The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.
Michael B. Bell v. State of Florida
SC02-1765 | SC05-610
PLEASE BE SEATED.
OKAY.
THE NEXT CASE ON CALENDAR
THIS MORNING IS BELL VERSUS
STATE.
MR. ANDERSON.
>> YOUR HONOR, MAY IT PLEASE
THE COURT, I AM HERE FON
MICHAEL BELL.
THE FAILURE TO PRESENT ISSUE
1 J IN MY BRIEF.
THE MEMORIAL T-SHIRT ISSUE,
ISSUE YOU NUMBER ONE Q.
>> COULD YOUED A JUST THE
MIC PLEASE?
>> SORRY.
THAT IS BETTER?
IS THAT BETTER?
>> OUR MICS AREN'T WORKING?
>> THEY ARE WORKING, OKAY.
>> ANYWAY, ISSUES 1 Q
FAILURE TO PRESENT CREDIBLE
DEFENSE.
EXCUSE ME, 1 J IN MY BRIEF.
1 Q AND MITIGATION, THAT IS
ISSUE 1 I.
MY FOCUS ON ISSUE 1 J IN THE
APPEAL BRIEF.
>> COULD YOU CLEAR FY ONE
POINT.
I KNOW MR. BELL REPRESENTED
HIMSELF BELOW, BUT THERE IS
AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
CLAIM BY FAILING TO OBJECT
TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS WHICH
YOU HAVE, CORRECT?
YOU RAISED THAT ASEN ISSUE,
THE CLOSING ARGUMENT AND THE
PENALTY PHASE, THERE'S NO
OBJECTIONS AT ALL?
>> THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
OBJECTIONS, I BELIEVE THAT
IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS,
VARIOUS ARGUMENTS MADE BY
THE PROSECUTOR.
>> OKAY.
THE QUESTION I HAVE, IT
DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A HABEAS
CLAIM MADE, BUT THOSE CLAIMS
SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED ON
APPEAL AS, YOU KNOW, FACT
THAT IS COLLECTIVE ARGUMENTS
CONSTITUTE A FUNDAMENTAL
ERROR.
THAT IS CORRECT?
THAT THERE IS NO HABEAS
CLAIM?
>> I BELIEVE THEY WERE, YOUR
HONOR.
I WILL LOOK AT MY NOTES ON
THAT.
>> WELL, IF YOU DON'T RECALL
OFFHAND.
>> POST-CONVICTION WAS A PER
SE MOTION.
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT MY
NOTES TO REFRESH MY MEMORY
ON THAT ISSUE.
I KNOW WE HAD SOME CALDWELL
VIOLATIONS THAT WERE
OBJECTED TO.
>> WELL, I THINK, WHAT
JUSTICE PARIENTE IS
REFERRING TO IS THAT THERE
IS AN ARGUMENT MADE IN THE
3.850 IN RESPECT TO THE
PROSECUTOR'S ARGUMENT THAT
ARGUMENTS WERE IN VIOLATION
OF WHAT THIS COURT SAID AND
IN IRVIN AND THOSE
OBJECTIONS WERE NOT MADE,
THIS, I BELIEVE, THIS WAS
TRIAL WAS EARLIER THAN THAT,
CORRECT.
>> THIS WAS APPROXIMATELY
1995.
>> RIGHT.
WE HAD THE SAME PROSECUTOR
INVOLVE SNOOD YES, SIR.
WE HAD THE SAME DEFENSE
COUNSEL INVOLVED IN ALL
THREE OF THOSE CASES.
>> YES, SIR.
RICHARD NICHOLS AS DEFENSE
ATTORNEY.
>> NICHOLS WAS ASKED IN THE
POST CONVICTION EVIDENTIARY
HEARING WHY YOU DID NOT MAKE
ANY OBJECTION TO THE
PROSECUTOR'S ARGUMENT, AND
HE SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, HE
GAVE THE ANSWER THAT YOU
JUST AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE
DIDN'T OBJECT IN CLOSING
ARGUMENT IN ANY CASE AND THE
ATMOSPHERE TYPE OF A THING,
AND YET, ONCE WE HELD IN
2000, OR THIS COURT HELD IN
2000, THAT THAT WAS A
COMBINATION OF ABRUPTS OF
OBJECTIVE TO AND FUNDAMENTAL
ERROR, I DON'T FIND THAT
THAT WAS RAISED IN THE
HABEAS, AS A AN ERROR ON THE
PART OF APPELLATE COUNSEL
NOT TO HAVE RAISED THAT IN
THE DIRECT APPEAL.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
IN FACT, I GOT THE LIST
RIGHT HERE FRONT OF ME.
I KNOW THE ISSUES ARE THE
PROSECUTOR'S COMMENT THAT
THE SAKE DID NOT SEEK THE
DEATH PENALTY IN EVERY CASE.
IN FACT, THE FACT THAT THERE
WERE CALDWELL VIOLATIONS.
IN THE CASE I BELIEVE THERE
WAS ALSO A COMMENT ABOUT THE
VICTIM'S BLOOD AND THE
PAVEMENT CRYING OUT FOR
JUSTICE, A NUMBER OF THOSE
ISSUE, WE HAVE RAISED THOSE
AS HABEAS ISSUE NUMBER FOR
YOU.
CALDWELL VIOLATION, AN IN
THE CASE, THE MOST EGREGIOUS
ONE I FELT AND THIS WAS
RAISED IN BRIEF ISSUE 4 THAT
PROSECUTOR'S COMMENTS DO NOT
SIOK THE DEATH PEN TIN EVERY
CASE.
THAT WAS NOT RAISED ON
APPEAL.
THERE IS SOME DECISIONS THAT
THAT IS IMPROPER.
>> I AM SORRY, WHICH CLAIM
IS THAT THAT YOU SAY ON THE
HABEAS YOU RAIDS.
>> THAT HABEAS CLAIM NUMBER
4, THE FAILURE TO RAISE A
NUMBER OF UNOWE OBJECTIVE
ISSUES ON DIRECT APPEAL.
AMONG THOSE IS THE STATE'S
COMMENT THAT IT DOESN'T SEEK
THE DEATH PENALTY IN EVERY
CASE.
THAT ALSO IS RAISED AS A
DIRECT, AS A POST-CONVICTION
APPEAL ISSUE.
>> THAT STATEMENT WAS 1 F.
>> TALK TO ME ABOUT HOW THE
STATEMENTS WERE NOW IN A
POST-CONVICTION SETTING, HOW
THOSE STATEMENTS ARE
PREJUDICIAL IN TERMS OF,
HERE YOU HAVE GOT A
SITUATION IN WHICH THIS
MURDER, TWO MURDERS IN THE
CASE, AND OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE BEYOND EXCLUSION OF
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT YOUR
CLIENT WAS THERE WITH MASK
ON FIRING AUTOMATIC WEAPON
AND HOW WOULD IT BE
PREJUDICIAL IN THIS
SITUATION?
