FLORIDA

COMMISSION ON CAPITAL, CASES

Case Histories

Locke Burt, Chairman

Commission on Capital Cases - Commission Members

Commission on Capital Cases - Commission History

Project Introduction

Project Statistics

Anthony Brown

Joseph Brown

Willie Brown & Larry Troy

Robert Cox

Andrew Golden

Joseph Green

Robert Hayes

Sonia Jacobs

Anibal Jaramillo

William Jent & Ernest Miller

Dave Keaton

Wilbert Lee & Freddie Pitts

Joaquin Martinez

Ernest Miller & William Jent

Anthony Peek

Freddie Pitts & Wilbert Lee

Juan Ramos

James Richardson

Bradley Scott

Frank Lee Smith

Joseph Spaziano

Larry Troy & Willie Brown

Delbert Tibbs

Cases ofhnocence, DPIC, Case Summaries

COMMISSION ON CAPITAL CASES

402 S. Monroe Street

Tallahassee, FL 323 99- 13 00

Phone: (850) 921-4704 + SC: 291-4704 +Fax: (850) 921-4737

E-mail: Comm.CanitalCases@Jeg.state.fl.us

Honorable Locke Burt - Chair

State Senator, District 16

140 S. Atlantic Ave., Suite 201

Ormond Beach, FL 32176 386/673-7299

Honorable Charles E. Miner, Jr. - Vice Chair

Judge, First District Court of Appeal

301 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1850 850/487-1000

Honorable Walter "Skip" Campbell

State Senator, District 33

10094 McNab Road

Tamarac, FL 33321 9541346-2813

Honorable Sally A. Heyman

State Representative, District 105

1100 NE 163 Street, Ste. 303

North Miami Beach, FL 33162 305/919-1888

Honorable Randy Ball

State Representative, District 29

400 South Street, Suite 1-C

Titusville, FL 32780 321/383-5151

Commission Staff:

Roger Maas, Executive Director -- maas.roger@leg.state.fl.us

Wendy Schulte, Research Staff Supervisor

Research Assistants:

James Ledbetter, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. Student

Nicole Prior, B.S., M.A., Ph.D. Student

History

The Commission on Capital Cases was statutorily created in 1997. Chapter 27.709,

Florida Statutes, provides that the commission "shall review the administration of justice

in capital collateral cases, receive relevant public input, review the operation of the

Capital Collateral Regional Counsel offices (CCRC), and advise and make

recommendations to the Governor, Legislature, and the Supreme Court."

In 1996, the McDonald Commission recommended the transformation of the office of

Capital Collateral Representative (CCR), which represented inmates in capital collateral

appeals, into three separate offices that were divided by region. The three collateral

appellate offices became known as the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel (CCRC).

Following another recommendation of the McDonald Commission, the Commission on

Capital Cases was established to oversee the offices of the Capital Collateral Regional

Counsel, as well as to create and oversee a registry of attorneys designed to handle the

overflow of cases from the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel offices.

Roger Maas, the commission’s executive director, was appointed by the late Governor

Chiles to be the interim Capital Collateral Representative director and was charged with

the overseeing of the transition into the three offices of the Capital Collateral Regional

Counsel.

The Commission on Capital Cases is comprised of diverse members recognized as being

knowledgeable in criminal justice issues and experts in their respective fields. As a result

of their leadership, Florida has one of the most comprehensive and well-funded collateral

Project Introduction

In response to the increased scrutiny of Florida’s capital cases; specifically, a recent study

claiming that Florida has the highest rate of death row releases, the commission has

researched in-depth the 23 cited cases where individuals have been released from death row.

Of these 23 inmates, none were found "innocent," even when acquitted, because no such

verdict exists. A defendant is found guilty or not guilty, never innocent. The guilt of only

four defendants, however, was ever truly doubted: Freddie Lee Pitts and Wilbert Lee were

pardoned by Governor Askew and the Cabinet, citing substantial doubt of their guilt, Frank

Lee Smith died before the results of DNA testing excluded him as the perpetrator of the

sexual assault, and the State chose not to retry James Richardson due to newly discovered

evidence and the suspicion of another perpetrator. An analysis of the remaining 19 inmates

can be divided into three categories that account for their releases: (1) six cases were

remanded due to evidence issues, (2) an additional seven were remanded in light of witness

issues, and (3) the remaining six were remanded as a result of issues involving court officials.

Further examination of all 23 inmates yielded various case dispositions. Eight of the 23 had

their cases either dropped, nolle prossed, or dismissed by the State. The reasons as to why the

State chose not to pursue the cases are as followed: witness recantation, the wish not to

subject witnesses to further trials, the death of witnesses, and lost or missing evidence. Ten

inmates were either acquitted at retrial or their cases were remanded for an acquittal. Of the

remaining, two pled to a lesser charge, one died in custody, and the Governor and Cabinet

) pardoned the remaining two.

W., Cox, Green, Hayes, Jacobs, Jaramillo, Keaton, Lee, Scott, Smith, Spaziano and

’ Anthony Peek was found guilty at his first retrial, and not guilty at the second retrial.

’ This information does not include the criminal histories of seven inmates: Joseph Brown, Andrew Golden, William Jent, Joaquin

Martinez, Ernest Miller, Juan Ramos and James Richardson.

’ This infonnation does not include the criminal histories of six inmates: Joseph Brown, William Jent, Joaquin Martinez, Ernest Miller, Juan

Newly discovered evidence*

Problems with evidence

Witness Credibility

Recanted Testimony

Inability to cross-examine

Ineffective assistance of counsel

Discovery violation

Comments made by judge

FSC

USDC

USCA

cc

Direct Appeal

3.850 Motion

Habeas Appeal

Pardon

Dropped, dismissed, nolle prossed by the State

Acquitted at the retrial

Remanded for acquittal

Pled to a lesser charge

Pardoned by Governor

Since 1985

Since 1995

(6/23)

(l/23)

(2/23)

(3/23)

(7/23)

(2/23)

(l/23)

(l/23)

(3/23)

(6/23)

(2/23)

(2/23)

(l/23)

(l/23)

(4/23)

(14/23)

(3123)

(l/23)

(3123)

(2/23)

(15/23)

(3123)

(l/23)

(2123)

(2/23)

(8/23)

(6/23)

(4/23)

(2/23)

(2/23)

(l/23)

(6123)

30.4%

30.4%

26.1%

13%

61%

13%

4%

13%

9%

65%

13%

4%

9%

9%

35%

26%

17%

9%

9%

4%

26%

* Includes Frank Lee Smith who was excluded, posthumously, as the perpetrator of the sexual assault

irown, Anthony 07/27/1983 FSC found that the State’s failure to notify 09/17/90 - Received a 30-year sentence fo

Brown of pretrial deposition was reversible Aggravated Battery with a Deadly

error. On retrial, Brown was acquitted due Weapon. He also received a charge of

to witness recantation. Introducing a Controlled Substance into a

Detention Facility for which he received

an additional three years on 06/18/96.

trown, Joseph 07/03/1974 Conviction reversed by Federal Court There is no information available as to

because, contrary to the co-defendant’s Joseph Brown’s criminal history

testimony, he had received immunity in subsequent to his release.

exchange for his testimony against Brown,

and the state did not correct the false

testimony.

irown, Willie A. 07/19/1983 FSC found that the failure to conduct a Brown sentenced to life for multiple

key, Larry Richardson hearing for an alleged discovery crimes committed in 1999. Troy

violation was reversible error. The State sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for a

dropped the charges when a key witness 1991 Cocaine Sale conviction and was

recanted. arrested on 02/O l/O2 for Smuggling

Contraband and Cocaine Possession.

Iox, Robert 10/06/1988 FSC reversed on Direct Appeal, finding Prior to the indictment on the Florida case,

that evidence was insufficient to support Cox was serving two nine-year sentences

conviction. for kidnapping and assault. After his

release from prison in Florida, he was

arrested in 1995 for holding a gun on a 12.

year-old girl in Decatur, Texas. He is

presently serving a life sentence for that

robbery.

iolden, Andrew 11/15/l 99 1 FSC reversed on Direct Appeal, finding the Andrew Golden is presently serving a

evidence was insufficient to establish guilt fifteen-year sentence in Texas for three

beyond a reasonable doubt. separate cases of Indecency with a Child.

ireen, Joseph 1 l/30/1993 FSC reversed and ordered a new trial due to After acquittal, Green was sentenced to

tahume a bad search warrant and improper cross- two one-year terms for two cocaine

examination of a defense witness by the possession charges that occurred in 2000.

State. Acquitted by the judge at the retrial. He was released from prison on 1 l/05/01.

There is no information available as to

Green’s criminal history subsequent to his

release.

Iayes, Robert 06/05/1992 Conviction reversed due to a Williams Rule According to NCIC’, Robert Hayes has

violation and due to the admittance DNA had no arrests subsequent to his release.

evidence that had not met the m

Standard. Hayes was acquitted on retrial.

acobs, Sonia 08/20/1976 FSC affirmed the conviction but reduced Sonia Jacobs is presently living in Ireland

Jacobs’ sentence to life, finding the jury and, according to NCIC, has not had any

recommendation of life reasonable. In a arrests subsequent to her release.

Habeas review, the 1 lth Circuit Court of

Appeals remanded for a new trial after

finding Brady and Miranda violations.

Jaramillo, Anibal 04/08/198 1 FSC reversed because the State’s evidence Anibal Jaramillo was deported to

was not inconsistent with Jaramillo’s Colombia subsequent to his release and

reasonable hypothesis of innocence. was murdered there.

Jent, William 01/30/1980 After Federal District Court remanded for a There is no information available as to Jer

Miller, Ernest new trial based on a Brady violation, Jent or Miller’s criminal history subsequent to

and Miller were allowed to go free on time their release.

served in exchange for guilty pleas to

Second-Degree Murder.

Keaton, David 05/l l/1971 Sentence under pre-Furman statute Subsequent to his release, Keaton was

automatically reduced to life by USSC. arrested on a DUI charge. NCIC does not

Upon review of the life sentence, the FSC show any other arrests.

reversed based on claim of newly

discovered evidence.

Martinez, Joaquin 05/21/1997 FSC reversed and ordered a new trial due to There is no information available as to

improper comments by a State witness as to Martinez’s criminal history subsequent to

the guilt of Martinez. Martinez was his release.

acquitted at retrial.

Peek, Anthony 05/02/1978 FSC reversed the case after fmding that it Peek is currently incarcerated in Florida,

was error to admit evidence of a collateral serving a life sentence for Sexual Battery.

rape. Peek was acquitted after a new trial.

Lee, Wilbert Pit&, 08/28/1963 Sentences reduced to life by Furman. First According to NCIC reports, neither Pins

Freddie conviction was remanded for new trial after nor Lee have had any subsequent arrests.

another man confessed to the murders.

During retrial, the confession was ruled

inadmissible and Pitts and Lee were

convicted again. They were pardoned in

1975.

Ramos, Juan 03/10/1983 FSC reversed and remanded for new trial There is no information available as to

due to scientifically unreliable evidence Ramos’ criminal history subsequent to his

admitted at trial. Acquitted by jury at acquittal.

second trial.

Richardson, James 0513 l/1968 Richardson’s conviction and life sentence There was no available information

were reversed on post conviction on a regarding Richardson’s arrest history

newly discovered evidence claim. He was subsequent to release.

not retried.

Scott, Bradley 02/08/1988 Due to the 7-year delay before an

indictment was issued, FSC reversed,

noting that prejudice was established

because evidence did not rebut every

reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

According to NCIC, Bradley Scott has hat

no arrests subsequent to release.

Smith, Frank Lee 04/14/1985 After his death, Smith was excluded as the Died in custody.

perpetrator of the sexual assault, through

the use of DNA evidence.

Spaziano, Joseph 07/16/1976 Based on the recantation of testimony by a Spaziano is currently serving a 23-year

primary witness, Spaziano entered a plea of sentence for the Second-Degree Murder.

no contest to Second-Degree Murder. He is also serving a life sentence for

Sexual Battery and five years for

Aggravated Battery.

Tibbs, Delbert 0312411975 FSC reversed for new trial because the According to NCIC, Delbert Tibbs has hat

conviction rested solely on identification by no arrests subsequent to release.

the victim. The State later dropped the

BROWN, Anthony S. (B/M)

DC# 838162

DOB: 03/28/56

First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, Case #82-5992

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Joseph Q. Tarbuck

Trial Attorney: Robert A. Dennis, Jr., Private

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Michael Minerva, Assistant Public Defender

Date of Offense: 12121182

Date of Sentence: 07127183

Circumstances of the Offense:

Evidence collected by the police indicated that the Veteran’s Gas Company received a

phone call from an individual who identified herself as Annie Rivers at 3:30 p.m. on

12/2 l/82. The female requested that the minimum amount of gas be delivered to 3905

Pine Forest Road. Five minutes later, the same individual called back questioning where

the gas was. The order was relayed, via the dispatcher, to deliveryman James Dassinger,

the victim. Dassinger never returned from his route and the gas company called the police

and reported him missing around 6:00 p.m. that night.

Deputy Schultz went to the neighborhood and stopped at a house to inquire about the

location of the address of the gas request. Wydell Rogers, who was visiting a friend,

answered the door at this house. He admitted that the address in question was his, but he

denied any knowledge of the gas request. Deputy Schultz then went to Roger’s residence

(the address of the gas request) and found the gas truck and the body of James Dassinger.

There was no wallet found on the body. There was a large wound under the armpit. A pad

was found in the truck with a list of names; Annie Rivers was the last name on the list.

Two 410-shotgun shells were found at the scene. Two shoeprints that resembled tennis-

shoe prints were found about 150 feet southeast fi-om the house. An employee from the

Veteran’s Gas Company identified the body and indicated that no gas had been delivered

to the house and that approximately $225.00 was missing.

During the inspection of the scene, Anthony Brown appeared at the address. Blood

spatters had been found in the truck, and Brown had a small spot of blood on the watch

that he was wearing. The watch was taken into evidence, and Brown was asked to go to

the station for questioning. There he was advised of his rights and signed a waiver. In his

statement, Brown declared that he was a friend of Rogers and had stopped by for a visit

and that he was at a pool hall in Atmore, Alabama, earlier in the day. In a later statement,

Brown, A. 2

the pool hall and then had returned. Brown had a fresh track mark on his arm, possibly

from an infection. Rogers was questioned on 12/21/89 and 12/22/89. He did not show up

for further questioning on 12/26-28/89. On 12/29/89, authorities found an unserved

warrant for Grand Theft on Rogers. He was spotted by an officer and promptly taken to

the police station. During the questioning, Rogers stated that he knew who was involved

in the robbery and the killing and named Brown and Ulysses Robinson. During the initial

stage of the interrogation, Rogers did not implicate himself, but later on testified and

admitted to participating in the robbery conspiracy.

