FSC# 90,952

07/09/97

06/l 5/00

07/l 9100

Appeal filed

FSC vacated convictions and sentences and remanded for a new trial

Mandate issued

Case Information:

Martinez filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 07/09/97, citing ten

trial court errors; however, the FSC chose to comment on only one of the alleged errors.

On 06/l 5/00, the FSC reversed the convictions, vacated the death sentence, and

remanded the case for a new trial. The FSC ruled that comments by a State witness,

Detective Conigliaro, were improperly admitted by the trial court. During his testimony,

Conigliaro improperly gave his opinion about the guilt of Martinez, saying, "[T] here was

no doubt that he [Martinez] did it."

On 06/06/01, Martinez was acquitted at the retrial.

Law Enforcement/Prosecution Statements:

Candace Sabella, who was the Assistant Attorney General in the Direct Appeal, had the

following statement regarding the Martinez case:

.Y--.

Sabella observed that Martinez’ conviction and sentence were overturned on Direct

Appeal, so the only issue that was considered by the FSC was the issue of a potential trial

Martinez, J. 3

discovered evidence, which would have arisen in a collateral proceeding and not in a

Direct Appeal.

Sabella noted that at the retrial, a different prosecution team was brought in than was

used at trial, witnesses [fellow inmates and ex-wife] recanted their testimony, and

evidence was lost (i.e. audio tape and transcript of conversation between Martinez and his

ex-wife that were ruled inadmissible at retrial), all of which resulted in an acquittal for

Martinez.

To Sabella, Martinez’ acquittal was a matter of timing (i.e. witness recantation and lost

evidence), not a matter of innocence.

Defense Statements:

Peter Raben, who served as Martinez’ counsel in the Direct Appeal to the Florida

Supreme Court, had the following statement regarding the Martinez case:

According to Raben, Martinez did not have a fair trial, but the Florida Supreme Court

was "reasoned and judicious" in its reversal of Martinez’ convictions and sentences,

sending the case back to the trial court where Martinez was acquitted.

,.,--.

Raben also noted that Martinez was able to obtain private counsel and received effective

assistance of counsel, thus, the system worked for him. To Raben, Martinez was "lucky"

in the sense that he was able to afford competent counsel who could work for him,

something that Raben feels is not true of most inmates on death row.

Raben noted that many people on death row do not have effective assistance of counsel

and the current system of CCRC representation is unable to effectively handle the cases

on death row.

In a subsequent telephone conversation with Raben, he noted that some State evidence

presented at the original trial was not presented at the retrial. This evidence included the

audio tape and transcript of the conversation between Martinez and his ex-wife, both of

which were ruled inadmissible by the trial judge due to inaudible sections of the audio

tape, and the testimony of both Martinez’ ex-wife and inmates who alleged that Martinez

implicated himself while in jail.

Current Status:

There is no information available as to Martinez’ criminal history subsequent to his

release.

/-

Report Date: 050 7102 JFL

Approved: 05123102 WS

PEEK, Anthony Ray (B/M)

DC# 850039

DOB: 03/l 8158

Tenth Judicial Circuit, Polk County, Case # 78-445

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Gordon MacCalla

Trial Attorney: Frederick R. Replogle, Assistant Public Defender

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Paul C. Helm, Assistant Public Defender

Retrial Attorney: Dale Jacobs, Assistant Public Defender

Attorney, Direct Appeal after Retrial: Edward S. Staf?nan, Private

Date of Offense: 05122177

Date of Sentence: 05102178

Date of Retrial: 1 O/24/84

Circumstances of the Offense:

.F---.. On May 22, 1977, at 8:30 a.m., Ema L. Carlson’s body was found in the bedroom of her

Winter Haven, Florida, home. Ms. Carlson’s robe and part of her bedspread had been tied

around her neck. Her pajama bottoms contained blood and semen fluid stains. Inspection

of the house revealed that the screens on two doors leading into the house had been cut.

In the garage, remnants of a stocking were found that contained a strand of hair that is

consistent with hair belonging to a black individual. The telephone wires outside of the

house had been cut.

Ms. Carlson’s car was found beside Lake Martha, which is approximately one mile from

the victim’s home. The driver’s side door was locked, but the passenger side was open.

The keys were found in the glove compartment, and fingerprints were found on the inside

of the driver’s side window.

Law enforcement had been informed that Anthony Peek had gone door to door in Ms.

Carlson’s neighborhood in attempts to find odd jobs. The police interviewed Peek a

couple of days after the murder. At the time of the murder, Peek lived in a supervised

halfway house. Peek told the officers that he had returned to the halfway house before

11:00 p.m. on the night of May 21, 1971. Peek voluntarily submitted his fingerprints and

hair samples.

At the trial, experts testified that Ms. Carlson died of strangulation. She had two broken

ribs and had been raped. The crime lab advocated that the hair samples provided by Peek

were microscopically similar to the one found at the crime scene, although it was never

Peek, A. 2

blood and semen found in Ms. Carlson’s pajama bottoms originated from an individual

with Type 0 blood, which was consistent with Peek’s blood type. The fingerprints found

in Ms. Carlson’s car matched Peek’s fingerprints.

Peek’s testimony at the trial was consistent with the statement that he had previously

given to law enforcement officers, with the exception of the admission that he had been

inside the victim’s car. Prior to the trial Peek had stated that he had not been in the area

where the car had been found on May 22,1977. During the trial, Peek stated that he rode

his bike to the lakeside park and noticed the car. He saw that the door was unlocked, so

he searched the glove compartment. He then rode his bike back to the halfway house.

When the murder was committed, Peek was out on bond for a burglary and grand theft

charge.

Trial Summary:

02116178

03123178

04112178

04/l 3178

05122178

Defendant was indicted on the following charges:

Count I: First-Degree Murder

Count II: Sexual Battery

Count III: Grand Larceny

Motion for consolidation of Case# 78-445 and Case# 77-2567.

The Defendant was found guilty of all of the charges in the indictment in

addition to a Burglary Charge from Case # 77-2567

A majority of the jury recommended a death sentence for Count I.

The defendant was sentenced as follows:

Count I: First-Degree Murder - death

Count II: Sexual Battery - life, run consecutive to the sentence in

Count I

Count III: Grand Larceny - 5 years

Case #77-2567:

Peek, A. 3

Retrial Information:

08124184

09/05/84

1 O/24/84

Defendant was found guilty of all of the charges in the indictment.

The jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of nine to three.

The defendant was sentenced as follows:

Count I: First Degree Murder - death

Count II: Sexual Battery - 30 years, run consecutive to the

sentence in Count I

Count III: Grand Larceny - 1 year, to run concurrent with Count I

and Count II

Case #77-2567:

Count I: Burglary - 15 years, to run consecutive with the

sentences in Case # 78-445

Second Retrial Information:

04117186 - FSC remanded the case for a new trial

01/19/87 - Defendant found not guilty on all counts.

Florida State Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

’ FSC# 54226

395 So. 2d 492

05/30/78 Appeal filed

1 O/30/80 FSC affirmed the conviction and sentence.

01127181 Rehearing denied

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSW 806369

451 U.S. 964

03119181 Petition filed

0412718 1 Petition denied

State Circuit Court, 3.850 Motion

CC# 78-445

03108183 Motion filed

Peek, A. 4

Florida State Supreme Court, Direct Appeal after Retrial

FSC# 66,204

488 So. 2d 52

11 I29184 Appeal filed

04/l 7186 FSC remanded for a new trial.

06104186 Rehearing denied

07103186 Mandate issued

Case Information:

Peek filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 05130178. Peek raised three

issues to contest his conviction. Two of the issues revolved around the hair samples and

their subsequent misplacement; The Florida Supreme Court did not find an error. The

issues challenging his sentence revolved around the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Court found that there were sufficient aggravating factors to justify the imposition of

the death penalty. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of

death on 1 O/30/80. The rehearing was denied on 01/27/g 1.

Peek filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on

03/l 9/8 1. The Petition was denied on 0412718 1.

Peek filed a 3.850 Motion in the Circuit Court on 03108183. After an evidentiary hearing,

the trial judge found that false expert testimony pertaining to the hair samples inhibited

Peek from a fair trial. The motion was granted, thereby vacating the judgment and

sentence on 1 l/02/83. The State filed an appeal of the trial court’s decision with the

Florida Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed on 03/22/84 with the stipulation

that the State could retry Peek.

Peek was granted a new trial and found guilty of all counts on 08124184. The jury

recommended the death penalty by a vote of nine to three on 09105184. Peek was

sentenced to death on 1 O/24/84.

Peek filed a Direct Appeal with Florida Supreme Court on 1 l/29/84. In the previous

retrial, the State offered the same evidence it had presented in the original trial, in

addition to evidence displaying that Peek admitted to raping a young girl after the murder

of Ms. Carlson. Peek’s main claim in regard to the Direct Appeal was the admission of

this other criminal offense denied his constitutional right for a fair trial. The Florida

Supreme Court found that the collateral crime evidence was prejudicial, but stated that,

minus this evidence, sufficient evidence still remained for the conviction. In addition to

this ruling, the Florida Supreme Court discussed the disqualification of the trial judge

who made racial comments during the interim between the guilt phase and the penalty

phase of the trial. Peeks conviction and sentence was vacated, and the case was remanded

for a new trial on 04/l 7186. The rehearing was denied on 061014186.

Peek, A. 5

Prosecution/Law Enforcement Statement:

Comment provided by Robert Nettleton, prosecuting attorney, on 04/30/02 via phone.

"A witness gave erroneous statistics regarding the hair evidence, which was not material

enough to warrant a reversal. There was enough additional circumstantial evidence

without the hair evidence statistics to obtain a conviction. There was a severity and

conclusiveness in the case, which both the jury and judge concurred with. The state

proved the guilt, and the judge and jury agreed. In regard to the retrial, the passage of

time, number of appeals, and loss of evidence contributed to the not guilty verdict. The

not guilty verdict was due to missing evidence and not innocence. There was no

reasonable doubt that Peek was guilty at the conclusion of the first trial."

Jerry Hill, the State Attorney for the Tenth Circuit, provided the following comment on

01128102:

"Mr. Peek is also on the list, as are several others from other circuits who got new trials

and then were acquitted. I fail to see the rationale for including these people. Juries found

them guilty; they got new trials; and, juries found them not guilty. I spoke to Assistant

State Attorney hardy Pickard who prosecuted Mr. Peek. Hardy continues to believe he

was guilty. That’s why he tried him. The jury disagreed. It doesn’t make him innocent."

04108102

05123102

Letter sent to Polk County Sheriffs Department requesting comment.

A telephone call was placed to Polk County Sheriffs Department. No

information had been received as of 05128102.

Defense Statement:

Comment provided by Dale Gardner Jacobs on 04/10/02 via fax.

"Defendant was tried three times after two successful appeals and was found not guilty

on the third trial. Supreme Court case of State of Florida vs. Anthony Ray Peek is very

interesting because of prejudicial racial remarks by the circuit court judge."

Current Status:

Peek is currently incarcerated in Florida Department of Corrections for the following

Date Offense Date County No. Length

09/21/1976 BURGUNOCCSTRUC/CV 05/l 2/l 978 POLK 7601842 5Y OM OD

09/22/l 976

07106/l 977

07/06/l 977

07/06/l 977

E

GRAND THEFT,$300 0511211978

LESS &20,000

SEX BAT/THREAT 04/04/l 978

W/DEADLY WPN.

iURGUNOCCSTRUC/CV 04/04/1978

OR ATT.

ROBBERY W/FIREARM 04/04/1978

OR D/WEAPON

POLK

POLK

POLK

POLK

760 1842

7701658

7701658

PITTS, Freddie L. (B/M) LEE, Wilbert (B/M)

DC# 009491 DC# 009492

DOB: 03/09/4 1 DOB: 05/20/3 5

Original Trial Information:

Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Gulf County, Case # 5 19,520

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable W.L. Fitzpatrick

Trial Attorney: W. Fred Turner, Assistant Public Defender

Attorney, Direct Appeal: W. Fred Turner, Assistant Public Defender

Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Phillip A. Hubbart

Retrial Information:

Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Jackson County, Case # 3-72-l) 3-72-2

Retrial, Sentencing Judge: The Honorable D.R. Smith

Retrial, Trial Attorneys: Irwin Block, private attorney, for Pitts

:/----.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Assistant Public Defender, for Lee

Retrial, Collateral Attorneys: Phillip A. Hubbart, Irwin J. Block, Maurice Rosen,

Jack Greenberg, Michael Meltsner, James A. Nabrit, III

Date of Offense:

Date of Sentence:

Date of Retrial:

0713 1 I63

08128163

03/l 5172

Circumstances of the Offense:

On August 1, 1963, at approximately 4:30 a.m., the Gulf County Sheriffs office received

a report that the MoJo Service Station in Port St. Joe, Florida, was open and the money,

the two attendants, Jesse Burkett and Grover Floyd, a paycheck cashed by Freddie L.

Pitts, and a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson pistol were missing. The police found the soft

drink machine open, but the money was not gone. The scene revealed no sign of struggle.

Preliminary investigation revealed that the disappearance of the attendants occurred after

one of the attendants received a telephone call at approximately 2:30 a.m. Two females

who were on their way to go fishing found the bodies of the two attendants on 08/03/63

around 8:30 in the morning. The bodies were in the location where the murder took place.

Willie Mae Lee, Wilbert Lee, Freddie Lee Pitts, Wilbert Lee’s wife, and Roland Lee

Pitts, F. & Lee, W. 2

they refused to let the group use the restrooms. The six left the station and went back to

Wilbert Lee’s home and were joined by three soldiers and another woman for a few

drinks. At approximately 2:00 a.m., after the group had consumed some beer and

moonshine, Willie Mae Lee drove Freddie Lee Pitts in his car to get some vodka. Only

after getting into the car did Ms. Lee realize that Wilbert Lee was lying down in the back

of the car. She protested, but Pitts drove to the MoJo service station.

The following sequence of events is a compilation of the confessions made by Lee and

Pitts as well as the testimony of Ms. Willie Mae Lee.

Pitts and Lee robbed the gas station and abducted and killed the two attendants. Pitts and

Lee had the .38-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver that had been taken from the service

station on the first visit, which had been around midnight. The younger attendant had

been struck in the head with the revolver and the older attendant was forced to tie the

wounded man’s hands behind his back. Pitts and Lee then robbed the station. They then

put the two victims in the front seat of the car. One of the defendants drove while the

other defendant sat in the back seat with the gun pointed at one of the victim’s head. Ms.

Lee was also in the back seat. They drove approximately 12 miles down White City Road

to a secluded wooded spot. The defendant holding the pistol armed the other defendant

with a car jack. The defendants forced the victims to climb through an iron gate and then

marched them into the woods near a canal. Both of the victims were savagely attacked

with the tire iron. The younger victim, who had his hands tied, begged for the release of

/----- the other victim because he was older and had a family. His pleas were denied, and he

was shot and then his hands were untied. Ms. Lee testified that she heard two shots and

then the two defendants returned to the car and drove away with Ms. Lee in the car.

According to Ms. Lee, she was very frightened and took no part in the crime. She also

testified that the two defendants drove her home and told her that if she told anyone about

the events that she would never see her daughter again.