>> PARTICULARLY THE COMMENT
BY THE STATE THAT THE STATE
DOES NOT SEEK THE DEATH
PENALTY IN EVERY CASE IS
VERY PREJUDICIAL AND I CITED
THE HALL VERSUS UNITED
STATES CASE ON THE BRIEF,
THIS PROPOSITION, BEEN THE
PROSECUTION MAKE AS
STATEMENT LIKE THAT, IT
INDICATES TO THE JURORS THAT
THE STATE HAS PUT THE CASE
THROUGH SOME SORT OF
PRESCREENING PROCESS AND
DETERMINED THAT THIS STATE
IS ONE THAT IS APPROPRIATE
FOR DEATH, AND IN ADDITION,
THOSE CASES ALSO TALK ABOUT
HOW WHEN THE PROSECUTOR
MAKES A STATEMENT THAT IT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS
CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR
DEATH, IT PUTS THE
GOVERNMENT APPROVAL ON THE
DEATH PENALTY AND SO THE
CONCERN HERE IS THAT THE
JURORS WILL NOD AND, YOU
KNOW, FIGURE THAT THE STATE
KNOWS THIS KIN OF WORK MORE
THAN THEY DO AND JUST GO
ALONG WITH THAT
DETERMINATION, THAT THIS
CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR
DEATH.
IT WILL SHORT CIRCUIT THE
WEIGHING PROCESS, THAT IS
THE CONCERN.
>> THE EVIDENCE CAME OUT
HERE THROUGH IN POST
CONVICTION THAT YOUR CLIENT
WAS, WAS CONVICTED OF THREE
OTHER MURDERS?
PLEAD GUILTY TO THREE OTHER
MURDERS?
MR. NICOLE'S TESTIMONY.
I DON'T RECALL THAT, YOUR
HONOR.
I KNOW THAT HE HAD
AGGRAVATOR OF A PRIOR
VIOLENT FELONY.
? I BELIEVE HE HAD THREE
PRIOR CONVICTION.
I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON
THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT THE
AGGRAVATORS WERE VIOLENT
FELONY, CALCULATED AND ME
MEDITATED CREATING A GREAT
RISK OF DEATH TO MANY
PERSONS.
THIS PERSON HAD A CRIPPLE
MALL PAST.
THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
EYEWITNESSES, THAT IS
UNDENIABLE.
BUT OUR CONCERN HERE IS THE
FACT REALLY --
>> YOU SAID WERE YOU GOING
TO ARGUE THAT THERE WAS NO
CREDIBLE DEFENSE.
>> YES, IF I AM GETTING MY
CHOICE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE
THAT POINT.
AND THAT IS SIMPLY THIS --
THIS IS A CASE IN WHICH
DEFENSE COUNSEL RICHARD
NICHOLS WAIVED OPENING,
CHOSE NOT TO PRECEPT ANY
EVIDENCE AN REALLY PUT
HIMSELF IN A POSITION
PULLING THE PIECES TOGETHER
IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENT IN
SOME SORT OF DEFENSE.
>> SO WHAT IS THE CREDIBLE
DEFENSE HERE? I MEAN, THERE
WERE A NUMBER OF JUSTICES
SAID, THERE'S A NUMBER OF
EYEWITNESSS TO THIS CASE,
THIS IS SORT OF REVENGE
KILLING THAT HE, YOU KNOW,
HE WANTED TO KILL ONE
PERSON, THEN, ENDS UP
KILLING THE BROTHER AND THE
GIRLFRIEND AND SO, WHAT IS
THE CRED KBL DEFENSE?
-- CREDIBLE DEFENSE THAT YOU
CLAIM THIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY
SHOULD HAVE PRESENTED?
>> I CONTEND THAT THE
DEFENSE ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE
PRESENTED EITHER A SELF-DEFENSE
OFFENSE OR A REASONABLE
DOUBT IDENTIFICATION
DEFENSE.
>> THE SELF-DEFENSE BASED
ON, IT SEEMS TO ME, YOU ARE
TRYING TO SAY THE
POSSIBILITY OF SELF-DEFENSE
BECAUSE OF SOME GUN THAT MAY
HAVE BEEN TAKEN THAT VICTIM
HAD THAT MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN
FROM THE SCENE, BUT THE
WITNESSES SAYS, THERE WAS NO
GUN.
I DID NOT TAKE A GUN AWAY
FROM THE SCENE.
I DID NOT GIVE THE GUN TO
SOMEONE ELSE, AND SO WHERE
IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD
HAVE SUPPORTED THE DEFENSE?
>> TO ANSWER, JUST BACK UP
ONE BIT.
I AM NOT ABATING YOUR
QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.
FIRST OF ALL, THE
DEFENDANT'S TRIAL COUNSEL
RICHARD MIC COLS TESTIFIED
AT THE EVIDENCEARY MARING
THAT THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED
TO THE SHOOTING TO RICHARD
NICHOLS AN ADMITTED HE DID
NOT DO IT IN SELF-DEFENSE.
NEVERTHELESS, DEFENSE THAT
MR. NICHOLS WENT AHEAD AND
PUT ON WAS A DEFENSE OF
SELF-DEFENSE.
HE GOT THE JURY IN
STRICTION, HE ARGUED THAT
THIS IS --
>> FROM THIS DEFENDANT
DENIED TO HAVE THAT,
CORRECT?
A DEFENDANT WHO, YOU KNOW,
WANTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF
AT SOME POINT, DISCHARGING
ATTORNEYS, THAT KIND?
>> RIGHT.
AND THE COURT IS WELL
FAMILIAR THAT BECAUSE THIS
INDIVIDUAL HAS BROUGHT TO
THIS COURT'S ATTENTION A
NUMBER OF CONCERNS HE HAS
ABOUT HIS PRESENT REPCISION
TATION, AN ME, IN THE SPIRIT
OF DISCLOSURE, ONE JUST CAME
IN.
I CHECKED WITH THE CLERK'S
OFFICE.
THAT IS IN THE COURT'S FILE.
I WILL REP ACCEPT TO THE
COURT, I FEEL READY, ABLE,
AND EXCITED TO REP SUSPECT
MY CLIENT HERE TODAY.
BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING, YOUR HONOR, YES,
THIS WAS NOT AN EASY CLIENT
FOR MR. NICK COMES TO
REPRESENT.
I THINK THAT IS CLEAR AND
PRETTY OBVIOUS YOU, BUT IN
WHAT HAPPENED THERE, YOUR
HONOR, ACCORDING TO
MR. NICHOLS AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THE
CLIENT WALKED UP TO HIM AT
THE LAST MINUTE AP SAID
MAYBE IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE,
MAYBE I SAW THE VICTIM GOING
FOR A GUN, SO MR. NICHOLS
WENT AHEAD AN ASKED FOR THE
SELF-DEFENSE JURY
INSTRUCTION AND WENT AHEAD
AND MADE THAT FINAL CLOSING
ARGUMENT AND HE ARGUED THAT
IT WAS DANGEROUS JUNGLE-LIKE
SETTING THAT DEFENDANT FOUND
HIMSELF IN, HE ALLUDED TO
THE FACT THAT THE
DEFENDANT'S OWN BROTH EVERY
WAS SHOT AND KILLED BY THE
SUBJECT VICTIM'S OWN BROTHER
AND HE ASKED THE JURY TO
CONSIDER ALL OF THE THINGS
UNEVATING THE DEFENSE IN
SELF DEHE FENCE.
THEN IN THE NEXT BREATH,
MR. NICHOLS SAID THERE IS
ALSO IDENTITY ISSUE HERE.