Rogers testified that he stated that he arrived at the Oaks Tavern around 1:30 p.m. and

was sitting in his car in the parking lot with David Davis, Brown approached the car and

asked Rogers to get out of the car. Brown detailed his idea for the crime to Rogers, and

Rogers stated that he would go along with it. Rogers’ statements led to the conclusion

that it was Brown’s idea to commit the robbery. Brown got into the car and the three men

drove to Brown’s mother’s house to get a change of clothes. They drove to the Jr. Food

Store, where Brown and Rogers used the phone. Brown called information and got the

number to Veteran’s Gas Company. He then used Rogers’ girlfriend’s name, and called

the gas company and ordered 50 gallons of gas in a female voice. The three men drove to

Rogers’ house and got a 410-shotgun and some shells that were under the house. Brown

loaded the gun and stayed at the house. The plan was for him to hide in the bushes and

wait for the deliveryman. Rogers drove to the gas station down the street and waited until

he saw the gas truck. He then went to pick up Brown after the allotted five minutes.

Brown was not at the designated spot. Rogers then drove back toward the gas station and

saw Brown standing on the side of the road. Brown did not have the shotgun. Rogers

picked Brown up, and Brown stated that he had killed the deliveryman. Brown had a

wallet and a check. When Brown got out of the car he placed $50 over the visor and

stated it was in case anyone inquired as to whether Rogers could pay for the gas.

At the trial, Brown testified to a different sequence of events. He had been home until

approximately 1:30 p.m. on 12/21/89. He then drove to Oaks Tavern and saw Rogers.

Next, he bought a six-pack of beer and took it to the tavern and drank it. At

approximately 3:30 p.m., Brown asked Rogers to take him home. He then walked back to

the tavern around 4:30 p.m. Brown and two other individuals then went to Atmore; they

bought gas and dope. Brown returned to the Oaks Tavern and then proceeded to Roger’s

house to give him some pills. Brown stated that he did not know where the blood on his

watch came from. Brown also testified that Rogers had pulled a sawed-off shotgun on

him several months earlier.

Fingerprints found in the truck did not match Rogers’ or Brown’s. Davis was never

fingerprinted; thus his fingerprints were never compared to the fingerprints found inside

the truck. Two of the charges against Rogers were nolle prossed because of insufficient

evidence and information. The pathologist testified that the cause of death was a gunshot

from close range - within an inch. The death was almost instantaneous because of the

Brown, A. 3

prr4 Additional Information:

In 1974, Brown was arrested for Aggravated Assault twice and given one year and five-

years probation. In 197.5, he was arrested for Breaking and Entering; the charges were

nolle prossed. In 1980, Brown was arrested for Aggravated Assault and Battery and

Burglary and was given a one-year suspended sentence and one year of probation. In

January of 1983, while out on bail from the murder charge, Brown was arrested for

Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon; the charges were dismissed.

Codefendant Information:

Wydell Rogers entered a plea bargain and pled guilty to a charge of Second-Degree

Murder and Robbery with a Firearm in exchange for his testimony against Brown. Rogers

received a life sentence for the murder and 15 years for the robbery.

During Brown’s retrial, Rogers recanted his testimony. He received three counts of

perjury and was sentenced to five years for each. Rogers is currently incarnated at

Wakulla C.I.

Trial Summary:

01/l l/83 Defendant indicted on the following charges:

1 Count I: First-Degree Murder

Count II: Armed Robbery

Count III: Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon

07/l 5183 The defendant was found guilty of the following:

Count I: First-Degree Murder

Count II: Armed Robbery

07/l 5183 A majority of the jury recommended that the defendant receive a life

sentence.

07/27/83 The defendant was sentenced as follows:

Count I: First-Degree Murder - death

Count II: Armed Robbery - no separate sentence imposed

09/01/83 The defendant nolle prossed for count III

09/27/85 Motion for retrial filed

02/l O/86 Jury trial held

Brown, A. 4

Florida State Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC# 64,247

471 So. 2d 6

09116183

05/02/85

07/l l/85

08/20/85

Appeal filed

FSC reversed the conviction and sentence and remanded the case for a

new trial.

Rehearing denied

Mandate issued

Case Information:

Brown filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 09/l 6/83. The main issue

raised in the appeal was that, prior to trial, the State held a deposition, without Brown

present, of a deputy sheriff, who would be unavailable at trial. The Florida Supreme

Court found the State’s failure to follow Rule 3.190 created the fundamental error of not

allowing Brown to confront and cross-examine the witnesses testifying against him. The

Court ruled that this error was not correctable and, therefore, vacated Brown’s sentence

and conviction on 05/02/85. The case was remanded to the circuit court for a new trial.

The rehearing was denied on 07/l l/85, and the mandate was issued on 08/20/85.

On 09/27/85, a motion for retrial was entered into the circuit court. A notice of trial was

issued on 10/09/85. On 02/10/86, the jury trial was held and on 02/14/86, Brown was

acquitted on the charges of First-Degree Murder and Armed Robbery. The main reason

for Brown’s acquittal was that Wydell Rogers recanted his testimony.

05/23/02 Judge Novotney, the state attorney who tried Brown, had retired at the

time of this summary. She was traveling and unable to be reached for

comment.

05/23/02

Letter sent requesting comment to Escambia County Sheriffs Department.

Information requested via telephone call to Escambia County Sheriffs

Department. No information has been received as of 05/28/02.

05123102

Letter sent requesting comment to Mr. Robert A. Dennis, Jr.

Telephone call placed to Mr. Dennis who indicated that he would e-mail

Brown, A. 5

Current Status:

In August 1987, Brown was arrested for Armed Robbery, Possession of a Firearm in the

Commission of a Felony, Aggravated Assault, and Larceny; the charges were dismissed.

In September 1987, Brown was arrested for robbery and again the charges were

dismissed. Brown is currently serving a 30-year sentence for Aggravated Battery with a

Deadly Weapon. The offense occurred on 02/20/90, and Brown was sentenced on

09/l 7/90. He also received a charge of Introducing a Controlled Substance into a

Detention Facility for which he received an additional three years on 06/l 8/96.

BROWN, Joseph Green (B/M)

DC # 042546

DOB: 1 O/02/50

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Case # 73-2 180

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Robert W. Rawlins, Jr.

Attorney, Criminal Trial: J. Michael Shea, Esq.

Attorney, Direct Appeal: J. Michael Shea, Esq.

Date of Offense: 07/07/73

Date of Sentence: 07/03/74

Circumstances of Offense:

Joseph Green Brown was convicted and sentenced to death for the 07/07/73 rape and

murder of Earlene Evans Barksdale.

Ronald Floyd revealed the relevant facts of this case at trial. Floyd was with Joseph

Brown prior to the crime and immediately afterwards. Floyd testified that on 07/07/73,

he, Brown, and a third man, known as "Poochie," drove to the store where the murder

would take place. Floyd, reportedly unaware of his companion’s intentions, waited in the

car while Brown and Poochie entered the store. Floyd noted, however, that prior to

entering the clothing store, Brown had what appeared to be a gun under his shirt. After

waiting about 15 minutes, Floyd exited the car and walked over to the entrance of the

store. Floyd recalled hearing a gunshot, after which he immediately entered the store.

Inside the store, Floyd peered over the counter and saw the body of Earlene Evans

Barksdale lying close to a rear storage room. Brown, Floyd and Poochie fled the scene

and, while speeding away, Poochie exclaimed to Brown, "Man, you didn’t have to do

that." Barksdale’s body was found at 9:30 p.m. that evening. She had been raped and

shot to death.

The same night of the Barksdale murder, Brown and Floyd robbed a couple at a motel

and Brown sexually assaulted the woman (CC # 73-1338). Brown turned himself in to

authorities the following day and implicated Floyd in the motel robbery and sexual

assault. He and Floyd were arrested, and the man known as "Poochie" was never located.

Brown alerted police to the location of the gun used in the motel robbery, which belonged

to a man named Raymond Vinson. Vinson’s car was also used in the robbery, and he

charged as an accomplice in the crime. Vinson’s gun, the one used in the motel robbery,

Brown, J. 2

Joseph Brown’s convictions for the rape, robbery and murder of Earlene Barksdale were

based primarily on the testimony of Ronald Floyd. At trial, Floyd recalled that the day

following the murder, he, Brown, and Raymond Vinson heard a radio broadcast about the

Barksdale murder. Floyd claimed he stated something to the effect of "People will do

anything these days" to which Brown replied, "Yes, she should have never done what she

did." The testimony of Vinson corroborated that such a conversation did, in fact, take

place. Floyd testified that he later confronted Brown directly, asking him if he killed

Barksdale. Brown reportedly answered yes and then made some lewd comment

indicating that he had had sex with her.

There was no fingerprint evidence linking Brown to the Barksdale murder, and the only

physical evidence implicating Brown was Vinson’s gun. State ballistic reports could not

prove, however, that the bullet that killed Barksdale came from Vinson’s gun.

Trial Summary:

f--.

11 IO7173

06128174

07/01/74

07/03/74

Defendant indicted on the following:

Count I: First-Degree Murder

Count II: Rape

Count III: Robbery

The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts.

Upon advisory sentencing, the jury recommended, by a majority vote, that

the defendant be sentenced to death.

The defendant was sentenced as followed:

Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death

Count II: Rape - Life

Count III: Robbery - Life

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC # 46,925

381 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1980)

02/l 8175 Appeal filed.

01/31/80 FSC affirmed the convictions and sentence.

04/21/80 Rehearing denied.

Florida Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FSC # 59,732

392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1981)

09/29/80 Petition filed.

Brown, J. 3

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC # 80-5708

449 U.S. 1118; 101 S. Ct. 931; 66 L. Ed. 2d 847 (U.S. 1981)

12/17/80 Petition filed.

01/19/81 Petition denied.

United States Supreme Court, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC # 80-6434

454 U.S. 1000; 102 S. Ct. 542; 70 L. Ed. 2d 407 (U.S. 1981)

04/03/8 1

11 I0218 1

Petition filed.

Petition denied.

State Circuit Court, Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence (3.850)

CC # 73-2180

05/l 8183

1 O/04/83

Motion filed.

Motion denied.

Florida Supreme Court, 3.850 Appeal & Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

FSC # 64,348

439 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 1983)

1 O/07/83

10/12/83

Appeal filed.

Denial affirmed.

United States District Court, Middle District, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC # 83-1287-Civ-T-10

1 O/14/83

03/06/85

Petition filed.

Petition denied.

United States Court of Appeals for the llfh Circuit, Habeas Appeal

USCA # 85-32 17

785 F.2d 1457 (U.S. 1986)

03126185

03/l 7186

Appeal filed.

USCA reversed the denial reached by the USDC, ordering the Habeas to

Brown, J. 4

09123183

1 O/27/83

Death warrant signed by Governor Bob Graham.

Stay of execution granted by the United States District Court, Middle

District.

Clemency

10/12/82 Clemency hearing held (denied).

Case Information:

While on Direct Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, questions arose concerning the

veracity of Ronald Floyd’s testimony that he was not given an immunity agreement by

the State in exchange for his testimony against Brown. While in prison on a completely

separate robbery conviction, Floyd gave Brown’s defense counsel an affidavit in which

he recanted his trial testimony and noted that the State offered "favorable consideration"

in the motel robbery and in the Barksdale murder in exchange for his testimony against

Brown. The Florida Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing

on the issues raised in Floyd’s affidavit. At the hearing, Floyd reaffirmed his trial

testimony and the court denied Brown’s motion for a new trial. While still on Direct

Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court remanded the case for a second time for an

1 evidentiary hearing based on an alleged Bvady violation’. Brown contended that the State

had statements made by Floyd to his counsel that should have been furnished to the

defense before trial. The trial court again denied Brown’s motion for a new trial, stating

that Brown’s defense received everything it was entitled to. The Florida Supreme Court

noted that Floyd’s testimony at the 1975 evidentiary hearing claiming that he had not

entered into an immunity agreement with the State matched his trial testimony, regardless

of what he stated in the affidavit. As such, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his

convictions and sentence on 01 I3 l/80.

Brown next filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,

which was denied on 01/19/81.

Brown additionally filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, essentially claiming a

Gardner viohtion2, which was denied on 01/15/81. He then filed a Petition for Writ of

Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on 1 l/02/8 1.

Brown subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence (3.850) in the State

Circuit Court. Brown alleged ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt and

penalty phases of his criminal trial. Following an evidentiary hearing on the issue, the

State Circuit Court denied all relief. Brown filed an appeal of that decision in the Florida

’ Brad’ violation - an error committed when the State fails to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense

2 Gardner violation - a sentencing error committed when the trial judge considers information unknown to

Brown, J. 5

Ronald Floyd’s recanted testimony. In the video, Floyd outlined his motivation for

testifying against Brown, primarily his fear that the State Attorney’s Office would

prosecute him for the same crimes that Brown was charged with. Floyd stated, that in

exhange for his testimony against Brown, he was promised that he would not be charged

with murder and would receive "favorable consideration" in another criminal case.

Brown presented this new evidence as the basis for his Petition for Writ of Error Coram

Nobis. He argued that, had this information been known to the trial court, "it

conclusively would have prevented entry of the judgment." Having examined the issue

of Floyd’s recantation in a previous evidentiary hearing, the Florida Supreme Court noted

that Floyd reaffirmed his trial testimony. Brown claimed that Floyd’s retraction was

caused by fear of prosecution for perjury. Since his counsel failed to object to the issue

during the hearing and did not raise the issue on appeal, the Florida Supreme Court

opined that Brown did not have credible grounds for his Petition for Writ of Error Coram

Nobis.

,-,

Brown next filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court,

Middle District. In that petition, he asserted that the State knowingly presented false

evidence to the jury when they failed to disclose that Ronald Floyd had, in fact, received

"favorable consideration" for his crimes and allowed him to testify to the contrary. The

District Court recognized that a deal had been made between Floyd and the State, as

evident in proffered testimony given by the State; however, the court held that Brown

was not entitled to the writ because he had failed to show that Floyd’s false testimony

was "material" to his conviction. The high court denied Brown’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus on 03/06/85. Brown filed an appeal of that decision in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on 03126185. The Court of Appeals also

acknowledged that a deal had been made between Floyd and the State and decided to

further examine the issue of materiality. In Giglio v. U.S., the Supreme Court held, that

in a case where the State knowingly introduces false evidence that "[a] new trial is

required if ‘the false testimony could . . . in any reasonable likelihood have affected the

judgment of the jury. . . ." In noting that the prosecution presented Floyd’s false

testimony that he did NOT receive a deal from the State, the Court of Appeals

commented, "The government has a duty not to exploit false testimony by prosecutorial

argument affirmatively urging to the jury the truth of what it knows to be false." The

Court of Appeals ruled that the knowledge that Floyd had been given a plea arrangement

in exchange for his testimony against Brown would have affected his credibility as a

witness and would have undoubtedly been "material" to Brown’s conviction. Floyd’s

testimony was material in that it was the only evidence that Brown admitted to killing

and raping Barksdale and was the only evidence that placed him at the scene. As such,

the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the order of the

District Court and ordered that Brown’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted.

Brown’s convictions and sentence were overturned on 1 O/06/86, and charges against him

./--"- 3 Writ of Error Coram Nobis - A writ of error directed to a court for a review of its own judgment and

A letter requesting comment was sent to the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Department

on 05/01/02. That request was forwarded to the Tampa Police Department on 05/09/02.

The Tampa Police Department responded by mailing a copy of the case file.

Henry Lavandera, who handled the Brown case solely during post-conviction

proceedings as an Assistant State Attorney, issued the following statement on the State’s

decision to nolle prosse the case:

I did not nolle prosse the case against Mr. Brown because I felt he was

innocent, I nolle prossed it because I could not prove beyond and to the

exclusion of every reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion provides an excellent recitation of the facts

of the case and the legal issues involved. Of note is the fact that one of the

reasons argued by Mr. Brown for reversal was that there was insufficient

evidence of his guilt. However, as stated on page 1467 of the opinion, Mr.

Brown abandoned that issue and did not raise it on appeal. That is

tantamount to an admission that there was sufficient evidence. Of note as

well, is the fact that the Court did not reverse and discharge the case, but

rather the Court remanded the case with instructions that the writ be issued

"subject to the right of the state to retry Brown." As stated in the opinion,

the case centered almost entirely around the testimony of Mr. Floyd. There

were no fingerprints or any other trace evidence. There was no firearms

identification evidence as to the weapon involved, and there were no eye

witnesses unless Mr. Floyd’s trial testimony were to be believed. From the

time of the Court’s decision, until the day I nolle prossed the case, I and

investigators from the SAO attempted to assemble a case in order to retry

Mr. Brown. We went to state prison to interview Mr. Floyd who persisted

that he had lied at trial. It was that fact above any other that compelled me

to nolle prosse the case. Whether I believe that Mr. Floyd was being

truthful or not is of no consequence. For me to have proceeded to trial

under those circumstances would have been, in my opinion, a violation of

my oath. Finally, it should be noted that Mr. Brown pled guilty to the

motel robbery. I don’t recall his sentence, but he would have been doing

prison time irrespective of the outcome of the Barksdale case.

Defense Statements:

Defense counsel J. Michael Shea referred all inquiries about this case to his book,

Brown, J. 7

Current Status:

There is no information available as to Joseph Brown’s criminal history subsequent to his

release.

04/30/02 - ew

05/02/02 - approved - ws

BROWN, Willie A. (B/M) TROY, Larry (B/M)

DC# 022323 DC# 022401

DOB: 06/06/50 DOB: 07/24/50

Eighth Judicial Circuit, Union County, Case # 82-l 63

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable John J. Crews

Trial Attorneys: Bill Salmon, Esq. & Daniel Mazar, Esq.

Direct Appeal Attorneys: Philip Padovano, Patrick Doherty, Esq.

& Steven Bolotin, Assistant Public Defender

Date of Offense: 07/07/8 1

Date of Sentence: 07/l 9183

Circumstances of Offense:

Union Correctional Institution (U.C.I.) inmate Earl Owens was stabbed to death by two

The State called U.C.I. inmates Frank Wise, Claude Smith and Herman Watson to testify

as to the events surrounding the murder of Earl Owens. Frank Wise testified that he heard

noises coming from Owens’ cell at the time of the murder and saw inmates Willie Brown

and Larry Troy emerge from the cell carrying a towel or shirt with something wrapped in

it. Wise testified that he did not notice any blood on Brown’s or Troy’s clothing. Claude

Smith testified that he heard a scream from Owens’ blanket-draped cell at the time of the

murder and saw Brown and Troy, both with blood on their clothes, leave the cell.

Herman Watson testified to a conversation that he had with Troy on the afternoon of the

murder, with Troy laughingly confiding in Watson that he (Troy) had "killed the

cracker." Watson further testified that Brown asked Watson to get rid of Brown’s clothes

and shoes, which Watson did.

The State also called U.C.I. employees, Mitchell Anderson and Donald Conner to testify.

Anderson, a correctional officer, testified that on the morning after the murder, while

searching the prison athletic yard for evidence regarding Owens’ murder, he found a

bucket containing an "inmate’s shirt and towel and stuff," all of which had been partially

burned. The shirt had the name "W. Brown" on it. Donald Conner, the laundry manager,

who is in charge of tracking inmate clothing, testified that Brown was missing a set of

testify as to the events surrounding the murder of Earl Owens. Franklin Kelly and

Brown, W. & Troy, L. 2

time of the murder. Noel White testified to hearing "odd sounds" coming from Owens’

cell at the time of the murder and to seeing two anonymous black males--not Brown or

Troy-- leave the cell with a bloody knife. White further testified that Wise and Smith

were not present at the time of the murder and could not have been witnesses to the

crime. The State impeached White’s testimony by demonstrating that White had

previously identified Brown and Troy as the men responsible for Owens’ murder.

Trial Summary:

10/14/82

06/l 6/83

06122183

07/l 9183

Indicted on one count of First-Degree Murder

Sentenced to death

Additional Information:

As a juvenile, Willie Brown had an extensive criminal record. As an adult and prior to

the Owens murder, Brown was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, with ninety-nine

days of community supervision, for a 1968 Robbery conviction, and was sentenced to

twenty years imprisonment, with ninety-nine days of community supervision for a 1976

Armed Robbery conviction. Brown was serving this sentence at the time of the Owens

murder.

Larry Troy, prior to the Owens murder, was sentenced to five years imprisonment for a

1968 Armed Robbery conviction and three years imprisonment for convictions stemming

from Armed Robbery, Burglary, and Possession of Stolen Property charges in 1972.

While serving a term of twenty-five years for a 1975 Second Degree Murder conviction

and a term of fifteen years, six months for Aggravated Battery and Possession of a

Weapon by a State Prisoner convictions in 1977, Troy was charged with the murder of

Owens.

Florida Supreme Court - Direct Appeal

FSC# 64,802; 64,803; 69,427

515 So.2d 211

01 I30184

1 l/12/87

Appeal filed

FSC vacated conviction and sentence and remanded for retrial

Case Information:

On 0 l/3 O/84, Brown and Troy filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court,

State. On 1 l/12/87, the FSC agreed with Brown and Troy’s allegation and vacated the

Brown, W. & Troy, L. 3

Law Enforcement/Prosecution Statements:

A request for a statement was made to Spencer Mann, Public Information Officer for the

Eighth Circuit, but no comment has been received to date.

Defense Statements:

A request for comment was made to Bill Salmon, who represented Brown at the original

trial, but no comment has been received to date.

Current Status:

After the Owens murder, Brown was sentenced for the following crimes committed on

04/02/99:

Burglary - Life imprisonment

Armed Robbery - Life imprisonment

Armed Robbery - Life imprisonment

Armed Robbery - Life imprisonment

Grand Theft Auto - 5 years imprisonment

Leaving a Crash with Injury - 5 years imprisonment

Leaving a Crash with Injury - 5 years imprisonment

Resisting a Law Enforcement Officer with Violence - 5 years imprisonment

Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer - 5 years imprisonment

Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer - 5 years imprisonment

Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer - 5 years imprisonment

After the Owens murder, Troy was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment, with nearly

two years community supervision, for a 1991 Unlawful Sale of Cocaine On or Near

School Property conviction. On 02/01/02, while on Conditional Release, Troy missed

curfew, thus violating the conditions of his parole, and was taken to a Miami county jail

for processing. While he was being searched, crack cocaine was discovered, and Troy

was arrested for Smuggling Contraband into a Detention Facility and Possession of

Cocaine. The charges were dismissed at trial, but Troy’s Conditional Release was

revoked and a new release date has yet to be set.

Alternate Prosecuted Suspect:

None

Report Date: 05/08/02 JFL

Approved: 05/08/02 WS

COX, Robert Craig (W/M)

DC# 113377

DOB: 1 O/06/59

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Case # CR88-364

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Richard F. Conrad

Trial Attorneys: Patricia Cashman & Kelly Sims, Assistant Public Defenders

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Larry B. Henderson, Assistant Public Defender

Date of Offense: 12/30/78

Date of Sentence 1 O/06/88

Circumstances of the Offense:

On 12/30/78, 19-year-old Sharon Zellers disappeared after leaving work at Walt Disney

World. On l/3/79, her abandoned car was discovered in an orange grove in Orange

County. The following day, her body was discovered fully submerged in a sewage lift

station located in close proximity to the orange grove. Ms. Zellers’ body was heavily

decomposed, and she was identified by her dental records. A medical examiner testified

that she died from blunt force trauma to the head and reported that she had received 14

separate head wounds. Despite Ms. Zellers’ injuries, the examiner reported that she

probably lived 20-30 minutes subsequent to the attack.

The law enforcement investigation led detectives to question Robert C. Cox. Cox and his

parents, who lived in California, were vacationing in Orlando. They were staying at a

Days Inn, which was located 340 feet from the sewage lift station where Ms. Zellers’

body was discovered. Cox’s mother had called the hotel security on 12/30/78, because

her son had returned to the motel and was bloody around the face and mouth. A portion

of his tongue had been severed off, and he was unable to talk and had to communicate by

writing. Cox then passed out and was transported to the emergency room by an

ambulance. Emergency surgery was performed on Cox to repair his damaged tongue.

Cox made a statement to officers on l/l 9/78, two weeks after the incident, and claimed

that he was injured during a fight at the local skating rink, Skate World. He stated that

there was a fight involving of eight people, four blacks and four whites, outside of the

skating rink. Cox claimed that after he was hit in the face, he bit his own tongue. He

claimed that he then got into his own car and left the scene. He claimed that he could not

find the hotel, so he went back to Skate World, where a Good Samaritan picked him up

Cox, R. 2

Detectives found three loose hairs in the victim’s car that were consistent with Cox’s

chest hair, and type-0 blood, which is the same type as Cox’s but not the victim’s.

A military-type boot print was discovered inside Ms. Zellers’ car. Cox was in the U.S.

Army at the time of his arrest and was wearing that type of boot when treated at the

hospital. A match, however, was never made linking the two prints together.

The State claimed that, although the evidence was circumstantial, it pointed to Cox as the

perpetrator. The State argued that Cox’s claim that he was in a fight at Skate World was

not credible and could not be corroborated by any of the security personnel who were

working that evening. There were no eyewitnesses who could support Cox’s alibi. On

appeal, the State argued that Cox’s statement that, after being injured, he left the rink in

his own car in search of his hotel was not true. Medical evidence was presented that an

artery in Cox’s tongue had been severed, and he was bleeding profusely from the mouth.

There was a trail of blood at the Days Inn leading from the second floor to the third floor.

There was, however, no blood discovered in Cox’s vehicle. Type-O blood, Cox’s blood

type, was discovered in Ms. Zellers’ car. The State acknowledged that 45 percent of the

population has type-0 blood; therefore, the discovery of this type of blood in the victim’s

car did not automatically prove that Cox was the murderer. It did, however, prove that

Ms. Zellers’ murderer was injured and lost blood in her car prior to her death.

A surgical assistant testified at trial that the injury to Cox’s tongue was more consistent

with someone other than himself biting off his tongue because of the shape of the wound

f-- and the ragged tear. The defense brought up the fact that the missing portion of Cox’s

tongue was not discovered in the victim’s mouth or near the victim. The State countered

that the victim’s body was severely decomposed as a result of being submerged in human

waste; therefore, the tongue may not have been able to be discovered.

Additional Information:

Cox was indicted in Florida nine years after the commission of the offense. At the time of

the indictment, Cox was serving a nine-year sentence in California for Kidnapping and

two separate counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Circumstances of the offenses are

as follows;

In August of 1985, a young girl named Kathleen Boice arrived at her house in Crestview

California. As she exited her vehicle, Cox, who was following her, jumped from his car,

grabbed the victim, threw her to the ground, placed a seven-inch knife to her throat and

told her, " Go with me, don’t scream or I‘ll kill you." During this scuffle, the knife cut the

victim’s hand.

In December of 1985, a young woman, Gidget Wickam, was stationed with the U.S.

Army at Fort Ord, California. Ms. Wickam went to the airport to retrieve luggage and, as

Cox, R. 3

Trial Summary:

12/l 5187

01122188

02125188

09/30/88

1 O/06/8 8

Florida detainer lodged against defendant while incarcerated in California.

Arrest warrant issued.

Defendant indicted:

Count I: Murder in the First Degree

Upon advisory recommendation, the jury recommended death by a 7-5

majority.

Defendant sentenced as follows

Count I: Murder in the First Degree

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC# 73,150

555 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1989)

1 O/06/8 8

03/l O/89

06/08/99

07/l l/89

12121189

02/ 12190

02/23/90

Appeal filed

Initial brief filed.

State’s answer brief filed

Defendant’s reply brief filed.

FSC reversed conviction, vacated the sentence and directed that defendant

be acquitted of charge.

Rehearing denied.

Mandate issued.

Case Information:

On 03/10/89, the defendant filed his Direct Appeal initial brief, which included the

following claims of trial court error: the evidence was legally insufficient to support a

conviction; improper excusal of two prospective jurors; the State failed to try Cox for the

offense within 180 days and did not indict until nine years after the murder thereby

violating the defendant’s due process and preventing him from conducting a proper

investigation; and, that Cox’s due process was violated regarding other evidentiary

matters.

The Florida Supreme Court unanimously agreed that there was insufficient evidence to

support the verdict and commented that, although the State’s evidence would have

created a reasonable suspicion, the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The

Court stated the evidence did not prove that Cox, and only Cox, murdered the victim. The

Court then vacated Cox’s death sentence, reversed his conviction and remanded to the-

Cox, R. 4

Former Assistant State Attorney and current Circuit Court Judge Frederick J. Lauten

wrote:

Jeff Ashton and I prosecuted Robert Cox together. The case was ten

years old when I was sent to California by Robert Egan to speak to Cox

to see if he would plead to first-degree murder if we waived the death

penalty. He would not.

Blood stains found on a floor mat were sent to a new DNA lab to

determine if DNA was present. A preliminary report indicated that DNA

could be obtained so we took a sample of blood from Robert Cox. The

lab reported that the sample from the floor mat lacked even molecular

weight for the lab to report a match and maintain the standards

established for accuracy and reliability. The lab confirmed that the blood

type on the mats matched Cox’s blood type, which was evidence we

already had. Jeff and I reviewed the case thoroughly and felt that we had

enough circumstantial evidence to establish that Cox committed the

murder and indicted him.

Nineteen-year-old Sharon Zellers went to work at Walt Disney World on

December 30, 1978. She had a habit of informing her parents by

telephone of everywhere she went. She was unusually diligent about

calling her parents. At the end of her work shift, she called her parents to

tell them she was going to meet some friends for breakfast. She promised

to call when she left the restaurant; however, she never called. Her father

left home and began driving around town to look for her.

At the same time, Robert Cox appeared at a hotel where his parents were

staying, the Day’s Inn on Sandlake Road. He was bleeding profusely

from the mouth and a deputy sheriff was called to take a report.

Eventually, Cox was taken to surgery for the injury to his tongue. That

night, through his father, he gave a statement to the police, and he also

gave another statement directly to the police. He told them that he had

been at an ice-skating rink on Highway 50 near Kirkman, and as he was

leaving, had been sucker punched by a group of white and black young

men and had bitten his tongue off. Rather than return to the ice skating

rink to seek help from the police officer he had walked past seconds ago,

he reported that he got in his car and drove around looking for a hospital,

and unable to find one, returned to the parking lot of the Albertson’s

grocery store, right next to the skating rink. At that time, some good

Samaritan picked him up, bleeding like mad, and drove him the Sand

Lake Day’s Inn and simply dropped him in the parking lot and left him

there to find his parents room! The same night, his father accompanied a

Cox, R. 5

hotel. The deputy who took the report went with Cox’s father and looked

inside the car for evidence and discovered that not one single drop of

blood was present, even though Cox himself was bleeding like crazy

when he found him at the hotel.

Five days after her disappearance, Sharon Zellers’ body was found in a

sewage lift station. That station was no more than 300 yards from the

Day’s Inn. Her body was unrecognizable because it had been in water

and feces, which was pumped down a pipe to a raw sewage station,

located further east on Sand Lake Road. Her car was found 20 yards away

with blood in it, a boot print, and hair samples, all of which matched

Robert Cox. The back seat of the car was missing and to this day has

never been found.

As the case proceeded to trial, during discovery, a surgical nurse was

identified who assisted in the surgery to the injury to Cox’s tongue. She

had never been interviewed before, but when finally interviewed by Jeff

and me she testified that on the night of the surgery she and the surgeon

were told how Cox had injured his tongue (sucker punched at the ice-

skating rink) but that the shape of the injury to the tongue was

inconsistent with that type of injury and consistent with his having his

tongue bitten off by someone else. For example, while it was in their

mouth!

At trial, we presented the testimony of the detective who found the car in

the Albertson’s without any blood in it despite the statement from Cox

that he had driven around injured in the car; the testimony from the

surgeon, that profuse amounts of blood would have been lost by Cox until

he received surgery; the testimony of the nurse I just referred to;

testimony of blood experts that the blood in Sharon Zellers’ car matched

Cox’s blood type; testimony from a hair expert that the hair found in the

car was consistent with the characteristics of his hair; testimony from a

witness that the boot print found in the car was consistent with the kind of

sole worn by Army Ranger’s at that time (Cox was an army ranger).

The jury deliberated at length and found Cox guilty of murder in the first

degree. At the sentencing hearing, we flew in two women from California

who Cox had kidnapped at either knifepoint or gunpoint. They testified to

the terror of their kidnapping by Cox. The jury recommended death 7 to 5

and Judge Conrad imposed the death penalty.

The Florida Supreme Court held that the evidence in Cox’s case was

circumstantial and did not preclude every reasonable hypothesis of

innocence and entered a judgment of acquittal. Cox was returned to

Cox, R. 6

Eventually he was paroled and a few years later committed a series of

armed robberies in Texas where he was sentenced to life in prison.

Jeff Ashton, Assistant State Attorney wrote that he agreed with Judge Lauten’s recitation

of the case and added that Cox is presently serving a 35-year State and a consecutive 15-

year Federal sentence out of Texas.

Detective Dan Nazarchuk (retired) of the Orlando County Sheriffs Office was one of

the investigators on the Cox case. He stated that he believes very strongly that Robert

Cox committed this murder. He claimed there were never any other suspects and stated

that he feels the jury reached the correct verdict.

Defense Attorney Statements:

A request for comment and a copy of this report was sent to defense attorney, Patricia

Cashman. Ms. Cashman provided the following statement regarding Cox’s case, "This

case is one of two unanimous reversals in death penalty cases by the Florida Supreme

Court. A wrongful conviction occurred and the appellate court released Mr. Cox after he

spent 18 months on death row."

In 1995, Cox was arrested for holding a gun on a 12-year-old girl in Decatur, Texas. He

is presently serving a life sentence for that robbery and a consecutive 15-year federal

sentence.

GOLDEN, Andrew, (W/M)

DC# 365791

DOB: 06/14/44

Tenth Judicial Circuit, Polk County, Case # 90-l 778

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Robert E. Pyle

Trial Attorney: Allen R. Smith Esq.

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Gwendolyn Spivey, Esq.

Date of Offense: 09/l 3189

Date of Sentence: 1 l/15/91

Circumstance of Offense:

On 9/13/89, at 3:30 a.m., a police officer found the body of Ardelle Golden floating in

Lake Hartridge, which is located in Winter Haven, Florida. Golden’s rented car was

submerged in the lake. On 4/5/90, her husband, Andrew Golden, was indicted for her

murder.

At trial, Andrew Golden testified that he and his wife had been at Lake Hartridge on the

evening of 09/12/89 and had returned home at approximately 1l:OO p.m. He claimed, that

upon returning home, his wife could not find her cigarette case and went out to go look

for it and to purchase more cigarettes. Mr. Golden claimed that he stayed home and went

to sleep. When Mr. Golden awoke the next morning, he asked his eldest son where his

mother was. His son did not know where his mother was and left the home shortly after

6:00 a.m. to look for her. He was, however, unable to find her and returned home and

then left again shortly thereafter to report to his school that he would be late. Golden

called the police to report that his wife was missing. Two detectives came to the Golden

home and, while they were there gathering information, they received a radio call

informing them that the drowning victim was identified as Andrew Golden’s wife. Mr.

Golden was subsequently arrested a month after his wife’s drowning for First-Degree

Murder.

The State presented evidence at trial that the cigarette case that Mr. Golden claimed his

wife "was going crazy looking for" was discovered floating in the lake near Mrs.

Golden’s body and an unopened package of cigarettes was found inside of her purse. The

State claimed that investigators went to every convenience store in close proximity to the

Golden home, and there were no clerks who could identify Mrs. Golden as being a

customer that evening. Mrs. Golden’s body was found floating in the lake without her

glasses, which were discovered inside of her purse. Mrs. Golden’s vision was 400/20, and

Golden, A. 2

able to see more than 10 inches away without her glasses; therefore, she would not have

been able to drive the car to the lake prior to driving the vehicle into the water.

The State introduced evidence that, although Golden initially denied that he had any

insurance, the family had more than $300,000 in life insurance policies. It was

determined that Golden forged his wife’s signature on life insurance applications, most of

which were purchased within the five months prior to Ardelle Golden’s death.

Additionally, the rented car discovered in the lake was rented by Mr. Golden, who used

his American Express card. American Express automatically provided $200,000.00 in

accidental death insurance. The State pointed out that the Goldens owned two cars;

therefore, renting an additional car would have been an unnecessary expense.

The State proved that Golden had not been gainfully employed for approximately two

years and was over $200,000.00 in debt. Golden filed for bankruptcy after his wife’s

death and never related to his bankruptcy attorney that he anticipated receiving an

insurance settlement. In closing arguments, the State argued that Golden drowned his

wife and drove the car into the lake. The State contended that Golden forged his wife’s

signature on several insurance applications and then murdered her to collect on the

policies.

Mr. Golden’s attorney argued that Golden was not aware of the existence of the policies

because they were offered by their credit card companies. The defense claimed that

Golden was contacted by the credit card companies after his wife’s death and that he did

not pursue them for payment.

The jury convicted Golden and recommended that he be sentenced to death. The trial

court agreed with the jury recommendation and sentenced Golden to death on 1 l/l 5191.

Trial Summary:

04/05/90

1 O/28/9 1

10128191

1 l/15/91

Defendant was indicted for one count of First-Degree Murder.

Defendant was found Guilty by the trial jury.

The jury, upon advisory recommendation, recommended death by an

8 to 4 majority.

Defendant sentenced:

Golden, A. 3

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC# 78,982

629 So. 2d 109(Fla. 1993)

1 l/25/91

1 l/10/93

1 l/17/93

01/05/94

01/05/94

Appeal tiled

FSC vacated Golden’s conviction and sentence and directed that he be

released from custody.

Motion for rehearing tiled (State filed)

Rehearing denied

Mandate issued

Case History:

On 11125191, Golden filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. The main issue,

on appeal, was that there was insufficient evidence to prove that his wife’s death resulted

from the criminal agency of another person.

The Supreme Court stated that ". . . the finger of suspicion points heavily at Golden. A

reasonable juror could conclude that he more than likely caused his wife’s death." The

Court concluded, however, that the State’s circumstantial evidence was insufficient to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Golden’s wife’s drowning was not an accident.

The Court subsequently vacated the conviction and sentence and ordered that Golden be

released.

Prosecution/ Law Enforcement Statements:

John Aguero, Director, Special Prosecution, State Attorney’s Office - Tenth Judicial

Circuit, wrote:

I received your memo and list of the "21 innocent" defendants convicted

and sentenced to death. I write only to comment on one, Andrew Golden.

This abominable opinion by the Florida Supreme Court was an insult to

the memory of Ardelle Golden and to the jurors and the judge who heard

the case. The Supreme Court just decided to be 13’h juror and disagree

with everyone else. They overturned this conviction and sentence saying

that "The finger of suspicion points heavily at Golden. A reasonable juror

could conclude that he more likely than not caused his wife’s death." They

also said "There were no wounds or other signs of violence on the body."

This last quote shows that they completely misapprehended the manner in

which Mr. Golden killed his wife. They paid absolutely no attention to the

FACTS. If they had, Mr. Golden would still be on death row where he

Golden, A. 4

would have to have been going over 35 miles per hour to get the car as far

out in the lake as it was found. According to the testimony of the medical

examiner and the accident reconstruction expert, either the woman should

have had seat belt injuries (she always wore a seat belt) or, in an

unexpected crash like the defense theorized, she would have hit the

windshield. Thus it was precisely the LACK OF INJURIES that helped

prove the case. Of course there was a multitude of other evidence, but this

complete lack of understanding in deciding a death penalty case is what

misleads people like those who think there were 21 innocent people on

death row. I got calls from three of the jurors after Mr. Golden was

released. Each asked me essentially, who the hell does the Supreme Court

think they are? They didn’t sit through this trial. I challenge anyone who

thinks Mr. Golden is innocent to sit down and talk to me. They won’t

think he’s innocent when they leave."

A request for comment was made to Deputy Chief Darrell Kirkland of the Winter Haven

Police Department. A response has not been received to date.

Defense Attorney Statements:

Gwendolyn Spivey, Golden’s attorney on Direct Appeal stated that any information

relative to this case may be found in her Direct Appeal initial brief. She stated, " The

Florida Supreme Court did an excellent job regarding this case."

Current Status:

Andrew Golden is presently serving a fifteen-year prison sentence in Texas for three

separate cases of Indecency with a Child.

GREEN, Joseph Nahume (B/M)

DC# 091882

DOB: 01/10/56

Eighth Judicial Circuit, Bradford County, Case # 92-633

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Robert P. Cates

Trial Attorneys: Jeffrey Leukel and F. Reed Replogle, Esq.

Direct Appeal Attorney: David A. Davis, Assistant Public Defender

Date of Offense: 12108192

Date of Sentence: 1 l/30/93

Circumstances of Offense:

At 10: 10 p.m. on 12/08/92, Judy Miscally was using a public phone at the Mapco

convenience store in Starke, Florida, when she was approached by a man who demanded

money. When she refused and screamed, the man shot her and fled the scene. Miscally

) later died.

Three people witnessed the shooting - John Goolsby, Katrina Kintner and Lonnie

Thompson. Miscally described the shooter as a skinny, black man in his mid-twenties,

and described the gun as a small, semiautomatic pistol. Goolsby was in his car at a

stoplight near the Mapco store when he heard the shot, and he saw two people in front of

the store. Goolsby was not wearing his glasses at the time and could not determine the

sex or race of either person. Kintner was sitting in her car in a convenience store parking

lot across the street from the Mapco store when she heard the shot. Kintner said she saw

three black men surrounding a white woman but could not describe them in any detail.

Thompson was near the convenience store across the street from the Mapco store when

he heard the shot. Thompson said he saw Green and Miscally struggle and saw Green

shoot Miscally before fleeing behind the store.

Green’s alibi was that on the night of the murder, he and his girlfriend, Gwen Coleman,

were walking around Starke. During that night, Green helped Donald Laverly and David

Padgett take a muffler off of Laverly’s car in the parking lot of the Pizza Hut restaurant.

Green returned to the motel where he and Coleman were staying sometime after 1l:OO

Green, J. 2

Trial Summary:

01/15/93 Indicted on one count of First-Degree Murder

1 o/05/93 Jury returned a guilty verdict

1 O/25/93 Jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of 9-3

1 l/30/93 Sentenced to death

Retrial Summary

03/l 6/00 Acquitted at retrial

Additional Information:

Prior to his trial for the murder of Judy Miscally, Green had a criminal record in the State

of Florida. The following is his prior prison history in Florida:

FSC# 83,003

688 So.2d 301

01/10/94

1 l/27/96

Appeal filed

FSC vacated conviction and sentence and remanded for retrial

Case Information:

Green filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 01/l O/94, citing twelve

trial court errors. The FSC found two trial court errors harmful enough to warrant a new

trial and chose not to comment on the other ten issues. The FSC found that errors were

committed by allowing the State to cross-examine a defense witness about her prior

alcohol abuse and by admitting evidence seized pursuant to a bad search warrant.

Additionally, the FSC found that Lonnie Thompson’s trial testimony was often

inconsistent and contradictory. On 1 l/27/96, the FSC vacated the conviction and

sentence and ordered a new trial.

On 03/16/00, Green was acquitted of the charge of First-Degree Murder. The trial court

Green, J. 3

Law Enforcement/Prosecution Statements:

Curtis French, who was the Assistant Attorney General for the Direct Appeal to the

Florida Supreme Court, had the following statement regarding the Green case:

French noted that once the testimony of the State witness (Thompson) had been excluded

as unreliable, "the prosecution could not prove its case," thus Green was acquitted at

retrial.

According to French, Green had not been cleared of the crime, but instead, he "had been

given the benefit of the doubt" in the case due to the nature of the testimony and evidence

against him. French stated that the evidence pointed to Green because Green "certainly

had both the motive and opportunity to commit the crime," and, additionally, problems

existed with his alibi that was given to police,

To French, Green had not been cleared of the crime and French "would tend to dispute

his innocence."

Additional comments were received from William Cervone, State Attorney for the Eighth

Circuit:

As to Joseph Green, I can provide my comments since I tried the case. In essence,

the ultimate acquittal was because the trial court suppressed the identification

testimony of witness Lonnie Thompson after the original remand from the Florida

Supreme Court. Thompson was the only eyewitness linking Green to the murder

and when his testimony was disallowed the remaining circumstances were

insufficient to secure a conviction.

Interestingly, the same judge who ultimately suppressed the identification after the

remand had conducted extensive hearings before the first trial as to the competency

of Thompson and had allowed him to testify, While the Supreme Court Opinion

questioned Thompson’s competency as a witness, it did not rule on that or find the

original admission of his testimony to be error. It being my belief that the trial court

had improperly invaded the province of the jury in ruling on the credibility that

should be given to a witness’ testimony, the suppression of the identification was

appealed but that appeal was not successful. Additionally, even before the first trial

the trial court had suppressed evidence showing the presence of gun powder residue

in the pockets of the defendant’s clothing, and the Supreme Court Opinion

suppressed the seizure of the clothing itself. I remain convinced of Green’s guilt, as

was the jury that originally heard the testimony of Thompson, evaluated it, and

Green, J. 4

Defense Statements:

David Davis, who was Green’s defense counsel for the Direct Appeal to the Florida

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

Davis cited competency issues of the State’s witness, Thompson, as the primary reason

for the acquittal of Green at the retrial. According to Davis, "the case died when

Thompson was declared incompetent to testify."

Davis commented that, due to the exclusion of Thompson’s testimony and the lack of

other compelling evidence that Green committed the crime, Green had a "strong claim of

innocence," probably "the strongest claim of innocence that I have seen in a long time."

Davis attributes the suspicion and prosecution of Green to "community uproar" and a

small town trying to get revenge for the murder of a popular citizen.

According to Davis, Green was acquitted due to bad police practices, most notably the

bad search warrant and use of Thompson as a witness, and the overall weakness of the

case against him.

Current Status:

After acquittal, Green was sentenced in 2001 to one-year terms for two cocaine

possession charges that occurred in 2000. He was released from prison on 1 l/05/01.

There is no information available as to Green’s criminal history subsequent to his release.

Alternate Prosecuted Suspect:

None

Report Date: 05/l 4/02 JFL

Approved: 05/l 7102 WS

HAYES, Robert (B/M)

DC # 710372

DOB: 120 2/63

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Case # 90-3993-CF 10

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Stanton S. Kaplan

Attorney, Criminal Trial: Barbara Ann Heyer - Special Public Defender

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Richard B. Greene - Assistant Public Defender

Attorney, Retrial: Barbara Ann Heyer - Special Public Defender

Date of Offense: 02/20/90

Date of Sentence: 06/05/92

Circumstances of Offense:

Robert Hayes was convicted and sentenced to death for the strangulation of Pamela

Albertson, a co-worker at the Pompano Harness Track.

When Pamela Albertson did not show up for work on the morning of 02/20/90, the

security officials of the Pompano Harness Track went to her dormitory room in search of

her. When security officials arrived at the dormitory where Albertson and the other

female grooms’ lived, they found her strangled body lying on the floor in blue jeans and a

T-shirt.

Investigation into the murder quickly led to the questioning and, eventually, the arrest of

Robert Hayes. Witness testimony and DNA evidence placed Hayes at the murder scene;

however, there was also evidence that someone else could have possibly perpetrated the

crime. Pamela Albertson was found with several strands of Caucasian hair clutched in

her hand. The hairs were inconsistent with Hayes’ hair, as he was African-American.

At trial, the State intended to prove Hayes’ guilt through DNA evidence, witness

testimony, testimony of a jailhouse informant and evidence of a strikingly similar

collateral attack. Further examination of the DNA evidence revealed semen on a tank top

and in the vagina of Pamela Albertson. Tests confirmed a three-band match on the tank

top and a seven-band match on the vaginal swab for compatibility with Hayes.

Additionally, employees of the Pompano Harness Track stated that they saw a man fitting

Hayes’ description at Albertson’s dormitory on the night of her murder. Several people

testified that Albertson had expressed fear of being alone with the defendant, although no

complaint against Hayes in 1988, stating he pinned her on the floor and began choking

her. When Hayes let Lesko go, she promptly called police and Hayes was arrested for

simple assault. Those charges were later dropped. Finally, Ronald Morrison, Hayes’

cellmate in Broward County Jail, testified that Hayes, in essence, confessed to being in

Albertson’s room that night, choking her, and fleeing through the window. The State

relied on such evidence to obtain a conviction of First-Degree Murder on 1 O/29/91.

Additional Information:

On 06/26/89, prior to his murder conviction, Hayes was arrested on charges of robbery

and burglary in Wilmington, Delaware. The victim, Lillian Shephard, reported that

Hayes had sexually harassed her on many occasions and on the date of the referenced

offense, Hayes broke into her apartment and choked her until she lost consciousness. She

awoke to see Hayes leaving her apartment. Hayes pled guilty to these charges and

received two years probation.

Trial Summary:

03/22/90

1 O/29/9 1

1 l/14/91

06/05/92

06/02/95

07/ 16197

Defendant indicted on:

Count I: First-Degree Murder

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

the indictment.

Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by a 10 to 2 majority, voted for the

death penalty.

The defendant was sentenced as followed:

Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death

FSC vacated Hayes’ death sentence and remanded for a retrial.

Robert Hayes was acquitted of the murder of Pamela Albertson.

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC # 79,997

660 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1995)

06/l l/92

06/02/95

09/ 13195

10/13/95

Appeal filed.

FSC reversed the conviction, vacated the death sentence and remanded for

a new trial.

Rehearing denied.

Hayes, R. 3

Case Information:

On 06/l l/92, Hayes filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. In this appeal,

he argued that the DNA results were fallacious due to the unreliable means by which they

were tested. Holding DNA testing, or any new scientific principle, up to the highest

standards of credibility, the Florida Supreme Court insisted that the evidence or expert

testimony in question must assist the jury in determining the fact in an issue, must pass

the dictates of the Frye test established in Frye v. United State.s2, and must be presented

by a qualified expert on the subject. In examining the issues of the Hayes’ case, the

unreliable technique of "band-shifting" was used to explain the DNA test results in terms

of the probability that Hayes left the semen found on the tank top. The Florida Supreme

Court ruled that the "band-shifting" method employed in the Hayes case was

inadmissible as a matter of law, and, as such, the tank top was erroneously admitted as

evidence. The high court did, however, rule that the semen found in Albertson’s vagina

was properly tested and could be presented as credible evidence in Hayes’ retrial.

Hayes also raised the issue of collateral crime evidence in his appeal. The prosecution

presented evidence that Hayes attacked another female co-worker at a track in New

Jersey. The prosecution sought to show the similarities between that attack and the

murder of Pamela Albertson; however, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that there were

"insufficient points of similarity to the instant offense to warrant admitting evidence of

, the previous attack. " As such, the high court deemed the admittance of collateral crime

evidence as error.

In addition, Hayes objected at trial and argued on appeal the admittance of hearsay

evidence regarding the victim’s supposed fear of him. The Florida Supreme Court

agreed, and found that the trial court erred in allowing the hearsay testimony.

The fourth matter brought up in appeal was the prosecution’s elicitation of testimony

concerning the defense’s failure to request various tests of evidence. The Florida

Supreme Court found error as allowing such testimony insinuated that the burden of

proof lied with the defense.

For the expressed reasons, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Hayes’ conviction,

vacated his death sentence and remanded for retrial.

Upon retrial, the jury acquitted Hayes of the murder of Pamela Albertson.

Law Enforcement/ Prosecution Statements:

A letter requesting comment was sent to the Broward County Sheriffs Department on

2 Frye v. United States - Supreme Court case that established the guidelines for considering novel scientific

r‘- techniques or methods in verifying evidence or testimony. The Frye test asks whether expert testimony is

based on a scientific principle that is "sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the

Hayes, R. 4

Carolyn V. McCann of the State Attorney’s Office for the Seventeenth Circuit issued the

following statement concerning Hayes’ case:

The [Florida Supreme Court] ruled that as a matter of first impression that the

"band-shifting" technique of DNA testing would be inadmissible as a matter of

law regarding Hayes’ DNA found on the victim’s shirt. The Court did not make

the same ruling as to Hayes’ DNA found in the victim’s vagina. On retz, the

State presented evidence of Hayes’ DNA found in the victim’s vagina. However,

the defense challenged this evidence with other evidence that hairs inconsistent

with Hayes’ were found clutched in the victim’s hand and expert DNA testimony

that many thought was questionable. In the end, the jury disregarded the fact that

Hayes’ DNA was found in the victim’s vagina and acquitted him of murder.

Defense Statements:

Defense Attorney Barbara Ann Heyer commented:

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in the Hayes Case was beneficial in a

number of ways. First, it clarified the use of DNA evidence and second, it

clarified questions surrounding the Williams rule. I believe the court made the

right decision in finding Hayes not guilty because he was innocent.

Current Status:

According to NCIC, Robert Hayes has had no arrests subsequent to his release.

03/07/02 - ew

03/l l/O2 - approved - ws

JACOBS, Sonia, (W/F)

DC# 149957

DOB: 08/24/47

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Case # 76-1275CFB

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable M. Daniel Futch

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Ray Sandstrom, Private

Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Richard Strafer, Private

Date of Offense: 02/20/76

Date of Sentence: 08/20/76

Date of Resentence 05/05/8 1

Circumstance of Offense:

Sonia Jacobs was convicted of the murders of Florida Trooper Philip Black and off-duty

Canadian Constable Donald Irwin, and the kidnapping of Leonard Levison.

According to the Florida Supreme Court opinion the circumstances of the offense are as

followed: On February 20, 1976, Trooper Black, and his friend Donald Irwin, a

Canadian Constable on vacation, were on a routine patrol early in the morning. Black

drove into a rest area along Interstate 95 and observed a Camero automobile in which

Walter Rhodes and Jessie Tafero, Jacobs and her two children were sleeping. Trooper

Black pulled beside the vehicle and approached the car to ask for identification. He saw a

gun at Rhodes feet and confiscated the weapon. He returned to his patrol car to run a

radio check on Rhodes and his gun. Black learned, from the radio check, that Rhodes was

a convicted felon and returned to the car to question the other occupants. Trooper Black

noticed a gun holster in the back seat and ordered everyone out of the vehicle. Tafero,

sitting in the front passenger seat, was slow exiting the vehicle, so Black pulled Tafero

out. The two struggled until Black, with Irwin’s assistance, subdued Tafero.

Rhodes testified that while Irwin held Tafero against the patrol car, Black backed away

and drew his firearm. Rhodes walked to the front of the car with his hands in the air.

Rhodes claimed he then heard two or three shots, and he turned and saw Jacobs, still in

the car, holding a nine-millimeter gun with both hands. Tafero escaped from Irwin’s

Jacobs, S. 2

Rhodes alleged that Tafero then took the trooper’s gun and some shell casings. The group

then fled in the patrol car. With Rhodes driving, they exited Interstate 95 and entered an

apartment complex parking lot where they observed Leonard Levison emerging from his

Cadillac. Rhodes demanded, at gunpoint, that Levinson surrender his keys. Tafero told

Levison that they had a sick child that they needed to take to the hospital. Jacobs nodded

her head in agreement. Tafero grabbed Levinson, and all parties entered the Cadillac.

Rhodes drove the group until they were finally captured when he crashed while

attempting to evade a roadblock.

Shortly after the crash, a trooper, thinking Jacobs was a hostage, led her away from the

scene where Rhodes and Tafero lay handcuffed on the ground. As they passed, Jacobs

bent down and appeared to kiss Tafero. Jacobs then acknowledged that she was "with

them". The trooper then asked Jacobs, "Do you like shooting troopers?" Jacobs

responded, "We had to."

Tafero later testified, on Jacob’s behalf, that while he and Trooper Black were struggling,

Rhodes shot and killed both men.

Prior Record:

Arrest Date Location

1 l/01/68 Miami Dade

12/19/70 Miami Dade

Charge Disposition

Prostitution Dismissed

I- Poss. of Marijuana Counts I and III, 5

II- Contr. to the years probation.

Delinquency of a

Minor Count II- Dismissed

III- Poss. of

Amphetamines

1 l/28/71

07/02/74

Miami Dade

Myrtle Beach, SC,

Forgery Not Guilty

I- Poss. of Marijuana Unknown

II- Poss. Of Hashish

III, IV- Poss. with

Intent to Dist.

Amphet.

/Barbituates.

V- Pass. of LSD

VI- Violation of SC

Jacobs, S. 3

Codefendant Information:

Walter Norman Rhodes pled guilty and was sentenced to Life for his cooperation in the

case. He was paroled in 1994 and his supervision was transferred to New Mexico. He is

presently listed as an absconder from supervision.

Jessie Tafero was tried and convicted and subsequently executed on 05/04/90 for the

murders of Black and Irwin.

archived in federal court and is not available for review.

03103176

0510518 1

1 O/09/92

Indicted for two counts of First-Degree Murder, Theft of a Firearm,

Grand Theft Auto, Theft of a Firearm, Kidnapping.

The Jury recommended Life, however, the defendant was sentenced as

follows:

Count I: First-Degree Murder- Death

Count II: First-Degree Murder- Death

Count III: Kidnapping- Life

On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, Jacobs received two Life

sentences for the murder charges to run concurrently with the Life

sentence received from the kidnapping.

Jacobs entered a plea to Second-Degree Murder and was released with

credit time served.

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC# 50,175

396 So. 2d 713 (1981)

0312618 1 FSC affirmed the murder convictions and the kidnapping conviction and

Jacobs, S. 4

r- Case History:

After a Direct Appeal was tiled in the Florida Supreme Court, Jacobs filed an application

for stay and for leave to file a motion for a new trial alleging that there was newly

discovered evidence as it related to her codefendant, Walter Rhodes. Jacobs claimed he

stated on more than one occasion that it was he who fired the shots that killed the two

officers. The State argued that information pertaining to this allegation was available to

Jacobs during the trial. The Florida Supreme Court issued an order directing the trial

judge to tile a response indicating whether he imposed the death sentence in

consideration of any information not known to Jacobs. In filing the response, the judge

attached a copy of Jacobs’ presentence investigation claiming that he had no knowledge

as to whether defense counsel had access to the report. Jacobs then filed a supplement to

her motion claiming that a Brady’ violation occurred during trial. Attached to the

presentence investigation was a confidential polygraph examination of Walter Rhodes.

Jacobs argued that the polygraph report indicated Rhodes’ responses were different than

those he made at trial. The State acknowledged in a response that, although the defense

was not supplied with this report, there was no contradiction between Rhodes’ testimony,

nor did Rhodes make any statements favorable to the defense. The Florida Supreme

Court considered the information and temporarily relinquished jurisdiction to the trial

court with directions to the trial judge to make a finding as to whether the appellant had

access to the presentence investigation during sentencing and whether withholding this

report constituted a Brady violation and order a new hearing.

The trial court made the determination that a Brady violation did not occur, and the

Supreme Court received the appeal back from the trial court. The Supreme Court agreed

that Rhodes’ polygraph statements were not inconsistent with other statements that he

had made.

Jacobs’ additional arguments included Miranda violations, improper denial of preemptory

challenges and her belief that she was unable to properly participate in her own defense.

The Supreme Court did not find error in those arguments, however, vacated Jacobs’

sentence of death based on the fact that the trial judge mistakenly believed that he could

not consider nonstatutory mitigating circumstances and held that the evidence was not

sufficient to override the jury’s sentence of death. The case was subsequently remanded

to the trial court for resentencing. The court upheld her life sentence on the kidnapping

case and claimed there was sufficient evidence to sustain her conviction. The Florida

Supreme Court opined, "One who participates with another in a common criminal

scheme is guilty of all crimes committed in the furtherance of that scheme regardless of

whether he or she physically participates in that crime."

On 0510518 1 Jacobs received two Life sentences for the murder charges to run

concurrently to the Life sentence she received on the Kidnapping case.

Jacobs, S. 5

Although Jacobs was no longer on death row, her attorneys continued to appeal her case

and filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the United States District Court on

1 l/25/85. The magistrate recommended that the petition be denied and, while the report

was under consideration, Jacobs’ attorneys discovered that Brenda Isham, Jacobs’

previous cellmate, had perjured herself at trial. The District Court granted Jacobs a stay

of the proceedings to allow her to pursue the issue in the state courts. Jacobs exhausted

her claim regarding Isham in state court and then filed an amended Habeas Petition in the

United States District Court. After Isham testified, the magistrate judge acknowledged

that Isham did perjure herself, but ruled that Isham’s testimony was not central to the

State’s case and denied the petition. Jacobs then filed a Habeas Appeal with the United

States Court of Appeals. The court found that a Brady violation.had occurred by using the

polygraph of Walter Rhodes and held that three of five statements that Jacobs made

violated her Miranda rights. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded

the case to the District Court with instructions to grant the Habeas Petition conditioned on

the State granting Jacobs a new trial.

The State declined to try Jacobs again and allowed her to plead guilty to Second-Degree

Murder and released her with credit time served.

Law Enforcement/ Prosecution Statements:

’ Carolyn McCann, Assistant State Attorney, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, wrote

I hope that the information contained in this letter will help set the

record straight regarding Jacobs’ involvement in the murders of Trooper

Black and Constable Irwin. . . . Sonia Jacobs was convicted after a

trial of two counts of first degree murder and one count kidnapping.

She was sentenced to death for the homicides and life for the

kidnapping. On review, the Supreme Court of Florida reversed

Jacobs’ sentence of death but upheld her convictions. Jacobs v.

State, 396 So. 2d 7 13(Fla. 198 1). Jacobs was thereafter re-sentenced

to two concurrent life sentences on the murder counts to be served

with the third concurrent life sentence on the kidnapping count.

Jacobs’ convictions had been upheld by all of the State and Federal

Courts reviewing the same until the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals granted her petition for writ of habeas corpus in 1992. In

doing so, they specifically rejected Jacobs’ claim that the State

should have turned over to the defense a polygraph examiner’s

report. It is worth noting that the polygraph examiner’s report was

written the day following the examination from notes taken during

the interview and was not a "substantially verbatim" recording of

the witness’s, Walter Rhodes’s answers. It was for this reason that

the Supreme Court of Florida expressly and explicitly previously

Jacobs, S. 6

difference of opinions between the appellate courts that reviewed

Jacobs’ conviction formed part of the basis for habeas corpus relief.

The Eleventh Circuit also addressed the statements that Jacobs

made to police that were used against her at trial. Some of the

statements made by Sonia Jacobs were ruled inadmissible by the

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. That Court’s opinion was that

Jacob’s rights were violated in that she was not properly advised of

her constitutional rights. The Court did not rule inadmissible her

statement that she was "with them" referring to Rhodes and Tafero

or her statement that she fired the first shot from the car. However,

the Court ruled inadmissible her statement after being asked "Do

you like shooting troopers’ that "we had to". The Court also ruled

inadmissible Jacobs’ statements that she told police her name was

‘Sandy Jenkins’ and that she was picked up by two detectives in an

FHP trooper vehicle while hitchhiking and her subsequent statement

changing her story to being picked up by two men in an orange

Cadillac. Likewise, Jacobs’ statement that she had gotten a ride to

Florida with ‘Tone" and another guy, and that there were guns in the

car and that two of them were hers and that there were six people in

the car when it pulled into the rest stop on I 95, including Jacobs,

her two children, the two men and a woman named "Frenchie" were

also ruled inadmissible by the Eleventh Circuit. Jacobs statement

that she didn’t know ‘Frenchie "and that "Frenchie" took off after

the shooting were also ruled inadmissible by the Eleventh Circuit.

Her statement that she had owned and fired two handguns was also

ruled inadmissible. The loss of these statements Jacobs made to

police was very damaging to the State’s case against her.

After the Eleventh Circuit reversed the convictions and sentences,

Jacobs pleaded guilty in October 1992 to two (2) counts of second

degree murder, and one count of kidnapping, and waived her rights

to appeal in exchange for a sentence of time served, which at that

point, amounted to sixteen (16) years and two hundred, thirty-three

(233) days incarceration. It is important for you to know that as part

of her plea agreement, Sonia Jacobs agreed, in court, to the factual

basis for her plea which included such facts that at the time of the

murders Jacobs was seated with her children in the back seat of the

Camaro, Tafero and Rhodes were outside of the car, that the first

shots were fired from the back of the Camaro and Rhodes testified

that he saw Jacobs holding a 9mm with both hands. Pierce Hyman, a

truck driver who was at the scene of the murder, also testified that it

sounded like the first shot came from the Camaro. Another truck

driver, Robert McKenzie, was also present at the time of the murder

and testified that Rhodes had his hands raised at the time of the

Jacobs, S. 7

a Taser weapon, which had been fired, were found behind the

driver’s seat of the Camaro where Jacobs was sitting. Receipts in the

car’s trunk showed that Jacobs had purchased two Smith & Wesson

automatic pistols. Another weapon she purchased, a .22 caliber

pistol, was also found at the scene. Evidence implicating Jacobs was

abundant and she stipulated that the State could prove all of it. In

addition, Jacobs made incriminating statements to police. . . . The

facts that I have written in this letter are just a small sampling of the

evidence against Jacobs. Of course, there was no prosecutorial

misconduct in this case, just a difference of opinion by the courts

which reviewed it, as to what constituted Brady evidence and the

admissibility of Jacobs’ many statements to police. Just as obvious

is that the facts that Jacobs agreed to as a factual basis for her plea

are far different from the facts portrayed by her and death penalty

opponents.

Defense Attorney Statements:

Defense attorney Ray Sandtrom is deceased.

Defense attorney Richard Strafer was contacted and will be providing a written

statement.

Current Status:

Sonia Jacobs is presently living in Ireland and according to NCIC has not had any arrests

subsequent to her release.

JARAMILLO, Anibal (H/M)

AKA: Jose Bernard0 Pineda

DC # 077098

DOB: 02/03/58

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Case # 80-24540

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Ellen Morphonios

Attorney, Criminal Trial: Terrance McWilliams, Esq.

Attorney, Direct Appeal: Louis Casuso, Esq. & Edward McHale, Esq.

Date of Offense: 1 l/30/80

Date of Sentence: 04/08/8 1

Circumstances of Offense:

Anibal Jaramillo was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of Gilbert0

Caicedo Reyes and Candelaria Castellanos Marin.

"..

In the early morning hours of 12/02/80, the bodies of Gilbert0 Caicedo Reyes and

Candeiaria Castellanos Marin were discovered in a home in South Dade County. Both

had been bound, gagged, and killed execution style with three shots to the head. Medical

examiners estimated the murders took place between 2:00 a.m. on November 30th and

2:00 a.m. on December 1". All six of the shots were believed to have been from the same

gun, probably a MAC- 10 submachine gun with a silencer.

Marin’s hands had been bound by handcuffs, upon which, medical examiners identified

fingerprints that did not belong to Jaramillo. A coil of hemp cord was found next to

Reyes’ body. It was apparent that a portion of the cord had been severed by a knife and

used to bind his hands behind his back. Packaging for a knife was found next to Reyes’

body and the knife itself was found on the dining room table, both of which bore

Jaramillo’s prints. The house had been ransacked in an apparent search for valuables;

however, among the numerous latent fingerprints that police discovered, none of them

belonged to Jaramillo.

. ..----.

At trial, Jaramillo testified that he had gone over to the Reyes’ residence on November

29*h to help Edison Caicedo, Reyes’ nephew, clean out the garage. Jaramillo wanted to

break down several boxes in order to make them more stackable, so he asked Caicedo for

a knife. Caicedo directed Jaramillo to a bag on the dining room table that contained a.

new knife. Jaramillo stated that he unwrapped the knife, leaving the wrapper on the

Jaramillo, A. 2

Jaramillo reported that he left the Reyes’ residence at approximately 10:00 p.m. that

night.

A neighbor testified that he heard a series of loud noises, which sounded like fighting,

come from the house around 7:00 p.m. on November 30th. Mr. Breslaw, who lived next

door, reported that he heard what sounded like furniture being pushed around, a scream,

and what could have been a gunshot. When police arrived on the scene during the early

morning hours of 12/02/80, they met Caicedo, who was accompanied by two attorneys.

Since he lived with his uncle Gilbert0 Caicedo Reyes, Edison Caicedo’s fingerprints were

found all over the house, including the ransacked areas. Caicedo did not testify at

Jaramillo’s trial, as his whereabouts were unknown at the time.

Jaramillo was convicted of two counts of First-Degree Murder and sentenced to death.

Additional Information:

Jaramillo was arrested on 12/14/80 for allegedly stealing and attempting to use another’s

passport. On 04/14/81, Jaramillo pled guilty as charged and was sentenced to 2.5 years

imprisonment to run concurrent with his death sentences (CC # 80-24540).

Jaramillo was again arrested on 03/13/83 for illegal possession of a firearm and for

receiving ransom money from a kidnapping. He was convicted and sentenced to four

years and two years imprisonment respectively.

Trial Summary:

12/16/80

01/07/81

04/08/8 1

04/08/8 1

04/08/8 1

07/08/82

The defendant was arrested.

Defendant indicted on the following:

Count I: First-Degree Murder

Count II: First-Degree Murder

Count III: Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony

The jury found Jaramillo guilty of two counts of First-Degree Murder, as

charged in the indictment. He was acquitted on Count III: Use of a

Firearm in the Commission of a Felony.

Upon advisory sentencing, a majority of the jury voted that Jaramillo be

sentenced to life imprisonment.

The defendant was sentenced as followed:

Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death

Count II: First-Degree Murder - Death

The Florida Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded to the

Jaramillo, A. 3

Florida Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC # 60,570

417 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1982)

05/04/8 1

07108182

Appeal filed.

FSC reversed the convictions and remanded to the trial court with

instructions to discharge Jaramillo.

Case Information:

On 05/04/8 1, Jaramillo filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. In that

appeal, he argued that the State’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and

that such evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of First-Degree Murder.

Applying the standard set forth in McArthur v. Nourse, the high court noted, "where the

only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strong the evidence may suggest

guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any

reasonable hypothesis of innocence." The only evidence offered by the State to show

Jaramillo’s guilt was the presence of his fingerprints on several items at the murder

scene. Jaramillo, however, had a reasonable explanation as to how his fingerprints got on

the knife and the wrapper in question. Since forensic experts could not determine that the

fingerprints were left at the time of the murder and not some time before, the State’s

evidence was not inconsistent with Jaramillo’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. As -

such, the Florida Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded to the trial court

with instructions to discharge Jaramillo.

Law Enforcement/ Prosecution Statements:

Al Singleton of the Dade County Sheriffs Office provided the following comment on the

Jaramillo case:

Through several informants, it was learned that Jaramillo was an ‘enforcer’

(hit man) from Colombia. He was implicated in two separate homicides in 1980,

the first of which involved the shooting death of a woman in November 1980.

Although he was charged with this murder, he was never convicted. The second

murder involved the execution style killing of a couple in South Dade County.

Jaramillo’s fingerprints were found inside the house on the packaging of

rope/cord. That cord was used to bind the victims’ hands behind their backs.

Jaramillo was found guilty of the murders, but the Florida Supreme Court ruled

that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and ordered an

acquittal. It is the opinion of the Dade County Sheriffs Office that Anibal

Jaramillo, A. 4

The State Attorneys Office for the Eleventh Circuit provided the following statement

regarding Jaramillo’s case:

It is an old case and the original prosecutors are not with the office any longer, but

[our] understanding is that Jaramillo, although the evidence was deemed to be

sufficient by a jury and a judge to convict him of two counts of first-degree

murder (and to sentence him to death), the FSC thought that his fingerprints found

on a knife near the victim’s bodies and on a grocery bag in the house were

insufficient, as the defendant gave a story that despite the State’s attempt to rebut

it, was deemed insufficient to refute it. See 417 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1982). Although

the victims had been shot, one of the victims had their hands tied behind their

back with a cord. The coil of the cord was found next to the packaging of a knife

(the one in which the defendant’s fingerprints were on). The State had also

prosecuted a codefendant, Jaime Savino, whose fingerprints were found on the

handcuffs used to bind one of the victims. The trial court directed a verdict

against the State saying that was insufficient. It is our Office’s position that two

men (one being Jaramillo) got away with a double homicide.

Defense Statements:

Louis Casuso, Jaramillo’s defense attorney, commented:

1

/I-.

I thought the Court made the correct decision. The only evidence against

Jaramillo was that his fingerprints were found at the scene; however, there was a

reasonable explanation as to why they were there.

Current Status:

Anibal Jaramillo was deported to Colombia subsequent to his release and was murdered

there.

03/07/02 - ew

03/l 2102 - approved - ws

JENT, William (W/M)

DC# 071840

MILLER, Ernest (W/M)

DC# 071841

DOB: 06/19/56

Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pasco County, Case # 79-847

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Wayne L. Cobb

Trial Attorneys: Leonard Holton, Esq. & Larry Hersch, Esq.

Attorneys, Direct Appeal: Leonard Holton, Esq., David Davis, Assistant Public Defender

& Larry Hersch, Esq.

Attorneys, Collateral Appeals: Eleanor Jackson Piel, Esq. & Howardene Garrett, Esq.

Date of Offense: 07/l 3179

Date of Sentence: 01/30/80

Circumstances of Offense:

>-

The following statement of the facts of the case was agreed upon by defense and State

counsel:

On the evening of 07/l 2 - 07/l 3/79, William Jent, Samantha Carver, and "Ricky" were

drinking at a railroad trestle on the Lacoochee River, where they were joined by Ernie

Miller, Glenna Frye, John Mortolla, Patricia Tirikaine, and C.J. Hubbard. Sometime

during the party, a woman identified as "Tammy," later identified as Gail Bradshaw,

began fighting with Carver. Hubbard saw Jent and Miller hitting Bradshaw, and Frye

noted that Jent pulled Carver off of Bradshaw, began beating her, and was joined by

Miller, who also began to beat Bradshaw. Miller told Frye to hand him a stick, which

Miller also used to beat Bradshaw. Miller and Jent carried the unconscious Bradshaw to

Miller’s car, placed her in the trunk, and everyone went to Miller’s house.

When the group arrived, Bradshaw was taken out of the trunk, laid on the trunk lid, and

raped by four men, including Jent and Miller, while Frye, Tirikaine, and Hubbard

watched. Bradshaw was placed back in the trunk, and the group left, except for Ricky,

who had passed out at Miller’s house. The group headed to Richloam Game Preserve,

where Bradshaw was taken out of the trunk and laid down on the ground in front of the

car. Bradshaw awoke, but was knocked to the ground by Jent. Miller poured gasoline on

Bradshaw and set her on fire, causing her death.

:-

The State called Hubbard, Tirikaine, and Frye to testify as to the events of that evening,

and their testimony is included in the statement of the facts of the case. The defense

counsel argued that the ability of the State’s witnesses to accurately testify as to the

Jent, W. & Miller, E. 2

consumed during the course of the evening. In addition to the drug impairment, the

defense also argued that the State’s witnesses gave conflicting and inconsistent reports

about the details of the murder, and therefore, the testimony of these witnesses could not

be trusted. The State claimed that the inconsistency in the reports was due to the threats

made by Jent and Miller to the State witnesses.

In addition to witness testimony, the State called forensic experts to testify about a single

hair fragment that was found on a stump where Bradshaw’s burned body was found. The

hair was not Bradshaw’s and was found to be microscopically similar to Jent’s. The

defense countered by stating that the hair analysis was inconclusive due to the fact that

the hair fragment was found four days after the murder and only after numerous

investigative personnel, including police and forensic, had been through the crime scene.

Trial Summary:

08129179 Jent and Miller indicted on one count each of First-Degree Murder

10/l l/79 State filed a Motion to Sever that was granted by the trial court

1 l/l 5/79

1 l/16/79

01/30/80

Jury returned guilty verdict against Miller

By a majority vote, jury recommended a life sentence for Miller

Judge overrode the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Miller to death

12120179 Jury returned guilty verdict against Jent

12121179 By a majority vote, jury recommended a death sentence for Jent

01/30/80 Judge sentenced Jent to death

Florida Supreme Court - Direct Appeal

FSC# 58,744

408 So.2d 1024

02/29/80 Appeal tiled

12/03/81 FSC affirmed conviction and sentence

U.S. Supreme Court - Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC# 8 l-6549

457 U.S. 1111

04/ 16182 Petition filed

Jent, W. & Miller, E. 3

Trial Court - 3.850 Motion

Case# 79-847

07/01/83 Motion filed

07/l 3183 Trial court denied Motion

Florida Supreme Court - 3.850 Motion Appeal

FSC# 63,957

435 So.2d 809

07113183

07/l 8183

Appeal filed

FSC affirmed denial of Motion

U.S. District Court, Southern District - Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC# 83-860-Civ-T-13

07/l 5183

1 O/25/84

Petition tiled

USDC denied Petition

U.S. Court of Appeals, llfh Circuit - Habeas Petition Appeal

USCA# 85-3 185

798 F.2d 426

04/01/85

08/l 4186

Appeal filed

USCA vacated and remanded to USDC for reconsideration

U.S. Supreme Court - Petition for Writ of Certiorari (filed by State)

USSC# 86-1050

480 U.S. 901

12122186 Appeal filed

03/02/87 USSC vacated and remanded to USCA

U.S. Court of Appeals, llth Circuit - Habeas Petition Appeal (on remand)

USCA# 85-3 185

06/l 2187 USCA ordered USDC to continue with reconsideration

U.S. District Court, Southern District - Habeas Petition (on remand)

USDC# 85-1910-Civ-T-15

Jent, W. & Miller, E. 4

Florida Supreme Court - Direct Appeal

FSC# 58,785

415 So.2d 1262

03/07/80 Appeal filed

03125182 FSC affirmed conviction and sentence

U.S. Supreme Court - Petition for Writ of Certiorari

USSC# 82-5590

459 U.S. 1158

1 O/20/82

01/17/83

Petition filed

USSC denied Petition

Trial Court - 3.850 Motion

Case# 79-847

06124183

07/l 3183

Motion filed

Trial court denied Motion

Florida Supreme Court - 3.850 Motion Appeal

FSC# 63,958

435 So.2d 813

07113183

07/l 8183

Appeal filed

FSC affirmed denial of Motion

U.S. District Court, Southern District - Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

USDC# 83-849-Civ-T-15

07/l 4183

1 O/25/84

Petition filed

USDC denied Petition

U.S. Court of Appeals, llfh Circuit - Habeas Petition Appeal

USCA# 85-3 175

798 F.2d 426

03/15/85 Appeal filed

Jent, W. & Miller, E. 5

U.S. Supreme Court - Petition for Writ of Certiorari (filed by State)

USSC# 86-1050

480 U.S. 901

12122186 Appeal filed

03/02/87 USSC vacated and remanded

U.S. Court of Appeals, llfh Circuit - Habeas Petition Appeal (on remand)

USCA# 85-3 175

06/12/87 USCA ordered USDC to continue with reconsideration

U.S. District Court, Southern District - Habeas Petition (on remand)

USDC# 86-98-Civ-T-13

1 l/13/87 Petition granted and new trial ordered

Death Warrant Information:

06123183

07/l 8183

Warrants issued for Jent and Miller and executions set for 07/l 9/83

Stays issued by USDC

Clemency Hearing:

0313 l/83 Clemency hearings held (denied)

Case Information - Jent:

Jent filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 02/29/80, citing the

following trial court errors: failure to provide him with transcripts of grand jury

testimony; failure to grant a motion for continuance; insufficiency of evidence; failure to

exclude cameras from the courtroom; inability to identify the victim; denial of motion for

a new trial, based on new evidence; improper limiting of mitigating evidence; and

unconstitutionality of the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravating circumstance.

The FSC affirmed the conviction and sentence on 12/03/81.

Jent filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on 04/16/82 that

was denied on 06/07/82.

Jent filed a 3.850 Motion with the Trial Court on 07/01/83 that was denied on 07/13/83.

Jent tiled a 3.850 Motion Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 07/13/83, citing

errors in failure to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding prosecutorial misconduct, failure

to find his counsel ineffective, and denial of due process due to the speed of the

Jent, W. & Miller, E. 6

Jent filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the U.S. District Court on 07/l 5183,

citing numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as failure to provide

him with transcripts of grand jury testimony. The USDC denied the Petition on 1 O/25/84.

Jent filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals on

04/01/85. On 08/14/86, the USCA vacated the USDC’s decision and remanded to

reconsider the claim involving the transcripts of grand jury testimony.

The State filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on 12/22/86.

On 03/02/87, the USSC granted the Petition, vacated the USCA’s decision and remanded

for reconsideration.

On 06/12/87, the USCA ordered the USDC to continue to reconsider the case.

On 1 l/l 3187, the USDC granted the Habeas Petition and ordered a retrial.

Case Information - Miller:

Miller filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 03/07/80, citing the

following trial court errors: failure to provide him with transcripts of grand jury

testimony; insufficiency of evidence; inability to identify the victim; denial of motion for

r-

’

a new trial, based on new evidence; improper limiting of mitigating evidence; and

unconstitutionality of the cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravating circumstance;

failure to suppress a fellow inmate’s statement; and erroneous override of the jury’s

Miller tiled a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on 10/20/82

that was denied on 01/l 7/83.

Miller filed a 3.850 Motion with the trial court on 06/24/83 that was denied on 07/13/83.

Miller filed a 3.850 Motion Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 07/13/83, citing

errors in failure to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding prosecutorial misconduct, failure

to find his counsel ineffective, and failure to allow Miller to amend the Motion. The FSC

affirmed the denial of the Motion on 07/l 8/83.

Miller filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals

on 03/l 5/85. On 08/l 4186, the USCA vacated the USDC’s decision and remanded to

Jent, W. & Miller, E. 7

The State filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on 12/22/86.

On 03/02/87, the USSC granted the Petition, vacated the USCA’s decision and remanded

for reconsideration.

On 06/12/87, the USCA ordered the USDC to continue to reconsider the case.

On 1 l/13/87, the USDC granted the Habeas Petition and ordered a retrial.

Law Enforcement/Prosecution Statements:

Bernie McCabe, State Attorney for the 6th Judicial Circuit, had the following statement

regarding the Jent and Miller case:

Contrary to later assertions, neither Miller nor Jent had an alibi for the time of the

murder nor was there any substantial evidence that the murder had not occurred

on the date initially testified to by the State’s eyewitnesses. According to

eyewitnesses, the murder took place sometime during the evening of the 1 2th or

the morning of the 13*. Miller initially told Detective Armstrong that he and Jent

had gone to the Renegade’s Club House in Tampa on the morning of Friday the

13*. He then told Armstrong that he might have stayed home on Friday the 13th

or might have gone to the "swing" (the location of the party by the river where the

incident began) that.night. In a taped statement to a Tampa officer, Jent admitted

that the victim had been with him and Miller the night of the murder and that she

had been in their car and in Miller’s house.

Sometime after the crime, Armstrong, a detective with little homicide experience

who had been assigned to assist in the investigation, had interviewed a family

who had been picnicking near the river on Friday the 13’h about 250 yards from

where the body lay in the woods and two other individuals who were fishing

about a quarter of a mile down the river. Although he had no logical basis to

reach such a conclusion, Armstrong wrote a report hypothesizing that since these

individuals had not noticed the body, it was likely placed there after Friday

afternoon. While this detective’s failure to report this "conclusion" to the defense

was one of the bases for the Federal Court’s decision to grant a new trial, the

witnesses themselves, once they were advised of the actual location of the body,

indicated that they would not have seen it from their locations.

The State was preparing to retry both defendants, but agreed to accept a plea to

the lesser charge of second degree murder, accompanied by a sworn

acknowledgment of guilt. Factors involved in this decision included the fact that

the hair fragment identified with Jent had been lost or destroyed by the clerk’s

office, that Jent’s taped statement to the Tampa police had not been preserved,

that eyewitnesses had changed their testimony and that corroborating witnesses

The State would also disagree with collateral defense counsel’s assertion that Dr.

Ronald Wright testified that the testimony of eyewitnesses was "impossible".

Wright testified in the State post conviction proceedings and offered a varying

opinion as to cause of death. He did not testify that the eyewitnesses’ testimony

that the body moved was impossible, but instead proposed an alternative

explanation that the described movement could have been the result of the

shortening of the muscles due to burning rather than a voluntary motion by the

victim while she was still conscious. He also acknowledged that the case

presented a "close question" and that other reasonably trained forensic

pathologists could differ as to whether the victim was alive or dead at the time of

the fire. Thus, while his testimony may have disputed the existence of an

aggravating factor, it was not significantly relevant to the defendants’ guilt or

innocence.

Defense Statements:

Howardene Garrett, collateral appeals attorney for Ernie Miller, had the following

statement regarding the Jent and Miller case:

Ms. Garrett stated that the condition of the body of the victim, particularly the larynx,

contradicted the statements of two of the female witnesses to the murder. Garrett noted:

Of special importance was the condition of the throat, because the two women

had added to their initial testimony the detail that the victim had tried to raise

herself right before she was immolated. This was important because it would

show consciousness and therefore awareness of pain, adding the important

aggravating factor that the victim needlessly suffered and the crime was therefore

heinous, atrocious, and cruel. . . . [the Broward County Medical Examiner at the

time, Dr. Ronald Wright concluded] "the testimony of the two women was

physically impossible, because the victim was unconscious and probably dead

when set on fire.

Ms. Garrett also commented as to the veracity of the statements of the two female

witnesses to the murder. The defense counsel investigator:

was able to track down the young women who had testified. Even more amazing

was the fact that both women recanted their testimony. Both were interviewed on

camera by the television program ‘20120,’ which aired a segment on this case, and

told of how the detectives had intimidated them into giving testimony, telling then

how the crime had supposedly happened and then encouraging then to testify

accordingly to avoid their own prosecution.

.P-.

Ms. Garrett also commented on the alleged tactics of the State in this case. According to

Garrett, "This case is by no means unique. The death penalty pushes law enforcement

investigators and prosecutors harder for conviction, and, being human, they can and do

Prior to the retrial, Jent and Miller pled guilty to Second-Degree Murder, were sentenced

to time already served, and were released from prison on 01/20/88.

There is no information available as to Jent or Miller’s criminal history subsequent to

their release.

Alternate Prosecuted Suspect:

Elmer Carroll, a cousin of Bradshaw, alleged that Bradshaw’s boyfriend, Bobby Dodd,

committed the murder. When questioned by police, however, Carroll recanted the

statement. When Carroll was to be sentenced for a separate child molestation charge, he

again implicated Dodd in the Bradshaw murder. During a hearing on a motion for a new

trial for Jent and Miller, Carroll again recanted his allegation. Carroll’s family came

forward with testimony that Carroll had admitted to lying about Dodd’s involvement, and

that Carroll had first came forward with the allegation against Dodd in exchange for

money and drugs from the families of Jent and Miller. However, the State did uncover

inmates who claimed that Dodd had implicated himself, along with Jent and Miller, in the

murder of Bradshaw.

Report Date: 03/29/02 JFL

P

Approved: 04/04/02 WS

KEATON, Dave Roby (B/M)

DC# 030350

DOB: 02105152

Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Case # 6366

Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Guyte P. McCord, Jr.

Trial Attorney: Harry L. Michaels, Private

Attorneys, Direct Appeal: Kent Springs, Paul L. Ross, James Reif, Morton Stavis,

Margaret Ratner, Private

Date of Sentence: 05/l l/71

Circumstances of the Offense:

At approximately 2:30 p.m. on September 18, 1970, two deputy sheriffs assigned as

jailors of Leon County, Thomas Revels and Hallie M. Carroll, entered Luke’s Store to

make a purchase. Three armed black males, who were in the process of robbing the store,

ordered the two unarmed officers to the east side of the building and directed them to lie

down on the floor with the four other victims of the robbery. After taking the deputies’

money, one of the black males stated, "We are going to kill everybody in here and start

with the women." Deputy Revels jumped to his feet and grabbed one of the assailants and

a struggle ensued. Deputy Revels was shot under the left armpit and in the back of the

head. Deputy Carroll attempted to aid Deputy Revels, and he was shot once in the

stomach and once in the mouth. Deputy Carroll survived the attack; however, Deputy

Revels died as a result of his wounds.

Five defendants were indicted for the felony murder described above: Keaton, Johnny

Frederick, Alphonso Figgers, Johnny Lee Bums, and David Charles Smith, Jr. and

Frederick. These five defendants were known as "the Quincy Five." Keaton and

Frederick were tried together while a severance was granted for a separate trial for the

other three defendants because Keaton and Frederick had given written statements that

implicated Smith, Bums, and Figgers. Keaton gave three separate confessions to different

officers on different days, two of which were recorded. Frederick also gave an oral

confession to law enforcement officers. Frederick reenacted the crime and explained how

he, Keaton, and the other defendants committed the robbery. Frederick stated that the car

belonging to ‘the Quincy Five’ was parked around the side of Luke’s Store prior to the

robbery.

After the trial of Keaton and Frederick, but before Smith’s trial, three more defendants

Keaton, D. 2

fingerprints found at the scene. These individuals were John Allen Mitchell, James

Fussell, and Jessie Henry Damon, These defendants were called "the Jacksonville Three."

The evidence presented at "the Jacksonville Three’s" trial was exculpatory to the trials of

"the Quincy Five. " Due to the fact that Smith had not yet been tried, the evidence

implicating three additional suspects was utilized in his defense. No fingerprints from any

of "the Quincy Five" were found at the scene, because as Keaton stated in his

confessions, he and Smith wore gloves.

During the original trial, Keaton, Frederick, Bums, and Smith were identified by

eyewitnesses as participants of the robbery. Deputy Carrel identified Smith as the

shooter. In all of the trials, the evidence reflected that Luke’s store was approximately

4,000 square feet and contained various entrances. These factors made it impossible to

see everyone within the establishment, a fact that was mirrored in the eyewitness

testimonies. Different eyewitnesses saw different robbers at different times in different

number combinations ranging from 1 to 5. The same eyewitnesses identified four of the

"Quincy Five" at all of the trials as participating in the robbery, two of which specifically

identified Keaton as one of the robbers.

Additional Information:

Keaton was indicted on unrelated charges of two counts of Armed Robbery and one

count of Assault with Intent to Commit First-Degree Murder on January 18, 1971. On

/---

lOJ13J72, he pled no contest to the charges and was sentenced to two concurrent twenty-

year sentences. In his statement, Keaton admitted his guilt. He was released and paroled

on 07/24/79 and his parole was terminated on 09109181.