The Sheriffs Department initially considered the disappearance of the two attendants to

be due to them getting drunk and wandering off with the money. A polygraph officer

persons’ case. Pitts and Lee, along with others who had been at the service station on the

many of those who were questioned were advised of their rights and asked to take lie

detector tests. Lee was tested first and the results indicated deception. Pitts was tested

next. He stated that he and Lee did return to the service station, and they had robbed the

attendants and then they had driven away leaving the attendants alive. This information

was the first indication law enforcement had about the robbery. Lamberson Smith, one of

the individuals who had been drinking with Pitts and Lee on the night in question, was

tested next. He stated that Pitts, Lee, and Willie Mae Lee left Lee’s house around 2:00

a.m. and returned approximately two to three hours later. His test reflected no deception.

Pitts and Lee were detained while the other individuals were tested. They were

/---

transported to the Bay County Jail in Panama City because state officials had condemned

Pitts, F. & Lee, W. 3

women and one man entered written statements that it was Pitts, Smith, and Willie Mae

Lee who left the home and Lee was in bed with his wife. Willie Mae Lee stated, when

questioned and given a polygraph test, that she had been an unwilling witness to the

crime and described the crime in full detail, but stated that the culprits had been Pitts and

Smith. Willie Mae Lee had been placed in a cell with Ella Mae Lee who, she claimed,

had forced her to lie. Lee was released and allowed to go home with his wife at this time.

During the weekend, a minor male spoke with Bay County Deputy Kittrell and stated that

he had slept in the bed with Lee’s wife. Lee’s wife, Ella Mae Lee, admitted during her

test that her husband left the house with Pitts and Willie Mae Lee. This statement was

contrary to Ella Mae’s original story in which she had stated that her husband had been at

home in bed with her.

her story concerning Smith being one of the assailants. Both Smith and Pitts were also

Circuit Court Judge Fitzpatrick appointed Attorney Gaskin to represent Pitts and Lee at

the arraignment only, which was held before County Judge Husband. The arraignment

he represented the defendants, they did not appear to have been mistreated at all. County

)

Judge Husband testified that he saw no evidence of mistreatment at the arraignment.

Judge Fitzpatrick testified that he asked the defendants into his chamber and inquired as

to their treatment and both Pitts and Lee stated that they had not been mistreated in any

way. The judge went on to inquire as to whether the two had an attorney, which they did

not. He asked them if they had a preference, which they did not. The judge appointed

Fred Turner. After the arraignment, the officers brought Lee and Willie Mae Lee

together. After speaking with Willie Mae, Lee orally confessed to the crime. Pitts was

p.m., Pitts signed a written statement giving details of the crime, but stated that Lee and

Willie Mae committed the crime, and he remained in the car. At 7:00 p.m. the same day,

Willie Mae signed a full written statement and at 1:30 a.m. the next day Lee signed a

written confession.

The night after being appointed, Turner visited the defendants in jail and informed them

of the appointment. He asked if they had been mistreated in any way, and they had told

him no. He returned to see the men the next day. He requested copies of the statements

that Pitts and Lee had made to the police. He testified that the first statements made by

the defendants stated that they had no knowledge of the crime. Turner recorded the

sessions. Turner read Willie Mae’s statement to them, and Pitts reacted by stating he

would like to see her face-to-face. The deputy brought Ms. Lee into the room, as Ms. Lee

had asked to remain in jail for protection. Pitts confronted Ms. Lee, but Ms. Lee

reiterated her previous statement. Lee finally agreed that it was the truth, and told Pitts

that they had better tell their lawyer the truth if they wanted his help. They discussed the

fact that the gun had not been found, and Pitts told Turner that he had gone back to the

Pitts, F. & Lee, W. 4

Turner attempted to get a plea to a lesser charge for his client, but was unable to do so.

The judge promised Turner a mercy trial’ if the defendants pled guilty. He relayed this

information to his clients, and they decided to plead guilty. Turner testified that he did

not attempt to persuade his clients about how to plea. The previous indictments were

quashed and new indictments were handed down by the Grand Jury.

in the army. Criminal Investigation Division (CID) officers were allowed to see Pitts in

beaten. CID officers testified that Pitts looked "very tired, like he was in pain." They said

he complained that his jaw was swollen. He asked them to feel the bumps on his head and

to see if they could tell what was wrong with his eyes, which were bloodshot. The CID

officers did not report the alleged beatings to the jail officials at that time.

Individuals were questioned as to whether Pitts and/or Lee had made a request for a

lawyer prior to one being appointed for them. Sheriff DafIin testified that the two had

requested that he contact Timothy Youngblood, the head of the local NAACP, on their

behalf. The sheriff stated that he contacted Youngblood, who stated that he was not a

lawyer and that he had previously checked on the two defendants. Turner testified that he

had seen both of the defendants in the dining area of the jail prior to his appointment.

They also asked him to contact Youngblood, and Turner stated that he did.

Judge Fitzpatrick. Judge Fitzpatrick again inquired as to whether the defendants had been

mistreated and again they answered that they had not. They indicated to the judge that

they were satisfied with their attorney’s performance.

and asked the defendants why they were pleading guilty. Both of the defendants’

responses indicated that they had not been beaten or coerced. They stated that they

wanted the whole thing over. Knight then asked Turner why they had pled guilty and

Turner responded that they had confessed to everyone who would listen. The defendants

freely testified at the mercy trial. They stated nothing about being mistreated.

stated that they had been beaten and subsequently confessed. Then, and in ensuing

statements, Pitts claimed that he had been taken for a ride after his first polygraph test,

and it was during the ride that he was beaten. He stated that he was knocked unconscious

on several occasions. Lee stated that he was beaten and that law enforcement officers

threatened to shave his wife’s head and execute her if he did not talk.

alleged that Curtis Adams, Jr. (Boo) had committed the crime. Adams had basically

’ A procedure where the judge impaneled a jury of 12 men to render a verdict on whether or not mercy

Pitts, F. & Lee, W. 5

friends with the attendants. Adams was convicted of armed robbery in Panama City in

1956. He was paroled in 1962 and moved back to Port St. Joe. In early August of 1962,

Adams and his girlfriend quit their jobs and moved to Broward County. Adams was in

need of money and, on the night of August 16, 1963, he robbed a service station, took the

attendant into the woods and killed him. The manner in which the crime was perpetrated

was very similar to the method in which the MO Jo killings were committed. Adams and

his girlfriend returned to Port St. Joe approximately three or four months later to visit

relatives. During this time, Adams made a trip to Fort Lauderdale where he robbed an

Avon Package Store and one to Perry where he robbed a supermarket. In April 1964, he

was arrested for robbing a finance company in Key West. Adams’ mother was very sick

at the time, and Adams feared that she would pass away before he could see her again;

therefore, he requested permission to place a call to law enforcement officers in Gulf

County. He told the officers of Gulf County that if they would allow him to return that he

would give them information on the MO Jo Service Station murders. The sheriff declined

the offer. In 1966, Adams was interrogated and admitted to killing the two attendants at

the MO Jo Service Station.

Adams testified at the petition hearing. He stated that he did not commit the murders, but

Jo Service Station. He went into the bathroom, and while there he heard someone inside

the store yell, "Don’t anybody move or I’ll shoot." He stated that he looked out of the

door and saw Pitts and another man taking the two attendants away. He stated that he

confessed to the crime because 16 black men threatened him, hung him from the bars and

beat him into doing so while he was incarcerated in the Broward County Jail. He also

testified that he knew both Pitts and Lee from the streets and from being incarcerated

with them, but stated that he had never talked to them. When asked if he had any

concerns about being sent to the electric chair for something that he did not do, he

responded, "I never worried about dying. Everybody’s days are numbered, so it don’t

matter what you do or what; you’re not going to prolong it or you’re not going to rush it."

Adams’ girlfriend, Mary Jean Adkins, was interviewed by law enforcement. She

recounted events that Adams had related to her concerning the MO Jo killings and that it

had bothered him for a time. She changed her story when she was given a polygraph test

and then reverted to the original story after the test.

All of the events that were related by Ms. Adkins and Adams paralleled the information

Pitts and Lee provided at the mercy trial.

Additional Information:

Freddie L. Pitts had no prior record before the above incident.

Between 1953 and the above incident, Wilbert Lee had been arrested four times for

Vagrancy, three times for gambling offenses, and five times for Malicious Mischief or

Disorderly Conduct. He was also convicted of one DUI, three weapons offenses, one

Pitts, F. & Lee, W. 6

Trial Summary:

08/l 6163

The defendants were indicted with two counts of First-Degree Murder.

Defendants pled guilty

The mercy trial was held. A majority of a jury of 12 did not

recommend mercy for each of the two counts against the two defendants.

Both defendants were sentenced to death.

The trial court dismissed the original 1963 Grand Jury indictments

because they had been indicted by a Grand Jury from which members of

the black race were systematically excluded.

A Grand Jury in Gulf County re-indicted the defendants on the original

First-Degree Murder charges.

The trial court dismissed the above indictments on the grounds that the

Grand Jury was illegally constituted based on the fact that one of the

jurors had been previously convicted of a felony and had not had his civil

rights restored. The venue was transferred to Jackson County, Florida.

The Jackson County Grand Jury indicted the defendants on the original

First-Degree Murder charges.

The defendants were found guilty. A majority of the jury did not

recommend mercy. Both defendants were sentenced to death.

Florida State Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC# 32981 and 33022

166So.2d131

Appeal filed

FSC affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Rehearing denied

Mandate issued

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

ussc # 535

Circuit Court, Rule 1.850 Petition

Pitts, F. & Lee, W. 7

Denial

DCA # H-203 and H-204

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC # 996

Circuit Court, Rule 1.850 Petition

CC#519and520

05/l 3/69 Motion granted

Denial

Florida Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

FSC # 40618

Petition tiled

FSC reversed the DCA’s order and remanded the case to DCA to remand

to CC for retrial.

Mandate issued

Denial

DCA # L-462

249 So. 2d 47

06/04/7 1 DCA issued a revised opinion remanding the case for retrial

Pitts, F. & Lee, W. 8

District Court of Appeals, First District, Appeal of Judgment and Sentence

granted the defendants a full pardon by a vote of four to three.

Case Information:

Pitts and Lee filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 10103163. Each

filed separate appeals that were consolidated. One of the issues raised in the appeals was

a challenge of the judge’s actions in determining the defendants sentence, which

combined the fact that the defendants pled guilty to an indictment that did not specify the

degree of the offense with which they were charged and the fact that the judge utilized

the unprecedented procedure of impaneling a jury of twelve to answer the question of

whether mercy should be given. The Florida Supreme Court found that the method

utilized by the judge did not constitute a reversible error and affirmed the sentence of

Pitts and Lee then tiled a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme

Pitts and Lee then tiled a petition based on Rule 1.850 with the Circuit Court on the

grounds that the composition of the grand and petit juries was unconstitutional. The

petition was denied. Subsequently, Pitts and Lee filed an appeal of this denial in the

Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was denied

,-

petitioners on the issues of innocence and the State knowingly or negligently withheld

evidence favorable to the defendants. The judge found for the State on all of the other

issued raised in the petition; specifically, that the confessions were not coerced but that

the guilty pleas may have been. The State filed an appeal with the District Court of

District Court of Appeals found that the trial judge erred as a matter of law with respect

to the burden of proof applicable in collateral proceeding, but stated that, if the

conclusions made by the judge hold up when the correct measure of proof is utilized, then

Pitts, F. & Lee, W. 9

(a) the trial court erred in finding that the guilty pleas reasonably may have been the

result of fear, (b) the trial court was correct in finding that there was no evidence

displaying incompetency of counsel, (c) The evidence supposedly withheld was

immaterial because the defendants chose to plead guilty and went to trial only on the

issue of punishment, and (d) that the trial court erred in finding for the appellees on the

issue of innocence. The District Court of Appeal of Florida reinstated the original

to the fact that the Attorney General had filed a "motion in confession of error," thereby

requesting that the case be returned to the trial court for purposes of a new trial. The

revised opinion remanding the case to the trial court for a retrial. The District Court of

Grand Jury in Gulf County re-indicted Pitts and Lee with two counts of First-Degree

Jury had been illegally constituted because one of the jurors had previously been

convicted of a felony and had not yet had his civil rights restored. Due to all of the above

Grand Jury of Jackson County indicted both defendants with two counts of First-Degree

recommend mercy, and the defendants were sentenced to death on the same day.

which was based on the United States Supreme Court decision of Furman v. Georgia.

This opinion voided the sentences all of the persons who had been sentenced to death in

the state of Florida, which included both Pitts and Lee. On the date of the Bernard

opinion, both Pitts’ and Lee’s sentences of death were commuted to life sentences.

Pitts and Lee filed an appeal of judgment and sentence in the District Court of Appeals,

Grand Jury was unconstitutionally composed because black individuals were

systematically excluded from the list from which it was drawn, the defendant’s right to a

fair trial was denied because of the media coverage of the case in Jackson County,

Florida, for several years prior to the trial, and the trial judge’s refusal to permit persons

to testify about Adams’ alleged confessions. The District Court of Appeal found no error

in regard to the above-mentioned issues, in addition to the remaining issues. Pitts’ and

cabinet. On 05/01/98, House Bill Number 3035 was approved. This bill awarded Freddie

Lee Pitts and Wilbert Lee $500,00 each for compensation.

Prosecution/Law enforcement Statement:

Former Assistant Attorney General, Ray Marky, said that the summary of the Pitts and

Lee case is quite good and added the following comments..

Deputy White testified at the 3.850 hearing held before Circuit Judge Holly that Pitts

after confessing to the crime agreed to take him to the area where the bodies were left

after being shot. They proceeded to the area where there were a bunch of fire roads out

in the woods and Pitts kept driving them down the wrong paths. When they got fed up

with the search and started heading back to the jail they passed a road and Pitts said that

was the one but the deputy said they were not going to keep going down useless trails.

The next day a woman fishing in one of the canals called and said that

there were some dead bodies near one of the canals where they were fishing. Wayne

White said that when he went out the bodies were indeed down the road that Pitts last

said was where they were. The significance of this testimony cannot be overstated

because at the time no one could have known where the bodies were other than the

perpetrators of the crime.

) In the mid 80s a select committee of the House of Representatives conducted a full

hearing into the Pitts and Lee case and Dexter Douglas represented the House in

presenting witnesses who had testified at the trial held in Marianna, FL. After a lengthy

hearing the Committee voted against granting Pitts and Lee any compensation for the

alleged wrongful conviction.

It is my opinion after having participated in the case for almost 15 years that Pitts and

Lee were not innocent; that the jury properly found them guilty of first degree murder

based on the testimony of Willie Mae Lee, who testified at trial and at the House hearing

but who Askew didn’t bother to talk with prior to concluding they were innocent; that the

pardon was granted solely for political reasons

The Pitts and Lee case and the disposition of it was a perversion of justice.

Defense Statement:

04/08/02 Letter sent requesting comment. No reply as of 05/28/02.

04/08/02

05/24/02

Letter sent to Irwin Block requesting comment.

Telephone called placed Irwin Block and left a message. No comment had

Pitts, F. & Lee, W. 11

Current Status:

According to NCIC reports, neither Pitts nor Lee have had any subsequent arrests.

RAMOS, Juan (H/M)

DC% 088561

DOB: 07/12/57

Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Brevard County, Case # 82-l 32 1

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable J. William Woodson

Trial Attorneys: Norman Wolfinger & Arthur Kutsche, Assistant Public Defenders

Direct Appeal Attorney: Michael S. Becker, Assistant Public Defender

Date of Offense: 04123182

Date of Sentence: 03/10/83

Circumstances of Offense:

Mary Sue Cobb was found dead in her bedroom at 1:30 p.m. on 04/23/82. She had

multiple knife wounds and had a butcher knife protruding from her chest. Forensic

evidence indicated that the victim had been strangled and sexually assaulted.