SOME OF THE WITNESSES SAY HA
THAT HE SHOOTER WAS IN A
DRIVER'S SEAT, WHICH WAS
OCCUPIED ACCORDING TO OTHER
WITNESSES BY THE DEPARTMENT,
OTHER WITNESSES SAID HE
MIGHT HAVE COME FROM THE
PASSENGER'S SEAT, AND SO,
THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT
MR. MIC COLS IS TRYING TO
PUT ON TWO CONVICTING
DEFENSES, WHAT HE IS
EFFECTIVELY TRYING TO ARGUE
TO THE JURY THAT IS THEY
HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED THE
RIGHT PERSON, THEY ARE
CONFUSED ABOUT WHO DID IT,
BUT IF YOU THINK HE IT DID,
THE SHOOTING WAS IN
SELF-DEFENSE, AND IT IS JUST
NOT CREDIBLE.
THERE IS CONFLICTING
ARGUMENT, TO ME, YOU HAVE TO
DO ONE OR THE OH, YOU CAN'T
SAY THAT, THEY HAVE GOT THE
WRONG GUY, HE WASN'T SHE
SHOOTER.
THEN, THE NEXT BREATH TRY TO
ARGUE, YEAH, WAS SHOOTER,
BUT SHOOTING IN
SELF-DEFENSE.
>> I AM SORRY, DID YOU SAY
HE ARGUED IN CLOSING?
>> IT WAS BOTH.
HE MADE A SELF-DEFENSE ARGUE
PRESIDENT AND HE DID NOT
LITERALLY COME OUT AND SAY
THERE IS IDENTITY DEFENSE,
BUT WHAT HE DID WAS HE
POINTEDS ARE HE POINTED OUT
TO THE JURY, THERE IS
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT
WHAT THE SHOOTER WORE,
DESCRIPTIONS OF WHERE HE WAS
SEATED, WAS THE DRIVER'S
SEAT, THE PASSENGER SEAT,
THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THE CODEFENDANT OCCUPIED ONE
SEAT AND THE DEFENDANT
OCCUPYED THE OTHER.
>> IS THIS ACTUAL EVIDENCE
THAT WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL?
>> YES.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE DURING
CLOSING TRYING TO POKE HOLES
IN THE CASE.
>> I AM NOT SURE WHAT HE WAS
TRYING TO DO, BUY THINK THIS
THE DEFENSE COUNSEL INTO THE
TRAP BEFORE WHERE THEY
PRESENTED THE STRONG CASE
PREVENTED BY THE STATE AN MY
SUSPICION IS THEY ARE NOT
SURE WHAT TO DO WITH
DEFENSE, SO THEY TRY TO
ARGUE, WELL, MAYBE, FOR
EXAMPLE, PUT IN ALIBI
DEFENSE AND THEN ALSO TRY TO
PUT IN SELF-DEFENSE TYPE OF
DEFENSE.
WHERE LIKE IN THE CASE, THEY
WILL PUT ON A SELF-DEFENSE
COUPLED WITH IDENTITY.
>> LET'S JUST ASSUME, NOW ON
THE GUILT PHASE.
LET'S ASSUME THAT WE FIND
THAT MR. NICHOLS SORT OF
GAVE UP.
WHAT IS THERE IN THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT
ESTABLISHES PREJUDICE, SAY
YOU GET YOUR -- YOU ARE
ALREADY TO DEFEND MR. BELL,
BUT YOU GOT TO ESTABLISH,
HOW DO YOU ESTABLISH IN THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT
THERE WERE WITNESSES, THERE
WAS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE
PRESENTED TO THE JURY THAT
WOULD UNDERMINE OUR
CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME.
WHAT IS THERE IN THE RECORD
THAT POINTS TO THAT?
>> IF YOU ARE GOING -- IF
YOU GO WITH SELF DEFENSE,
CAME OUT AT THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING, THERE WAS LIVE
AMMUNITION FOUND IN THE
VICTIM'S CAR.
THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT
ANOTHER ONE OF THE BYSTANDER
WITNESSES WALKED UP AND
TOUCHED THE DRIVER, THE MALE
VICTIM SUGGESTING THAT HE
MAY HAVE HAD A GUN AND
SOMEBODY TOOK IT OFF HIS
BODY.
>> THAT IS SUCH A BIG
STRETCH FROM TOUCHING
SOMEONE TO FINDING A GUN AND,
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT YOU
HAVE TO TALK ABOUT INFERENCES
ON INFER RENS, I JUST, I
DON'T SEE THAT AS ANY KIND
OF VIABLE DEFENSE HERE.
>> WELL, I CAN'T DENY THE
EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE
PRESENTED.
I THINK THERE IS.
I DO THINK THAT NO MATTER
HOW STRONG THE CASE IS
PRESENTED BY THE CASE, DHEE
FENCE HAS TO PUT SOME KIND
OF CREDIBLE DEFENSE ON.
>> LET ME SHIFT TO YOU THE
PENALTY PHASE.
>> YES, SIR.
>> BEFORE YOUR TIME RUNS
OUT.
DID MR. BELL ASK THE --
PRIOR TO THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING IN THE 3.850 REQUEST
THE APPOINTMENT OF THIS
PSYCHOLOGIST?
>> MY NOTES AND I HAVE BEEN
GIVEN THAT HE DID A MOTION
TO APPOINT A PSYCHOLOGISTS
FOR POST-CONVICTION
PROCEEDINGS AND IT WAS
DENIED.
>> OKAY.
>> AND SO THERE IS AN YOU
SHALL VIEW THERE.
ALSO, ON THE MITIGATION
ISSUE, THERE WAS A
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT,
DR. ERNEST MILLER DID A
COMPETENCY REPORT.
>> I AM NOT SURE I
UNDERSTAND.
AKA ISSUE.
>> YES, I AM AM NOT SURE.
>> WHAT IS IT?
I MEAN, WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING
ON THAT?
THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO
DEVELOP THAT HE WOULD HAVE
HAD MITIGATING EVIDENCE
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE
SOMEBODY TO AN EXPERT TO
TESTIFY ON HIS MENTAL STATE?
>> YES.
AND THAT IS WHERE I WAS
HEADED, YOUR HONOR.
AT HIS TRIAL COURT, DURING
THIS ORIGINAL JURY TRIAL,
ALL HE HAD WAS TWO
PSYCHIATRISTS TALKING ABOUT
THE EVALUATION.
THAT WAS ONLY 2.5 PAGES
LONG, BUT DID NOT
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ANY OF
THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE
REQUIRED BY THE RULE,
ENUMERATED CONSIDERATIONS AN
THAT PSYCHIATRISTS TALKED
ABOUT HOW HE SEEMED TO
UNDERSTAND THE ADVOCACY
PROCESS, HE SEEMED TO
UNDERSTAND, BUT AT THE SAME
TOKEN, DID HE NOT UNDERSTAND
THE ROLE OF A PROSECUTOR.
HE COMPLAINED DR. MILLER, HE
COMPLAINED ABOUT
HALLUCINATIONS.
AND THEN THE DOCTORS TALKED
ABOUT JUST GIVING HIM AN
RAIT INTELLIGENCE EVALUATION
AND THEN JUST 22.5-PAGE LONG
REPORT THAT CONCLUDE IT WAS
CONFIDENT.
>> THIS GOING THAT THERE WAS
MENTAL HEALTH MITIGATION,
THAT SHOULD ARE BEEN PUT ON
AND THAT MR. BELL WAS
PRECLUDED FROM DEVELOPING
THIS AT THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T
HAVE, HE COON HIRE A
PSYCHIATRIST BECAUSE THE
COURT DENIED IT?
