AND WE'LL
TAKE THIS CASE UNDER
CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU.
READY FOR HOUR SECOND CASE THIS
MORNING.
BLANCO VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA.
>> MR. STILL?
>> GOOD MORNING.
HIGH RA STILL FOR OMAR BLANK
COVE.
WE HAVE -- BLANCO.
WE HAVE TWO POINT THAT WE'RE
HOPING TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS
MORNING.
ONE CONCERNS AN UNSOLVED
FINGERPRINT THAT WAS NOT HANDLED
AS PART OF THE HUH HEARING BUT
THERE WAS A SEPARATE MOTION THAT
WAS MADE TO THE TRIAL COURT AND
DENIED HAND THE SECOND ONE IS
THAT WE'RE ASKING TO REMAND FOR
ANEST RIFE HEARING SO THAT WE
CAN -- AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
SHOUGH WE CAN MAKE A RECORD
BASED ON ALL OF THE PROBLEMS
THAT WE FOUND EXISTED IN THE
CRIME SCENE FROM REVIEWING THE
RECORD AND THE POLICE REPORT AND
CRIME SCENE PHOTOS AND ALL THAT
TOOK PLACE, AND WE'RE SAYING
THAT THERE WAS SO MUCH THAT WAS
AVAILABLE, THAT TRIAL COUNSEL
WAS TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE IN
HANDLING THIS.
SO THOSE ARE THE TWO POINTS THAT
WEMD LIKE TO MAKE THIS MORNING.
IF IT'S OK WITH THE COURT, I'LL
ADDRESS THE AFUS FIRST.
THE FINGERPRINT THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT WAS AN UNSOLVED
FINGERPRINT, FOUND ON THE DOOR
TO THE BEDROOM, WHERE RIGHT IN
THE POSITION WHERE THE SCUFFLE
STARTED THE BEDROOM BELONGED TO
THE THEN LITTLE GIRL, SHE WAS IN
THE ROOM, AND THE UNCLE CAME,
THERE WAS A GUNMAN IN THE HOUSE,
THERE WAS A STRUGGLE RIGHT
THERE.
YES?
>>
[INAUDIBLE]
WASN'T IT ARGUED THAT THE GUN
BELONG TO MR. GONZALEZ AND HE
AND SOME OTHER PERSON WERE THE
MURDERERS, AND WASN'T IT LATER
DETERMINED THAT THIS WAS NOT IN
FACT HIS FINGERPRINT?
>> WELL, YES.
MR. BLANCO FELT AS THOUGH IT WAS
EITHER ENRIQUE GONZALEZ OR FIDEL
ROMERO OR RAY ALONZO.
>> THEY WERE ELIMINATED AS THE
FINGERPRINT, SO WHAT ARE WE
REALLY LOOKING FOR IN THIS CASE?
ARE WE ON A FISHING EXPEDITION
TRYING TO NOW FIND SOMEONE ELSE,
SO YOU CAN ANNOUNCE WAS IN FACT
THE MURDERER?
>> WELL, WHETHER BLANCO WAS
CORRECT IN HIS GUESS AS TO WHO
IT MIGHT BE OR NOT, WE STILL
HAVE AN UNSOLVED FINGERPRINT ON
A DOOR THAT WAS OPENED AND
CLOSED THREE OR FOUR TIMES BY
THE INTRUDER.
>> ASSUMING WE FIND IT IS MR. X,
Y, Z, HOW IS THAT INDICATIVE OF
THE FACTS IN THIS CASE WHICH
INDICATES THAT THERE WERE 10
PEOPLE WHO SAW MR. BLANCO, THERE
WAS A PURSE FOUND AT THE SCENE,
WHICH HAD MR. BLANCO'S I.D. IN
IT AND OTHER THINGS THAT
CONNECTED HIM TO THIS CRIME, SO
HOW WOULD A FINGERPRINT, WHO
COULD HAVE BELONGED TO ANYONE,
NEGATE THAT?
>> WELL, THERE'S TWO THINGS TO
ANSWER IN THAT.
FIRST IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE
LOCATION OF THE FINGERPRINT,
THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SO RELEVANT
TO THIS CASE.
NOW GRANTED, IF IT WERE TO RUN
THROUGH THE AFUS SYSTEM, THERE
COULD BE ONE OF THREE RESULTS.