At the time of the murder, Juan Ramos was employed at a manufacturing firm near the

victim’s residence. Ramos stated that on the day of the murder, he arrived at work before

7:00 a.m., found out that he had been laid off, and returned to his apartment at 7:lO a.m.

He testified that as he returned home from work, he noticed a black man walking in the

street near the victim’s home.

Ramos was interrogated for approximately seven hours in an interrogation room of the

Cocoa Police Department. On the next day, the same room was used for two dog scent

discrimination lineups, where the only people present were the police chief, a police

detective, a sergeant from the sheriffs office, and the dog handler. The first lineup

consisted of five blue shirts, four which belonged to the husband of the police chiefs

secretary and one which was worn by the victim when she was killed. The dog was given

a cigarette pack that belonged to Ramos and was allowed to sniff each shirt in turn. The

dog indicated that shirt #5, the one belonging to the victim, was the shirt in question. On

a second pass, the dog again indicated that shirt #5 was the shirt in question. The second

lineup consisted of five knives, three which belonged to a local diner, one which

belonged to a police officer, and one that was imbedded in the victim’s body. The dog

again sniffed the cigarette pack, and selected knife #3, the knife found in the victim as the

knife in question. On a second pass, the dog again indicated that knife #3 was the knife

in question.

The only evidence linking Ramos to the murder was the knife found in the victim and the

Ramos, J. 2

.,--. Trial Summary:

06/l l/82

01125183

01126183

03/l O/83

Indicted on one count of First-Degree Murder

Jury returned a guilty verdict on the sole count of the indictment

Jury recommended a life sentence

Judge overrode the jury recommendation and sentenced Ramos to death

Retrial Summary:

04124187 Acquitted at retrial

Florida Supreme Court - Direct Appeal

FSC# 63,444

496 So.2d 121

Case Information:

found that the dog scent lineup was not conducted in a fair manner, and that the reliability

the conviction and sentence and remanded the case for retrial.

Law Enforcement/Prosecution Statements:

Christopher Smith, who represented the State at the original trial, was contacted for a

statement, but none has been received to date.

Defense Statements:

represented Ramos at his original trial:

This was just a case that was botched by the police. The case was handled

properly by the courts, but once the evidence against Ramos was suppressed, the

Ramos, J. 3

Current Status:

Ramos was acquitted at his retrial.

There is no information available as to Ramos’ criminal history subsequent to his

acquittal.

Alternate Prosecuted Suspect:

None

.-

RICHARDSON, James Joseph (B/M)

DC # 021377

Twelfth Judicial Circuit, DeSoto County, Case # 3302-D

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable John Justice

Attorneys, Criminal Trial: John Spencer Robinson, Esq. & Richard S. Whitson, Esq.

Attorney, Direct Appeal: John Spencer Robinson, Esq.

Circumstances of Offense:

stepdaughter Betty Jean Bryant.

/--% ’ Evidence presented at trial revealed that Betty Jean Bryant and her six siblings were

poisoned with a large amount of parathion. On the day in question, the children had

returned home from school in order to eat lunch. Their parents were miles away at work

picking fruit. It was determined that parathion poison had been placed in every container

that the children might have eaten lunch from. Upon returning to school after lunch,

teachers reported that the children immediately began showing symptoms of distress and

were taken to the hospital.

James Richardson and his wife, Annie Mae Richardson, were alerted to their children’s

conditions and taken to the hospital where they were receiving treatment. Upon learning

that the children were dying as a result of something they ingested, Sheriff Frank Cline of

the DeSoto Sheriffs Department rushed to the Richardson home for the purpose of

identifying the consumed toxin. Sheriff Cline searched the home, with the permission of

James Richardson, in the hope that identifying the poison may help doctors save the

children’s lives. Nothing was seized from the home at that time. Sheriff Cline then

returned to the hospital to inform Richardson that he would like to search the refrigerator,

which was locked. Richardson gave Sheriff Cline the keys to the refrigerator, which he

kept around his neck, and "invited" him to make a thorough search of the house. At that

time, there was never any suspicion that a crime had been committed or that Richardson

was involved in any way. Upon returning to the Richardson home, Sheriff Cline located

and removed the poisoned food and containers that the children ate from.

Sheriff Cline subsequently searched the Richardson home on several occasions with the

Richardson, J. 2

were taken from the home to be analyzed by toxicology experts, but there was still no

reason to suspect that the children had been purposefully poisoned. Upon learning that

Richardson had acquired life insurance policies on each of his children the day before

their poisonings, a search warrant was secured for subsequent searches of the Richardson

home.

James Richardson was eventually arrested and charged with the poisoning death of Betty

Jean Bryant. At trial, the State presented the testimony of several jail inmates who

claimed that Richardson admitted to killing his children. One inmate, Ernell Washington,

testified at the preliminary hearing that he heard Richardson confess to poisoning his

children to calm problems arising between his wife and her ex-husband. Ernell

Washington was murdered prior to testifying at Richardson’s trial. At that time, there

was no official record of Washington’s testimony from the preliminary hearing. As such,

several persons, all of whom were present at the preliminary hearing, testified as to the

statements made by Washington during that hearing.

There was strong suspicion that Betsy Reese, the Richardson’s neighbor and occasional

babysitter, was responsible for the poisoning deaths of the Richardson children.

Evidence indicated that Betsy Reese prepared the lunch that resulted in the children’s

deaths, and she was the last person to come in contact with the children before the poison

took hold. Betsy Reese, however, was never charged in the investigation of the

poisoning deaths of the Richardson children.

James Richardson was convicted of First Degree Murder and sentenced to death.

The defendant was indicted on the following:

Count I: First-Degree Murder

Motion for change of venue granted and trial moved to Lee County.

The defendant was found guilty of First-Degree Murder, as charged in the

indictment.

A majority of the jury did not recommend mercy.

The defendant was sentenced as followed:

Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

Richardson, J. 3

Florida Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

Petition tiled.

FSC denied Richardson’s petition with leave to file a Motion to Vacate

Judgment and Sentence (3.850) in the State Circuit Court

Rehearing denied.

Case Information:

appeal, he argued that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion to suppress

evidence seized from his home. Richardson asserted that Sheriff Cline should have

,.-. informed him of his constitutional rights prior to conducting a search of his home. The

Florida Supreme Court responded, "The initial searches of the premises were made for

the purpose of aiding doctors to save the children’s lives and before the defendant

became a suspect. Furthermore, the initial searches were made with the defendant’s

consent and subsequent searches with a search warrant." Richardson further contended

that the trial court erred in allowing several persons testify as to their recollection of

Emell Washington’s testimony at the preliminary hearing. In their opinion, the Florida

Supreme Court cited the "former testimony" exception to the hearsay rule, which allows

a third party to relay witness testimony given under oath in any proceeding where the

defendant was represented by counsel and had the opportunity to confront the witness.

The Florida Supreme Court also noted that Emell Washington’s testimony that

Richardson confessed to killing his children was further supported by the testimony of

several other inmates at the Arcadia jail. The Florida Supreme Court found no merit in

Richardson’s appeal, and as such, they affirmed the conviction and sentence of death on

04/21/71.

Richardson’s death sentence was converted to life imprisonment without the possibility

of parole for 25 years, as dictated by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in

Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238,92 S. Ct. 2726,33L. Ed. 2d 346 (1972)).

,/---

Twenty years after his original conviction, Richardson filed a petition for Writ of Error

Coram Nobis in the Florida Supreme Court. In that petition, Richardson alleged newly

discovered evidence including perjury, evidence suppression and witness recantation. In

Richardson, J. 4

.a---- traditionally apply to the appellate court with leave to petition the trial court for a Writ of

Error Coram Nobis. However, the establishment of Criminal Rule of Procedure 3.850

replaced the need to petition the appellate court for Writ of Error Coram Nobis,

streamlining the process by allowing an appellant to file a 3.850 Motion directly in the

Richardson’s Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis with leave to file a 3.850 Motion in

the State Circuit Court.

While Richardson’s Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis was pending in the Florida

Supreme Court, Richardson filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence (3.850) in

the State Circuit Court. The Attorney General filed a motion requesting the Supreme

Court to relinquish jurisdiction to the Twelfth Judicial Circuit. The Florida Supreme

Court denied the motion, but instructed the State Circuit Court to hear the 3.850 Motion.

and granted Richardson a new trial.

Law Enforcement/ Prosecution Statements:

,-

Assistant State Attorney Don Horn issued the following statement regarding the

disposition of the Richardson case:

My comments are numerous, but I will try to restrict them to three (3)

issues:

1) Errors and Inappropriate Conduct by the State

Attorney’s Office;

2) Insufficient Investigation by the Sheriffs Office; and

3) Inexperience of the Defense Attorney

My six (6) month review of the case led me to the unenviable conclusion

that a great travesty of justice occurred and the blame must primarily be

laid at the feet of the State Attorney’s Office and the Sheriffs Office

which prosecuted and investigated this matter. I am listing the

information here based on my recollection of the investigation we did with

FDLE in 1989.

Errors and Inappropriate Conduct by the SAO -

A. Richardson’s trial attorney filed a motion with the trial court judge

requesting copies of statements of the State’s many witnesses. The Court

granted the motion and ordered the State to turn over the information. The

State never provided that information to Richardson’s attorney, even

though most of it constituted Brady material. The importance of this is

inmates who claimed that Richardson admitted to killing his children",

and also specifically refers to Emell Washington and his testimony. Many

of these witnesses gave several statements. In addition to claiming that

Richardson admitted the killing, each witness also claimed that

Richardson felt he knew who poisoned his kids (the babysitter, Betsy

Reese), and that Richardson gave a very detailed explanation of a motive

for Reese to do so. As to Emell Washington, in one portion of his

transcribed statement, (if my recollection is correct) both of Richardson’s

alleged claims are on the same typed page. Contrary to the express order

of the trial court judge, these statements were never provided to

Richardson’s attorney. Interestingly, the Florida Supreme Court, in

addressing the "former testimony" exception to the hearsay rule as it

related to the third party witnesses who testified about their recollection of

Emell Washington’s testimony, specifically noted the Washington’s

testimony (of Richardson’s admission) was further supported by the

testimony of several other inmates. I cannot help but wonder whether the

Florida Supreme Court would have reached a different conclusion had it

1) been informed of the existence and full contents of the other statements;

2) been fully aware that the State failed to turn over Brady material

pursuant to a court order; and 3) been aware of the fact that the State

Attorneys Office failed to even disclose to defense counsel the existence

of testimony in the State’s file which tended to exonerate the defendant.

Nevertheless, the State presented the testimony of the jailhouse informants

knowing it had information in its files, which directly contradicted that

evidence.

B. Although not required to prove "motive" at the trial, the State

argued that Richardson poisoned his seven kids to get the insurance

money from insurance policies he had acquired the night before their

deaths. What is the problem with this argument? The State had in its files

numerous statements of Gerald Purvis, the insurance agent, who

repeatedly and consistently stated under oath that 1) Richardson did not

acquire insurance that night; 2) Purvis told Richardson that the insurance

would not be effective until the premiums were paid; 3) Richardson would -

not be able to pay him until he got paid (several days later); and 4)

Richardson knew when Purvis left that night that the children were not

insured. These statements were not provided to Richardson’s trial

attorney, allowing the State to make an argument to the jury, which was

directly contradicted by evidence in its files.

C. The State argued its theory of the case knowing that the physical

evidence directly contradicted it. Everyone agrees that breakfast was

prepared that morning for the children, that Richardson and his wife left to

go to work before the children got up, that the children ate breakfast that

morning and that the Richardsons did not return to the house until after

Richardson, J. 6

di.d not have their own transportation). The physical evidence revealed

that parathion poisoning was located on the plates, which the kids used to

eat breakfast and in the grits pot from which the breakfast was served.

Yet, not one of the children got sick until after they ate lunch. Parathion

poisoning was also discovered on plates, which the children used to eat

ltmch, and in the pots from which the lunch was served. Moreover,

parathion poisoning was found in detergent and other items in and around

the kitchen and in the locked refrigerator (there was testimony that

indicated there was a second key to the refrigerator which was kept

somewhere in the kitchen), which may have indicated a desire that

everyone in the house would at some point ingest the poison. If the

children all ate breakfast and the poison was present when they ate, they

would have gotten sick long before their noon lunchtime. They didn’t.

Mr. Treadwell was the Assistant State Attorney who prosecuted this case

with Frank Schaub, the State Attorney. I took a sworn statement from Mr.

Treadwell during the course of our investigation. When I questioned Mr.

Treadwell on this issue, his response was "that has always bothered me".

In. other words, to him the physical evidence clearly demonstrated that in

all probability, the poison was placed in all these locations after

Richardson left the house, and there is no evidence (or assertion from the

State) that Richardson retuned to the house before the authorities

contacted him. The State argued a theory that was directly contradicted by

the evidence contained in its files and presented such a theory when one of

the ASAs prosecuting the case had specific concerns about the

inconsistency between the physical evidence and their theory of the case.

Mr. Treadwell opined that someone may have assisted Richardson and

therefore, Richardson would have been guilty as a principal. Of course no

such argument was ever made, nor was there any evidence in the State’s

file supporting that argument or indicating that any investigation was ever

pursued for such a theory.

the fact that on the day in question:

1. Betsy Reese warmed the food and served lunch to all of the

Richardson children;

2. Betsy Reese was the last person to come into contact with the children

before they started exhibiting signs of having been poisoned;

3. Betsy Reese had access to the Richardson’s residence because she

Richardson, J. 7

4. Betsy Reese had already been convicted and served time for

murdering a former husband due to jealousy;

5. It was widely known (by the Sheriffs office and others) that Betsy

Reese was suspected of killing a second husband (via poisoning);

6. Betsy Reese was upset with Mr. Richardson because Richardson’s

wife had a sister who visited them in Arcadia. When Richardson’s sister-

in-law left to return to Jacksonville, Florida, Betsy Reese’s third husband

accompanied them. That husband never returned to Arcadia;

7. After her husband failed to return, Betsy Reese became upset with

Ri.chardson and his wife and although she lived in the same structure,

shared a common porch and lived right next door, she stopped visiting the

Ri chardsons;

8. Betsy Reese had just started visiting the Richardsons a few days

before the deaths of the seven (7) children;

9. Richardson explained this theory in detail to the Sheriff and also to

the jailhouse informants; and

10. The Sheriff conducted at least 3 searches of Richardson’s residence,

the areas around and under Richardson’s residence and a shed a short

distance away. Nevertheless, the morning after those searches Betsy

Reese went directly to the shed with the "town drunk" and "found" the

poison. The second remarkable statement from the Sheriff was, He didn’t

see anything unusual about this discovery by Betsy Reese.

B. Notwithstanding the above, and more importantly, while everyone

was trying to find the source of the poisoning and all the searches were

being conducted in , around, under and down the path from Richardson’s

residence, the only area that was not searched was Betsy Reese’s -

residence. The Sheriff knew that some of the younger children had

actually been in Reese’s residence that day during the morning hours and

before she fixed their lunch. The Sheriff had no explanation of why such

a search was not conducted other than his assertion that she was not a

suspect.

C. The Sheriff assisted in the taking of statements from Richardson

and the jailhouse informants and knew of the Brady material contained in

those statements. The Sheriff also assisted in the taking of statements

from the insurance agent Gerald Purvis. Notwithstanding his full

knowledge of those statements he testified contrary to this evidence that

was also contained in the State Attorney’s file. This false testimony was

never brought to the attention of the trial court judge (by the State).