>> YES.
I AM MAKING ALL OF THE ABOVE
CLAIMS.
BECAUSE IT IS VERY HARD
HAVING RED THE QUESTIONING
OF MR. BELL TO THINK THAT HE
WAS NOT CONFIDENT TO, YOU
KNOW, TO STAND TRIAL, I
MEAN, HE WAS CERTAINLY DID A
CREDIBLE JOB IN THE
EVIDENCEARY HEARING.
>> RIGHT.
BUT IF, IF THE EVALUATION
WAS DONE CORRECTLY AND
ADDRESS THE POINTS REQUIRED
TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE COURT
RULE, IT WOULD HAVE SENT UP
A RED FLAG, THAT THIS
INDIVIDUAL HAS OTHER
PROBLEMS AND MAYBE
MITIGATION, DR. MILL PER
TESTIFIED AT THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING THAT THEY WERE NOT
ASKED TO DO ANY MIT IS
GOINGAL WORK WHAT SO JEFF,
WHICH I FIND ASTOUNDING
UNLIGHT OF THE REFERENCE OF
THE SHORT 2.5 PAGE CONCLUES
RY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT
THAT THEY MENTIONED THE
HALLUCINATIONS, THEY
MENTIONED OTHER PROBLEMS.
THEY DIDN'T GO ANY FURTHER.
SO THINK THINK THAT WOULD
HAVE SENT UP A RED FLAG.
WE COULD HAVE HAD A MENTAL
HEALTH EXPERT TESTIFY.,,,,,,$$ TO SHOW WHAT A
DEFENSE SIEK FRICK EXPERT
COULD HAVE DONE.
>> THEN DR. MILLER DID IN FACT
TESTIFY AT THAT EVIDENTIARY
THAT HE DIDN'T FIND ANY REASON!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
REASONS THAT TO FIND THAT THAT
DEFENDANT MET ANY OF THOSE
MENTAL MITIGATORS DID HE --
>> NO HE DIDN'T ADDRESS MENTAL
MITIGATION WHAT HE ADDRESSED
WAS COMPETENCY,
>> AND BUT -- ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CROSS-EXAMINATION, HE WAS
ASKED ABOUT THAT, AND DIDN'T
HE MAKE SOME STATEMENT TO THE
EFFECT THAT HE DIDN'T SEE THE
NEED FOR ANY FURTHER
EXAMINATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EXAMINATION, IN THIS GUY DID
NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA?
>> HE DIDN'T MAKE THOSE KINDS
OF STATEMENTS?
>> I -- DO NOT RECALL, I CAN'T
SAY CONCLUSIVELY YES OR NO
YOUR HONOR I DON'T RECALL,
WHAT I DO RECALL IS HE
MENTIONED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MENTIONEDED A HIS EVIDENTIARY
HEARING IN TO THE COURT THAT
HE SHOWED SIGNS IN
ANTIPERSONALITY DISORDER DR.
MILLER TESTIFIED HE WAS
SPECIFICALLY NOT ASKED TO DO
ANY MITIGATION WORK.
>> -- WITH OUR HELP YOU HAVE
USED UP YOUR TIME INCLUDE
REGULAR BUTTAL I WILL GIFB YOU
A MINUTE OR TWO.
>> JUST ONE POINT, IF I MIGHT.
ON ONE ISSUE MEMORIAL T-SHIRT
ISSUE ONE -- THE TRIAL COURT
JUDGE FORGOT TO RULE ON TO
THAT ISSUE THERE IS NO ISSUE
ON RULE 1Q, THANK YOU.
>>,,
.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
THEY NAME IS MEREDITH, I'M
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL I
REPRESENT THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THIS --
>> WHY ADOPT YOU SPEAK FIRST
TO YOUR LAST ISSUE THAT WE
WERE DISCUSSING ABOUT THE
MENTAL MITIGATION.
>> YES, SIR.
I CAN, YES MRS. BELL DID
REQUEST APPOINTMENT OF A
SPECIFIC PSYCHOLOGIST FROM
CALIFORNIA.
TO ASSIST HIM AND THAT WAS
DENIED, THAT IS NOT BEEN
RAISED AS AN ISSUE ON APPEAL.
IN THIS 3815 -- 3850.
DR. MILLER, TESTIFIED
SPECIFICALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SPECIFICALLY, AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND YOU
CAN FIND THAT IN THE RECORD AT
POST CONVICTION RECORD VOLUME
SEVEN STARTING PAGE 1270 THAT
MR. NICKOS DID SPECIFICALLY
CAN HIM TO EVALUATE, ASKED --
DR. MILLER FOR GUIDANCE ON ANY
ISSUE OF MITIGATION.
DR. MILLER TESTIFIED AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING REGARDING
ANY ISSUE OF COMPETENCY THERE
IS NO REALLY ISSUE OF
COMPETENCY IN THIS CASE.
>> IT IS NOT COMPETENCY BUT HE
HAS GOT I MEAN THIS IS A
SITUATION WHERE THE ONLY WAY
YOU ARE GOING TO SAVE THIS
DEFENDANT IS TO SOMEHOW CREATE
THIS IDEA THAT WITH THE DEATH
OF HIS BROTHER IT SET OFF SOME
TYPE OF A REACTION, THAT
PERSIST!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
PERSISTED, AND TO TIE IT IN TO
YOU KNOW, CHILDHOOD ISSUES,
WERE THE DO WE HAVE AND THIS
ALWAYS HARD AS A DEFENDANT
REPRESENTING HIMSELF AT AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING BUT DID
THE DEFENSE LAWYER TESTIFY
ABOUT WHETHER HE SAW THAT
SCHOOL RECORD -- SOUGHT OUT
SCHOOL RECORDS OR JUVENILE
RECORDS OR HIS MEDICAL RECORDS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
RECORDS, OR WHAT HE DID IN
PREPARATION FOR THE PENALTY
PHASE OF THIS CASE?
>> YOUR HONOR, THE TESTIMONY
OF MR. NICHOLS REGARDING THE
RECORDS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
RECORDS, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE
WASN'T SPECIFIC ON THE RECORDS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
RECORDS, THAT HE RVED BUT
THERE WAS NO MEL -- MEDICAL
RECORDS MRS. BELL TESTIFIED
WHATEVER HER SONS WERE INJURED
SHE WOULD TEND TO THEM BECAUSE
SHE WAS A $$NURSE'S ASSISTANT NO
MEDICAL RECORDS CORROBORATING
SO CALLED HEAD INJURIES, DR.
MILLER DIDN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE
OF BRAIN DAMAGE.
>> DID THE MRS. BELL TESTIFY
AT NICHE TRIAL IN PENALTY --
INITIAL TRIAL ABOUT HEAD
INJURIES.
>> NO IN FACT I BELIEVE SHE
DENIED THAT.
DENIED HE HAD ANY KIND OF
PSYCHIATRIC ISSUES,ED ANY KIND
OF HEAD INJURY, AND -- SO -- I
THINK THAT SHE SAID IYMAN WAS
A HEALTHY CHILD, HE HAD GROWN
UP IN A FAMILY ORIENTED FAMILY
SHE HAD RAISED THE THREE BOYS,
HE ESSENTIAL BY HERSELF SO IF
WHAT WAS THE TESTIMONY OF THE
-- OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING
ON OUT THERE, IN THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NEIGHBORHOOD?