THERE MAY BE NO MATCH, WHICH
WOULD LEAVE IT RAW DATA, WHICH
AT THAT POINT THE DEFENSE HAS
TRIED TO TURN OVER EVERY STONE
ON THAT, AND IT WILL HAVE GONE
UNSOLVED.
THE OTHER ONE IS THAT IT MAY
COME OUT TO BE SOMEBODY, MAYBE A
HOUSEKEEPER OR SOMEBODY THAT
OBVIOUSLY WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE
CASE, AND THERE AGAIN, IT ENDS
THERE.
THE THIRD POSSIBILITY IS THAT IT
DOES MATCH AND AT THAT POINT,
IT'S NO LONGER -- WELL, IT DOES
MATCH SOMEBODY IN THE AFUS
SYSTEM, COMES THROUGH AFUS AND
WE HAVE A MATCH.
OF COURSE AT THAT POINT, YOU
HAVE TO HAVE A FINGERPRINT
EXAMINER ACTUALLY DO THE
COMPARISON.
BUT AT THAT POINT, WE'D BE IN A
BETTER POSITION TO TELL WHETHER
THE -- THAT WOULD AFFECT THE
OUTCOME AND HOW THAT WOULD
AFFECT ALL OF THE OTHER PARTS OF
THE CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE.
BUT AGAIN, EVEN IF IT MATCHES
SOMEBODY ELSE, ALL THAT PROVES
IS THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WAS AT
SOME POINT IN THE HOUSE.
IT DOESN'T PROVE THAT THIS
PERSON MURDERED ANYBODY, WAS
EVEN UNINVITED INTO THE HOUSE.
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT NOW,
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW -- WE
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO RUN IT.
>> WHAT'S THAT FINGERPRINT GOING
TO PROVE OTHER THAN THAT PERSON
WAS IN THE HOUSE?
>> YES.
AND IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE
SOMEONE THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE
WITHIN

-BEEN IN THE HOUSE HAND THAT
FINGERPRINT IS THERE, THEN THAT
WOULD GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO
RUN THAT PERSON'S BACKGROUND AND
TO FIND OUT WHO IT WAS AND TO
SEE --
>> DID TRIAL COUNSEL KNOW ABOUT
THIS FINGERPRINT AT TRIAL?
>> THEY KNEW THERE WAS AN
UNSOLVED PRINT.
>> DIDN'T THEM USE THAT UNSOLVED
PRINT TO SAY THIS COULD HAVE
BEEN GONZALEZ' PRINT?
>> I THINK THAT THEY DID.
>> SO IF COUNSEL WANTED TO RUN A
CHECK, IF THEY WANTED TO PERFORM
SOME TESTS ON THE FINGERPRINT,
THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE
TRIAL TO DO THAT?
>> NOT REALLY, BECAUSE THE AFUS
SYSTEM DIDN'T COME INTO BEING
UNTIL AFTER THE TRIAL IN ABOUT
1990, SO AT THE TIME OF THE
TRIAL, IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF
COMING UP WITH SOME SUSPECTS,
MAYBE DOING SOME COMPARISONS,
AND TRIED TO SEE WHO IT WAS AT
THAT POINT, BUT OTHERWISE, THE
EVIDENCE WAS JUST -- WOULD BE
UNSOLVED, BUT WHEN THE AFUS
SYSTEM CAME ABOUT, AND NOW WE'VE
GOT YEARS AND YEARS OF DATA
GOING INTO THE AFUS SYSTEM AND
IT'S A SIMPLE AND ECONOMIC
PROCEDURE --
>> AND THIS WAS IN 1990, THE
AFUS SYSTEM?
>> I THINK IT WAS IN 1990.
>> AND WHAT DATE WAS THE MOTION
FILED?
>> WE FILED THE MOTION -- I
DON'T RECALL, WHEN WE FILED THE
MOTION, IT MUST HAVE BEEN TWO OR
THREE YEARS AGO.
>> SO AFTER 2000?
>> OH YEAH.
>> SO DEFENDANT WAITED MORE THAN
10 YEARS AFTER THE AFUS SYSTEM
TO ASK FOR THE AT THEES TO BE
CONDUCTED?
>> WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED,
THIS IS PART OF WHAT WE FEEL IS
INEFFECTIVE WITH TRIAL COUNSEL
AND SOME OF THE COUNSEL THAT
COME BEFORE US.
>> YOU'RE NOT ARGUING
INEFFECTIVENESS AS FAR AS THE
FINGERPRINT.
YOU'RE ARGUING THAT THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN DENYING YOUR
MOTION TO TEST IT?
>> WHEN WE BROUGHT THE MOTION.
THE PROBABLE POLICEMEN WAS WHEN
WE DID -- WE DID A FULL FORMAL
EVIDENCE REVIEW.
WE WASN'T DOWN AND PHOTOGRAPH
AND VIDEOTAPED ALL THE EVIDENCE,
OPENED ALL THE PACKAGES AND
ACTUALLY, WE WERE TOLD BY THE
STATE ATTORNEY, THAT IT WAS THE
FIRST TIME IN ANY ONE OF THESE
CASES THAT ANYONE HAD DONE THAT.
IT SEEMS RUDD MEANTRY TO --
RUDEMENTRY IN A CASE OF THIS
MAGAZINE ANY THEWED THAT COUNSEL
SHOULD LOOK AT ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE AND QUESTION IT AND
COMPARE IT AGAINST POLICE
REPORTS AND SO FORTH AND IT WAS
CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE
TRIAL COUNSEL DIDN'T DO THAT.
SO WHEN WE FINAL MY DID THAT
HAND WE -- THE DEFENSE BROUGHT
IN A LATENT FINGERPRINT EXAMINER
TO MAKE THE COMPARISON, IT WAS
AT THAT POINT THAT THE -- OUR
EXAMINER SAID WELL IT'S NOT
ENRIQUE, IT'S NOT SOME OF THESE
OTHER PEOPLE YOU'VE SHOWN US,
BUT IT WAS OF AFUS QUALITY, SO
THEN WE IMMEDIATELY TURNED
AROUND, FILED THE MOTION AND
TRIED TO GET THE COURT TO OPEN
THE DOOR FOR US TO RUN IT
THROUGH THE AFUS SYSTEM TO SEE
WHAT WAS THERE.
AND I THINK THAT -- YOU KNOW,
THERE IS THAT QUESTION OF
WELL,
IT'S A STATE OWNED PROCEDURE, A
POLICE OWNED PROCEDURE, AND WE
HAVE -- WE DON'T HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO GET IN THAT DOOR,
SO IF THE STATE WON'T AGREE TO
RUN IT, THEN WE NEED THE COURT
TO GIVE US AN ORDER TO HAVE IT
RUN.
WE WERE WILLING TO PAY FOR
WHATEVER COSTS WOULD BE INVOLVED
AND TO SEE IF SEEMS LIKE A
SIMPLE PROCEDURE, BUT IT
CERTAINLY WOULD ANSWER A
QUESTION IN A CASE OF THIS
MAGNITUDE WHERE DEATH IS SO
DIFFERENT, THAT IT JUST SEEMS
THAT WE SHOULD ANSWER THAT
SYSTEM.
AND I KIND OF GOT OFF THE TRACK
OF JUSTICE QUINCE'S QUESTION
BECAUSE YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE
PERSON THAT WAS IN THE CRIME
SCENE.
>> ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS
GATHERED AND USED, I NEED YOU TO
ANSWER HOW THIS ONE FINGERPRINT
WOULD KNEE GATE THIS EVIDENCE TO
THE EXTENT THAT MR. BLANCO --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THIS ONE
FINGERPRINT WOULD, BUT I'LL SAY
THIS, BUT LOOK, THIS IS THE
OTHER POINT OF THE PART OF THE
POINT THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE OF
HOW THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO
ANALYSIS DONE OF THE CRIME
SCENE.
FIRST OF ALL, OFFICER PEREZ WAS
CALLED TO THE CRIME SCENE
BECAUSE ONCE THE POLICE GOT
THERE, THEY WERE INTERCEPTING
PHONE CALLS TO THE HOUSE THAT
WERE IN SPANISH, AND THEY DIDN'T
KNOW WHO THEY WERE, WHO WAS
CALLING.
AND THEY FELT LIKE THAT WAS PART
OF THE SITUATION, BECAUSE THE
LITTLE GIRL HAD SAID THAT THE
INTRUDER WAS HISPANIC.
SO WHEN HE GOT THERE, HE WENT IN
THE HOUSE.
WE FIND THAT UNLIKE ANY OTHER
CRIME SCENE THAT I'VE EVER DEALT
WITH OR ANALYZED, THERE WAS NO
LOG ON THE CRIME SCENE.
POLICE DIDN'T HAVE TO SIGN IN OR
SIGN THEIR TIME INTO THE CRIME
SCENE, SO WE REALLY HAVE NO
RECORD AS TO WHO CAME AND WENT
FROM THAT CRIME SCENE.
C.S.I. MATHSON WAS THE ONE WHO
DID THE CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS.
HE TOOK ONE ROLL OF PHOTOGRAPHS
AND I'VE NEVER SEEN A CASE OF
THIS MAGNITUDE WHERE THERE
HASN'T BEEN 250, 300, 35 WHO
PHOTOGRAPHS.
-- 350 PHOTOGRAPHS.
HE TOOK 24 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
CRIME SCENE, AND THE PURSE ONLY
APPEARS IN ONE PHOTOGRAPH.
IT'S AT A DISTANCE AND IT'S
LAYING AGAINST THE WALL.
MATHSON TESTIFIED THAT HE FOUND
THE PURSE AT TRIAL, HE FOUND THE
PURSE THAT HE TOOK THE PURSE AND
GAVE IT OVER TO DETECTIVE WALLY,
WHO KEPT IT FOR SOMETIME, AND
THEN BROUGHT IT BACK TO MATHSON.
>> WHERE DOES ALL OF THIS LEAD?
ALL OF THIS GET US TO WHAT
POINT?
>> WELL, WHAT IT GET TO IS THE
FACT THAT THE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS
SO INEFFECTIVE THAT OFF THE
RECORD ITSELF, THE DETAILS OF
THIS --
>> THE FAMILY TO ARGUE THAT
THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH PHOTOGRAPHS
TAKEN OF THE CRIME SCENE AND
WHAT ELSE?
>> WELL, YES, AND ALONG WITH THE
PHOTOS, THE NORMAL PROCEDURE IS
WHEN YOU FIND A PIECE OF
EVIDENCE LIKE THAT, YOU DOCUMENT
IT BY GOING INTO IT WITH YOUR
PHOTOGRAPHS.
YOU PHOTOGRAPH THE I'VE
TEMPERATURE, YOU OPEN -- ITEM,
YOU PHOTOGRAPH EACH THING AS YOU
TAKE IT OUT AND THAT WAY IT'S
DOCUMENTED AS PART OF THE CRIME
SCENE.
THAT WASN'T DONE IN THIS CASE.
WE ALSO HAD DETECTIVES THAT ONCE
THEY LEARNED FROM OMAR BLANCO
WHAT HIS ADDRESS WAS, THEY LEFT
THE SCENE AND WENT DOWN TO
HOLLYWOOD TO HIS ADDRESS.
DETECTIVE WALLY SAYS THAT HE HAD
A KEY TO HIS APARTMENT AND HE
WENT DOWN AND TALKED TO THE
APARTMENT MANAGER TO COMPARE
THAT KEY AND SEND IT TO THE
F.B.I., SO WE KNOW THAT THERE
ARE PEOPLE LEAVING THE SCENE AND
GOING DOWN THERE, AND DETECTIVE
WALLY TESTIFIED THAT HE TOOK
CUSTODY OF THE PURSE, AND
RETAINED CUSTODY OF THE PURSE,
UNTIL HE PUT IT IN TO EVIDENCE.
WE HAVE DETECTIVE WALLY SAYING I
FOUND THE PURSE, THEN I SHOWED
IT TO THE CRIME SCENE TECH, WE
HAVE OF THE CRIME SCENE TECH
SAYING HE FOUND THE PURSE, AND
GAVE IT TO DETECTIVE MATSON.
ALL OF THESE THINGS RELATE TO
RELIABILITY AND CREDIBILITY OF
THE EVIDENCE AND NONE OF THIS
WAS APPROACHED BY TRIAL COUNSEL
AT ALL.
AND IT WAS JUST SO GLARING.
ONCE YOU BEGIN TO READ THE
RECORD AND SOME OF THE APPENDIX
ITEMS THAT WE ATTACHED ON POLICE
REPORTS, BUT THE POINT IS, WE
HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN A HEARING ON
THIS AND WE FEEL AS THOUGH WE
SHOULD HAVE A HEARING TO BE ABLE
TO DEVELOP THIS.
TO DO A CRIME SCENE
RECONSTRUCTION AND TO BRING IN
AN EXPERT AND TO HAVE TESTIMONY
AND MAKE A RECORD BEFORE IT
COMES UP TO THE COURT.
WE FEEL HAS THOUGH WE SHOULD
HAVE HAD A HEARING ON THAT.
>> IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED TO
YOUR OTHER ARGUMENT, YOU'RE
RAPIDLY APPROACHING YOUR TIME.
>> I WAS KIND OF HITTING THAT
SECOND POINT IN TERMS OF A CRIME
SCENE.
I'LL SIT DOWN NOW.
>> YOU HAVE TIME.
I JUST WANT TO BE SURE YOU HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOUR
POINT.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
NOW, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE
RECORD THAT -- NO FORENSIC
EVIDENCE THAT TIED OMAR TO THE
PURSE.
THERE WAS NO BLOOD, THERE WAS NO
D.N.A., THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY
THAT THE PURSE WAS HIS.
INSIDE THE PURSE THEY FOUND A
WALLET AND THE WALLET HAD HIS
LICENSE, HIS SOCIAL SECURITY
CARD, AND HIS BOAT LIFT I.D.
>> ALL THE ITEMS ARE INSIDE THE
PURSE.
>> WELL, I DON'T THINK IT TIES
HIM TO THE PURSE.
I THINK THE TRIAL COURT BELOW
KEPT TALKING ABOUT THE FACT,
WELL, WHY WAS OMAR'S PURSE IN
THE ROOM, AND THAT'S A POINT
THAT I WANTED TO MAKE, THAT THE
PURSE ITSELF HAS NO TIE TO OMAR,
BUT THE WALLET INSIDE, OF COURSE
IS OMAR'S.
>> HE SAW A MAN STANDING IN THE
HALLWAY WITH A GUN AND A PURSE?
>> YEAH, I THINK SHE SAID THAT
HE HAD SOMETHING UNDER HIS HARM.
>> NOT SIMPLY A PURSE?
>> I'M NOT SURE SHE USED THE
WORD PURSE OR NOT.
>> DID SHE IDENTIFY HIM OUT OF A
LINEUP THE DAY AFTER?
>> THEY DID, YES.
THERE AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE WHOLE
SITUATION IS SHE LEFT THE HOUSE,
SAID SHE UNBOLTED THE FRONT
DOOR, AND WALKED OUTSIDE AND THE
EYEWITNESS SAID THAT HE SAW
THE -- HE SAW SOMEBODY WALK OUT
THE FRONT DOOR AND WALK DOWN THE
STREET TOWARD THE EAST, TOWARD
BAY VIEW DRIVE.
BUT WE KNOW THAT COULDN'T HAVE
HAPPENED, AND THIS WAS NEVER
AGAIN, NEVER CHALLENGED BY TRIAL
ATTORNEYS, THIS COULDN'T HAVE
HAPPENED, BECAUSE HOW COULD THE
INTRUDER HAVE WALKED OUT THE
FRONT DOOR AND THEN CLOSED IT
AND CLOSED THE BOLT LOCK THAT
WOULD THEN HAVE BEEN LOCKED FOR
FAILURE TO COME OUT?
>> WELL, WE'RE HERE AFTER A
SECOND PENALTY PHASE, RIGHT?
SO AS FAR AS YOUR GUILT PHASE
ISSUES, WHY AREN'T THOSE
PROCEDURALLY BARRED, EITHER YOU
RAISED THEM BEFORE OR YOU SHOULD
HAVE RAISED THEM BEFORE, BUT ALL
OF THAT WAS BEFORE WE'VE HAD A
NEW PENALTY PHASE PROCEEDING,
WHY AREN'T YOU JUST LIMITED TO
ARGUING INHEY IF HE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EFFECTIVE AVE STANDS
OF -- ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT
THE NEW PENALTY PHASE?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE HAS
EVER RAISED THE ISSUE OF THIS --
THESE PROBLEMS WITH THE CRIME
SCENE AND THEY'RE JUST SO
GLARING --
>> THE PROBLEM ISN'T WHETHER
THEY'VE RAISED THEM.
YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE
THEM IN THE FIRST POST
CONVICTION PROCEEDING.
SO WHY AREN'T YOU BARRED NOW
FROM RAISING ALL THOSE PHASE
ISSUES AFTER THE NEW PENALTY
PHASE PROCEEDING?
>> I THINK ARGUE BRILL THE
ATTORNEYS THAT HANDLED THE CASE
PRIOR COULD HAVE.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS LOOKED
AT THIS, THAT IT'S -- THIS
SHOULD BE THE FIRST THING THAT
EEP OF THE ATTORNEYS HAVE DONE
WHEN THEY COME ON THE CASE,
WHETHER AT TRIAL OR PENALTY
PHASE, THEY SHOULD HAVE REDONE
THE CRIME SCENE TO SEE WHAT WAS
WHAT AND I'M POSITIVE FROM
HAVING DONE THIS, THAT NO ONE
ELSE HAS.
>> YOU'RE WELL IN TO YOUR
REBUTTAL NOW.
>> I'M SORRY.
MS. CAMPBELL?
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
LESLIE CAMPBELL WITH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON JUSTICE
CAN'T'S -- JT CAN'T'S INITIAL --
JT CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AT THE STATE COURT LEVEL AND
FEDERAL COURT LEVEL.
MOST OF THESE QUESTIONS HAVE
BEEN ANSWERED AS FAR AS PROBLEMS
WITH IDENTITY AN THINGS LIKE
THAT.
THE GUILT PHASE ISSUES ARE
THOROUGHLY AND COMPLETELY
REVIEWED.
ALSO, WITH REGARD TO JUSTICE
BELL'S COMMENT, THIS COURT FOUND
IN HEY FIRM WILLING THE --
AFFIRMING THE INITIAL CONVICTED
AND SENTENCE THAT IT WAS
TESTIFIED THAT SHE SAW A MAN
STANDING IN THE HALL WAVE
HOLDING A GUN, AND CARRYING A
BROWN WALLET-TYPE OBJECT UNDER
HIS ARM.
SO THAT SHOULD SOLVE THE
QUESTION OF WHERE THE MAN'S
PURSE OR WALLET-TYPE ITEM CAME
FROM.
IT WAS THERE AT THE TIME THAT
MR. BLANCO FIRST ENCOUNTERED
FALIO AND WE CAN ONLY ASSUME
THAT HE LEFT IT THERE DURING THE
STRUGGLE OR AT SOMETIME.
ALSO WAS IN THAT WALLET --
>> I THINK COUNSEL'S POINT WAS
YOU MAY HAVE THE PURSE, BUT THIS
WALLET CAME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE
AND GOT INTO SOMEBODY ELSE'S
PURSE.
IS THERE ANY HINT OF THAT?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, YOUR
HONOR.
WHETHER SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW,
DESCRIBES AN HIGH TEMPERATURE AS
A WALLET TYPE, I MEAN, IT'S A
MAN'S PURSE.
LONG WALLET, SMALL WALLET, IT'S
A WALL TYPE HIGH TEMPERATURE.
AND -- WALLET TYPE ITEM AND
WITHIN THAT WAS NOT ONLY
MR. BLANCO'S I.D. AND OTHER
ITEMS, BUT FALIO'S WATCH, SO WE
KNOW THAT SOMETHING WAS PUT IN
THAT AT THE CRIME SCENE.
IF WE COULD GET AWAY FROM THE
GUILT PHASE ISSUES, AS FAR AS
JUST A GENERAL TACK, SINCE THERE
WAS A SECOND PENALTY PHASE,
HOWEVER, DURING THAT PENALTY
PHASE, THERE WAS ANOTHER 3851
PROCEEDING WHERE THERE WAS AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
DURING THAT PROCEEDING,
MR. BELONG COPUT ON SEVERAL
WITNESSES AND CLAIMED THAT IT
WAS MR. GONZALEZ WHO WAS THE
ACTUAL MURDERER.
THOSE TYPE OF ALLEGATIONS HAVE
BEEN REITERATED AGAIN IN THIS
BRIEF AND THEREFORE THE TRIAL
COURT WAS MORE THAN WILLING TO
ORDER A TESTING OF THIS
UNIDENTIFIED FINGERPRINT TO SEE
IF IT DID MATCH MR. GONZALEZ'.
IT WAS AT THE HEARING THAT THE
COURT WAS INFORMED THAT THE
DEFENSE HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED
THAT HEARING -- THAT
IDENTIFICATION AND DETERMINED
THAT IT WAS NOT MR. GONZALEZ'.
SO THE COURT ITSELF THOUGHT THAT
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A FISHING
EXPEDITION.
WE, YOU KNOW, -- IT HAD ALREADY
BEEN DETERMINED THAT IT WAS
MR. GONZALEZ' --
>> WAS THERE EVIDENCE CONCERNING
SOMEONE WHO IDENTIFIED A
DEFENDANT AT THE CRIME SCENE
ABOUT WEARING MITTENS OR GLOVES?
WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE ABOUT
THAT?
>> THE EVIDENCE WAS THAT AT SOME
POINT, MR. GONZALEZ WAS
WEARING -- EXCUSE ME, MR. BLANCO
WAS WEARING SOCKS ON HIS HANDS,
BUT WE ALSO KNOW HAT SOME POINT
HE LOST THE SOCKS, THOSE SOCKS
REMAINED IN THE ROOM AND THEY
WERE COLLECTED IN TO EVIDENCE.
WE ALSO HAVE GUNSHOT RESIDUE
TESTS, THAT SHOWS THAT THERE WAS
GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON MR. BLANCO'S
HANDS AFTER THE -- AFTER THIS
INCIDENT.
SO WE DO KNOW THAT HE HAD FIRED
A GUN AFTER LOSING THOSE SOCKS.
WE ALSO DURING --
>> WAS HE THE ONE WHO SAID HE
HAD SOCKS ON HIS HANDS?
>> I BELIEVE SHE DID, YES, WHEN
SHE FIRST SAID SOMETHING, HE WAS
WEARING SOMETHING ON HIS HANDS.
SO DURING THE STRUGGLE OR DURING
THE TIME THAT HE'S IN THE HOUSE,
PICKING UP FALIO'S WATCH FOR ONE
ITEM, HE LOSES THE SOCK.
WE ALSO HAVE DURING THE 3851
WHERE HE BROUGHT ON -- WHERE
MR. BLANCO BROUGHT ON NEW
EVIDENCE, THAT IT WAS
MR. GONZALEZ, WE ALSO HAVE
SEVERAL WITNESSES TESTIFYING
THAT MR. GONZALEZ -- MR. BLANCO
HAD ACTUALLY CONFESSED TO THIS
CRIME.
HE HAD SPOKEN TO MR. CHUNG AND
HAD EXPLAINED AFTER THE
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
HE HAD BEEN PART OF A CREW THAT
WAS GOING TO ROB OR TO
BURGLARIZE THIS PARTICULAR
HOUSE, BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT
THE VICTIM HAD MONEY HAND
JEWELRY, AND THAT HE HAPPENED TO
OVERSLEEP THAT NIGHT.
AND WHEN HE WOKE UP, HIS COME
PAY!!!!!!!!COME PATRIOTS WERE GONE AND THIS
IS THE NIGHT HE ATTACKED AND
KILLED MR. RYAN.
AS FAR AS ANY QUESTION OF
LOOKING AT THIS FINGERPRINT ANY
FURTHER, IT SEEMS LIKE A FISHING
EXPEDITION, SOMETHING THAT
CERTAINLY ISN'T GOING TO PRODUCE
ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO COME
ANYWHERE CLOSE TO EXONERATING
MR. BLANCO, THERE WAS A CLEAR
I.D. OF HIM, MS. FALIA WAS ABLE
TO SEE HIM FOR A GOOD 10, 15
MINUTES DURING THIS -- DURING
THE COURSE, AND THEN WE DID HAVE
ANOTHER PERSON I.D. HIM AS
HAVING THE SAME PROFESSOR FILE
AND THE SAME CLOTHING ON, AND HE
WAS CAPTURED APPROXIMATELY A
MILE AND A HALF AWAY, FROM THE
CRIME SCENE,, WITHIN AN HOUR OF
THE CRIME.
YES, HE WAS RIVING A BICYCLE,
BUT EVEN THOUGH HE HAD LEFT ON
FOOT DURING HIS -- OR DURING THE
TESTIMONY, DURING THE 30 HATE
50, THE BICYCLE HAD BEEN HIDDEN
SOMEPLACE CLOSE BY, BUT I DON'T
FEEL THAT THIS COURT SHOULD HAVE
ANY QUALMS ABOUT THE TRIAL
COURT'S DENIAL OF RUNNING THIS
ONE UNIDENTIFIED FINGERPRINT IN
A HOUSE FULL OF RESIDENTS AND
FRIENDS OR INVITED GUESTS.
TO SEE ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR CRIME.
IF THE COURT HAS ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS THAT I COULD REST ON
MY BRIEF AND ASK THAT YOU
CONFIRM THE DENIAL AND POST
CONVICTION RELIEF.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. STILL?
>> THIS INFORMATION IS THE FIRST
I HEARD OF THE DISCUSSION
BETWEEN THESE WITNESSES.
WE FEEL AS THOUGH THE -- THERE
IS UNSOLVED EVIDENCE RIGHT
THERE, WHERE THE SCUFFLE TOOK
PLACE, WHERE SOMEONE TOUCHED THE
DOOR THAT WAS NARROWED DOWN TO
THE GUNMAN.
AND IT IS NOT HOE MARCH BLANCO,
AND I THINK THAT'S HEY SINKS.
I THINK THE FIRST THING THAT
SHOULD HAPPEN, WE WOULD ASK THIS
COURT TO REMAND IT TO THE TRIAL
COURT SO ALLOW THE AFUS SYSTEM
TO RUN THE FINGERPRINT AND AT
THAT POINT IN TIME, WE'LL KNOW
IF THERE IS NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE.
THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IS
NOT THE FINGERPRINT, THE LATENT
LIFT.
THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
WOULD BE THE SOLVING OF THAT
THROUGH THE AFUS.
>> WHAT WAS YOUR REFERENCE TO
NARROWED DOWN TO THE GUNMAN?
YOU JUST SAID THAT IS TRUE
FINGERPRINTS WERE NARROWED DOWN
TO THE GUNMAN.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT CONTEXT YOU'RE
RECOVERING THAT?
>> THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF FALIA,
SHE SAID THAT THE GUNMAN CAME
INTO HER ROOM SEVERAL TIMES,
THAT HE OPENED THE DOOR, HE HE
CLOSED THE DOOR, HE OPENED THE
DOOR, CLOSED THE DOOR, AND THAT
HE WAS TOUCHING IT RIGHT IN THAT
AREA WHERE THE PRINT WAS FOUND.
>> SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
REFERRING TO?
>> YES.
>> DO WE NOVEMBER AT THAT POINT
HE STILL HAD THE SOCKS ON HIS
HAND?
>> FALIA TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD A
RED GLOVE ON ONE OF HIS HANDS,
AND THEN SHE TESTIFIED THAT WHEN
SHE WAS SHOWN THE SOCKS, THAT
THEY WEREN'T HERS, SHE HADN'T
SEEN THEM BEFORE.
THEN THERE WAS SOME CHANGE
DURING HER STATEMENTS WHERE THE
GLOVES WERE PICKED UP AND
SUGGESTED TO HAVE BEEN ON HIS
HANDS.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THERE
WOULD BE A QUESTION, WOULD THE
GUNSHOT RESIDUE TEST BECAUSE THE
EXPERT SAID THAT IF YOU HAD
GLOVES OR SOCKS ON YOUR HANDS,
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DETECT
BARIUM, AN THEY DETECTED VERY
SMALL TRACES ON OMAR'S HANDS.
SO WHETHER THERE WERE SOCK ON
THE HAND OR GLOVES ON THE HAND,
WE DON'T KNOW, BUT WE HE DO KNOW
THERE WAS A FINGERPRINT RIGHT
THERE IN THAT AREA, AND WHAT
WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT IT'S A
RELATIVELY SIMPLE PROCEDURE TO
TAKE THIS ONE STEP AND SEE IF IT
SOLVES OUT ANYTHING.
WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAT THAT POINT
BE ABLE TO ARGUE THAT IT'S NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE COURT WILL THANK ITS MORNING
RECESS.