Inexperience of the Defense Attorney -

One of the other things that I feel contributed to this travesty was the

defense attorney’s lack of experience in handling criminal cases of this

Richardson, J. 8

playing field might have been leveled if the State Attorney had performed

his duty and obligation as prosecutor. The State’s failure to do so caused

the trial to be nothing more than a farce, with the State presenting

arguments, theories and testimony, which it knew was directly

contradicted by evidence in its file and which was not known to the

defense attorney or the Court. Had someone not broken into the office of

the former Assistant State Attorney, stolen the files and forwarded them to

the Governor’s Office, Mr. Richardson might still be sitting in prison and

the egregious nature of the State’s (and Sheriffs) actions in this case

might never have been uncovered. In my argument to Judge Clifton Kelly

at the hearing on the 3.850 motion, I informed the Court that contrary to

the arguments and assertions by other attorneys who spoke during the

hearing, my statements and assertion were going to be backed up by

documents. Unfortunately, the evidence that led Judge Kelly to release

Mr. Richardson at the conclusion of the hearing and the overwhelming

majority of documents that supported our claim that Richardson had not

gotten a fair trial were still in the State Attorney’s file twenty-one years

later.

Defense Statements:

’

Letters requesting comments were sent to Defense Attorneys Peter M. De Manio and

Defense Attorney Mark Lane provided the following statement on the Richardson case:

I thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the historical record

regarding the State of Florida v James Joseph Richardson.

First allow me to advise you regarding statements contained in the

present account of the matter.

John Spencer Robinson is deceased.

Mr. Richardson is residing in Kansas and is gainfully employed. He

has thus far battled against severe physical problems that were created or

contributed to by his treatment by the State of Florida. During his years of

residence and work in Kansas he has been a model citizen.

No one broke into the office of the former Assistant State Attorney,

stole the tiles and forwarded them to the Governor’s office. Mr. Horn’s

assertions are in error. Below, you will find an accurate account of those

matters.

The refusal of Mr. Horn to acknowledge the central and crucial role of

Richardson, J. 9

assigned to investigate the case and who was assisted by two subordinates,

one of whom was Mr. Horn, raises questions. Indeed his refusal to even

mention her name gives the impression that truth has surrendered to

transitory politics. Mr. Horn states that he addressed the Court and takes

credit for being the only attorney whose statements were supported by

documents. In fact, the only attorney who spoke on behalf of the State of

Florida, who did so at length and who presented the conclusion that the

State had committed error was Janet Reno. Mr. Horn did make a few brief

comments.

Similarly, the refusal of Mr. Horn to mention, with the exception of a

passing reference, the name of the State Attorney Frank Schaub, who

shared with Sheriff Frank Cline, the responsibility for deliberately framing

a man they both had reason to believe was innocent, causes concern to any

person seeking to understand the record.

It is in this context of shifting blame and credit rather recklessly that

one must examine Mr. Horn’s assertion that the defense lawyer, Mr.

Robinson, who served without fee, who did his best under the extreme

circumstances that existed in Arcadia at that time, is also to blame for the

travesty of justice. Indeed, State Attorney Reno, in her official report,

revealed that she was considering action against Mr. Schaub but that likely

it was time barred. The monumental and unforgivable violation of the

rights of a resident of the State of Florida by its officers who were sworn

to uphold the law cannot be fairly revised for reasons of political

expediency.

After Mr. Richardson was convicted, sentenced to death and was

confined to death row at the State Prison in Raiford, Florida, I met his

attorney, John S. Robinson and subsequently visited Mr. Richardson in

prison.

I began my own investigation that continued for more than one year. I

interviewed all of the relevant witnesses who could be located including

the woman who had poisoned the seven children, the witness who later

located the poison in a shed, the insurance salesman, jurors who had

served at the trial and others. I interviewed the Chief of Police of Arcadia,

Richard Barnard, who from the outset believed that Mr. Richardson was

innocent and believed that Sheriff Cline and Frank Schaub were engaged

in serious misconduct. He was removed from the case.

Based upon my experience as a trial lawyer [at present I have been a

trial lawyer for more than half a century] and the information I had

secured from forensic experts regarding the relevant properties of the

poison, I concluded that Mr. Richardson was innocent. I wrote a book,

Richardson, J. 10

Richardson’s life.

That book was read by a young woman who was then, ten years after

the trial, employed by the Assistant State Attorney in Arcadia. She told

her employer, Mr. Treadwell, that she had read the book. Mr. Treadwell,

who had played a minor role as Mr. Schaub’s assistant during the trial,

then stated -- "We framed an innocent man. We almost killed an innocent

man." Later the young woman repeated that confession to a friend of hers.

He was outraged, asked her for the key to the office and then visited the

office and took the file with him when he left. The file was maintained in

his constructive possession for a decade.

Subsequently, my wife, Patricia and I organized an "End The Silence "

meeting in an old school house, the building where the older Richardson

children had attended and died. Hundreds of people attended, none more

important than the gentleman who had taken the file. In the presence of a

Deputy Sheriff, Cline had since been defeated, he revealed the facts that

resulted in his possession of the State Attorney’s tile. Soon the file was

delivered to me.

The file was nothing less than the anatomy of a frame-up. Before the

Sunshine Laws and the Freedom of Information Act as Amended,

prosecutors and law enforcement officers thought nothing of having the

proof of their misconduct set forth on the record, secure in their belief that

no outside person would ever have access to it.

I took the file to the general counsel of the Governor of the State of

Florida with a letter setting forth the relevant facts and demanding that a

special prosecutor be appointed. I also contacted my two close friends,

Dick Gregory and Steve Jaffe, and together we launched a media

campaign. In a short time more than eleven thousand letters from all over

the country reached the governor. Newsweek reported that the case began

as a tragedy and ended as a travesty. Demands from all over the country

with network television programs giving the name and address of the

Florida Governor, front page headlines in newspapers throughout the state,

all coordinated by Dick Gregory and Mr. Jaffe, resulted in many

thousands of additional letters to the governor supporting our demand for

the appointment of a special counsel.

The governor appointed Janet Reno as the special counsel with the

authority to speak for the State of Florida. At a hearing in Florida I stated

that the state had secured its conviction by suborning perjury, using

perjured testimony and suppressing exculpatory evidence. The nation

waited for Ms. Reno’s response. The arguments were carried live via

television across America. She said that Mr. Lane had made the most

Richardson, J. 11

unfortunately those charges were true. She confessed error on behalf of

the State and joined in my request that the conviction be set aside.

After a long recess, somewhat inexplicable since both sides to the

controversy were in agreement that the verdict should be reversed causing

one wit to suggest that he had heard of a hung jury but not a hung judge,

the judge set aside the conviction and James Richardson and I walked out

of the Arcadia jail together.

To the scores of reporters, photographers and television cameras James

spoke briefly. He said:

"TO the people of Arcadia I thank you. You knew I was innocent and

you came together, black and white, all together, to free me. There are still

problems here in Arcadia. Stay together. Help each other."

Current Status:

There was no available information regarding Richardson’s arrest history subsequent to

release.

05/03/02 -- approved - ws

SCOTT, Bradley (W/M)

DC # 057405

DOB: 01/18/51

Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Charlotte County, Case # 86-195 CF A

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable William C. McIver

Attorneys, Criminal Trial: Leonard M. Johnson, Esq.

Mark Cooper - Assistant Public Defender

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Dennis J. Rehak, Esq.

Date of Offense: 10/12/78

Date of Sentence: 02/08/88

Circumstances of Offense:

Bradley Scott was convicted and sentenced to death for the 10/12/78 murder of 12-year-

On the afternoon of 1 O/l 2/78, Linda Pikuritz left her home in Charlotte County on her

bicycle. Witnesses testified they saw her riding around the neighborhood and in the

vicinity of the local "Lil’ General" convenience store. When Linda did not return home

by 9:00 p.m. that evening, her sister, Deborah Bianchi, filed a missing persons report

with the Charlotte County Sheriffs Department. At 1l:OO p.m., authorities received a

report of a brush fire approximately three miles from the convenience store where Linda

was last seen. The body of a young female was discovered at the scene of the blaze and,

upon forensic examination, was determined to be that of Linda Pikuritz. An autopsy

revealed that a flammable substance had been poured over Linda’s body and that she had

been set afire while still alive. Smoke inhalation was the cause of death, and Linda was

reportedly unconscious at the time of death. There was no evidence of sexual assault or

any other injuries not consistent with the fire. Several of Linda’s personal items were

found at the scene, including one tennis shoe, a pair of underpants, a package of bubble

gum and a broken shell necklace. The day following her murder, Linda’s bicycle was

found stashed in the brush just off the road from the "Lil’ General" convenience store.

The investigation into the murder of Linda Pikuritz quickly focused on Bradley Scott as

the primary suspect; however, he was able to produce an alibi that included details of his

whereabouts on the night of 10/12/78. Scott claimed that, on the evening in question, he

and his girlfriend had gone to the Sarasota Mall and purchased a suede jacket from

Foxmoor Casuals. Scott was, however, indicted for murder in 1986, seven years and

Scott, B. 2

The State based its entire case against Scott on circumstantial evidence. Scott was

reportedly seen talking to Linda from his car near the convenience store and again later in

the parking lot of the convenience store. Their conversation appeared to be friendly and

non-threatening. A classmate of Linda Pikuritz testified that she and Linda had met Scott

at that convenience store many times prior to the murder. This classmate reported that

Scott would occasionally buy the girls beer and smoke marijuana with them. Another

friend of Linda Pikuritz confirmed that the girls flirted with other older men who bought

them beer. Another witness reportedly saw two people, who matched the descriptions of

Linda and Scott, talking to one another close to the location where Linda’s bicycle was

found the day after her murder.

Additionally, Scott’s employer and his employer’s wife recalled statements that Scott

made the day after Linda’s murder. When telephoning about his paycheck, Scott

reportedly asked his employer’s wife if she had "heard about the little girl that had been

murdered by [her] house." She asked Scott where he had gotten said information, and

Scott replied that he had been stopped by a police roadblock the night before. At trial, it

was revealed that Scott had actually had the aforementioned conversation with his

employer’s neighbor and that she had, in turn, relayed the information to Scott’s

employer’s wife. There was additional controversy over whether Scott had driven his

employer and a co-worker to the site where he claimed he was stopped by a police

roadblock. The State provided evidence that there was no such roadblock at the location

identified by Scott’s employer, and that Scott had, in fact, lied about how he found out

about the murder. Seven years after the murder, Scott’s employer could not remember

whether Scott had taken him to the site of the roadblock. Further examination of Scott’s

employer’s testimony revealed several inconsistencies between what he said at trial and

his earlier statements.

Regarding the physical evidence, the State presented hair samples that had been forcibly

removed and a seashell, which were found in Scott’s car approximately one year after

Linda Pikuritz’s murder. Investigators recovered Scott’s car from a used car dealership,

where it had been sitting for four months since Scott sold it to them. Investigators

retrieved the aforementioned hair samples by vacuuming Scott’s car; however, no hair

samples had been taken from the victim for comparison. Five years after her murder,

investigators were able to obtain two hair samples from a wool ski cap that belonged to

Linda Pikuritz. At trial, one expert opined that the hairs obtained from Scott’s car were

indistinguishable from the hairs taken from the ski cap, matching in all characteristics to

Linda Pikuritz’s. Another expert countered that positive hair identification was

impossible and that an ideal comparison amount was between 15 and 20 hairs, not the

two hairs used in the instant case. A small seashell was also found in Scott’s car. Linda

Pikuritz was wearing a shell necklace on the night of her murder, which was found

broken at the scene. The State sought to prove the shell from Scott’s car was from

Linda’s broken necklace; however, Scott’s mother testified that she had used Scott’s car

many times to transport shells and, on occasion, some of the shells spilled or toppled over

Scott, B. 3

At the conclusion of the guilt phase of the trial, Scott moved for an acquittal based on the

circumstantialities of the evidence, arguing that the State had not proven their case

beyond a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Scott was convicted of the First-Degree

Murder of Linda Pikuritz and sentenced to death.

3912611968 Hillsborough County I. Burglary Dismissed

II. Petit Larceny

III. Vehicle Theft

3411 l/1970 Hillsborough County I. Possession of Stolen Property Dismissed

34/14/1970 Vero Beach I. Vehicle Theft 6 Months in Co. Jail

37/20/197 1 Indian River I. Probation Violation Convicted

17/07/1975 Hillsborough County I. Aggravated Assault Disposition Unknown

II. Aggravated Assault

)1/15/1976 Pasco County I. Damage Property Disposition Unknown

II. Trespassing After Warning

)1/30/1976 Hillsborough County I. Delivery of Barbiturates 18 Months

II. Violation of Drug Abuse Law

III. Receiving Stolen Property

12/22/1978 Desoto County I. Aggravated Assault 1 Year

II. Strong Arm Rape

)3/06/l 982 Lake Worth I. Petit Theft 6 Months Probation

13/16/1982 Palm Beach County I. DUI Dismissed

)3/05/1983 Palm Beach County I. DUI Probation

Scott, B. 4

Trial Summary:

05129186

06/09/86

03/l 6187

06/30/87

01/28/88

01129188 Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by an 8 to 4 majority, voted for the

death penalty.

02/08/8 8 The defendant was sentenced as followed:

05/30/91

Defendant arrested.

Defendant indicted on the following:

Count I: First-Degree Murder

Motion for change of venue.

Motion for change of venue denied.

The defendant was found guilty of First-Degree Murder, as charged in the

indictment.

Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death

Upon Direct Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction,

vacated the death sentence, and remanded with instructions for the trial

court to enter an order of acquittal on the grounds of a violation of due

process.

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC # 72,091

581 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1991)

03114188 Appeal filed.

05/30/91 FSC reversed the convictions and vacated the death sentence, with

instructions to the trial court to enter an order of acquittal.

0712619 1 Rehearing denied.

Case Information:

Scott filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court on 03/14/88. Scott raised seven

issues on appeal; however, the Florida Supreme Court focused its discussion on the

effects that the seven-year, seven-month indictment delay had on Scott’s due process

rights and the circumstantial evidence upon which Scott’s conviction was based. Rogers

vs. State (5 11 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1987)) dictated:

When a defendant asserts a due process violation based on pre-indictment delay,

he bears the initial burden of showing actual prejudice . . . . If the defendant

meets this initial burden, the court must then balance the demonstrable reasons for

delay against the gravity of the particular prejudice on a case-by-case basis. The

outcome turns on whether the delay violates the fundamental conception of

justice, decency, and fair play embodied in the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth

Scott, B. 5

In attempting to show the prejudice that the seven-year delay caused, Scott pointed out

that the evidence that could have verified his alibi was lost or no longer available. Scott’s

argument focused on his claim that he and his girlfriend had gone to the Sarasota Mall

and purchased a suede jacket from Foxmoor Casuals. Specifically, Scott claimed that the

sales receipts from Foxmoor Casuals could have proven the purchase of the leather jacket

and that the work: schedule of Sambo’s Restaurant could have proven that his girlfriend

had the night off from work. By the time of the trial, all such records were lost or

unavailable. Other investigative police reports concerning the alibi were also missing.

The initial investigating officers did, however, testify that the alibi had checked out in

1978-79 and the State Attorney’s Office refused to indict at that time because of the alibi.

Scott also claimed that he was denied the chance to present evidence that Phillip Drake,

another police suspect and marijuana dealer to the victim, could have killed Linda

Pikuritz. Two witnesses who could have placed Phillip Drake’s car in close proximity to

the murder scene died prior to Scott’s indictment.