BETWEEN THESE WARRING FAMILIES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FAMILIES?
I MEAN THERE WERE THERE WERE
MORE THAN ONE EPISODE OF THESE
SHOOT; CORRECT?
I I MEAN THERE HAD BEEN $$BELL'S
BROTHER HAD HE BEEN KILLED
WASN'T THERE TESTIMONY THAT
THERE HAD BEEN DRIVE-BY
SHOOTINGS AT THE ALPS AND THE
MOTHER WAS TERRIFIED.
>> THAT CAME OUT AT PENALTY
PHASE THE STATE NEVER DISPUTED
THE FEUD BETWEEN THE RIGHT AND
WEST BROTHERS AND THE BELL
BROTHERS.
THE KILLING OF PEE-WEE BELL,
WHICH WAS THE MOTIVE FOR
MR. BELL'S REVENGE OCCURRED
ABOUT SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE
MURDERS IN FACT THE TRIAL
JUDGE DID FIND IN MENTAL
MITIGATION THAT HE WAS UNDER
AN EMOTIONAL DISTANCE AS --
DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THE
KILLING OF HIS BROTHER THE
STATE NEVER DISPUTED THE FEUD,
WHAT PRECIPITATED THE EVIDENCE
OF PREMED TAYED MURDER WAS
MR. BELL HAD SINCE THAT TIME,
VOWED REVENGE, ON THEODORE
WRIGHT.
AND THE STATE PRESENTED --
EVIDENCE --
>> BETWEEN THE ADMINISTERED OF
HIS BROTHER -- MURDER OF HIS
BROTHER.
>> ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS.
>> I BELIEVE, THIS MURDER
HAPPENED ON DECEMBER 9TH,
1993, AND I BELIEVE, THEODORE
WRIGHT KILLED PEE-WEE BELL IN
JUNE OR JULY.
OF THAT YEAR.
>> AND WAS HE EVER CHARGED.
>> HE IT WAS RULED
SELF-DEFENSE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SELF-DEFENSE, HE TESTIFIED AT
THE EVIDENTIARY HE WAS AD VISE!!$$!!!!!!
VISED MICHAEL BELL AND BEE
PEE-WEE BELL WERE WAITING
OUTSIDE BAR, AND THE PERSON
WHO REPORTED THAT TO HIM GAVE
HIM A GUN, AND HE WALKED
OUTSIDE WITH THE GUN IN HIS
BELT, HE DIDN'T HAVE IT DRAWN.
AND MICHAEL BELL AND PEE-WEE
BELL CONFRONTED HIM BE BEEWELL
PULLED A GUN HE WAS A FASTER
DRAW AND HE KILLED HIM IT WAS
REAL SELF-DEFENSE, SINCE THAT
TIME MICHAEL BELL HAD SWORN
REVENGE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
REVENGE, HE TOLD HIS
GIRLFRIEND ERICA WILLIAMS THAT
HE WAS GOING TO KILL THEODORE
WRIGHT.
AND THEN AFTERWARDS, AFTER THE
MURDER, HE TOLD ERICA THAT HE
HAD KILLED HER -- KILLED JIMMY
WEST, HE TOLD -- NICK PRYOR
THAT HE FINALLY GOTTEN EEVEN
GOT BACK -- FOR KILLING
PEE-WEE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
PEE-WEE.
>> CLEAR IMPROPER, THE
PROSECUTORS ARGUMENT ABOUT HIM
BEING THE NOT GIVING THE
RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE IN THE
CONTEXT WAS IN -- THIS
SITUATION, ABOUT THE -- HIS
BROTHER BEING RULED BEING IN
SELF-DEFENSE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SELF-DEFENSE?
IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENT --
PROSECUTOR MADE THE IMPROPER
ARGUMENT ABOUT NOT GIVING
RECOGNIZING THE RIGHTS OF THE
VICTIMS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
VICTIMS; CORRECT?
>> EXACTLY.
AND THIS WAS EXACTLY I MEAN
THE -- WHICH SORT OF SEEING --
SEGUES INTO NOTION TRIAL
COUNCIL IS INEFFECTIVE FOR
FAILING TO PRESENT A
SELF-DEFENSE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SELF-DEFENSE, THE -- THE
EVIDENCE WAS THAT AS I SAY
MR. BELL HAD TOLD HIS
GIRLFRIEND!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GIRLFRIEND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT
HE WAS GOING TO GET EVEN WITH
THE -- THE TESTIMONY OF --
PRIOR AND DALE GEORGE AT THE
TRIAL INDICATED THAT MR. BELL
SOUGHT WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS THE!!$$!!!!
THEO $$WRIGHT'S CAR AT THE
LIQUOR LOUNGE.
TURNED OUT THAT MR. WRIGHT HAD
SOLD HIS CAR TO HIS LITTLE
BROTHER ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE
THE MURDER.
AND THAT HE ENLISTED DALE
GEORGE AND NICK PRYOR TO GO
WITH HIM LAY IN WAIT WHEN HE
SAW JIMMY WEST TELL MEECA
SMITH LAURA HAMILTON COME OUT
OF THE LIQUOR LOUNGE TO GET
OUT OF HIS CAR WHILE LAYING IN
WAIT BURNED HOLES WITH A
CIGARETTE LIGHTER FOR SO HE
COULD SEE, HE GOT OUT OF HIS
CAR, PUT HIS MASK ON, GOT AN
AK-47 OUT OF HIS BACKSEAT
WHICH HE HAD PURCHASED THIS
DAY BEFORE, AND WALKED OVER
AND IMMEDIATELY STARTED FIRING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
FIRING, ON JIMMY WEST KILLING
HIM WITH 12 BULLETS TAMECKA
SMITH WITH FOUR AS WERE MANY
AS SHRAPNEL INJURIES FROM
BULLETS GOING THROUGH JIMMY
WEST, GOT BACK INTO WERE THE
CAR DALE GEORGE SCOOTED INTO
THE DRIVER$$'S SEAT THEY FLED
THE SCENE.
>> HOW ABOUT DEALING WITH THE
-- THE CLOSING ARGUMENT ISSUES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
ISSUES, WHICH STRIKES ME THAT
WE DO HAVE AN UNUSUAL
SITUATION HERE IN WHICH WE
HAVE A CASE IN -- THAT WE HAVE
THE SAME PROSECUTOR, SAME
DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT WERE IN
BROOKS AND EARVIN AND NOW IN
THIS CASE, I RECOGNIZE THAT IT
IS SOME OF THE ARGUMENT WAS
OBJECTED TO.
IN BROOKS, BUT SOME OF IT
WASN'T.
SO HE WILL OF IT WAS SOME OF
IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL WAS HELD TO
BE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR.
AND HERE WE HAVE THE VERY SAME
ARGUMENT INCLUDING AN ARGUMENT
THAT THIS COURT HAS CONDEMNED
SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT THE FACT
IF AGGRAVATORS OUTWEIGH
MITIGATORS YOU MUST RETURN A
DEATH --
>> I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT HIS
CLOSING ARGUMENT, HE -- I
DON'T BELIEVE THE PROSECUTOR
SAYS THAT YOU MUST DO IT.
I BELIEVE THE PROSECUTOR$$'S
ARGUMENT WHEN LOOKING IN
CONTEXT SAYING THAT IT
WARRANTS IT.