Codefendant Information:

Johnny Fredrick was tried with Keaton and found guilty. The jury recommended mercy

for Fredrick, who, consequently was sentenced to life. The sentence and conviction were

overturned.

Johnny Lee Bums was found incompetent and did not stand trial. He was committed to

the State Hospital.

Alphonso Figgers’ case was nolle prossed due to insufficient evidence. Figgers is

currently serving a life sentence for Robbery with a Firearm.

A jury tried David Charles Smith, Jr. after the conviction of "the Jacksonville Three."

Smith was acquitted of all charges.

John Allen Mitchell was tried by a jury and found guilty on January 14,1972. The jury

recommended mercy; therefore, Mitchell was sentenced to life.

Jessie Henry Damon was tried by a jury and found guilty on December 16,197l. The

Keaton, D. 3

A jury tried James Fussell. He was found guilty on April 7, 1972. The jury did not

recommend mercy, and Fussell was sentenced to death.

Trial Summary:

01/28/71

05/06/7 1

05/l l/71

The defendant was indicted for First-Degree Murder. The defendant pled

not guilty.

The defendant was found guilty.

A majority of the jury did not recommend mercy; therefore, the defendant

received an automatic death sentence due to the law at the time.

Retrial Information:

02121173 FSC remanded the case for a new trial

07/l 9173 The State Attorney nolle prossed the case

Florida State Supreme Court, Direct Appeal

FSC# 4123 1

273 So. 2d 385

0512817 1

0712 1 I72

09/08/72

1 l/14/72

0212 1 I73

03/l 5/73

Appeal filed.

FSC relinquished jurisdiction to the Circuit Court for an evidentiary

hearing.

Defendant’s sentence was converted to life, as per the Anderson v. Florida

decision’.

Circuit Court stated that a new trial was needed.

FSC remanded for new trial.

Mandate issued.

Case Information:

Keaton filed a Direct Appeal with the Florida Supreme Court on 05128171. Keaton’s

sentence was converted to life based upon the rulings of Furman v. Georgia and

Anderson v. Florida’. Frederick filed a 3.850 Motion in the Circuit Court alleging that the

existence of newly discovered evidence was withheld by the State. The evidence

connected the "Jacksonville Three" to the crime. This evidence was presented by the

defense in the trial of a codefendant, Smith. The state made a motion to the Florida

Supreme Court to relinquish jurisdiction of Keaton’s case to the Circuit Court for

consolidation with Frederick’s motion. On 07/22/72, the Florida Supreme Court

v. Georgia did not divest the court’s jurisdiction over capital appeals pending at the time Furman was

Keaton, D. 4

trial was needed. On 02/21/73, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Circuit Court’s

recommendation and vacated Keaton’s judgment and sentence.

The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial; subsequently, the State

Attorney decided to nolle prosse the case. The factors contributing to the decision not to

prosecute were as follows: (a) the crime was no longer a capital crime due to a change in

legislation, (b) Keaton, who was not the triggerman, was already serving 20 years for

another robbery case, and (c) several of the eyewitnesses were physically ill and further

trials could possibly contribute to the additional deterioration of their health.

Prosecution/Law Enforcement Statement:

Harry Morrison, the State Attorney who tried the case, passed away in 1980. The

following are excerpts from the Nolle Prosequi that Mr. Morrison filed when he chose

not to retry the case:

In the course of this first trial the confessions of Keaton and Frederick were duly

admitted into evidence.

‘‘.

Mr. Keaton implicated himself and the four other defendants.

Mr. Frederick implicated himself and the four other defendants

Mr. Keaton first gave an oral, confession to a State officer, namely special -

agent Joe Townsend of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. This statement

was given on January 13, 1971. Almost immediately thereafter, on the same date,

Keaton gave a detailed recorded confession to Lt. Melvin Terry of the Leon County

Sheriffs office. This statement was witnessed by deputy sheriff Charles Landrum.

On the next day, January 14, 1971, Capt. Lavelle Pitts of the Leon County Sheriffs

took an even more detailed recorded confession from the defendant Keaton.

In one of his statements Keaton indicated that he and Smith wore gloves so as to leave

no fingerprints.

The defendant Frederick also first orally confessed to the same officer, Mr. Townsend,

on January 14, 1971, the defendant Frederick also gave a recorded statement in detail to

Lt. Terry, which was witnessed by Capt. Pitts.

In his statement Frederick stated that the car they were riding in was parked around

the side of Luke’s Store prior to the robbery.

Lt. Terry testified how in January 15, 1971, he and deputy sheriff Landrum were

accompanied by Johnny Frederick who reenacted in minute detail the route by which

Frederick and the other named defendants came to Tallahassee from Quincy on the

afternoon of the robbery.

Lt. Terry testified how Frederick located and pointed out the Jr. Food Store quick

service center, 2411 Jackson Bluff Road, where the tape used to bind the victims was

purchased.

Mrs. Dorothy Lindsay, manager of this Jr. Food Store, identified the tape found in the

Luke Store and testified at the trial that it was purchased from her by four black males

Keaton, D. 5

In the course of this first trial defendants Keaton and Frederick, as well as

defendants Burns and Smith, were definitely identified by witnesses as participants in

the robbery resulted in the death of deputy sheriff Revels.

In this first trial, and in four subsequent separate trials of other defendants charged

with the same crime, defendant David Charles Smith was identified by Mr. Carroll as

the trigger man who actually pulled the trigger of the pistol which killed Mr. Revels.

It will be noted that many unidentified fingerprints were developed in the Luke Store

during the original investigation of this robbery and murder.

Later, during the year 1971, the State Attorney was given the name of three additional

suspects for fingerprint comparison with these latents developed and listed at the scene of

the crime. The fingerprints of these suspects were compared with certain latents at the

specific locations in the store, and on articles, which were obviously handled by the

robbers in the store.

The latent fingerprints of one Henry Damon were developed from scattered cartons of

cigarettes found in the floor under the cash register; also Damon’s prints were lifted from

a jar of pennies in the store office and from the filing cabinet in the same office.

The latent palm prints of one John Allen Mitchell were developed from an outside

wrapper of a pack of hose found among several packages of scattered hose recovered

from the east aisle of the store. Also Mitchell’s fingerprints were on the outside cover of

an unopened package of hose found in the floor at another location further back in the

same east aisle.

The latent fingerprints of John Allen Mitchell and James Fussell were developed from

a brown paper sack containing two rolls of tape found on the frozen food counter

adjacent to the east aisle.

The latent fingerprints of Fussel were also found on one of four different

packages of hose picked up by an officer who originally investigated the crime

scene (All of the above allegations with reference to the fingerprints of Damon,

Mitchell and Fussell were later brought out by sworn testimony at their

subsequent trials.)

Further investigation developed evidence indicating that John Allen Mitchell,

James Fussell and Jessie Henry Damon were traveling together in Tallahassee at the

time of the robbery and were prime suspects in the same robbery resulting in the

death of Mr. Revels.

The State proved "The Jacksonville 3" guilty by circumstantial evidence, and

beyond a reasonable doubt they were all personally present and participating in the

same robbery even though they were not actually seen or recognized by eye

witnesses.

The evidence in all of these trials reflected that Luke’s store contained an estimated

4000 square feet of floor space with various entrances including doors on the east, north

and south; that it was heavily loaded with aisles of merchandise making it impossible for

persons in the store to see everyone else who may be moving about in this store. The

evidence at each trial clearly reflected that the various eye witnesses saw different

robbers at different times ranging in different numbers from 1 to 5. The number they saw

depended on the location of the witnesses and the restrictions imposed on them by these

robbers who were armed and threatening to kill the witnesses if they attempted to look up

Keaton, D. 6

In all of the above cases, beginning with the first trial, of Keaton and Frederick, of,

the "Quincy 5" and in each of the three separate trials of "The Jacksonville 3"

substantially the same eye witnesses appeared and testified under oath and definitely

identified four of the "Quincy 5" defendants as also participating in the same robbery

which resulted in the murder of Mr. Revels

These witnesses included Mrs. Gwynn Phillips, Mrs. P. B. Deter, Mr. Hallie

M. Carroll, Mr. Luther W. Adamson, Mr. Cleo Simmons and Mrs. Dorothy

Lindsay.

These same witnesses gave sworn testimony in five separate trials that put four of

the "Quincy 5" defendants, including Keaton and Frederick, at the scene and

participating in the robbery that led to the death of Mr. Revels. The fifth man in the

"Quinsy 5" group, namely, Alphonso Figgers, was tentatively identified by Mrs.

Phillips as also being there and this defendant Figgers was also implicated in the

confessions of Keaton and Frederick which were received in evidence at their first

trial

/---

It was the State’s theory and argument to the court and jury in each trial of "the

Jacksonville 3"’ and in the later trial of David Charles Smith, Jr. that the subsequent

identification of additional defendants did not exonerate the "Quincy 5"; that this was

simply additional evidence leading to the identification of additional participants in the

same crime and did not affect the guilt or innocence of the "Quincy 5"; that the evidence

showed that the car of "The Jacksonville 3" was backed into a side street east

of the store; both the Quincy 5" and "the Jacksonville 3" were all there in two

automobiles in which they made their escape following the robbery.

That was also this State Attorney’s contention in all other proceedings dealing with the

question of a new trial for defendants Keaton and Frederick.

In making the decision to enter this nolle prosequi in the case of Keaton and

Frederick, it should be noted that the State Attorney is not obliged to present all charges

which the evidence might support; neither is he obliged to prosecute all defendants

against whom evidence exists which would support a conviction.

It is well established that the prosecutor may in some circumstances and for

good cause decline to prosecute a defendant notwithstanding that evidence exists

which would support his conviction

It is interesting to note that this particular case is no longer a capital crime.

While the legislature has since enacted a new capital crimes law, this particular case

falls within the category of a non-capital. If it was tried it would be before a six-may

jury. Keaton, who was not the triggerman, is already serving 20 years for robbery in

another case imposed in Leon County, October 13, 1972.

So the question arises as to whether further prosecution of Keaton would serve

any good purpose consistent with the public interest since he is already serving 20 years

in the State prison. In fact, all eight of the defendants charged with the murder of Mr.

Revels have been removed from society for some time as follows:

1. Dave Roby Keaton is currently serving a sentence 20 years

imposed 1 O/l 3/72 in Leon County for robbery

2. Alphonso Figgers is currently serving a sentence of life on one count of

Keaton, D. 7

sentenced from Jackson County 10/13/72; still wanted by U.S Government for

violation of gun law; detainer placed.

3 David Charles Smith, Jr. is currently serving two sentences of 25 years

each from Leon County for robbery, and 10 years from Gadsden County for bombing a

power plant; all of said sentences will run concurrently but will not run concurrently

with any other sentences he may receive in the Federal court. He is presently wanted by

US Government for violation of gun law; detainer placed; also wanted by Jackson

County for robbery;

detainer placed

4. Johnny Lee Bums is reported incurably insane and has been

committed to the State Hospital at Chattahoochee since early 1971.

5. Jessie Damon is currently serving a sentence of life in the State prison

from Leon County for the murder of Mr. Revels.

6. John Allen Mitchell is currently serving a sentence of life in the

State prison from Leon County for the murder of Mr. Revels.

7 James Fussell is currently serving a sentence of life in the State prison

from Leon County for the murder of Mr. Revels

8. Johnny Frederick is currently serving a sentence of life in the State

prison imposed May 1, 1971, for the murder of Mr. Revels, he has been

granted a new trial and this nolle prosequi will have the effect of releasing

him. It as noted, however, that Johnny Frederick has not been identified as

a member of the gang that Smith, Keaton, Burns and Figgers were

associated with. He has no known criminal record. In his confession he

declared he was outside in the car and was not actually participating in the

robbery as such which resulted in the death of Mr. Revels. There is no

evidence that his release at this time would necessarily be against the

public interest

Another factor to consider is the continuing expense to the State. This case will

obviously be appealed by attorneys for the defendants in the event of a second conviction

of either of them.

But a most important factor which the prosecutor may properly consider in

exercising his discretion deal with witnesses.

These cases have already been tried five times in two years, or since May 3, 197 1.

Each trial was about one week: this retrial could be stretched longer than that. Many of

the same witnesses have been summoned for each trial; on each of these occasions they

have been very willing, cooperative and patient, although their appearance was always at

great discomfort inconvenience and expense to themselves.

One had a heart attack before the first trial, although she has since appeared at

subsequent trials. Two other very material eyewitnesses are ill. The latter two have

testified in five trials and were ill when they testified in the last trial. A continuance of the

Keaton and Frederick re-trial to permit their recovery would serve little if any purpose.

The doctor for one of them has advised that his patient is unable to testify even though

she has agree to cooperate and try to do so.

An affidavit from the doctor for one material eyewitness reflects that her further

appearances in his opinion will deteriorate her existing condition and damage her

While she is willing to try to do so, she cannot assure the State that she will be able to do

so.

The undersigned State Attorney feels an obligation to these witnesses in making

the decision to enter this nolle prosequi. The conviction of Keaton and Frederick for

any of the several offenses embraced within the indictment is not worth taking a

chance of injuring the health of one single witness.

THEREFORE, the undersigned State Attorney respectfully says that the case of State of

Florida vs. Dave Roby Keaton and Johnny Frederick is nolle prosequi

04/08/02

04/l 2102

05/23/02

Letter sent to Leon County Sheriffs Department requesting comment.

Received case information; however no statement was provided.

Placed telephone call to Leon County Sheriffs Department. Receptionist

will have an individual who is familiar with the case return the call. No

comment had been received as of 05/28/02.

Defense Statement:

Trial attorney (defense), Harry Lewis Michaels, made the following comments in regard

to the Dave Roby Keaton case:

"I never did believe that the eye witness testimony was that strong and convincing. It was

confusing. However, even without the confessions, the testimony probably would have

been sufficient to convict.

The lack of fingerprints of any of the five defendants was, of course, strongly argued by

the defense.

The confessions bothered me from the outset. Keaton did not present the usual

accusations, such as threats, beatings, etc. He said that after awhile he just threw up his

hands and said: "if you say it was that way, it must have been." It was not until the trial

that I got the revelation as to what occurred during the interrogation.

The polygraph operator is the one who obtained the confession. It was through trickery,

chicanery, lying by the operator, deviousness and just plain unethical conduct, that a

confession was obtained. I had nothing but contempt for this state witness. Judge McCord

expressed concern over the methods used in obtaining the confession, but, after

considerable deliberation, did allow the confession into evidence.

Up until the trial I had believed the confessions were probably voluntary. Keaton and his

mother at one point expressed concern that I did not believe in his innocence and

questioned whether I should be representing him. I devoted five months almost

exclusively to this court appointed task. My partners took over my workload at my law

firm. So regardless of Keaton’s concern, I gave it all I had on his behalf. As the trial

progressed, coerced through fraud and trickery, no fingerprints and shaky eye witness

Keaton, D. 9

I followed the "Jacksonville Three" case with great interest. The fact that not any of the

"Quincy Five" were on the premises all were innocent of that robbery and murder, shows

how our criminal justice system just fails us at times. The confession should not have

been admitted into evidence. The death penalty should not be given on shaky eye witness

testimony."

Current status:

Subsequent to his release, Keaton was arrested on a DUI charge. NCIC does not show

any other arrests.

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