Scott also raised many questions regarding the reliability of the hair analysis. He pointed

out that there was a five-year delay in obtaining a hair sample from the victim, and even

when a hair sample became available, it was much less than the ideal sample amount.

In examining Scott’s claims, the Florida Supreme Court opined:

. . .that the seven-year delay, seven month delay in the prosecution of this cause

[violated] the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and that the state

[was not] able to show that the circumstantial evidence in this cause [was] not

only consistent with the defendant guilt but also inconsistent with any reasonable

hypothesis of innocence.

The Florida Supreme Court reversed Scott’s convictions, vacated his death sentence and

remanded with instructions to the trial court to enter an order of acquittal.

Law Enforcement/ Prosecution Statements:

A letter requesting comment was sent to the Charlotte County Sheriffs Department on

Scott, B. 6

Assistant State Attorney Dean Plattner of the 20th Circuit issued the following statement

regarding the Scott case:

Mr. Scott was prosecuted because we felt that the evidence proved his

guilt. Despite the very high burden involved in proving guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt, a jury of 12 citizens believed we had met our burden

and convicted him. The same jury recommended the death penalty. A

trial judge heard the evidence and also felt it was legally sufficient to

support the conviction, and the judge also accepted the jury

recommendation and imposed the death penalty.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction based on a legal issue (pre-

indictment delay), and their view that the circumstantial evidence did not

support the conviction (appeals courts do not usually re-weigh the

evidence like this, as that’s normally the province of the jury, but they did

so in this case). The court obviously has the power and authority to make

this ruling, but we respectfully disagree with the reasoning. No one else

has been prosecuted for this murder, nor really any evidence developed

pointing to anyone else. We still believe the correct person was

prosecuted, but obviously accept and abide by the court’s ruling.

Defense Statements:

A letter requesting comment was sent to defense attorney Dermis Rehak, Esq. on

05/06/02. No response has been received to date.

Defense Attorney Leonard Johnson was contacted on 05/l 3/02 and is preparing a

comment on the case.

Current Status:

According to NCIC, Bradley Scott has had no arrests subsequent to release.

030 3102 - approved - ws

SMITH, Frank Lee (B/M)

DC# 016296

DOB: 07/20/47

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Case # 85-4654CF

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Robert W. Tyson, Jr.

Trial Attorney: Andrew D. Washor, Special Public Defender

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Michael Gelety, Esq.

Attorneys, Collateral Appeals: Thomas Dunn, Leslie Delk, CCR

Martin McClain, CCRC

Brett Strand, CCRC

Date of Offense: 04/14/85

Date of Sentence: 05/02/86

Circumstances of the Offense:

According to information located in the defendant’s court tile and the pre-sentence

investigation, the circumstances of the offense were as follows:

On Sunday, April 14, 1985, at approximately 11:55 p.m., the Broward County Sheriffs

Office responded to the victim’s home in reference to a burglary with an assault. Upon

arrival, detectives discovered Shandra Whitehead, an eight-year-old black female, who

had been beaten and strangled around the neck with her pajamas. The victim was

transported to the hospital where it was discovered that she had been sexually assaulted,

with evidence of both vaginal and anal penetration. The examination revealed numerous

lacerations from a blunt instrument to the face, head and temples. The victim

subsequently died nine days later on April 23, 1985, as a result of her injuries.

The victim’s mother, Dorothy McGriff, stated that, at the time of the offense, she had left

her two children home alone while she worked the late shift as a nurse. She had requested

that her sister check in with the children periodically. When Ms. McGriff returned home

that evening, at approximately 11:55 p.m., she observed a black male exiting her

residence through a side window. Ms. McGriff stated that the suspect began to run when

she shined her headlights on him and blew her horn. She then picked up a rake in an

attempt to chase him off of her property. When she entered her residence, she discovered

her son asleep in one room, and her daughter Shandra, nude from the waist down,

unconscious and beaten. Ms. McGriff discovered that her television had been removed

from its usual place and was sitting on her bed next to the open window. A bloody rock

Smith, F. 2

At the time of the initial report, Dorothy McGriff provided a description of the suspect.

During a canvass of the area, investigators made contact with Ms. Chiquita Lowe and Mr.

Gerald Davis, both of whom would later become witnesses for the prosecution. Ms. Lowe

related that she had been in the area near the victim’s home when a black man

approached her and attempted to solicit money. She related that the suspect was acting in

a bizarre manner. Mr. Davis informed investigators that, prior to the approximate time of

the crime, he observed a black male in the area. He claimed the suspect approached him

and made homosexual advances toward him. Mr. Davis also described the man’s

behavior as odd.

On April 18, 1985, Ms. Lowe called the Broward County Sheriffs office. She reported

that she and her uncle, Jack Lampley, had just seen the subject in question outside of her

home, attempting to sell a stolen television set. Police responded to the area, where they

observed a black male fitting the description with a large object concealed underneath his

shirt. The suspect, Mr. Frank Lee Smith, was ordered to the ground at gunpoint and

subsequently searched. Police discovered a knife, with a seven-inch blade, hidden under

his clothing. The subject was placed under arrest for Carrying a Concealed Weapon.

,,----.

At the time of the subject’s arrest, he denied his involvement in the crime and provided

investigators with an alibi for his location at the time of the offense. When law

enforcement attempted to verify his statement, they questioned the relatives that Smith

had provided as alibi witnesses. Law enforcement officials claimed that his relatives’

statements did not match Smith’s The detectives, in an attempt to solicit information

from Smith, falsely told Smith that the victim’s brother had witnessed the crime. The

subject reportedly replied, "No way could that kid have seen me, it was too dark."

The witnesses, Ms. Chiquita Lowe and Mr. Gerald Davis, selected Smith’s photo from a

photographic lineup provided by investigators as the man they saw the night of the

offense. On 4/l 9/85, based on the positive identification provided by the witnesses, Frank

Lee Smith was charged with Sexual Battery on a Minor, Criminal Attempted Murder, and

Burglary with an Assault. When the victim died, Smith was subsequently charged with

First-Degree Murder.

Juvenile Record:

09/30/60 Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Circumstances of Offense:

Manslaughter 1 O/05/60 Declared Delinquent

Committed to State

School for Boys.

Released 08/6 1

On 09/30/60, at the age of 13, the subject was arrested and turned over to the Juvenile

Authorities. On the evening of 09/30/60, the subject and two friends, John Linder and

/4

Smith, F. 3

walking home and passed the victim, John Wesley Span. The subject decided to call his

grandmother but didn’t have any money, so he approached Span and asked for a dime.

Span stated that he didn’t have any money. Smith replied, " I know you got some

money."

Span walked away; however, Smith continued to follow him. Span then turned around

and began to hit the subject with his fists. Smith retreated and walked over to his two

friends and stated, "I’m going to kill him." Linder then gave a pocketknife to the

defendant. Smith told his friends that he was going to kill Span. He then walked towards

the basketball court where he saw Span standing alone. The subject then ran up behind

Span and stabbed him in the back. Span was pronounced dead on arrival at Providence

hospital.

10/04/61 Ft. Lauderdale, FL Breaking and Entering Withheld Adjudication

11 days Junior Hall

12/09/63 Ft. Lauderdale, FL Breaking and Entering Declared incorrigible and

committed to State School

for Boys. Released 1 O/l 3/64

Circumstances of Offense:

’ /1 At the age of 16, Smith was arrested for numerous Breaking and Entering cases that

occurred in Ft. Lauderdale, between 09/19/63 and 1 l/20/63. Smith admitted to 11

burglary cases and the theft of numerous items. He was committed to the School for

Boys, and while there obtained a poor disciplinary record, which included: fighting, a

disrespectful attitude, unkempt room and using obscene language.

Adult Record:

01/l l/66 Ft. Lauderdale, FL First-Degree Murder 03/17/66 Life,

Florida State Prison

Circumstances of Offense

On December 6, 1965, the victim, Herbert Dewitt of Ft. Lauderdale, received a

$1,200.00 settlement from the Florida Industrial Commission for an injury that he had

obtained at work. The victim had spent the day in Boca Raton spending money and

telling everyone of his large settlement. The following evening, the victim returned to

Boca Raton and, on his way home to Ft. Lauderdale, he stopped in at the High Fi bar,

where he met codefendant Betty Jean Walker. Ms. Walker told the victim to meet her at

7:00 p,m. and claimed that she was going to go get some friends and intimated that she

would have sex with him.

Ms. Walker went to her friend’s home and told them of the man she had met and the

reported large amount of money that he was in possession of. Ms. Walker and Willie

Smith, F. 4

brother), and Johnny Edward Walker conspired to go with Ms. Walker to her meeting

with the victim and then rob him and flee.

They met the victim, and Ms. Walker drove the victim’s rental car with the victim sitting

with her in the front seat and the defendant and Willie Walker sitting in the back seat.

Ms. Walker, making the excuse that she had to go to the bathroom, pulled the car over to

the east side of the highway. At this time, the defendant, Frank Smith, counted "one, two,

three" and began shooting a .38 and a .22 caliber revolver. Willie Walker also shot a

.38 caliber revolver. Smith and Walker shot into the back of the victim in the front seat.

They took the body and laid it on the floorboard of the car. The victim then moaned, and

Willie Walker then made the statement, "The sucker ain’t dead yet. Let’s shoot him in the

heart this time." Walker and the defendant then shot the victim three more times in the

back to ensure that he was dead. They removed money from the victim’s wallet, which

amounted to less than $200.00. They met up with the other suspects, operating the other

car, and divided up the money.

The defendant and codefendants drove to New York and en-route dumped the body of the

victim along the highway in Lumberton, North Carolina. They kept the victim’s rental car

for the remainder of the trip and eventually abandoned it in Ft. Lauderdale upon their

return.

Two police informants met with detectives and named the defendant, Betty Walker and

Willie Walker, as the suspects in the murder. On 01/l l/66, Smith and his two

codefendants were arrested by the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department. Upon interrogation,

each of them gave written statements admitting to their part in the murder.

06109184 Ft. Lauderdale, FL Disorderly Conduct 06/10/84 One Day CTS

01/09/85 Ft. Lauderdale, FL I: Unlawful Consumption 06104185 Nolle Prossed

Of Alcohol, II: Loitering

Smith, F. 5

Trial Summary;

At the time of the defendant’s arrest for the 1985 murder of Shandra Whitehead, Smith

was on lifetime parole from a Life sentence for First-Degree Murder, Broward County

Case # 89-Sauls.The defendant was paroled on 04122181.

05109185

05/30/85

08124185

09104185

09/l l/85

1 l/18/85

0113 l/86

02105186

05102186

Defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury, Spring Term, Seventeenth

Judicial Circuit, Broward County Florida.

The Public Defender appointed to represent the defendant.

Court granted the Public Defender’s Motion to Withdraw.

Court appointed Special Public Defender Andrew Washor.

The defendant entered a plea of "Not Guilty."

Motion for Change of Venue denied.

The defendant was found guilty by the trial jury of all counts as charged.

Upon Advisory Sentencing, the trial jury, by a majority vote of 12-0,

recommended the death penalty.

The defendant was sentenced as follows:

Count I: First-Degree Murder- Death

Count II: Sexual Assault- Life, 25-year mandatory minimum

Count III: Burglary with an Assault- Life, consecutive to Count II

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC# 68,834

515 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1987)

05123186 Appeal tiled.

1 O/22/87 FSC affirmed the convictions and sentences.

12109187 Motion for rehearing denied.

01114188 Mandate issued.

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC# 87-6368

485 U.S. 971 (1988)

01127188

0312 l/88

Petition filed.

USSC denied petition.

State Circuit Court, 3.850 Motion

Circuit Court # 85-4654

1 l/17/89

12/l 3189

Motion filed.

Smith, F. 6

Florida Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC# 75,038

565 So. 2d 1293,1297 (Fla. 1990)

1 l/17/89 Petition tiled.

02/l 5190 FSC denied petition.

09/06/90 Rehearing denied.

Florida Supreme Court, Appeal of 3.850 Denial

FSC# 75,208

565 So. 2d. 1293,1297 (1990)

01/08/90

01/08/90

01/l 8190

02/l 5190

09/06/90

Appeal filed.

FSC granted a temporary Stay of Execution.

FSC granted a Stay of Execution.

FSC affirmed the Trial Court’s summary denial of motion; however,

remanded the case to the Trial Court for an evidentiary hearing regarding a

claim of newly discovered evidence.

Motion for rehearing denied.

State Circuit Court, On remand from Florida Supreme Court

Circuit Court Case # 85-4654

03/07/9 1 Evidentiary hearing held.

0610719 1 Motion denied.

Florida Supreme Court, Appeal of 3.850 denial

FSC# 78,199

708 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1998)

1 O/05/92

01122198

05108198

05108198

Appeal filed.

FSC reversed the Trial Court’s 3.850 denial.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Mandate issued.

State Circuit Court, On Remand

Circuit Court Case # 85-4654

09116198 Evidentiary hearing begins.

Smith, F. 7

Warrants

10/18/89 Death Warrant signed by Governor Bob Martinez.

01/18/90 Florida Supreme Court granted a Stay of Execution.

Clemency

09/14/88 Clemency Hearing held - denied.

Case History:

The FBI has recently determined, through an examination of case evidence utilizing

DNA analysis, that the defendant, Frank Lee Smith, did not commit the offenses of

conviction. While incarcerated, Mr. Smith died of cancer on January 30,200O. He

maintained his innocence from the time of his arrest in 1985 until his death.

In 1998, attorneys for Smith pressed for DNA testing of case evidence. DNA analysis had

been utilized in criminal cases since the early eighties; however, the procedure was not

technologically advanced. The failure to conduct these tests was not an argument at trial

or in Smith’s early appeals.

_-.

During the trial, Special Counsel Andrew Washor brought up the lack of physical

evidence obtained at the crime scene and the failure of the evidence to definitively link

Smith to the crime. DNA testing was a new, scientific procedure at this time and was not

readily available or readily used. At the time of sentencing, Mr. Washor filed a motion to

Inspect and Test Evidence and for the Appointment of an Expert Chemist and Costs for

the Purpose of Same. The motion claimed that the State’s chemist, Howard Seiden, found

intact spermatozoa in the vaginal smears taken from the victim. Mr. Seiden testified, in

depositions and at trial, that he could not pick up any blood group substance from the

evidence, meaning that defendant Smith could neither be eliminated nor pinned down as

the actual perpetrator. Mr. Washor requested that an independent chemist, with more

sophisticated equipment than that of Mr. Seidel, be appointed to test the evidence in

question. Judge Tyson denied this motion on 04104186.

Mr. Washor did bring up the lack of serological evidence; however, it was not the main

basis for Smith’s defense. He focused his defense of Smith on the State’s circumstantial

evidence, improper police techniques for soliciting suspect identification from witnesses,

and the lack of credible eyewitness testimony. There was no physical evidence to link

Smith to the crime. At the time of the trial, the State was not able to provide evidence

against Smith by providing any hair and fiber samples or fingerprints.

.-.

Mr. Washor focused on the mistaken identity of Smith and claimed that the only real

eyewitness to the crime was the mother of the victim, Dorothy McGriff. He claimed that,

since Ms. McGriff did not get a good look at the suspect, and that since she would have

Smith, F. 8

Washor requested a mistrial after Ms. McGriff s testimony because she became hysterical

and unresponsive, which he felt prejudiced the jury.