AND MR. NICHOLS TESTIFIED OF
COURSE AND YOU ACCURATELY
POINTED OUT, THAT THIS IS THIS
TRIAL TOOK PLACE BEFORE THIS
COURT ISSUED IT'S OPINIONS IN
URBAN AND BROOKS.
IT WAS THE SAME DEFENSE
COUNSEL, BY THE WAY THIS WAS
NOT RAISED ON HABEAS IT IS NOT
CLAIMED FOR CLAIM FOUR ON THE
HABEAS IS ACTUALLY A CONFLICT
OF INTEREST CLAIM.
>> YES, BUT ON THIS --
>> GOING ON THESE ARGUMENTS SO
WE MAKE SURE WE ARE COMLAER
THIS, THE WE ARE CLEAR ABOUT
THIS, THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU
SHOULD SHOW THE DEFENDANT THE
SAME MERCY THAT HE SHOWED TO
THE VICTIMS.
>> WHICH IS UNOBJECTED TO,
THAT NOT ONLY HAS BEEN
CONDEMNED IN BROOKS AND YOU
ARE -- EARVIN BUT IN ROSE, IT
GOES AND SAYS THAT THIS IS
THAT WAS 1989 CASE, THAT
COMMENTS PROSECUTOR MADE
ARGUING FOR THE SAME MERCY WAS
IMPROPER PLUS AS THE OTHER
ARGUMENT HERE THAT HAS BEEN
CONDEMNED NURMZ TIMES WHICH IS
-- I THINK IT IS COMMON
KNOWLEDGE TO BELIEVE WE ALL
KNOW LAWS CHANGED IN THE PAST
THEY MAY CHANGE IN THE FUTURE
I JUST SUBMIT TO YOU EVEN AT A
MINIMUM 50 YEARS THAT IS
ALMOST THAT IS THAT COULD
CHANGE, THAT IS ANOTHER
IMPROPER ARLTH, IN FACT
ARGUMENT, GOING THROUGH THIS
IT IS ALMOST AS IF SOMEBODY
WAS TAKING EVERY CASE WHERE WE
HAVE REVERSED AND SAID THOSE
ARE THE BEST ARGUMENTS YOU CAN
USE PUT THEM IN THERE, AND
THERE ISN'T A SINGLE NOT A
SINGLE OBJECTION TO ARGUMENTS
THAT I THINK ARE VERY
EMOTIONAL AND YOU KNOW THE
IDEA THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS GO
AFTER THE DEATH PENALTY, SO
WE'VE GOT HERE A TOTALLY
ACTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
ACTION, A TOTAL ACTION KIND OF
A LOOK OF A DEFENSE ATTORNEY
WHO YOU KNOW, WAS TRYING HAD
DIFFICULT CLIENT, BUT WHAT --
TO SAY IT IS A STRATEGY TO SIT
THERE, WHEN YOU KNOW ARGUMENT
AFTER ARGUMENT HAS BEEN
CONDEMNED AS IMPROPER, I'VE
GOT SOME DIFFICULTY WITH THAT.
>> I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR
AND I THINK THAT -- YOU
KNOW -- I UNDERSTAND AND THIS
COURT OR NOTED IN URBAN AND
BROOKS THAT IT HAS DECIDED
TAKEN, SPECIFIC ASHTH AND SAID
THEY ARE IMPROPER ONLY UNTIL
URBAN AND BROOKS FRANKLY DID
THIS COURT REAL CONSOLIDATE
THE SCRIPT THAT THIS
PROSECUTOR HAD AND HAS NO
LONGER, REST ASSURED BUT --
>> THAT IS GOOD TO HEAR THAT
ASSURANCE BECAUSE I THINK PART
OF WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FRANKLY
OVERALL SINCE I'VE BEEN ON
THIS COURT IS AN IMPROVEMENT
IN THE LEVEL OF PROSECUTOR$$'S
CLOSING ARGUMENT THAT IS WHY
THIS ONE WAS REAL SORT OF SO
-- REALLY SHOCKING COMPARISON.
>> YOU HAVE TO LOOK -- AGAIN
THE -- 1995, ALSO, I THINK,
THAT I MEAN THIS COURT HAS --
HAS SAID THAT OR YOU LOOK AT
MR. NICHOLS' TESTIMONY
MR. NICKOS TESTIFIED AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT HE
HAS GONE UP AGAINST THE
PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE
GEORGE, HUNDREDS OF TIMES AND
HE WAS, AT THE TIME OF TRIAL
YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER HE IS 18
YEAR CRIME DEFENSE LAWYER HE
HAS BEEN IN THE BAR SOME 23
YEARS SO HE HAS BEEN AROUND
THE BLOCK, AND BACK AGAIN.
AND HE TRIED MANY, MANY
CRIMINAL CASES WITH GEORGE,
AND YOU SEE PICTURE AT
EVIDENTIARY HEARING OF A
ZEALOUS PROSECUTOR A GUY WHO
ALSO -- VERSUS A GUY WHO --
WHO RACE TO TO GET A RA PAR
WITH A JURY MR. NICHOLS
TESTIFIED FOOEFD AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING I TRIED
LOT OF THE CASES WITH GEORGE,
AND -- HE OVERREACHES, AND SO
I TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW,
CREDIBILITY WITH THE JUROR IS
VERY IMPORTANT.
>> HE -- JURY.
>> HE OBJECTJECTS IN BROOKS.
>> WELL, MR. -- MR. BELL, BY
THE WAY HAD STANDBY COUNCIL
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
MR. SERVICE AS STANDBY COUNCIL
DURING ENTIRE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING HE WASN'T ALL BY
HIMSELF, BUT HE WAS AT
MR. BELL ASKED HIM THAT --
OBJECTED TO BROOKS WHY DIDN'T
YOU OBJECT HERE MR. --
>> SAYS.
>> YY I TOLD YOU I WAS VERY I
AM PRESSED WITH QUESTIONS
QUESTIONING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
QUESTIONING.
>> MR. NICHOLS TESTIFIED LOOK,
I DECIDE WHAT I'M GOING TO
OBJECT TO, IN EVERY CASE.
HOW THE CASE IS MOVING THE TO
TALT OF THE -- TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEY IS LOOKING AT THE
JURY LOOKING ALTHOUGH THEIR
EYES LOOKING AT THEIR
REACTIONS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REACTIONS, AND HE HAS TO MAKE
A DECISION, IS THIS HURTING MY
CASE, ARE THE JURORS PAYING
ATTENTION ARE THEY ROLLING
THEIR ICE DO THEY -- EYES DO
THEY THINK OVERZEAL AUSIP
GAMING BE GOBBLE TO CONVINCE
THEM I'M CREDIBLE
>> WHAT IF WE DECIDE THE SUM!!$$!!!!
SUMTOTA OF ARGUMENT WOULD
CONSTITUTE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR
NOW YOU ARE TELLING US THOUGH
THAT MR. BELL, WHO FOUGHT HIS
OWN -- FILED HIS OWN PETITION
FOR HABEAS, RAISED A LOT OF
THE DIFFERENT THINGS, THAT
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T RAISE
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
APPELLATE COUNSEL ON THIS
ISSUE THAT WE ARE --
>> HE IS NOT NOT PRO SE HABEAS
MR. RICHARD HIS COUNSEL FILED
HIS HABEAS PETITION.
>> ACTUALLY -- HE APPEARS TO
ME -- THERE WAS A DISCUSSION,
IN MOTION, ABOUT THAT, BEFORE
THIS KURT.
