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