Mr. Washor also argued that there was improper police handling of the other two

witnesses for the State, Chiquita Lowe and Gerald Davis. Washor argued that Lowe and

Davis had different police sketch artists, but later switched and then collaborated on their

effort despite the fact they were not together at the time of identification. He also argued

that the witnesses were given a photo lineup and not a physical lineup. (On Davis’

insistence, however, he was allowed to view a physical lineup, at which time he

identified Smith.) Both witnesses claimed the suspect was over 6 ft. tall and weighed in

the 190’s. Frank Lee Smith was approximately 5’11 "and less than 170 Ibs.

Mr. Washor alleged throughout the trial that this was a case of mistaken identity. He

named alternative suspects, including Eddie Lee Mosely. The police listed Mr. Mosely as

a suspect during the investigation, and this information was provided to Mr. Washor by

the State. He discovered that Mosely had been arrested for numerous sex offenses and

murders in the neighborhood. Mr. Washor contended that the description of the suspect

by Ms. Lowe and Mr. Davis actually better described Mosely than his client Smith.

.Y--.

In subsequent appeals, Smith’s attorneys argued that the physical build, the erratic

behavior, the homosexual advances, the nature of the violent sexual assault, and the

method of selling stolen merchandise out of a shopping cart could all be attributed to the

known characteristics of Eddie Lee Mosely. Smith, although he had offenses of violence

in his past, did not have any prior arrests related to sexual crimes. Smith’s attorneys

claimed the witnesses were not offered the chance to view Mosely in the photo lineups.

Dorothy McGriff, who is Eddie Lee Mosely’s cousin, claimed it was not Mosely who she

witnessed at the window of her residence on the night of her daughter’s murder.

Additionally, Ms. McGriff identified Smith out of a photo lineup.

At trial, Chiquita Lowe’s uncle, Jack Lampley, testified at trial that the man he saw at

Lowe’s house trying to sell a stolen television had scars on his chest. In an effort to prove

that it was a case of mistaken identity, Smith’s attorney requested that Smith show his

chest to the jury. Smith complied; however, he did not show his entire chest. The

prosecutor requested that Smith show his entire chest to the jury. Smith removed the

previously covered portion of his shirt to reveal noticeable scars.

Prior to sentencing, Mr. Washor requested that a psychiatrist be appointed to evaluate

Smith. He was determined competent and the Court proceeded with sentencing. Mr.

Washor claimed that Smith was not competent and argued diminished capacity. Mr.

Washor did not feel that Smith would have ever made the confessional statement to

detectives claiming the victim’s brother could not have seen him because it was too dark.

He claimed that Smith was not mentally competent and was often incomprehensible.

:-

On Direct Appeal, Smith’s attorney argued one claim that the Trial Court erred by not

Smith, F. 9

crime scene. He was critical of the State’s lack of physical evidence linking Smith to the

crime scene.

This issue was brought up in the appeal, although it was not the main area of focus, and a

response to this claim was not mentioned in the Florida Supreme Court opinion. The

claims on appeal were as follows: (1) the State committed a discovery violation by

submitting additional witnesses on the day of trial, (2) there was prosecutorial

misconduct, in that a relative of Smith’s observed the prosecutor coaching a witness, (3)

the Trial Court erred by allowing the testimony of a Court witness on the request of the

State, who claimed that they could not vouch for his credibility, (4) the evidence was

circumstantial and insufficient to convict, (5) the Trial Court made a series of erroneous

rulings that cumulatively denied Smith a fair trial, (6) the Trial Court erred in departing

from sentencing guidelines for the offense of Burglary with. an Assault, (7) the Trial

Court erred in imposing the death penalty. After considering these claims, the Florida

Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences.

,f----.

Smith’s attorneys filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus in the Florida Supreme Court and a

3.850 Motion. The attorneys did argue ineffective assistance of counsel in the 3.850

Motion, claiming that that trial counsel erred by not consulting with serology experts to

establish evidence that would rule out Smith, and only moved for an expert chemist to

analyze the evidence post-trial. The Trial Court denied the motion and attorneys appealed

this denial to the Florida Supreme Court. The Supreme Court acknowledged this claim

but rejected it and others as procedurally barred, having already been raised on Direct

Appeal. The Florida Supreme Court denied the Petition for Habeas Corpus; however,

remanded the 3.850 denial to the Trial Court for an evidentiary hearing based on newly

discovered evidence. Chiquita Lowe, a witness for the State, recanted the testimony she

gave at trial and, in a sworn affidavit, admitted that she had identified the wrong man.

Ms. Lowe claimed the State pressured her to identify the defendant, Frank Lee Smith,

despite the fact she knew at trial that he was the wrong man. She claimed, after the trial,

she was shown a photograph of Eddie Lee Mosely by Smith’s attorneys and stated that he

was the suspect that she had observed the evening of the murder.

On remand the Trial Court held an evidentiary hearing, and denied relief. The Trial

Court’s denial was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. This appeal focused once

again on the mistaken identity claim and emphasized Chiquita Lowe’s recantation and

subsequent identification of Eddie Lee Mosely. Smith’s attorney’s also claimed that there

was ex-parte communication between the Trial Court Judge and the State during the

handling of the 3.850 Motion. The lack of DNA testing was not argued in this motion.

The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Trial Court’s denial of the 3.850 Motion and

remanded the case to the Trial Court based on improper ex- parte communication.

.Y--

The Trial Court, on remand, scheduled an evidentiary hearing for 09116198. On 09114198,

Smith’s attorney filed a motion for DNA testing. This was the first formal motion to be

filed requesting DNA testing during Smith’s collateral appeals. This issue was argued at

the evidentiary hearing. The State agreed to conducting a DNA test; however, requested

Smith, F. 10

procedurally barred in this case, they would agree based on the following conditions: the

results of the testing would be shared with all parties, testing would be conducted by

FDLE, and that the Court would defer ruling on the motion until the results of the DNA

tests were obtained.

Attorneys for Smith argued that the results of the test should be held confidential. The

Trial Court denied this motion and subsequently denied the 3.850 Motion on 02124199.

This was the last appeal heard in Smith’s case prior to his death on 01/30/00.

On 12/l l/00, the FBI informed the State that the DNA samples on the vaginal swabs of

the victim did not match Frank Lee Smith’s. The State subsequently filed a Motion to

Vacate and Set Aside Judgments and Sentences of Frank Lee Smith. The Trial Court on

12/22/00 granted the motion.

Law Enforcement/Prosecution Statements:

Captain Richard Scheff of the Broward County Sheriffs Office stated, "My opinion is

irrelevant because I have a conflict of interest, and it is inappropriate for me to comment.

In an abundance of caution I would defer to the opinion of others who do not have a

conflict."

.-. )

Carolyn V. McCann, Assistant State Attorney in Charge, 17th Judicial Circuit provided

the following written statement:

Initially I would like to say that there is no doubt that the system failed Frank Lee

Smith. Had DNA testing been in existence at the time of Shandra Whitehead’s

murder, Mr. Smith would have been excluded as the perpetrator and he would not

have been prosecuted for that 1985 crime. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith’s lawyers,

for reasons unknown, did not ask for DNA testing until September of 1998.

Therefore, while it is indisputable that Mr. Smith was prosecuted and incarcerated

for a crime he did not commit, we believe that the blame for this injustice can and

must be shared by all persons who were involved in Mr. Smith’s case, as

demonstrated by a factual history of this case which many have chosen to ignore.

To be specific, enclosed with this letter is a chronology, time line and record

excerpts from the legal proceedings in Mr. Smith’s case.] These are the same

documents prepared for the Florida Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee when

they investigated the circumstances of Mr. Smith’s conviction, incarceration, and

death in prison. The record in Mr. Smith’s case is a matter based upon facts and is

contained in these documents. I hope that you will take the considerable time to

peruse them yourself. These documents will tell you several things that others

have not. First, as previously mentioned in this letter, lawyers for Smith did not

’ Due to the large amount of case material provided, the documents made be reviewed at the office of the

Smith, F. 11

Evidentiary Hearing. It is well established that DNA evidence was recognized as

admissible evidence as early as 1988 in the case of Andrews v. State, 533 So.

2d.841 (Fla. gfh DCA 1988). The Supreme Court of Florida addressed the

admissibility of DNA evidence in the context of the timelines of requests for

DNA testing in the case of Ziegler v. State, 654 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1995). Thus,

DNA testing was available in 1989 when Mr. Smith filed his first motion for post-

conviction relief. Inexplicably, lawyers for Mr. Smith did not ask for DNA testing

then or in 1990,1991,1992,1993,1994,1995,1996, or 1997. Instead, they

waited until two days before a scheduled evidentiary hearing was to commence

and filed for DNA testing on September 14* 1998. It is crucial to note that at no

time prior to September 14, 1998, did defense attorneys ever ask for DNA testing

in Mr. Smith’s case. In fact, this was conceded by lawyers for Mr. Smith at the

1998 hearing on Mr. Smith’s motion for post conviction relief. Any claims that

original trial counsel Mr. Washor, pursued an independent chemist for blood

group typing should not and cannot be equated with a request for DNA testing.

Incidentally, the denial of Mr. Washor’s Motion to Inspect and Test Evidence and

for the Appointment of an Expert Chemist and costs for the purpose of same was

appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and was summarily disposed of. See,

Smith v. State, 515 So. 2d 182, 184 (Fla. 1987). The issue of group typing was

raised by the defense in a motion to post-conviction relief and denied. It was also

raised on appeal from that denial and rejected by the Florida. The fact that DNA

had not been done or requested was never an argument, major or otherwise, raised

by Mr. Smith’s trial or post-conviction lawyers until DNA was requested on

September 14, 1998. These facts clarify and correct what is currently in the case

history, tab 18, page 7, with regard to the defense’s total lack of request and lack

of argument concerning DNA testing prior to September 14, 1998.

The second thing that the documents will tell you is that when the State asked for

DNA testing at the 1998 hearing, the defense objected. Third, that the Judge who

presided over the post- conviction hearing in 1998 told Mr. Smith’s lawyers that

they could pursue an appeal of his ruling denying DNA testing, but they did not.

In fact, lawyers for Mr. Smith did not again bring up DNA testing to the State

until December of 1999, one month before Frank Lee Smith’s death.

Finally the State is compelled to point out that at Mr. Smith’s trial; Attorney

Andrew Washor argued that Eddie Lee Mosely, among others, could have been

responsible for the crimes charged. Eddie Lee Mosely was not the focus of the

defense but was one of several names suggested by Mr. Washor as being the

perpetrator. The case history at page 8 paragraphs 4 and 5 is a totally inaccurate

and misleading characterization of the argument presented by Mr. Washor.

Should you wish to read the voluminous transcript of Mr. Smith’s trial to verify

my statements in this letter, please let me know as I will send then to you. I am

Smith, F. 12

Lawrence Mirman, Attorney in Charge, Legal Affairs Division, 19’h Judicial Circuit,

conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Smith case2. Included

in Mr. Mirman’s report was his opinion of the most likely scenario of the crime:

Based upon my review of all the facts of this case, I believe that Chiquita Lowe

was telling the truth in 1991 and 1998 when she stated that the man she saw on

the street on the night of the murder was Eddie Lee Mosely, not Frank Lee Smith.

I believe that after Eddie Lee Mosely approached Gerald Davis and Chiquita

Lowe he then went into the McGriff home and raped and murdered Shandra

Whitehead. In light of the DNA evidence, this conclusion is virtually

inescapable. However, I also believe that after Mosely left the house, Dorothy

McGriff saw Frank Lee Smith (the "figure at the window" in [Smith’s] own

words) attempting to steal a television set from the McGriff home. Smith’s final

words prior to sentencing are haunting in this regard. He stated, "The point must

be established whether thisfigure was actually the$guve that raped and killed the

victim."

. . . The McGriff home was described as a "target of opportunity" for burglars like

Frank Lee Smith. Days after trying to steal a television, Smith was trying to sell a

"hot" television. Smith told (Detective) Scheff the house was dark which is

consistent with Smith’s presence at the window. It stands to reason that if Scheff

fabricated this admission, he would have fabricated a more incriminating

statement. Smith denied being at the house to his lawyers because he was on

parole for murder. He knew that if he admitted being at the window he would

have been sent back to prison despite his innocence of the rape and murder.

Mosely approached Davis, a.k.a. "Gigi," and asked him for sex. Part of Mosely’s

modus operandi was to approach persons (usually female prostitutes) and sexually

proposition them. Dorothy McGriff remains adamant that Frank Lee Smith was

the man she saw at her window. It is also important to note that, under this

scenario, though Smith would be guilty of burglarizing the McGriff home,

Shandra’s death did not occur as a consequence ofand while Smith was engaged

in the commission of Smith’s burglary. Consequently, he would not be criminally

responsible for her death. There is no evidence that Mosely and Smith acted in

concert.

Defense Statements:

Defense Attorney Andrew Washor was contacted for his comment on the case; however,

,-, * Pursuant to the request of Governor Bush (Executive order #Ol-24), the State Attorney’s Office for the

19’h Circuit conducted an investigation as to whether Detective Scheff committed perjury during the

Smith, F. 13

Alternate Prosecuted Suspect:

There has been DNA evidence linking the sexual assault of Shandra Whitehead to Eddie

Lee Mosely. Mosely has been determined mentally incompetent to proceed with other

pending charges and has not been charged in this case.

SPAZIANO, Joseph Robert (W/M)

DC # 049043

DOB: 09/l 2/45

Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Seminole County, Case # 75-430 CFA

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Robert B. McGregor

Resentencing I Judge: The Honorable Robert B. McGregor

Resentencing II Judge: The Honorable O.H. Eaton, Jr.

Attorney, Criminal Trial: Edward R. Kirkland, Esq.

Attorneys, Direct Appeal: Craig Barnard & Jerry Schwarz

Assistant Public Defenders

Attorneys, Resentencing I: Edward R. Kirkland, Esq.

Jerry Schwarz - Assistant Public Defender

Attorneys, Direct Appeal (RS): Craig Barnard & Jerry Schwarz

Assistant Public Defenders

Attorney, Resentencing II: James Russ, Esq.

..,--.. Date of Offense:

Date of Sentence:

Date of Resentencing I:

Date of Resentencing II:

08/06/73

07/l 6176

06/04/8 1

1 l/06/98

Circumstances of Offense:

On 08122173, Seminole County Sheriffs Office recovered a mutilated female body from

a local trash dump. The body had been partially hidden underneath leaves and debris.

When uncovered, investigators could see that both breasts had been cut off, the vagina

cut away, and several fingers and ribs had been removed. The body was identified

through dental records as Laura Lynn Harberts, a young woman who had been missing

since 08/05/73. Upon further investigation, another badly decomposed body was found

at the dumpsite that was never identified and as a result, no charges have been filed in

that case.

Upon investigation, it was discovered that on 08/05/73, Laura Lynn Harberts was

supposed to go on a date with a man named "Joe," but when she did not return from the

date, a missing persons report was filed.

It was not until 1975 that investigators indicted Joseph Robert Spaziano for the murder of

Laura Lynn Harberts. As a result of the continuing investigation, authorities learned that

Spaziano, J. 3

05126183

1 l/06/98

Upon Direct Appeal, the FSC affirmed Spaziano’s death sentence.

Following several motions for relief in the Florida Supreme Court, an

evidentiary was held by the State Circuit Court, examining the issue of

testimony recantation. The trial court deemed a retrial necessary. In lieu

of a new trial, Spaziano pled "no contest" to Second-Degree Murder and

was resentenced as followed:

Count I: Second-Degree Murder - 23 years

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC # 50250

393 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1981)

09/l 6176

01/08/81

Appeal tiled.

FSC affirmed Spaziano’s conviction; however, they remanded for

resentencing due to a Gardner violation in the sentencing procedure.

03/06/8 1 Rehearing denied.

04/08/8 1 Mandate issued.

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC # 80-6785

’ 454 U.S. 1037 (U.S. 1981)

06/02/8 1

11 IO918 1

Petition filed.

Petition denied.

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal Resentencing

FSC # 50250

433 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1983)

07/13/81 Appeal tiled.

05126183 FSC affirmed Spaziano’s death sentence.

07/l 3183 Rehearing denied.

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC # 83-5596

464 U.S. 1038; 104 S. Ct. 697; 79 L. Ed. 2d 164 (U.S. 1984)

10/l l/83

01/09/84

07/02/84

Petition filed.

Petition granted and cause remanded to the FSC.

Spaziano, J. 4

cc # 75-430

1 l/21/85 Motion filed.

11 I22185 Motion denied.

Florida Supreme Court, 3.850 Appeal

FSC # 67,929

489 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1986)

1 l/25/85

07/07/86

Appeal filed.

FSC affirmed the denial of Spaziano’s 3.850 Motion.

Rehearing denied.

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC # 86-5617

479 U.S. 995; 107 S. Ct. 598; 93 L. Ed. 2d 598 (U.S. 1986)

1 O/04/86

12/01/86

Petition filed.

Petition denied.

cc # 75-430

12123186 Motion filed.

0412218 8 Motion denied.

Florida Supreme Court, 3.850 Appeal

FSC # 72,464

545 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1989)

05/l 9188

06/l 5/89

07125189

Appeal filed.

FSC affirmed the denial of Spaziano’s second 3.850 Motion.

Rehearing denied.

06127189 Motion filed.

Spaziano, J. 5

Florida Supreme Court, 3.850 Appeal

FSC # 74,686

557 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1990)

09/07/89 Appeal tiled.

03/l 5190 FSC affirmed the denial of Spaziano’s third 3.850 Motion.

Florida Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC # 74,675

557 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1990)

09/07/89

03/l 5190

Petition filed.

Petition denied.

State Circuit Court, 3.850 Motion (4"‘)

cc # 75-430

1 l/03/89

04/20/90

Motion filed.

Motion denied.

Florida Supreme Court, 3.850 Appeal

FSC # 75,874

570 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1990)

04/23/90 Appeal filed.

11/08/90 FSC affirmed the denial of Spaziano’s fourth 3.850 Motion.

12/l 9190 Rehearing denied.

Florida Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC # 77,633

584 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1991)

0312219 1 Petition filed.

07/03/9 1 Petition denied.

United States District Court, Middle District, 28 U.S.C. 2254 Petition

USDC # 91-850-Civ-Orl-18

1 l/14/91

1 l/30/92

Petition filed.

Spaziano, J. 6

United States Court of Appeals for the llth Circuit, 28 U.S. 2254 Appeal

USCA # 93-2049

36 F.3d 1028 (U.S. 1994)

01/13/93 Appeal filed.

1 o/07/94 USCA affirmed the decision of the District Court.

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC# 94-6507

513 U.S. 1115; 115 S. Ct. 911; 130 L. Ed. 2d 793 (U.S. 1995)

1 O/l 9194

01/17/95

Petition tiled.

Petition denied.

Florida Supreme Court, 3.850 Motion (sfh)

FSC # 67,929

660 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1995)

09/08/95 Several motions for relief filed by Spa&no’s counsel. FSC remanded the

case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of recanted

testimony.

Florida Supreme Court, Motion for Relief

FSC # 67,929

660 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1995)

09/l 2/95 Additional motions filed by Spaziano’s counsel. FSC extended the time

period in which an evidentiary hearing concerning the recanted testimony

should be held and granted an indefinite stay of execution pending the

results of the evidentiary hearing.

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC# 95-6471

516 U.S. 1053; 116 S. Ct. 722; 133 L. Ed. 2d 674 (U.S. 1996)

1 o/09/95

01/08/96

Petition filed.

Petition denied.

Florida Supreme Court, State’s Appeal

FSC # 87,364

692 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1997)

Spaziano, J. 7

Warrants

11 I04185

08128195

Clemency

03/13/85 Clemency hearing held (denied).

Death warrant signed by Governor Bob Graham.

Death warrant signed by Governor Bob Martinez.

Death warrant signed by Governor Bob Martinez.

Death warrant signed by Governor Lawton Chiles.

Death warrant signed by Governor Lawton Chiles.

Case Information:

On 09/16/76, Spaziano tiled a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. He argued

the admission of Anthony Dilisio’s testimony. Dilisio was the lead witness for the State,

who testified that Spaziano had showed him the location of the bodies and had bragged

about killing the two women. Spaziano argued that Dilisio’s testimony was unreliable

due to a history of drug abuse; however, the FSC ruled that the trial judge and jury were

suitably apt to judge Dilisio’s credibility, and found no error in admitting his testimony.

Spaziano contended that the trial judge erred during the sentencing phase when he

considered a confidential portion of the pre-sentence investigation concerning prior

criminal activity. In 1977, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of

Gardner v. Florida (430 U.S. 349; 97 S. Ct. 1197; 51 L. Ed. 2d 393), deciding, in

pertinent part, that it was error for a trial judge to consider information unknown to the

defendant and to the jury when imposing a death sentence. In Spaziano’s case, the trial

judge had committed a Gardner violation. The trial judge also erroneously considered

non-statutory aggravating circumstances in his decision to impose the death penalty. As

such, the FSC affirmed the conviction of murder, but remanded the case for resentencing

on 01/08/81.

Spaziano next filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,

which was denied on 1 l/09/8 1.

.!----.

On 06/04/8 1, Judge Robert B. McGregor resentenced Spaziano to death. He filed an

appeal in the Florida Supreme Court on 07/l 3/8 1. Spaziano claimed that the court erred

in allowing the State to present new evidence in support of an aggravating factor and in

considering his prior criminal history, which was not presented to the jury in the original

penalty phase. During the first sentencing, the judge ruled that evidence regarding

Spaziano’s convictions for Carnal Knowledge and Battery were inadmissible because the

Spaziano, J. 8

however, Spaziano’s convictions had been affnmed, and therefore the judge allowed the

presentation of these convictions in support of aggravating circumstances. FSC agreed

with the decision reached by the trial court, and affirmed the death sentence on 05/26/83.

Spaziano next filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,

which was granted on 01/09/84. The high court later affirmed the decision reached by

the Florida Supreme Court on 07/02/84.

Spaziano then filed his first Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence (3.850) in the State

Circuit Court. In that motion, he claimed that a Lockett violation2 had occurred in

imposing his death sentence, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel,

specifically, with regard to testimony that was elicited from the State’s lead witness,

Anthony Dilisio, by the controversial and suggestive means of hypnosis. The State

Circuit Court found no Lockett violation and no basis for the claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel, noting that Spaziano’s defense was "strategic" and that counsel

objected to the hypnosis issue at trial. The court denied all relief, and the Florida

Supreme Court affirmed the denial on 05/22/86.

Spaziano then tiled a second 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court. In that motion,

Spaziano claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his

resentencing proceedings. Since he had no justification for failing to raise this issue in

his initial 3.850 Motion, Spaziano’s second 3.850 was dismissed as an abuse of

procedure. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that decision on 06/l 5/89.

Spaziano subsequently filed a third 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court. He argued

that the Judge Robert B. McGregor, upon resentencing, was unaware that he could

consider non-statutory mitigating evidence as dictated in Hitchcock v. Dugger. The trial

court rejected the contention based on the fact that Judge McGregor stated that he felt he

had to consider non-statutory mitigating evidence in lieu of Lockett v. Ohio. As such, the

trial court denied Spaziano’s third 3.850 Motion, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed

the denial on 03/15/90. Additionally, the appellant filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus in the Florida Supreme Court, which was also denied on 03/15/90.

Spaziano filed a fourth 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court arguing that the State

failed to disclose several pieces of exculpatory evidence and was, in turn, violating the

standards set forth in Brady v. MaryZand3. The trial court ruled that Spaziano’s fourth

3.850 Motion was time-barred and the facts upon which his arguments were based could

have been attained through due diligence by his counsel. The trial court denied the fourth

Spaziano tiled a second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Florida Supreme Court

2 Locket violation - The guidelines established in Lockett v. Ohio allow a defendant to present non-

statutory mitigating evidence.

Spaziano, J. 9

forth in Parker v. Dugger4. The Florida Supreme Court denied the petition on 07/03/9 1,

noting that the United States Supreme Court had already reviewed Spaziano’s sentence

and affirmed it.

Spaziano tiled a petition for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in the United States

District Court, Middle District. He raised 23 points of contention, all of which were

denied by the District Court. Spaziano filed an appeal of that decision in the United

States Court of Appeals, which affirmed the denial of relief on 1 O/07/94.

Spaziano next tiled multiple motions in the Florida Supreme Court. He tiled motions for

rehearing, supplementing the record, questioning the actions of the Office of the Attorney

General concerning his counsel Michael Mello, and concerning his rights. The Florida

Supreme Court deemed this deluge of motions to be considered as a fifth 3.850 Motion,

based on newly discovered evidence. Anthony Dilisio recanted his testimony that

Spaziano took him to the dump and showed him the bodies of the two women. Being the

lead witness for the State, the Florida Supreme Court remanded the case to the State

Circuit Court for an evidentiary hearing regarding the matter of Dilisio’s recanted

testimony. The high court also cleared up some confusion regarding Spaziano’s counsel.

Apparently Michael Mello was an employee of Capital Collateral Representative (CCR),

and continued to work voluntarily on his Spaziano’s case even after leaving CCR. The

court recognized CCR as having the primary responsibility of Spaziano’s representation,

but that Mello could continue as Spaziano’s counsel with assistance from CCR. The

Florida Supreme Court remanded the case on 09/08/95 for an evidentiary hearing to be

held no later than 09/l 5/95.

Prior to any evidentiary hearing being held, a sizeable conflict developed between

Michael Mello and Spaziano’s recognized counsel, CCR. Following the opinion issued

on 09/08/95 ordering CCR to remain as Spaziano’s primary counsel, Mello filed

numerous motions in the Florida Supreme Court. Mello contended that there was an

expressed conflict in CCR’s representation of Spaziano, that he would not serve as co-

counsel with CCR, that he had insufficient funds to continue, that he would not be

present at any evidentiary hearing (as his area of specialty was appellate issues only) and

that he would not release any of the case files to CCR. In examining the issue, the

Florida Supreme Court noted that Mello had neither the funds nor the trial experience

necessary to continue as competent representation for Spaziano. Mello effectively

withdrew as counsel and the high court ordered that all the case files be returned to CCR.

Due to the clash between Mello and CCR, the Florida Supreme Court extended the

deadline for the evidentiary hearing until 1 l/l 5/95, allowing CCR adequate time to

prepare. The court also issued an indefinite stay of execution pending the resolution of

the evidentiary hearing.

An evidentiary hearing was held regarding the recanted testimony of Anthony Dilisio,

after which the trial judge determined a new trial was necessary. The State filed an

4 Parker v Dugger - Case law requiring a meaningtil review of a death sentence when imposed over a

In explaining his recantation, Dilisio claimed to have never accompanied Spaziano to the

dump where the bodies were found or to have led the police there during the

investigation. Dilisio told of the abuse he suffered as a child, and that he felt like he was

pleasing the detectives by telling them what they wanted to hear. He also expressed fear

of the hypnotic sessions that he went to with police and that he felt as if the sessions, in

essence, planted false memories in his head. The Florida Supreme Court recognized

evidence corroborating Dilisio’s explanation of his testimony recantation and found that

the admission of expert testimony was necessary in lieu of the newly discovered

evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court to grant

Spaziano a new trial on 04/17/97.

Upon retrial, without the key testimony of Anthony Dilisio, Spaziano was able to plead

"no contest" to charges of Second-Degree Murder, for which he received 23 years

imprisonment.

Law Enforcement/ Prosecution Statements:

A letter requesting comment was sent to the Seminole County Sheriffs Department on

05/01/02. No response has been received to date.

.-.

) The State Attorney’s Office for the Eighteenth Circuit provided the following statement

regarding Spaziano’s case:

Without the eyewitness testimony, the State elected to allow a plea to second-

degree murder and Spaziano was sentenced to 23 years in prison. The defendant

also has a life sentence for sexual battery on a case from Orange County. The

defendant filed a 3.850 Motion in the Orange County case based upon the same

witness recantation as in the Seminole County case. Based upon the same

testimony, the Orange County judge found (unlike the Seminole County judge)

that the recantation was not credible and refused to set aside the sexual battery

conviction. The Orange County judge’s decision was upheld on appeal.

Tom Hastings of the State Attorney’s Office expressed that the State would have had

difficulty obtaining a conviction of First-Degree Murder upon retrial due to the fact that

the case was so old and many of the key witnesses had passed away. The State used the

plea bargain, coupled with his previous violent convictions, in order to assure that

Spaziano would remain incarcerated.

Defense Statements:

Letters requesting comments were sent to Defense Attorneys Edward R. Kirkland and

Spaziano, J. 11

Current Status:

Joseph Spaziano is currently incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution, serving a 23-

year sentence for the Second-Degree Murder of Laura Harberts (CC # 75-430). Spaziano

is also serving a life sentence for the sexual battery of Vanessa Dale Croft, and five years

for aggravated battery (CC # 75-1305).

03/03/02 - approved - ws

TIBBS, Delbert (B/M)

AKA: Delbert Johnson

DC # 046450

DOB: 06/19/39

Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Case # 74-254 CF

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Thomas W. Shands

Attorney, Criminal Trial: George W. Howard, Esq.

Attorney, Direct Appeal: George W. Howard, Esq.

Date of Offense: 02103174

Date of Sentence: 03124175

Circumstances of Offense:

Delbert Tibbs was convicted and sentenced to death for the 02103174 rape of Cynthia

Nadeau and the murder of Terry Milroy.

At trial, Cynthia Nadeau recalled the following information concerning the alleged crime:

On the evening of 02/03/74, Cynthia Nadeau and Terry Milroy were hitchhiking from St.

Petersburg to Marathon, Florida. A man driving a green truck picked up the pair in Fort

Myers. The truck reportedly had a rounded hood, black vinyl seats, no door handle, and

an oil light that sporadically blinked on and off. The driver then pulled off road into a

field and stopped the truck. The driver exited the truck and asked Milroy for some help.

After a short time, Nadeau got out of the truck and saw the driver holding a gun on

Milroy. The driver ordered Nadeau to undress and then he shot Milroy. The assailant

walked over to the place where Milroy lay pleading for his life and shot him again.

Nadeau was raped and then ordered to redress. The two got back into the truck and, upon

reaching the highway, Nadeau was forced to get out and walk in front of the truck. At

that point, Nadeau was able to run and successfully escape her captor.

Delbert Tibbs was convicted of the rape and murder based solely on the testimony of

Cynthia Nadeau, which was never corroborated. At trial, Gibbs, a jail cellmate, testified

that Delbert Tibbs confessed to the murder of Terry Milroy. Gibbs was given a

polygraph test, which indicated that he was telling the truth. Subsequently, the Florida

Supreme Court ruled that Gibbs’ testimony was not credible. Tibbs was sentenced to life

imprisonment for the rape of Cynthia Nadeau and to death for the murder of Terry

03127174

12114174

12/l 4174

03124175

07128176

09/03/82

Defendant indicted on the following:

Count I: Rape

Count II: First-Degree Murder

Count III: Felony Murder

The jury found the defendant guilty of Rape and First-Degree Murder, as

charged in the indictment.

Upon advisory sentencing, the jury voted by majority for the death

penalty.

The defendant was sentenced as followed:

Count I: Rape - Life Imprisonment

Count II: First-Degree Murder - Death

Upon Direct Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Tibbs’

convictions, vacated his death sentence, and remanded for a retrial.

The State dropped the charges against Tibbs.

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC # 47,258

04123175 Appeal filed.

07128176 FSC reversed Tibbs’ convictions, vacated his death sentence, and

remanded for a retrial.

09128176 Rehearing denied.

Case Information:

Tibbs tiled a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court on 04/23/75. Tibbs’ main

argument was that there was insufficient evidence to place him at the scene of the rape

and the murder at the time that they occurred. Tibbs asserted that the uncorroborated

testimony of Cynthia Nadeau was insufficient to establish his identity as the assailant

beyond all reasonable doubt.

/--.

The Florida Supreme Court noted a Florida law, which dictates that no corroborative

evidence is required in a rape case where the victim can testify directly to the crime and

identify the perpetrator. The same law, however, requires extreme scrutiny of the

victim’s testimony if she is the only witness for the prosecution. As such, the Florida

Supreme Court carefully examined the testimony of Cynthia Nadeau and found the

following weaknesses in Tibbs’ convictions. First, no other evidence, besides Nadeau’s

testimony, placed Tibbs anywhere near Fort Myers at the time of the crimes. In fact,

there was evidence to the contrary. Tibbs presence had been established in Daytona

Beach on February Znd and 3’d. He was also known to have been in Leesburg on February

Tibbs, D. 3

even with all the details Nadeau provided the police one hour after the attack. A car and

helicopter search of the area never produced a match either. Third, Tibbs was never

found with a gun or car keys in his possession, nor was a gun ever found. Fourth, police

stopped Tibbs on three separate occasions based on Nadeau’s description of the

perpetrator. He cooperated with police all three times and there was never any evidence

to cast doubt on his credibility. Fifth, since the crime happened at night and Nadeau had

been smoking marijuana all day, her ability to accurately identify her attacker was

seriously diminished.

Based on all the aforementioned information, the Florida Supreme Court opined, "Rather

then risk the very real possibility that Tibbs had nothing to do with these crimes, we

reverse his conviction and remand for a new trial." As such, Tibbs’ convictions were

reversed, his death sentence vacated, and his case remanded for retrial.

Facing retrial, Tibbs filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him. The trial court

granted the motion, concluding that to retry Tibbs would be in violation of the double

jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The State filed an appeal of the trial court’s decision in the Court of Appeal of Florida,

Second District. The high court agreed with the State that to retry Tibbs would not be

double jeopardy, as the conviction reversal was based on the weight, not the insufficiency

of the evidence against him. As such, they reversed the decision and remanded for

retrial.

Tibbs then appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Florida Supreme Court.

He asked the court to rule that their previous reversal of his convictions was based on

evidentiary insufficiency, not evidentiary weight. The Florida Supreme Court noted that

Tibbs’ convictions were based solely on the testimony of Cynthia Nadeau. If it were not

for several infirmities, the testimony alone would have been sufficient for conviction.

Since there was doubt about Nadeau’s credibility, however, Tibbs’ conviction was

reversed and remanded for retrial.

Tibbs then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,

which was granted on 1 l/02/8 1. Tibbs argued that to retry him would, in fact, be a

violation of double jeopardy. The United States Supreme Court noted that a reversal

based on weight, rather than the sufficiency of the evidence would allow the state to

initiate a new prosecution. On 06/07/82, The United States Supreme Court affirmed the

decision of the Florida Court of Appeals, Second District.

Tibbs, D. 4

Law Enforcement/ Prosecution Statements:

A letter requesting comment was sent to the Lee County Sheriffs Department on

05/01/02. On 05/06/02, Lt. Allen of the Lee County Sheriffs Department responded

indicating that both the investigators who worked on Tibb’s case have since passed away.

State Attorney Joseph Alessandro commented:

By the time of the retrial, witness/victim Cynthia Nadeau had progressed

from a marijuana smoker to a crack user and I could not put her up on the

stand, so I declined to prosecute. Tibbs, in my opinion, was never an

innocent man wrongfully accused. He was a lucky human being. He was

guilty, he was lucky and now he is free. His 1974 conviction was not a

miscarriage of justice.

Assistant State Attorney Dean Plattner also stated:

I can definitely tell you that no one else was ever prosecuted for this

crime. To the best of my knowledge, there was never any evidence which

ever pointed to anyone else as a suspect. The eyewitness said it was

Tibbs, but apparently became unavailable or incapable of giving testimony

before a retrial could occur after the lengthy appeal process.

Raymond Marky of the Attorney General’s Office commented:

Tibbs’ alibi that he was in Daytona Beach continuously during the time the

crime was committed was impeached by the receipt from a Salvation

Army that Tibbs stayed in Orlando the night prior to the murder. The

record also demonstrated that the victim’s testimony was corroborated by

an inmate who was in a cell with Tibbs who testified the latter confessed

to him.

The Tibbs case had racial overtones to it. Several South Florida

politicians had written letters to the Attorney General wanting us to

confess error in the case because Tibbs was a prominent black minister

from Chicago. It had generated complaints from Black organizations

before that was standard operating procedure.

As an aside, I will never forget reading the record particularly the

testimony of Nadeau’s testimony which carried with it it’s own credibility.

Defense counsel suggested that she was lying because her own boyfriend

had raped her and she was just blaming Tibbs. She responded, "you have

to be kidding, I’ve been raped so many times by men that I feel like a pin

cushion. If this was only a rape case I wouldn’t even be here -- but he

murdered my boy friend." I called the prosecutor and asked if that

Tibbs, D. 5

jurors looked at Tibbs and as far as he was concerned the case was over at

that point.

The Tibbs case was the most outrageous example of judicial corruption I

ever experienced in the 25 years that I spent in the Attorney General’s

Office as a criminal appellate attorney and I lost all respect for the judges

who participated in the majority opinion. I would love to know the behind

the scenes story on this one but like Joe D’Alessandro Tibbs was not

innocent of the rape and murder -- he was the unworthy recipient of

intellectually dishonest judicial officers.

Defense Statements:

Defense Attorney George W. Howard is no longer a member of the Florida Bar and coulc

not be reached for comment.

Current Status:

According to NCIC, Delbert Tibbs has had no arrests subsequent to release.

05/01/02 - ew

) 05/07/02 - approved - ws

(last updated 8/24/O 1)

1. David Keaton Florida Conviction 1971 Charges dropped 1973

On the basis of mistaken identification and coerced confessions, Keaton was sentenced to death for

murdering an off duty deputy sheriff during a robbery. Charges were dropped and he was released after

2. Wilbert Lee Florida Conviction 1963 Released 1975

3. Freddie Pitts Florida Conviction 1963 Released 1975

Although no physical evidence linked them to the deaths of two white men, Lee and Pitts’ guilty pleas,

the testimony of an alleged eyewitness, and incompetent defense counsel led to their convictions. The

men were sentenced to death but maintained their innocence. After their convictions, another man

confessed to the crime, the eyewitness recanted her accusations, and the state Attorney General admitted

that the state had unlawfully suppressed evidence. The men were granted a new trial but were again

convicted and sentenced to death. They were released in 1975 when they received a full pardon from

4. Delbert Tibbs Florida Conviction 1974 Conviction overturned 1977

Tibbs was sentenced to death for the rape of a sixteen-year-old white girl and the murder of her

companion. Tibbs, a black theological student, was convicted by an all-white jury on the testimony of

the female victim whose testimony was uncorroborated and inconsistent with her first description of her

assailant. The conviction was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court because the verdict was not

supported by the weight of the evidence, and the state decided not to retry the case. Tibbs’ former

Jarramillo was sentenced to death for two counts of first degree murder, despite the jury’s unanimous

recommendation of life imprisonment. On appeal, his conviction was reversed when the Florida

Supreme Court ruled the evidence used against him was not legally sufficient to support the conviction.

6. Anthony Brown Florida Conviction 1983 Acquitted 1986

Brown was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death despite a jury recommendation of

life imprisonment. At trial, the only evidence against Brown was a co-defendant who was sentenced to

life for his part in the crime. At retrial, the co-defendant admitted that his testimony at the first trial had

.n

7. Joseph Green Brown Florida Conviction 1974 Charges dropped 1987

Charges were dropped after the 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecution had knowingly

allowed false testimony to be introduced at trial. Brown was convicted of first-degree murder and

sentenced to death on the testimony of Ronald Floyd, a co-conspirator who claimed he heard Brown

confess to the murder. Floyd later retracted and admitted his testimony was lie. Brown came within 13

hours of execution when a new trial was ordered. Brown was released a year later when the state

decided not to retry the case.

8. Anthony Ray Peek Florida Conviction 1978 Acquitted 1987

Peek was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, despite witnesses who supported his alibi. His

conviction was overturned when expert testimony concerning hair identification evidence was shown to

be false. He was acquitted at his third retrial.

9. Juan Ramos Florida Conviction 1983 Acquitted 1987

Despite a jury recommendation of life in prison, Juan Ramos was sentenced to death for rape and

murder. No physical evidence linked Ramos to the victim or the scene of the crime. The Florida

Supreme Court granted Ramos a new trial because of the prosecution’s improper use of evidence. At

10. Willie Brown Florida Conviction 1983 Released 1988

11. Larry Troy Florida Conviction 1983 Released 1988

Brown and Troy were sentenced to death after being accused of fatally stabbing a fellow prisoner. The

main witness against them was Frank Wise, whose original statements exonerated the men. Pending

12. William Jent Florida Conviction 1980 Released 1988

13. Earnest Miller Florida Conviction 1980 Released 1988

These half-brothers were convicted and sentenced to death largely based on testimony of three alleged

eyewitnesses. However, a re-examination of the autopsy report demonstrated that the crime never took

place the way the eyewitness’s described it. When the actual time of the murder was established, it was

discovered that the men had airtight alibis. In 1987 a federal district court ordered a new trial because of

suppression of exculpatory evidence, and Jent and Miller were released immediately after agreeing to

plead guilty to second-degree murder. They repudiated their plea upon leaving the courtroom and were

14. Robert Cox Florida Conviction 1988 Released 1989

Cox was convicted and sentenced to death, despite evidence that Cox did not know the victim and no

one testified that they had been seen together. In 1989, Cox was released by a unanimous decision of

the Florida Supreme Court that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

15. James Richardson Florida Conviction 1968 Released 1989

Richardson was convicted and sentenced to death for the poisoning of one of his children. The

prosecution argued that Richardson committed the crime to obtain insurance money, despite the fact that

f---- no such policy existed. The primary witnesses against Richardson were two jailhouse snitches whom

Richardson was said to have confessed to. Post-conviction investigation found that the neighbor who

was caring for Richardson’s children had a prior homicide conviction, and the defense provided

affidavits from people to whom he had confessed. Richardson’s conviction was overturned after further

16. Bradley P. Scott Florida Conviction 1988 Released 199 1

Scott was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. His arrest came ten years after the crime, when

the evidence corroborating his alibi had been lost. Scott was convicted on the testimony of witnesses

whose identifications had been plagued with inconsistencies. On appeal, he was released by the Florida

Supreme Court, which found that the evidence used to convict Scott was not sufficient to support a

17. Sonia Jacobs Florida Conviction 1976 Released 1992

Jacobs and her companion, Jesse Tafero, were sentenced to death for the murder of two policemen at a

overruled the jury and imposed death. A childhood friend and filmmaker, Micki Dickoff, then became

interested in her case. Jacobs’s conviction was overturned on a federal writ of habeas corpus in 1992.

Following the discovery that the chief prosecution witness had failed a lie-detector test, the prosecutor

whose conviction was based on much of the same highly questionable evidence, had been executed in

1990 before the evidence of innocence had been uncovered.

18. Andrew Golden Florida Conviction 199 1 Released 1994

Golden, a high school teacher in Florida, was convicted of murdering his wife. His conviction was

overturned by the Florida Supreme Court in 1993. The court held that the state had failed to prove that

the victim’s death was anything but an accident. Golden was released into the waiting arms of his sons

19. Joseph Spaziano Florida Conviction 1976 Not Released

Spaziano was tried for the murder of a young woman which had occurred two years earlier. No physical

evidence linked him to the crime. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of a drug-addicted

teenager who, after hypnosis and "refreshed-memory" interrogation, thought he recalled Spaziano

describing the murder. This witness has recently said that his testimony was totally unreliable and not

true. Hypnotically induced testimony is no longer admissible in Florida. Death warrants have been

repeatedly signed for Spaziano, even though the jury in his case had recommended a life sentence. In

January, 1996, Florida Circuit Court Judge O.H. Eaton granted Spaziano a new trial, and this decision

was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court on April 17,1997.

20. Robert Hayes Florida Conviction 199 1 Released 1997

Hayes was convicted of the rape and murder of a co-worker based partly on faulty DNA evidence. The

Florida Supreme Court threw out Hayes’s conviction and the DNA evidence in 1995. The victim had

been found clutching hairs probably from her assailant. The hairs were from a white man, whereas

21. Joseph Nahume Green Florida Convicted 1993 Acquitted 2000

Joseph Nahume Green was acquitted on March 16,200O of the murder of Judith Miscally. Circuit Judge

Robert P. Cates entered a not guilty verdict for Green, citing the lack of any witnesses or evidence tying

Green to the murder. Green, who has always maintained his innocence, was convicted largely upon the

testimony of the state’s only eyewitness, Lonnie Thompson. In 1996, Green’s conviction was overturned

by the Florida Supreme Court, which held that Thompson’s testimony was often inconsistent and

contradictory, and that he not been tit to testify during Green’s trial. (St. Petersburg Times, 3/17/00)

22. Frank Lee Smith Florida Convicted 1985 Cleared 2000

Frank Lee Smith, who had been convicted of a 1985 rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl, and who died

of cancer in January 2000 while still on death row, was cleared of these charges by DNA testing,

testimony. Nevertheless, Smith was scheduled for execution in 1990, but received a stay. Prosecutor

Carolyn McCann was told by the FBI lab, which conducted the DNA, tests that: "He has been excluded.

He didn’t do it." Another man, who is currently in a psychiatric facility, is now the main suspect.

23. Joaquin Martinez Florida Convicted 1997 Acquitted 2001

Former death row inmate Joaquin Martinez was acquitted of all charges at his retrial for a 1995 murder

in Florida. Martinez’s earlier conviction was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court because of

improper statements by a police detective at trial. The prosecution did not seek the death penalty in

Martinez’s second trial after key prosecution witnesses changed their stories and recanted their

testimony. An audiotape of alleged incriminating statements by Martinez, which was used at the first

trial, was ruled inadmissible at retrial because it was inaudible. The new jury, however, heard evidence

that the transcript of the inaudible tape had been prepared by the victim’s father, who was the manager of

the sheriffs office evidence room at the time of the murder and who had offered a $10,000 reward in the

case.

Both the Pope and the King of Spain had tried to intervene on behalf of Martinez, who is a Spanish

national. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar welcomed the verdict, saying: "I’m very happy that

this Spaniard was declared not guilty. I’ve always been against the death penalty and I always will be."