BUT -- COURT, BUT IN ESSENCE,
I'M CONCERNED, THAT IT LOOKS
LIKE THAT WHAT WAS PRESENTED
AT THE HABEAS CORPUS WAS
BASICALLY WHAT MR. BELL HAD
SAID OUT IN HIS --
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WHEN YOU
LOOK AT CONTEXT OF THE
ARGUMENTS AND YOU LOOK AT THE
RECORD, IN TOTALITY, THAT IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN REVERSED.
FOR YOU HAVE TO LOOK REMEMBER
BROOKS WAS SEVEN TO A FIVE,
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS
COURT SAID WAS IT IS SO CLOSE,
IT IS SO CLOSE, A VOTE WE
CAN'T WE CABINET MAKE SURE WE
CAN'T BE SURE.
THIS IS 12-ZIP 12-ZIP.
>> YOU ARE RIGHT --
>> MR. BELL DID PLEAD GUILTY
TO THREE ADDITIONAL SHOOTING
MURDERS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
MURDERS, AFTER THIS CASE.
>> WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT
WHAT THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE
CASE WAS.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> I MEAN -- IT WASN'T JUST
THE CLOSING ARGUMENT THAT
CONVICTED THIS DEFENDANT.
>> IT WAS -- IT WAS NOT.
IT WAS ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE DALE GEORGE TESTIFIED
THAT MICHAEL BELL GOT OUT OF
HIS BLACK OMEGA WALKED TO
JIMMY $$WEST'S DOOR, AND FIRED
30 ROUNDS FROM A BANANA CLIP
INTO TELL MEECA $$SMITH'S BODY
AND JIMMY --
>> I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING
JUST PENALTY PHASE CLOSING
ARGUMENT.
>> CERTAINLY BUT I THINK.
>> I KNOW --
>> I DON'T THINK AND MAYBE TO
MAKE ARGUMENT BUT THERE IS
CERTAINLY OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE OF GUILTY IT IS JUST
A QUESTION OF THE RELIABILITY
OF THE PENALTY PHASE THAT WE
ARE AT LEAST THAT ON THIS
CLOSING ARGUMENT THAT WE WERE
FOCUSED ON, THAT GOT A ONE
WITNESS HOW LONG MRS. BELL
TESTIFIED ON MITIGATION --
WHAT WAS -- WHAT WAS THE IS A
GOOD BOY -- THINK HE --
>> MRS. BELL DIT TESTIFY
PRESENTED TESTIMONY REGARDING
THE FEAR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT
MR. NICHOLS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF
IN CLOSING.
HE ALSO HE SLAMMED MR. P$$ETAI
DON'T KNOW THE SAME MERCY.
>> --
>> -- CLOSING ARGUMENT.
HE SAID, I HAVE HEARD THIS
STATE SAY THINGS LIKE THIS,
AND THIS IS IN PAGE 710 OF THE
RECORD, I HAVE HEARD THE STATE
SAY THINGS LIKE THIS BEFORE,
SHOW THE SAME KIND OF MERCY TO
THIS DEFENDANT AS HE SHOWED,
AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO
MR. P$$ETAI I PARAPHRASED THIS
IS NOT EXACT QUOTE THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGE IT IS
OUTRAGE TO COME IN HERE THIS
THIS COURTROOM AND ASK YOU TO
SINK TO THE LEVELS OF MORAL
BANKRUPTCY THAT WERE DISPLAYED
OUT THERE AT THE LIKE KORS
DISPLAYED EVERY DAY IN THE
COMMUNITIES IN POCKETS OF OUR
COMMUNITY HE TO COME HERE AND
DO THAT, AND IN A SENSE REALLY
ASKING YOU TO DO WHAT YOU
CONCLUDED BELL DID THAT IS
OUTRAGE, MR. --
>> MR. NICHOLS TESTIFIED ABOUT
HOW HE LIKES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF WHAT HE PERCEIVES AS A
PROSECUTOR OVERREACHING IN HIS
ARGUMENT YOU CAN SEE IN THIS
CLOSING ARGUMENT HE DID THAT
SAME THING WITH THE CCP.
AND THAT IS CONTINUED ON THE
NEXT PAGE.
>> YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW
MR. NICHOLS A VERY EXPERIENCED
CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY DID
HE EXPLAIN WHY HE PRESENTED
SUCH LITTLE EVIDENCE IN THE
PENALTY FACE -- PHASE?
WHAT IS IT BECAUSE HIS CLIENT
DIDN'T WANT TO OR WHAT.
>> PRIMARILY HIS CLIENT DIDN'T
WANT TO HE HE HAD VERY
DIFFICULT A LOT OF THE
DIFFICULT TIME CONTACT FAMILY
MEMBERS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
MEMBERS, FOR INSTANCE, HE SENT
EVENT -- INVESTIGATOR TO LOOK
FOR MARGO BELL THEY CALLED HER
SHE REFUSED TO RETURN THE
PHONE CALLS THEY WENT OUT TO
HER HOUSE, THEY HE LEFT
INVESTIGATOR LEFT HIS CARD,
SHE REFUSED TO --
>> THAT IS SOMEBODY, DID
TESTIFY EVENTUALLY --
>> HE -- EVENTUALLY, BUT THEY
WERE ABLE TO GET HER TO COURT.
DR. MILLER, MR. NICHOLS
TESTIFIED SPECIFICALLY, THAT
DR. MILLER WOULD HAVE HURT
THEM MORE THAN HELPED THEM DR.
MILLER'S OPINION IS HE IS A
SCOTIA PATH WITH NARCISSISTIC
QUALITIES DR. MILLER TESTIFIED
AT THE EVIDENCE HEARING THAT
HE WAS ASKED BY MR. NICHOLS TO
CONSULT ON MITIGATING FACTORS
HE ADVISED HIM IDENTITY THINK
HE COULD HELP HIM.
AND -- THERE WAS NOTHING IN
THE WAY OF MENTAL MITIGATION,
AND, IN FACT DR. MILLER
TESTIFIED AT OF THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT THE
REASON HE LEFT OUT THAT
INFORMATION FROM HIS
COMPETENCY REPORT WAS BECAUSE
IT WAS GRATUITOUS AND IT WOULD
HAVE HURT THE DEFENDANT.
SO DR. MILLER, PLANNED NICHOLS
TESTIFIED DR. MILLER WAS
SOMEONE THAT HE USED A LOT HE
WAS THE MOST WELL RESPECTED --
AND HE A IS A PSYCHIATRIST
PSYCHIATRIST IN THE AREA
EXPERIENCED IN CAPITAL!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
CAPITALICATIONES THAT THEY
WORKED WELL -- TOGETHER IF
PROSECUTE DR. MILLER NEEDED
ANYTHING ELSE HE WOULD ASK HIM
DR. MILLER SEARCHED HE HAD
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO IN
WHICH TO MAKE EVALUATION
MR. NICHOLS ALSO TESTIFIED WE
LOOK AT EVIDENTIARY HEARING
THE OENL PERSONS THAT CAME IN
AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN
MITIGATION REALLY WERE FORMER
GIRLFRIENDS WHO SAID HE IS A
NICE GUY -- ONE OF THEM, ERICA
WILLIAMS SAID HE WAS NICE GUY
UP TO A POINT BUT HE ALSO
TRIED TO RUN ME OVER WITH A
CAR, AND MICHAEL YOU THOUGHT
THAT WAS FUNNY.
