T HE C OURT W IL L THE N T AK E THE L AST C AS E F OR T HI S M OR NING . W HICH I S C ONNO R V ER SUS STAT E OF FLO RI DA . P ARTIES READY?

YES.

CH IEF J USTICE: ALL RIGHT.

GOOD MORNING.M Y NAME I S I SRAE L E NCIN OS A , A ND I REP RE SE NT T HE A PPEL LANT , S EB UR T CON NO R I N T HIS CASE .

CHIEF JUSTICE: ARE YOU P RIVATELY R ET AINE D C OUNS EL O R R EG ISTR Y?

NO , I A M REG IS TR Y.

J USTI CE : A ND I N THA T VAI N , HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ON THE REGISTRY?

I HAV E B EE N O N THE R EGISTRY S IN CE THI S C AS E . A PPROXI MATELY TWO O R THR EE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS C ASE .

JUSTICE : JUS T A T TH E BEGINNING OF THIS CASE?

YES.

JUSTICE: I N YOU R BRI EF BEFORE THIS COURT YOU RAI SE A NUMBER OF I SS UE S C ONCE RN ING I NE FF EC TIVE A SSISTANC E O F APP EL LA TE COU NSEL WHI CH A RE N OT I SS UE S THA T ARE R AISE D I N A 3 .8 50 O R 8 51 M OTIO N , S O I W AS W ONDERING WHY YOU H AV E N OT F IL ED A S EPAR AT E H AB EA S P ETIT ION WITH THE C OU RT .

OKA Y . B ASICALLY I D ID I T T O T HE B RIEF A ND I DON 'T R EC AL L EXA CTLY W HAT W AS P RESENT ED IN THE POS T- CO NVIC TION M OTION.

JUS TICE: HAVE YOU A TTENDED A NY O F T HE D EATH P ENALTY P OS T-CO NVIC TI ON EDUCA TIONAL S EM INAR S? .

YES, SIR.

JUS TICE: ONE OF THE REASONS FOR A QUE STIO N LIK E THAT IS T HA T MOS T O F T HOSE S EMIN AR S , T HE Y C LEAR LY POINT O UT THE U SE O F HAB EA S C ORPU S I N T HI S C OURT O R A NY A PPELLA TE C OURT T O C HA LLENGE T HE CON DU CT O F PRIOR A PPELLA TE COU NSEL . D ID YOU HAV E THA T ?

N O , I T WAS M Y F AU LT, YO UR H ONOR .

JUSTICE: W ITHOUT GOI NG MUCH FURTHER, CAN Y OU OUT LINE F OR U S W HA T Y OU R E XPERIENCE I S I N DEA TH P ENALTY CAS ES ?

I N DEA TH P EN ALTY C AS ES I H AVE T RI ED ONE D EATH P ENAL TY C ASE I N MIA MI , TER RY WES T , N OT T ER RY W ES T , I'M SOR RY . I FORGET T HE D EFEN DANT 'S N AME. IT WAS AWH IL E B AC K , WIT H THE A TTOR NE Y MAN NY VAS QU EZ . I U SED T O WOR K W IT H R UDY SO RANDO W HO WAS A C IRCUIT C OURT JUDGE AND I A SS IS TE D H IM I N P REPA RI NG T HE TRIAL O RD ER B EFOR E H E W AS JUDGE AND NOW H E I S WORKING FOR HOL LA ND A ND KNI GHT.

JUSTI CE: THANK Y OU FOR BEING RESPO NSIVE TO OUR QUE STIO NS .

CHIE F JUSTICE: Y OU M AY P ROCEED.

Y ES , ONE O F T HE F IRST ISS UE S T HAT I WOULD L IKE T O ADDRESS IS T HE S EC ON D ISS UE W HICH I RAI SE IN T HE B RI EF W HICH W AS CRA WF OR D . A S YOU A RE A WA RE , C RA WFOR D H AS BEEN H EL D B Y T HI S C OU RT N OT T O B E R ET RO ACTI VE LY A PPLI ED . U NDER B REED LOVE A ND C HAND LE R. HOWEVER, I J US T LEA RNED T HA T T HE U .S. SUPR EME C OU RT H AS A CCEPTE D CER T A S T O T HI S P ARTICU LAR I RB L AND T HEREFORE W E DON 'T C ON CEDE IT . W ITH R EG AR DS T O THE I NEFFICIE NT A SSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

JUSTICE: YOU HAVE ABOUT 14 ISSUE S H ERE.

I 'M GOI NG TO A DD RESS TWO. I'M GOING TO ADD RESS T HE ONE I N THE P EN ALTY P HASE A ND THE O NE DUR IN G T HE G UI LT PHA SE.

J US TICE : T HE I NE FFEC TI VE A SS ISTANCE?

THAT'S CORRECT, O KAY. A ND FIRST O F ALL , W E B EL IE VE T HAT T HERE W AS A CLE AR I NEFF EC TIVE ASS IS TA NC E O F C OUNS EL D URING THE P EN ALTY PHASE.I THINK THE W HO LE PRO BLEM P ROBABL Y S TEMMED FROM THE FACT IT WAS A H UG E C AS E AND T HE T RIAL ATT OR NEY DI D NOT S EEK A SEC ON D C OU NSEL T O H ELP H IM P RE PARE FOR T HE C ASE . C OUNS EL M AD E , HIS GOA L D URING THE P ENAL TY P HASE W AS O UTLINE D I N T HE B RIEF A ND B ASIC ALLY H E W AS T RY IN G T O A VOID , H E WAN TE D T O P RESE NT AS A M IT IGAT OR T HE F AC T THA T M R. C ONNOR DID NOT HAVE A S IGNIFI CANT CRIMINAL H ISTO RY AND THE REASON HE WAS D OING T HAT WAS T O T RY T O A VO ID THE P ROSECU TOR G ETTI NG I NT O S EVER AL CRI MI NA L A CTS SUC H A S BOM B T HR EATS O VE R A PAR KING S PACE THA T H E D ID A T W OR K , H E ASS AULT ED A C OWORKE R W ITH A M ACHE TE .

JUSTI CE: DID T HE LAW YE R T ESTIFY AT THE P OST- CO NVICTION HEARING?

ONLY AS T O TH E ISS UE O F C HILDHO OD . THAT'S THE ONLY I SSUE T HA T WAS ALL OWED FOR THE C IRCU IT C OURT J UDGE.

JUSTICE: DID YOU A TT EM PT T O GET INT O T HAT?

YES , YES . I MEAN , I 'M SOR RY .

JUSTI CE : Y OU SAID H E D ID N'T TESTIFY ABOUT THIS ISSUE.DID YOU ATTEMPT T O QUE ST ION H IM A T THE EVI DENT IA RY H EARING?

WELL , I W AS LIM ITED T O THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR N OT H E I NVES TI GA TE D THE C HILDHOOD O F M R. C ONNO R. T HAT' S WHA T S HE LIM ITED T HE POS T-CO NVICTION H EARI NG .

J USTICE : A ND W HA T WAS C OUNSEL'S T ESTI MONY A BOUT T HAT I NV ESTI GA TION ?

AS FAR A S T HE C HILD HO OD ?

J US TICE : AS FAR AS W HAT THE TRIAL COURT A LL OW ED Y OU T O QUE STIO N THE L AWYER ABOUT.

WELL , HE B AS ICAL LY TESTIFIED THAT HE BRI EFLY T ALKE D OR T HAT H E T ALKE D TO T HE D OC TO R E ISEN ST EI N AND H E H AD T ALKED T O THE F AM ILY. H E DID NOT R EC AL L TALKING TO THE ONLY PERSON THA T A CTUALL Y K NE W MR. CON NO R F ROM CHI LDHO OD T HA T L IVES I N MIAMI. AS YOU KNO W M R. CON NO R I S FROM THE H ONDU RA S . H E G RE W U P I N A N I SL AN D R IGHT O FF O F THE H ON DURA S A ND HE W AS V ER Y P OOR. HE H AD A T RO UBLE D C HILD HO OD . T HERE W AS INS TANC ES O F ABUSE T HA T HE B AS ICAL LY W AS N OT A WARE OF I N T HI S C ASE.

J US TI CE: WHO DID , I N FAC T , T ESTIFY AT THE ACT UA L P ENALTY P HASE ? T HERE WERE W ITNE SSES W HO T ES TIFI ED , CORRECT?

YES, THERE WER E D OC TO RS T HAT T ES TI FIED I T HINK T HE D AUGHTE R .

J US TICE : THE PARENTS?

NO , T HE P AREN TS ARE D ECEASE D . T HE D AUGH TE R T ESTI FIED , T HE M OT HE R T ESTIFIED, I B ELIE VE , A ND BAS IC AL LY W HA T T HE TRI AL A TTORNEY T RIED T O PRE SE NT A T THAT POINT IN TIM E WAS T HA T H E WAS A GOO D F AT HE R , A G OO D P ROVI DE R .

JUS TICE : A ND THE SE P EOPL E W HO , T HE I NVES TI GA TO R O R T HE A TTORNE Y T ALKE D T O PRI OR T O T HE P ENAL TY P HA SE D ID NOT S AY T HA T MR. CON NO R W AS A N A BUSI VE F ATHER B UT T HOSE KINDS O F THI NG S WHICH Y OU A RE NOW B RING IN G T O T HE C OURT ; IS T HAT C ORRECT?

EXACTLY , Y ES . B ASICALLY T HE RE W AS A LSO EVI DENC E , THERE W ERE I NSTA NC ES WHE RE THE H RC HAD B EEN CAL LE D O N THE - - O N MR. CON NOR AS FAR AS A BUSI NG T HE C HI LD REN. T HAT COU LD B E I NTER PRET ED A LSO AS A N I ND ICATION THA T H E WAS HIMSE LF ABU SE D.

CHIE F JUS TICE : BOY , I 'L L TELL YOU WHAT , WE TAL K A BO UT S LIPPER Y SLO PES A L OT T HI S MOR NING . Y OU K NO W , I'M NOT S UR E H OW A BUSI NG YOU R CHI LDRE N I S S EE N B Y A JUR Y A S B EING A M ITIG ATOR.

I AGREE W IT H YOU. I T HINK T HA T' S C OUNTER PRODUCTIVE. I BASICALLY D O FEE L THA T T HAT PUT T HE ATT OR NE Y O N N OTIC E B ECAUSE BAS IC AL LY E VEN D R. EIS ENST EI N E XPLA IN S T HAT C HILD A BU SE , ABU SI NG A C HI LD B EGET S.

CH IE F JUSTI CE : H OW O LD W AS T HI S DEF ENDA NT ?

AT THA T TIM E H E W AS I N H IS 50s .

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND I'M A B IG FAN O F M IT IGAT IO N , BUT I AM J US T NOT GET TI NG S OMETHING T HAT WOULD B E LET'S JUST SAY AND THA T T HERE WAS S OM E E VI DENCE O F S OM E CHI LD HOOD ABU SE T HA T YOU NOW A RE T AL KING A BOUT A MAN I N HIS 50s T HA T E SSENTIAL LY COM MI TTED A P LANNED , H OR RIBL E M UR DE R O F A F ATHE R A ND CHI LD A ND S OR T O F SET T HE M U P. Y OU KNOW , M AYBE I F THE RE W AS M ENTAL M IT IGAT ION T HAT W AS S TRONGER, B UT D ID N' T THE D EFENSE ATTORNEY R EALLY P URSUE M ENTA L M IT IGAT IO N A T T HE O RI GINA L TRIAL?

H E PUR SUED M ENTA L M ITIGAT ION.

CHIE F JUSTICE: AND HE DID A , W E S EE CAS ES W HE RE S OMEBODY T AL KS TO W ITNE SSES W HEN T HE Y COM E T O THE C OURTHOUSE , AND W E THI NK T HAT'S O KA Y . WHA T I S THI S SIN CE Y OU ARE AN ATTOR NE Y D O T O A N I NVESTI GA TION OF THIS C AS E?

H E HIR ED , I D ON 'T K NO W I F H E HIR ED O R H IS P REDE CE SSOR , T HERE W AS A N A TT ORNE Y B EFORE HIM . H E HIR ED A MIT IG ATIN G EXP ER T AND A LS O THE RE W ER E P SYCHOLOGISTS T HA T MET W IT H MR. CON NOR. S OME FRO M THE STA TE S OM E FRO M THE DEF EN DANT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND WAS THERE A NUMBER O F WIT NESSES THAT WERE INTERVIEW ED B Y T HE MIT IGATION SPE CIAL IS TS AND THE INVESTIGATOR?

THE MIT IGAT IO N SPE CIAL IS T I N EVER GOT T O S EE T HA T REPOR T. I DID SEE DR. E ISEN ST EIN' S REPORT AND HE OUT LI NE D T HE P EOPL E H E INT ERVI EW ED . OF COU RS E IN THE END W E W ER E A BL E T O L OC AT E V IN CENT C ONNO R W HO I S A DIS TA NT R EL AT IV E O F S EBUR T C ONNO R W HO K NE W H IM F RO M THE C HILDHO OD A ND THAT'S T HE WITNESS W E PRESENTED I N T HE P OST- CONVICTION RELIEF.

JUSTICE: BUT IN T HI S C AS E , ISN 'T THE RE ALS O E VIDE NC E T HA T T HE DEF ENSE A TT ORNE Y H AD S OM E K NO WLEDGE O F P OSSIBLE ABU SE , A ND H E E VE N DIS CU SSED IT W ITH T HE M ENTA L H EALTH EXP ERT AND T HE N THE Y COME T O A DEC IS IO N T HA T I T W AS BET TE R T O G O D OWN T HE R OA D O F P RESE NT IN G MEN TA L H EALT H M ITIG AT IO N E VIDE NC E AS O PP OS ED T O GET TING INT O T HIS W HO LE ABU SE A RE A?

I A GR EE . I THINK T HAT' S WHA T I W AS JUS T NOT IC ING. I AGREE THAT' S A G OO D S TRATEGY. THE ONLY THING IS H E WAS O N N OTIC E T O F UR THER I NVES TI GATE M R. C ONNO R' S C HILD HO OD .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT YOUARE NOT G OING TO BE ABLE T O GET ONE WITHO UT T HE O THER . I N OT HER WORDS , I F PER C HANCE H E H AD D EC IDED THA T HE N EEDE D T O G O F ARTH ER A ND I NVES TIGATE I T , H E W OULD HAVE FOUND IT AND S AI D , O KA Y , A BUSE WHE N H E I S A C HILD , I N H IS 5 0s A ND I T WIL L C OM E OUT THAT HE H AS A BU SE D H IS C HILDRE N, I S UR E D ON 'T W AN T T HAT C OMING OUT.

I AGREE WITH Y OU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO H OW WOU LD YOU --

IT P UT S H IM O N NOT IC E. H E S HO UL D H AV E CHE CK ED INTO T HE BAC KG ROUN D.

CHIEF J US TICE: BUT H E CHECK S IT AND T HE RE I S N OT A W AY THA T A T T HA T P OINT T HA T I T IS N OT G OI NG T O C OM E O UT . I 'M A DDRE SS ING T HE P RE JUDI CE PRONG , BUT T HA T YOU WOU LD B E ABL E T O GET I N T HE N WHA T H E C URRE NTLY , HIS C UR RENT A CTIO NS , T HA T I S O F A BU SING H IS O WN C HILD RE N. R IGHT?

W EL L , THAT S UPPO SE S T HA T T HAT I NFOR MA TION W AS P UBLIC INFORMATION.I DON'T THINK I T W AS A T THE T IME. I T HI NK THE RE W ER E CAS E A RRES TS , CAS ES OPENE D U P. I T W AS ONL Y K NOWN THR OUGH T HE FAMIL Y S O I D ON'T K NO W I F THE Y WOU LD H AV E B EE N ABLE TO GET INTO THA T O R NOT .

CHIEF J USTICE: SO I T IS S PECULA TIVE, R EALLY.

I MEAN I D ON 'T KNO W I F I T W OULD HAV E B EEN , B UT I D O K NOW THAT THE C HI LDHO OD I S VER Y I MP OR TANT . H E GRE W U P V ER Y POO R. H E WAS BAS ICAL LY P ASSE D OFF FRO M ONE H OU SE D OW N T O T HE O THER D OW N I N THE I SLAN D I N T HE H ON DURA S .

J USTI CE : W HA T D ID T HE T RIAL JUDGE F IN D A S M ITIG ATING EVIDENCE IN THI S CASE?

I THINK THE Y FOUND T HA T I B ELIEVE THE LAC K O F CRI MI NA L H ISTORY THAT W AS EVE NT UALL Y ARG UE D A ND I DON 'T T HI NK S HE A CCEPTE D I T . I T WAS P RESE NT ED TOW AR DS T HE E ND AFT ER HIS STRAT EG Y F AILE D. B ASICALLY WHAT H E WAS T RYIN G TO DO I S AVO ID G ET TING I NT O T HESE CRI MI NAL ACT S B Y NOT S EEKI NG THA T P AR TICU LAR M ITIG ATOR , B UT D URIN G T HE T RIAL A ND I C ITED A CAS E I N M Y BRI EF HE B ASIC ALLY GET S C AUGHT O FF GUARD W HE N H E S AYS THA T H E STA RT S O BJECTING , A SK S F OR A M ISTR IAL S AYIN G T HA T T HE E VIDE NC E ABOUT T HE BOM B T HREA T OVE R A PAR KING S PA CE I S PRE JU DICI AL , B UT H E D IDN'T R EA LI ZE - - [ INAUDIBLE] .

CHIEF J USTI CE : NOW , T HAT'S AN EXA MPLE OF SOMETHING THAT SEE MS P RETT Y C ARELESS . ONE THING , B UT HOW DOE S T HA T O NE THI NG T HE N T RA NSLA TE INTO THE R EST?

THE P EN ALTY P HA SE I S V ER Y D YNAMIC IN N ATURE. I THINK YOU JUS T D ON'T G O I N THE RE AND WING IT. YOU HAVE TO PLAN I T O UT . H AD H E S POKE N T O D R. EIS ENSTEIN HE WOULD H AV E KNOWN THE D OCTOR R EL IE D O N THO SE P ARTICULAR INS TA NCES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: HE DIDN'T SPEAK TO D R. E IS EN ST EI N B EFORE P UT TING HIM O N T HE STA N?

D URIN G P OS T- CO NVIC TI ON R ELIE F H E SAI D H E S POKE T O HIM BRIEFLY . THE DOCTO R S AI D H E DID N' T TALK TO HIM IN DET AIL.

CHIEF J USTICE: AND DO YOU H AVE HIS R EP ORT?

D R. EISEN ST EI N?

CHIE F J US TI CE : Y OU'R E SAYING HE DID N'T READ THE REPORT TO K NOW IT WAS I N T HERE.

I T I S RIG HT T HE RE O N P AG E 2 O F HIS R EP OR T. > > CHIEF J USTICE: I B EL IEVE YOU. I B ELIEVE Y OU .

S O T HAT' S O NE O F T HE THINGS THAT HE FAILED T O PREPARE. I MEAN, AT THE V ER Y L EAST H E SHOULD HAVE TALKED TO THE DOCTOR BEFORE P UT TING H IM O N T HE S TAND , Y OU K NO W , A ND A LSO H E S HO UL D H AV E R EA D THE R EPORT A ND H E WOU LD H AV E SEEN IT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU SAID YOU HAD ONE G UI LT P HASE , I NEFF ECTIVE ASS IS TANCE CLAIM YOU WANTED TO ARGUE?

Y ES . J UDGE, WIT H R EGAR D T O THA T P HA SE, T HIS I S A F AC T I KNO W YO UR HONOR HAS B EE N T HROU GH THIS CASE S EVER AL T IM ES BUT THE P ATTERN H ER E I S V ER Y S TRAN GE. THERE ARE A LOT O F T HI NG S T HAT DON 'T M AK E TO O MUC H S ENSE . O NE O F THE T HI NG S FOR I NSTA NCE T HA T , AND I T WAS M ENTION ED IN T HE TRIAL AND M ENTI ONED E VERY WHERE , W AS THE FACT THAT THE B OD Y WAS N OT FOU ND D URIN G T HE F IR ST S EARCH W HI LE M R. CON NO R WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF T HE POLICE. THE O THER S TRAN GE THI NG I S NO BLOOD WAS F OU ND .

J US TICE : W HAT D OE S T HA T ACT UALL Y MEA N ? WHA T DOES THA T THA T S TATE MENT MEAN?

IT COULD B E A M IS TAKE .

JUS TI CE: IT COULD BE T HA T THEY OVERLOOKE D IT?

THE POL ICE OVE RLOO KE D I T , O KAY. IT ALSO COU LD BE THAT I T COULD BE A SIGN T HA T S OMEB ODY WAS , I N F AC T , T RYIN G T O FRA ME M R. C ON NO R FOR THE EVENT.

JUS TI CE : B UT I N THE H AB EAS, I M EA N I N T HE SE 3 .851 PRO CE EDIN GS I T I S T HE DEFENDANT WHO HAS THE BUR DE N TO DEM ON STRA TE W HA TEVE R I T I S H E I S C LA IM IN G , C OR RECT ?

RIG HT .

JUSTICE: AND SO W HA T HAV E Y OU D EMON STRA TED J US T B Y S AYING T HA T T HE B OD Y W AS NOT F OUND W HEN THE P OL ICE L OOKED IN THE ROOM THE FIR ST TIM E?

T HAT B Y I TS ELF , I A GR EE , CO ULD BE A MIS TA KE B UT THE RE A RE O THER UNU SUAL T HING S ABOUT THIS C ASE AND MR. CONNO R'S D EFENSE AT TRIAL WAS THAT HE WAS F RA ME D. H E C LA IMED THA T I T W AS B Y T HE POL IC E , B UT - -.

J US TICE : A NO THER AREA THAT CONCERNS ME I S T HA T T HAT ISS UE , L IK E O THER S T HA T YOU H AV E I N Y OU R B RIEF AND I T M AK ES RHE TO RICA L T YP E QUE STIONS , BUT T HERE I S N O A NSWER T O THE M. SO W E'RE S UP PO SE D T O D O W HAT?

THA T'S W HAT I A M GET TI NG TO. I THI NK ONE OF THE REL IE FS T HAT SHOULD BE GRA NTED I S W E H AV E A LLEG ED S PECI FIC FAC TS . W HI CH HAV E N OT B EEN R EBUT TE D B UT THI S C ASE SHOULD BE R EMAN DED FOR A FUL L E VIDENT IARY HEARING.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THERE WAS NOT AN E VI DE NTIA RY H EARI NG ?

ONLY A S TO T HE C HILD HO OD ISS UE. THAT'S THE ONL Y E VI DENT IARY HEA RI NG B Y T HE CIR CU IT C OURT J UDGE . WITH REGARDS TO THI S I SSUE, T HERE IS A LOT O F U NUSUAL THI NGS.

JUSTICE: I U ND ERSTAND Y OU H AVE A LLEG ED FAC TS B UT YOU H AVE NOT , A S I SEE THI S , E VEN S AI D W HA T T HE SE F AC TS M EAN. Y ES, T HE BOD Y W AS NOT FOUND T HE F IR ST TIM E T HE P OLIC E W ENT T O T HE PLA CE . THE RE W AS SOM E BLO OD S OMEP LACE THAT T HE POL IC E DI D NOT SAY A NYTH IN G A BOUT O R MRS . WO UL D EN DID N' T SAY ANY THING A BOUT I NITI ALLY. E VEN IF W E A CCEP T T HOSE F ACTS .

I THI NK T HAT' S WHA T T HE T RIAL ATT OR NEY S HOUL D H AV E I NVESTI GATED. I MEAN, THERE ARE A L OT O F U NUSU AL THINGS.

JUSTICE: I SN'T THAT W HA T YOU R ROLE I N THE CAS E I S I N P OST-CO NVIC TION ?

YES.

JUSTICE: IF Y OU B EL IEVE D THERE WAS E VIDENC E?

I CAN ONL Y G O S O F AR .

JUSTI CE : L ET M E F INIS H. Y OU BEL IEVE THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE SAYIN G THAT DEFEN SE C OU NSEL U NDER A P ROPE R I NV ESTIGATION WOULD HAV E DIS CO VE RE D AND PRE SENTED I N THE DEF EN SE O F YOU R C LI EN T T HEN I SN'T T HA T WHAT Y OU R O BL IG AT IO N IS T O S AY THA T , W EL L , Y OU K NO W W E H AVE A W ITNE SS THA T S AI D H E S AW T HE P OL IC E BRI NG T HE B OD Y I N LAT ER A ND P UT I T I N T HE D EF EN DANT 'S H OME. IN OT HER W OR DS W HA T I NVES TIGATION HAV E Y OU DONE I N O RDER T O DEM ON STRA TE THA T COU NS EL W AS I NEFF ECTI VE A T T HE G UILT PHASE?

WELL , JUDGE , THO SE FAC TS W ERE T HE RE FRO M THE BEG INNI NG. IT IS NOTHI NG T HAT I DISCOVERED NOW. THEY WERE THERE .

J USTICE : W HA T FAC TS ARE ARE THERE? IN OTHER WORDS, I S IT Y OU R P OSITIO N N OW T HAT Y OU R C LIEN T HAD A G OO D D EFEN SE O F B EING F RA ME D?

I THI NK I N T HI S CAS E --

L ET'S J US T STO P W ITH T HA T Q UESTIO N . > > T HA T' S THE R OUTE T HA T T HE Y C HO SE T O G O.

JUS TI CE : W E' RE A SK IN G YOU , IS THA T WHA T Y OU R CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFEN SE L AW YE R I S T HA T H E HAD A G OO D CAS E F OR D EMON ST RA TING T HA T H IS C LIENT WAS F RAME D , BUT H E D IDN'T F OLLOW U P O N I T? I S THA T WHA T YOU R C LAIM IS?

M Y CLA IM I S T HA T T HERE W AS S UF FICI EN T E VIDE NC E T HERE ON T HE R ECOR D T O SUP PORT T HA T D EFEN SE . N OW , WHETHER OR N OT Y OU W OULD H AV E W ORKED , I D ON 'T KNOW, B UT IT WAS T HERE F RO M THE BEGINNING. IT W ASN'T H IGHL IG HT ED . IT WASN'T PRESE NTED. I T W AS N' T F OLLO WE D U P. SUC H A S T HE B LOOD I N T HE H OUSE .

CHIE F J USTI CE : YOU H AV E ABOUT T WO MINUTES LEF T. IF YOU WANT T O T RY T O E ITHE R S AVE TIM E F OR R EB UTTA L .

YES, I W IL L SAV E IT.

CHIEF JUSTI CE: OKAY. ALL RIGHT . I'M S OR RY .

MAY I T P LE AS E T HE C OURT , M ARGARI TA CIM ADEVILLA ON BEHALF OF T HE STATE OF FLORIDA.AS YOUR HONORS ARE AWA RE , I N O RDER T O G ET A N EVI DE NT IARY HEARING THE DEF ENDA NT M US T P LEAD M ORE T HA N MER E C ONCL USARY A LL EGATIONS. T HE E VIDE NT IA RY H EA RING W AS G RANTED SOLEL Y O N T HE D EFENSE A TT OR NE Y' S FAI LURE TO PRE SENT EVI DENCE THAT T HE D EFEN DANT WAS A BUSE D AS A CHI LD. IT WAS N OT G RA NT ED O N THE G UI LT P HASE ISS UES AND I T WAS N OT GRANTED O N O NE O F T HE PEN ALTY P HA SE I SS UE S THAT I WOULD LIK E T O ADDRESS.

JUSTICE: T HE O TH ER C LA IM S W ER E R EJEC TE D O N A F ACIA L INS UF S SEU B ASIS - - I NSUFFI CIENCY B ASIS OR H EL P U S WIT H THA T S O W E'VE G OT PRO PER C ONTE XT .

C ERTA IN LY. T HERE WERE FOR THE M AJ OR IT Y AND I CAN GO T HROU GH S PECIFIC ONE S I F YOU A RE MOR E CON CERN ED , B UT T HE Y W ERE R EF UTED , F OUND T O B E R EFUTED B Y T HE R ECOR D A ND F ACIA LLY INS UFFI CI ENT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS IS BEFORE THE NEW RULE WENT INT O EFFE CT?

I BELIEVE T HI S I S A FTER T HE RULE. THE E VI DENT IARY H EA RING W AS G RANTED I N 2 00 2 , 2 003.

J USTI CE : B UT I T W AS AFT ER T HE R UL ES?.

YES.

J USTICE : TAK E A N E XA MPLE W HILE IT IS FRE SH I N O UR MIN DS , H E HAS JUS T F INIS HE D ARGUI NG A C LA IM THA T C OU NSEL W AS INE FFEC TI VE DUR IN G T HE G UI LT PHA SE . N OW , H OW , GIV E US Y OU R TAK E ON W HA T WAS A LLEG ED THE RE A ND WHE TH ER I T W AS F ACIALL Y SUF FICI EN T AND W HAT T HE T RIAL JUDGE DID W IT H I T , AND W HETHER W HAT T HE TRI AL J UD GE D ID W IT H I T W AS C OR RE CT .

RI GHT. YES, YOUR H ON OR , THE REC OR D CLE ARLY REF UT ES EVE RY S INGL E O NE OF T HE C LA IMS , A ND T HI S I S W HY W E DO N OT N EE D A N E VIDENTIARY H EARI NG T O FLE SH O UT F ACTS THA T AR E N OT I N DIS PUTE . H E C LA IM S THE RE A RE F AC TU AL D ISPUTES.

J US TICE : LET 'S S TA Y WIT H W HERE W E A RE O N H IS . WHAT HE SAYS H ER E I S H E B ELIEVES THAT T HERE W AS A W HOLE LOA D O F E VIDE NC E TO S HOW THAT H IS C LI EN T W AS F RAMED , A ND T HAT C OUNS EL DID N'T PRO PE RLY P RESE NT THA T D EFENSE T O T HE J UD GE A ND J URY. W AS T HA T A C LA IM M AD E I N THE POS T-CONV ICTION M OT IO N ?

THA T W AS NOT T HE C LAIM M AD E IN THE POS T- CONV ICTI ON MOTION, BUT I F I COU LD A DDRESS H OW THE REC OR D R EFUTES T HE SE CLA IMS.

JUSTI CE : WE N EE D T O KNO W WHAT THE CLAIM S JUS T O NE S ECOND. H E'S GON E INT O G REAT D ET AI L ALSO IN THE BRIEF O F T ALKI NG A BOUT THE IR B ANK ACC OU NT S A ND THERE A RE R EA SONS A ND M OT IVES THAT ARE S HO WN A LL THROUGH HERE SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THAT'S NOT E VE N A SUBJECT M AT TER T HAT T HI S T RIAL C OU RT E VE N L OO KE D A T ?

WE LL, YOUR H ONOR , M AN Y O F THO SE MOR E S PE CIFIC C LAIM S IN THE B RIEF W ER E N OT R AI SE D B ELOW. T HERE W AS A V ER Y C ON CLUS AR Y A LLEGATIO N AS T O THE MON EY. THERE WAS N O A LL EGAT IO N A S TO W HA T M ONEY W AS T HERE .

JUSTI CE : I THINK I N T HE R EADING HE IS T AL KING A BOUT AS IT IS LAI D OUT THE RE W AS M ONEY THERE AND T HERE IS A REASON FOR THE DEATH O F T HI S C HILD. T HERE I S A R EASO N F OR T HE D EATH O F THE G EN TLEM AN , AND T HA T IF Y OU H AD G ON E I NT O THE P RO BATE R EC ORDS AND ALL O F T HESE T HI NG S THA T WAS N OT AT ALL D ISCU SS ED W HETH ER I N D IFFE RENT PAR AGRAPHS BUT THE T OTAL T HEME O F THI S T HA T H E H AS T IED I T T OGET HE R BEF OR E U S ARE ALL O F T HO SE T HING S AND YOU'RE SAYING NONE OF THAT WAS BEFORE THE TRIAL J UDGE?

T HERE WAS A C ON CLUS AR Y A LLEGATION THAT THERE W AS A PPROPRIA TE PROCE EDING. T HERE W AS N OT A S PECI FI C A LLEGATION THAT T HERE WAS M ONEY T HERE O R WHO T HA T M ONEY WAS G OI NG T O B E G IVEN TO, A ND I N ANY EVE NT , THE P REJUDICE OF ANY O F T HA T B EING BRO UGHT O UT W OULD HAV E BEEN THE SUGGESTION T HAT I T WAS MAR GARET , THE C HILD 'S M OTHER, W HO M URDE RE D HER C HILD .

JUS TICE: T HAT'S WHAT H E IS SAYING.

I DON'T THI NK T HAT'S H IS CLAIM , YOUR HONOR, T HAT IS NOT WHAT HE IS A SS ERTI NG T HA T MAR GARET WAS T HE K ILLER. B UT I F I C OU LD A DDRE SS H OW T HIS W AS TRE AT ED A T T HE T RIAL B ECAUSE T HIS IS T HE RECORD OF THE TRIAL COURT I S L OOKING AT, A ND T HE REA SO N W HY IT I S S UM MARI LY D EN IED. F OR EXA MP LE , H E A RGUE S A L OT ABO UT THI S F IRST SEA RC H , F AILURE T O FIN D T HE B OD Y A S WELL AS THE B LOOD I N THE V ICTIM'S HOME. T HI S W AS A H UG E P AR T OF T HE D EFENSE CAS E A T TRI AL A ND T HE REC OR D F LESHES I T O UT NOT O NL Y O N CRO SS E XAMINATIONS OF EACH A ND EVERY SINGLE O NE OF T HE LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES BUT IT WAS THE T HEME INF ORMA TI ON , T HE I N CO MPET EN CE O F T HE P OLIC E T HAT H OW C OULD T HE Y H AV E MIS SE D A CHI LD 'S BOD Y IN A 1 0 B Y 1 0 FOO T HOM E. T HIS I S W HAT THE T RIAL ATT ORNE Y DID. SO S AYIN G H E S HOULD H AVE DONE IT M ORE I S J US T N OT ENO UG H T O H AV E A F ACTU AL D IS PUTE, Y OU KNOW , T HA T WOULD BE CLEARED UP I N A N EVI DENTIA RY H EARING. THERE SIM PL Y I S N O D IS PUTE . T HI S I S W HAT T HE T RI AL A TTOR NEY DID. HE H IG HLIG HTED I T I N EVE RY T UR N OF T HE C AS E . AS FAR A S T HE P ENALTY P HA SE IF I MAY ADD RE SS THA T F OR A M INUTE , I WAN TE D T O CL EA R U P T HAT T HE M ITIG ATIO N THA T WAS F OUND W AS T HE D EFEN DA NT'S M ENTAL H EALT H. N OT STA TU TO RILY , B UT THE C OURT D ID F IN D A ND G IV E S UBST AN TIAL WEIGHT T O THE D EFENDANT 'S M EN TAL HEA LT H. S TA TU S.

J US TI CE : AND I T WAS BAS ED ON THE T ES TIMO NY O F D R. EISEN ST EIN?

I T W AS BAS ED NOT O NL Y O N T HE T ES TIMO NY O F DR. EIS EN ST EI N A ND MOS S MA N W HO T ESTIFI ED A T THE P ENAL TY P HASE B UT A S W ELL A S FOU R A DDIT IO NA L M ENTAL H EA LT H EXPERTS. THIS DEFENDANT WAS E VALU AT ED BY SEV EN D IF FE RENT M ENTA L H EALT H E XPERTS T HR OUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSETHE RE HAD BEEN TWO C OMPETE NCY E VALU ATIO NS A ND THERE WAS A THIRD ONE I MMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE E VIDENT IARY H EARI NG B EING H ELD , S O H E H AS B EE N E VALUATED THO RO UG HLY.

JUSTICE: A ND WHA T WAS T HE BAS IS O F T HO SE E VA LUATIO NS ? I M EA N , WHA T W AS HAP PE NING T HAT LED DEF EN SE ATT ORNE YS T O BEL IE VE HE N EE DE D E VALU ATIONS?

WELL , THE DEF EN DA NT'S OWN A CTIO NS HIN TE D A T S OM E SOR T O F P AR ANOI D P ERSO NA LI TY A ND T HAT WAS T HE E SSEN CE O F THE T ES TIMO NY AND I T WAS R EFUT ED B Y T HE S TA TE , T HE S TA TE'S O WN EXPER T T ES TI FI ED T HA T T HERE W AS F EA TURE S O F P AR ANOI D P ER SO NALI TY B UT I T DI D N OT R IS E TO T HE LEV EL O F A D ISOR DE R THA T WOU LD S UBSTAN TIALLY IMPAIR THE D EFEN DANT'S A BI LITY T O A PP RECIATE HIS C ON DUCT AND THAT IS WHY THE T RIAL COU RT DOES NOT FIND THE S TATU TORY MIT IGATOR B UT D OE S G IV E S UBST ANTI AL WEI GHT. T HI S WAS A LS O B ORNE O UT B Y THE FAC TS OF THE CASE. T HIS W AS N OT A N I SOLA TE D M URDER THAT HAD B EE N A N E XTRE MELY LONG P ERIOD O F D IFFERE NT E VE NT S THAT HAD LED U P T O T HE M UR DE R INC LUDING T HE EXT RE MELY C ALCULA TED MOVE BY T HE D EFENDANT OF P URCH AS ING A CAR THAT W AS IDE NT ICAL T O M ARGARET 'S CAR S O THERE WAS Q UI TE A H ISTO RY O F PAR AN OI A /GEL S EU THA T H AD R ET URNE D - - JEA LOUS Y FRO M THE R EL AT IONSHIP H AV IN G G ON E SOU R A ND C OUNS EL A RGUE S THA T THE REASO N W HY I T WAS PRE JUDICIAL N OT T O H AV E B ROUG HT O UT T HE SE O THER B AD A CTS WAS I T P RECL UDED , W EL L, TWO FOL D. ONE THAT I T P RECL UD ED T HE D EFENSE A TTORNEY FROM ARG UING O R THE REA SO N THA T HE HAD THE M B ROUGHT O UT H E W ANTE D T O A RGUE T HAT , I'M S ORRY. HE DID NOT WANT TO ARG UE THAT HE HAD N O S IG NIFI CA NT P RIOR H IS TORY , B UT THE P ROBLEM W ITH T HAT I S , NUM BER ONE, T HAT D UR IN G T HE G UI LT P HASE W E'RE T AL KING A BOUT T WO DIFFE RENT BAD ACTS. W E HAV E S OM E BAD ACT S T HA T W ERE A DD RESSED T O THE VICTI MS . T HA T T HE RE W AS T HE T HR EATENING PHONE C ALLS AND THE SHOOTING INTO THE V IC TIM'S HOME AND A WIT NESS THAT TESTIFIED DURING THE TRIAL THAT SHE HAD SEEN T HE D EF ENDANT COME OUT O F T HE C AR F RO M W HICH THE GUN , THE S HOTS H AD B EE N F IR ED W IT H A T HREATENI NG PHO NE C AL LS , T HE N UMER OUS B URGL AR IE S O F THE G OODI NE H OME S HOWI NG N O SIG NS O F F ORCI BL E E NTRY W HI CH CLE ARLY IND IC ATED IT WAS SOMEBODY THAT HAD A CC ESS TO THE HOME S O T HOSE H AD C OME OUT A T T HE G UI LT PHASE , S O T O S UGGE ST H E C OU LDN' T A RGUE T HA T H E HAD N O SIG NIFICANT H ISTORY, T HAT WAS PART OF A ND THA T W AS A RGUED O N D IREC T A PPEA L A ND T HIS C OURT A FFIR ME D T HA T N O F INDING O F L AC K O F S IGNI FICANT C RI MINAL H ISTO RY B ECAUSE THO SE A CT S W ER E N OT S UCH T HAT TH EY WER E PAR T O F THE M URDER A ND T HE Y WER E D ISTINC T ACTS SO THAT THE COURT W AS CORRECT IN THA T F INDING . B UT THE T WO O THER B AD A CT S R EFER T O T WO A CT S THA T THE D EFENDANT COM MI TTED THA T DI D NOT H AVE TO D O WIT H T HE V ICTIM. THERE WAS A BOMB THR EA T A ND A THREA T W IT H A MAC HE TE A T W ORK A ND W HA T H E C LA IM S AS FAR AS T HE P RE JUDICE PRO NG OF THAT I S A LS O C LEAR LY R EF UTED B Y T HE REC OR D B ECAU SE T HA T' S EXA CT LY W HA T THE D EFEN SE A TTORNEY DID A T TRIAL AND E VEN IF H E WAS C AUGHT O FF GUA RD W HAT T UR NS O UT T O B E T HE A CT UA L TESTIMONY IS T HA T BOT H O F H IS M EN TA L H EALT H E XPER TS USE D THO SE A ND T URNE D THO SE I NSTANCES A ROUN D T O S UPPO RT T HEIR ALLEG ATION THAT HE W AS P ARANOI D A ND H E H AD THI S E XTREME D IS OR DE R BEC AU SE T HESE W ER E U NU SU AL V IO LE NT A CTS THAT A P ER SON W IT H A SOU ND MIN D WO UL D NOT E NG AG E I N AND T HAT' S E XACT LY W HA T THE T ESTI MONY WAS AT T HE PEN ALTY PHASE SO THERE I S N O P REJUDICE W HATS OEVE R A LLEG ED SUF FICIENT TO HAV E A FAC TUAL D ETERMINA TION , A F ACTU AL D ISPUTE . I F TH ERE A RE N O O TH ER QUE STIONS, I ASK T HI S COU RT TO A FFIR M THE TRI AL C OU RT'S O RDER D EN YI NG P OST-CO NVICTION RELIEF. THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: T HANK YOU . R EBUTTA L ?

WIT H REG ARDS T O N O P REJUDI CE, I T HINK WIT H REGARDS TO THE I SSUE O F THE P ENALTY P HA SE , THE RE I S C LEAR PRE JU DI CE I N T HERE , B ECAUSE T HE RE WAS A 8 -4 S PLIT . THE F AC T I T S HOUL D HAV E BEE N P ROPERL Y DEV EL OPED AS FAR AS THE CHILDHO OD , T HE M ITIGATOR S, DR. J AY SOB SO N W HO W AS A STA TE 'S OWN W IT NESS A LSO IND IC ATED H E D ISCOVE RED ORG AN IC BRA IN D AMAGE AND P AR AN OI D S YMPT OM S O N M R. C ON NOR. T HA T MIGHT H AV E B EE N E NO UGH TO PUT THE J UR Y A T A 5 0/50 O R P ER HA PS IT W OULD HAV E S PARED H IS L IF E . T HE J UR Y WAS T HINK IN G A BOUT THE CAS E. T HEY VOT ED FOR L IF E WITH REG ARDS TO THE FATHER. THEY WER E S OM EW HA T S PL IT WITH REGARDS TO THE DAUGHTER. I THINK THERE IS P REJU DICE THAT HAS BEE N S HO WN BUT A T T HE V ER Y LEAST I THI NK I T SHOULD BE S EN T BAC K T O DETER MI NE T HE O THER FAC TS .

CHIEF J USTICE: DID THE J UDGE DEN Y AN E VIDE NT IARY H EA RING BECAUSE O F I NSUFFI CIENT P LE AD IN GS O R B ECAU SE T HI S WAS C ONCLUSIV ELY REF UT ED B Y T HE R ECORD?

I D ON 'T THI NK S HE DID , I T W AS I NSUF FI CIEN T , I M EA N I T W AS PLED. S HE JUS T F OUND THA T I T D IDN'T H AVE A NY MER IT S T O IT. THAT'S WHAT I RECALL.

CHIE F JUSTICE: ALMOST E VERY S IN GL E POI NT T HA T YOU RAI SE D H AD TO D O WIT H S OMETHING T HAT COULD BE LOOKED, THE R EC OR D CO UL D B E L OO KED A T AND I T COU LD B E C ONCL USIVE?

I THINK A LOT O F TIM ES --.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WERE YOUREADY WITH WITNESSES TO BE ABLE TO SHOW WHAT A T HORO UG H I NVES TIGATION WOULD HAV E R EVEA LE D A BO UT T HA T , I N F AC T, T HI S D EF ENDA NT W AS F RA ME D? D ID YOU HAVE W ITNE SSES?

I W OULD HAV E C AL LE D M RS. GOOD INE, I WOU LD H AV E C ALLE D THE D IREC TO RS FRO M T HE CLE RK O F COU RT S HOWI NG THE G UARD IA NSHI PS , I W OULD H AV E C ALLED THE R ECORDS FOR THE CLE RK OF COURT S HOWI NG T HAT M R. G OODINE HAD P ROPE RTY W HICH H E E VI CTED T HE P ERSO N THAT LIVED T HE RE , P AID T HE JUD GMEN T S OO N A FTER A LL O F T HI S HAP PE NE D.

J US TICE: A ND T HAT W OULD H AVE DEM ONST RA TE D W HA T?

THE RE W AS A M OTIVE. T HE M OTIV E. T HE OTH ER --.

J USTICE: T HA T W OU LD HAV E S UPPORTED A M OT IVE THA T S HE K ILLED H ER H US BA ND S O SHE C OULD H AVE THE P RO PERT Y?

L ET ME STA RT F RO M T HE P OINT T HA T I THI NK .

CHIE F J USTICE: JUST B E R ESPONSIVE. Y OU ARE OUT OF YOU R TIM E.

B AS ICAL LY W HA T H AP PENS HERE I S SHE I S T OL D A T 6:0 0 P.M.. YOU R HUSBA ND AND YOU R D AUGHTER A RE M IS SING. SHE LEF T W OR K F OR 9 :0 0 IN THE MORNING. S UPPO SEDLY S HE SHO UL D HAV E BEE N BACK A T 5 :3 0 I N THE A FTER NOON. SHE G ETS H OME T HREE A ND A H ALF HOURS L AT ER . W HEN S HE G ET S H OM E T HE D ETECTI VES A RE T HE RE , MUR IA S A ND MOO RE . THEY ARE INV IT ED I NT O THE HOUSE. THEY DON'T S EE BLO OD A ND THEY DON'T SEE A THR OW R UG B Y T HE F RONT D OO R C OVER IN G WHA T 2 8 H OURS L ATER P OLIC E D ISCOVE R TO B E BLO OD U NDER NEATH , AND MR. G OODI NE 'S BLO OD WHI CH I S V ER Y I MPORTANT. THERE IS NO TES TIMO NY B Y T HE D ETECTI VES I N HIS R EPOR T , IN H IS D EP OS ITIO N T HA T T HERE W AS ANY B LO OD FOU ND A T T HE S CE NE O N T HE 19T H. I T HINK THE KEY T O T HE W HO LE T HING . ALS O T HE O RIGI NA L T ESTI MO NY BY T HE Y OUNG G IR L T HA T LIV ED A CROS S THE S TREET , S HE S AY S I THOUGHT S HE GOT I NT O M RS. GOOD INE 'S C AR. HER D AD DY WAS D RIVI NG . I T WAS P AR KE D IN THE GAR AGE. THE I MPORTANT T HING I S MRS . GOODINE 'S OWN T ES TIMO NY I S S HE PAR KS H ER C AR I N T HE G ARAGE. S HE'S THE ONL Y ONE THA T PARKS IN T HE RE . SO I WOULD HAV E C AL LE D M RS. GOODINE. I WOULD HAVE P RESE NTED E VI DENCE TO FIN D O UT WHE RE SHE WAS. P ERHAPS T HERE I S LEG IT IMAT E ANS WE RS TO THE WHO LE THI NG . B UT I THI NK THA T W E H AV E P RESENTED FACTS THA T H AV E O N T HE RECOR D T HA T H AV E N OT B EEN R EBUT TE D , A ND I T HI NK T HAT L EN DS T O T HE DEF EN SE THAT THERE WAS A F RAME H ERE. I DON 'T KNO W EXA CT LY W HA T HAP PENED , B UT T HERE I S A LOT OF UNUSUAL T HI NGS THAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: B EFORE YOU SIT DOWN , DO YOU H AV E C URRENT LY ANY A DD ITIO NA L C ASES THA T Y OU A RE HAN DL IN G A S R EG ISTR Y C OUNS EL ?

N O , I D O N OT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: S O T HE O NLY , W HA T W AS THE REA SO N T HAT THI S C AS E T HA T Y OU A CC EP TED T HI S CAS E?

I G OT I N THE REG IS TR Y , A ND I , Y OU K NO W , T HE Y GAV E M E THI S C AS E .

CHIE F JUSTICE: O KA Y . T HE C OU RT I S V ER Y C ONCERN ED A BOUT, YOU K NO W , S OM E O F T HE R EPRESENT A INGS H ER E - - REP RESE NTATIONS HERE AND AGAIN NOT UND ER STAN DING S OM E OF THE B ASIC S I N P OST- CO NVICTION J URIS PR UDENCE AND WE TAK E T HESE C ASES , THE LAW YE RS T HAT TAK E T HE SE O N HAV E V ER Y S ERIO US O BL IGAT IO NS T O THEIR CLIENTS.

I U ND ERSTAND.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THE COURTWILL BE IN REC ES S UNT IL 8 :3 0 T OMOR RO W M ORNI NG .

THE M ARSH AL : P LEASE RIS E