AND HE ALSO STALKED ME.
AND ONE NIGHT HE CAME AND TOOK
ME HE HAD A .9MM BARETTA
PULLED AND HE TO THE HE TOLD
ME GET INTO THE CAR DROVE ME
AROUND TO WHO KNOWS WHERE
FINALLY TOOK ME HOME MR. !!$$!!!!!!
MR. NICHOLS DIDN'T SEE THAT AS
PARTICULARLY MITT COMAITING
NONE.
GIRLFRIENDS KNEW -- ABOUT HIS
ROBBERIES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROBBERIES, SO MR. NICKOS SAID
I DON'T FIND THAT PARTICULARLY
MITIGATING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MITIGATING.
AND IN SO HE FAR AS GREGORY
BELL AND MARGO BELL,
PORTRAYING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PORTRAYING, A LOT MORE AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAN WAS
ACTUALLY PRESENTED AT THE
PENALTY PHASE DPREGRY BELL
SAID HIS FATHER WAS B STRICT
DISCIPLINARIAN WAS PHYSICAL
REFOOUFSED TO SAY IT ABUSE I
NEED,HE SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS
GOT FOR THEM BOTH.
THAT HE WAS A PHYSICAL
DISCIPLINARIAN GREG BELL
TURNED OUT TO BE A GOOD
CITIZEN.
GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL
WORKING A STEADY JOB HE RAISED
HE WAS RAISED IN THE SAME
HOUSEHOLD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HOUSEHOLD, MARGO BELL
TESTIFIED HER HUSBAND WAS A
HEROIN USER WHEN ASKED BY HER
SON WHETHER HE ADDUCED ABUSE
KIDS SHE SAID NO ALL RIGHT TO
KIDS HE ABUSE IMMEDIATE THAT
IS WHY I LEFT HIM.
AND I FEEL BAD BECAUSE I HAD
TO WORK TWO JOBS TO RAISE YOU
GUYS.
THAT WAS THE ONLY MITIGATION
SO, MR. BELL CANNOT SHOW ANY
PREJUDICE.
FOR THAT.
>> INSOFAR AS THE QUICKLY THE
T-SHIRT ISSUE, THE TRIAL JUDGE
DID EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS
SUPPOSED TO DO.
MR. NICHOLS, DEMANDED TO SEE
THE T-SHIRT WHEN IT WAS AND
THE TSHORT BASICALLY WAS JUST
A PICTURE OF TECHNICALECA
SMITH WITH HER BIRTHDAY AND
DAY OF DEATH BY THAT TIME JURY
WAS AWARE TEMECA SUBMITTING
WAS DEAD SHE WAS 18 YEARS OLD,
THEY HAD SEEN AUTOPSY PHOTOS,
AND PHOTOS OF THE CRIME SCENE,
NONE OF THE T-SHIRTS SAID
ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING ABOUT
THE EVIDENCE OR MICHAEL BELL
PERSONALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PERSONALLY, THE JUDGE DID A
VOIR DIRE OF THE JURORS SEVEN
JURORS WHO ACTUALLY SAID THEY
SAW THE T-SHIRT NONE OF THEM
RECOGNIZED WHO WAS EVEN ON THE
T-SHIRT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
T-SHIRT.
AND MR. BELL HASN'T SHOWN ANY
PREJUDICE RISING TO LEVEL OF
INFECT I NEED ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL SIMPLY BECAUSE TRIAL
COUNSEL DIDN'T RENEW HIS
OBJECTION TO THE -- WHICH HE
MADE THAT PREVIOUS.
>> WITH OUR ASSISTANCE YOU
HAVE EXHAUSTED YOUR TIME THANK
YOU VERY MUCH ANDERSON YOU
HAVE USED YOUR TIME I WILL
GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES, IF YOU
NEED TO BRING THIS TO A
CONCLUSION.
>> THANK YOU.
THE REAL CONCERN HERE IS THAT
THE DEFENDANTS $$DEFENDANT'S
BROTHER WAS SHOT AND KILLED
AND THERE IS A POSSIBILITY
THAT THE JURY MIGHT HAVE
SPARED HIS LIFE, IF JUST A
LITTLE MORE HAD BEEN DONE, A
LITTLE MORE SENSIBLE CASES PUT
ON FOR THE DE. WITH REGARD TO
THE IMPROPER CLOSING ARGUMENTS
OF THE PROSECUTOR I FOUND MY
NOTES, AND IN A NUTSHELL THEY
ARE IN GUILTY PHASE THE
PROSECUTOR SAID THE BLOOD OF
THE VICTIMS CRIES FOR JUSTICE,
THE DEFENDANT LIVINGED BY THE
LAW OF THE JUNGLE THE YOUNG
VICTIMS IN PRIMES OF THEIR
LIVES!!$$!!!!!!!!
LIVES, THE VICTIMS WERE
DEPRIVED OF GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO
LIFE THEN IN THE PENALTY
PHASE, PROSECUTOR SAID THE
STATE DOES NOT SEEK DEATH
PENALTY IN ALL CASES WRONL
FACTS JUSTIFY IT THEN THERE
WAS SHOW THE DEFENDANT THE
SAME MERCY HE SHOWED THE
VICTIM,AND HE MEANT HE TOLD
THE JURORS THAT LIFE SENTENCE
CARRIES A CHANCE OF PAYROLL IN
25 YEARS ALL VERY IMPROPER,
AND THE CONCERN HERE MAY HAVE
TIPPED THE SCALES, ALSO WITH
REGARD TO ONE IN -- THE ISSUE
OF 1Q, THE MORAL T-SHIRT
ISSUE, THERE WAS NO RULING ON
THAT, REAL NEEDS TO BE SENT
BACK FOR RULING THIS DEFENDANT
IS GOING TO FOREVER WONDER IF
THAT ISSUE HAD BEEN ADDRESSED,
MAYBE WOULD WITH THIS COURT
TREAT HIS CASE DIFFERENTLY SO
WE REALLY NEED IT SENT BACK.
>> IS NOT THERE A U.S. SUPREME
COURT CASE ON THAT THAT JUST
CAME OUT THAT SAYS IT IS NOT
HAVING BISTANDARDS IN THE
COURTROOM WITH A T-SHIRT OF A
VICTIM IS NOT PER SE IMPROPER
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT CASE
MAYBE I'M WRONG.
>> I HAVEN'T HEARD OF THAT ONE
BUT IN THIS CASE IT WAS JUST
-- JUST T-SHIRT, THERE WAS
SOMEBODY STANDING OUTSIDE WITH
SHE CRICK $$TIM'S PORTRAIT THE
JUDGE ASKED THE JURORS IF
ANYBODY HAD SEEN IT -- SEVEN
JURORS RESPONDED YES, THEY
HAVE SEEN THIS, DEFENDS
COUNSEL DID OBJECT BY THE WAY
HE JUST DID NOT RENEW HIS
OBJECTION, THAT WAS THE --
PROBLEM THERE.
ANYWAY THAT IS IT, I THINK,
YOUR HONOR REALLY IF I CANNOT
UNDERSTAND WHY MAYBE THIS
YOUNG MAN HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN
LIFE, BECAUSE HIS WHOLE LIFE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FACT
THAT HIS BROTHER HAD BEEN
MURDERED BEFORE AND --
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
WE WILL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT