MAY I T PLEAS E T HE COU RT , TOD D D OS S O N B EHAL F OF M R. M EL TON. WE ARE HERE ON A DEA TH C AS E T HIS MORNING. THIS O RI GINA TE D OUT O F P ENSACOLA AND I T W AS MR. MEL TON WAS C ON VICT ED O F A H OMICIDE I NVOL VI NG A PAW N SHO P O WN ER T HE RE . T WO AGO V A - - A GG RAVA TO R S W ER E F OUND , A PRI OR VIO LE NT F EL ON Y W HICH WAS A H OM ICID E I N T HE B RIEF IS R EFERRED TO A S T AX I C AB MUR DE R T O D IS TI NGUI SH I T FROM THE PAW N S HO P CAS E. > > CH IE F J USTICE: HAD T HA T ACTUALLY HAD THAT MUR DE R ACT UALLY OCC URRE D BEF OR E THE M URDE R I N Q UE ST ION? > > Y ES , I T H AD .

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND HE WAS 1 7 AT T HE T IM E O F T HA T MUR DE R? > > T HA T I S COR RE CT. > > CHIEF J US TI CE: AND 1 8 A T T HE TIM E O F T HIS MUR DER? > > 1 AND 2 5 D AY S A T T HE T IM E O F T HI S M UR DER. AND T HE SIG NI FI CA NC E O F THE P RIOR MURDE R I S THA T T HE T RIAL C OURT HAD ASS IGNE D THI S G RE AT W EIGH T I N A RRIV IN G A T THE SEN TENC E O F D EA TH. WHAT THE T RANSPI RE D DURIN G T HE E VIDE NT IARY H EARI NG I S THE RE W ERE N UMER OU S I ND IVID UA LS THAT W ERE IN THE J AI L A T THE S AM E T IM E A S THESE TWO C ASES WER E P ENDI NG. M R. M ELTON H AD T WO COD EFENDA NTS I N E SS ENCE . BEN L EWIS THA T END ED U P B EI NG I N THE P AW N S HOP C AS E A ND TON Y H OUSTON T HAT W AS I N T HE T AX I C AB C AS E . W HA T T RA NSPI RE D WAS THA T A S IT I S REV EALE D T HROU GH T HE I NDIVIDUALS THA T W ERE I N T HE J AIL , M R. LEW IS W AS TAL KING A L OT A BO UT W HA T H AD H APPE NE D , A ND THESE IND IV IDUA LS , TH ER E W ERE SIX O F THE M , W ER E NOT P RODUCED IN T HE PEN AL TY P HA SE N OR W ER E T HE Y PRO DUCE D I N THE TAX I CAB C AS E.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WAS T HERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE K NEW OF THE IR E XIST ENCE ? > > I NDIR EC TL Y , Y ES .

CH IE F J USTICE: ARE Y OU B RINGIN G U P THE SE A RE L ET 'S C ALL THE M JAIL HOU SE S NITC HE S F OR L AC K O F A B ETTE R WOR D , B UT I N T HI S SIT UATI ON T HERE - - A RE Y OU BRI NGIN G THI S U P A S A N I NEFFEC TIVE A SS ISTANCE O F COUNSEL CLAIM FOR F AI LU RE O F THE D EFENSE ATT ORNEY T O D ISCOVE R THE SE I NDIV IDUA LS O R ARE YOU B RING IN G IT UP AS A B RA DY C LAIM ? B ASED O N THE F AI LURE O F T HE S TATE T O A DVIS E Y OU O F T HEIR E XISTEN CE O R ARE YOU BRI NG IN G IT UP AS A NEW LY D ISCO VE RE D EVI DE NCE C LAIM ? > > A LL T HR EE A ND I 'L L EXP LA IN W HY BEC AUSE I T IS N OT N EA TL Y , I T IS NOT A N EA TL Y PAC KA GED. M R. M EL TO N'S I S PRETTY UNI QU E CASE AND IN M Y D EALI NGS W ITH THESE CASES IN T HA T T HE RE I S B ECAUSE O F THE T WO C AS ES A LOT O F I T I S I NT ERTW IN ED W IT H EAC H OTHER. > > JUSTICE: A S YOU EXP LAIN THAT, THOUGH , W OU LD Y OU T EL L US HOW Y OU B RO UGHT I T U P? > > A BS OL UTEL Y. > > J USTI CE: A S A CLA IM I N T HE T RIAL COURT I N T HE P OST- CONVICTION C OURT , IN OTHER WORDS , H OW DID Y OU S ET OUT THA T C LAIM ?

T HE FIR ST S TE P I S THA T T HERE WAS A N O FF IC ER O 'NEA L . T HERE WAS A D EPOS ITIO N T HA T T OOK P LA CE WHE RE D EFEN SE COU NSEL C AME A CR OS S A ND W AS Q UEST IONING O FF IC ER O'N EA L . I T WAS D ISCO VE RE D T HA T O FF IC ER O 'NEA L H AD S OM E NOT ES . A ND S OM E O F T HESE N OTES W ER E TURNED OVER AT THE DEPOSIT ION. T HERE W AS Q UITE A DIS PU TE B ELOW A S TO WHET HE R OR NOT ONE P ARTICULA R SE T O F N OTES T HA T HAD T HE NAME O F DAV ID S UM LE R , W HETHER I T W AS TUR NE D OVE R O R N OT . TRIAL COUNS EL H AD I ND IC ATED W HEN T ES TIFY IN G WHO I S A CTUALLY NOW A C IR CUIT C OU RT J UDGE THAT HE H AD N' T S EEN I T UNTIL THE DAY B EF ORE THE E VIDENT IARY H EA RING . T HE O FFICER O 'NEA L S AI D H E D IDN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS T URNED OVER. HE JUST T HOUG HT THAT I T WAS TURNED OVER I N THE NOT ES THA T W ERE GIV EN A T T HE D EP OSIT ION. T HE S IG NI FICA NC E O F I T I S T HA T A PPAREN TLY O FFICER O 'N EA L H AD I NTERVIEWED A N IND IV IDUA L THA T H E HAD WRITT EN DOW N A S DAVID S UMMERL IN A ND O N H IS N OTES I T H AD THE N AME LEW IS A ND M ELTO N. H E HAD SCR AT CHED O UT T HE NAM E M ELTO N A ND P UT P AR TN ER . I F DEFEN SE C OUNS EL H AD REC EIVED T HA T , T HE Y S HO UL D H AVE W EN T A ND S POKE T O D AVID S UMLE R. IF IT WAS THE P RESS THE N I T I S A BRADY ISS UE B ECAU SE LATER O N WHA T WAS L EARN ED I S THA T LAW E NF ORCE MENT HAD W ENT BAC K A ND V ERIFIE D THAT I T W AS ACT UALL Y DAV ID S UM ME RLIN , DAV ID S UM LE R A ND N OT S UMME RLIN . > > J USTICE: W HAT D ID THE Y D EMONSTRA TE T HE T HE A EF D EVI DENT IARY HEARING? DID Y OU DEMON STRA TE THAT THE S TATE S UPPR ES SE D T HA T D OC UMEN T OR DID Y OU DEM ON STRA TE THA T D EFEN SE C OUNSEL HAD I T A ND DID NOT USE IT? W HICH O F THO SE I S T HE C ORRE CT S CENARI O?

I THINK THE MOR E C RE DIBL E V ERSION I S T HA T B ASED UPO N THE T RIAL D EFENSE COU NS EL SAY IN G HE HAD NEVER SEE N THAT A ND I T WAS N' T T UR NED OVER TO HIM W HENEVER T HE N OTES O F DET ECTI VE O 'NEA L .

JUS TI CE : SO THI S I S A B RADY C LAIM ? > > IN THA T I NS TANC E I T I S A B RADY CLA IM .

JUSTICE: THE WAY IT SEEMS TO BE PRE SE NTED , T HO UG H , I S T HAT IT I S INE FFEC TI VE CLA IM S O I 'M S TI LL HAV IN G S OM E D IFFICU LTY IN T HE WAY THA T YOU ARE , I UND ERST OO D B Y Y OU R B RIEF T HA T Y OU W ER E ASS ER TING T HAT COU NS EL W AS I NE FFEC TI VE A ND NOT D ISCO VERI NG T HESE W ITNESS ES I N T HE T ESTI MONY . > > T HE T RIAL C OU RT H AD D EN IE D T HE B RADY C LAIM SAY IN G THA T D EFENSE C OUNS EL H AD T HIS. A SSUM IN G DEF EN SE C OU NSEL HAD THIS, IT I S INE FF EC TIVE A SSISTANC E B EC AUSE D EFEN SE COUNSEL ADMITTED THA T H E SHOULD HAVE WENT A ND I NTERVI EWED T HESE W IT NE SS ES WHEN HE W AS O N T HE S TAND T ESTI FYIN G A ND T HA T THA T S HOULD H AV E PRO MP TED HIM T O D O T HAT. THE SIGNIFICANCE I S T HA T D AV ID S UMLER S AI D THA T HE H EA RD B EN LEW IS T EL L H IM T HA T T ON Y H OUST ON AND BEN L EW IS S HO T T HE T AXI C AB DRI VE R AND THA T M R. MEL TON W ASN'T PRE SENT . > > JUSTI CE : B UT S HO ULDN 'T YOU R A RGUMEN T R EA LLY BE T HAT T HE T RIAL C OU RT E RRED BEC AUSE T HERE I S N O S UB STAN TIAL E VIDENCE T O SUP PORT T HE TRI AL J UDGE'S D ET ER MINA TI ON THA T D EFENSE C OUNSEL HAD IT? A S OPP OS ED T O TRY IN G T HA T W E ASSUM ED T HAT THE DEF EN SE A TTORNE Y HAD I T , A ND DID N' T U SE I T . > > THE W AY THE T RIAL C OURT BAS ED I T WAS B EC AUSE O F THE NOT ES THA T WERE TUR NE D O VE R AT T HE DEP OSIT IO N THA T TRI AL DEF ENSE C OU NSEL HAD I T. I T WAS NEVER S PE CI FICALL Y E ST ABLISHED. THAT'S WHY WE ARG UE D I T A LTERNATIVELY AND W E ARE KIN D O F PUT I N A N A WK WARD P OSIT IO N . > > J USTICE : S OM E O F T HESE W ITNE SSES T ESTIFIED , DID THE Y?

A BS OLUT EL Y. > > J USTICE: D ID SOME OF THE M TESTIFY THAT THEY WOULD NOT H AVE COO PERA TE D ? > > THE RE WAS ONE I ND IV IDUA L THAT SAID H E W AS N'T SUR E WHETHER HE WOU LD O R H E W OULDN' T BECAUSE HE HAD H IS OWN P ROBL EM S AT THE TIM E. A S DID M R. SUM LE R W HICH T HE N G AVE THESE O THER N AM ES T O W HERE I T KIN D O F S TART ED T HE S NOWBAL L E FF ECT WHERE O NCE Y OU GET TO M R. S UMLE R H E STA RT S NAM ING OFF O TH ER P EOPL E T HA T BEN L EW IS H AD T AL KE D T O WHI CH W AS P AU L SIN K FIEL D , BYR D , ALF ONSO M cCOREY AND M R. HAR RI S A ND THE S IGNI FI CANCE I S THA T R EP EA TEDLY L EW IS SAY S H E I S I NVOLVE D IN T HE T AX I C AB MURDE R. M R. M EL TON IS NOT. T HIS I S I MPOR TA NT BEC AUSE OF THE GREAT WEIGH T THAT THE T RIAL C OURT ASS IG NE D TO T HI S A GGRA VATOR A ND WE K NO W FRO M THE RECEN T C AS E O F RON PI LL A V ERSUS B EARD I N FRO NT O F THE U .S. SUPREME COURT W HE RE THE Y S AID T HA T W E M AY R EA SO NABL Y ASS UME T HA T I T C OU LD G IV E WAY T O A V IOLE NT FEL ON Y A GG RAVA TO R W HERE THE Y M ISSE D THE O PPORTUNITY T O ARG UE THA T T HE C IRCUMSTANCES O F T HE PRI OR C ONVI CTION W ER E LES S D AMAG IN G.

J USTI CE : W ASN' T W AS N' T T HI S A LL RAISE D I N THE 3.8 50 M OT IO N T HAT WAS F ILED ABO UT T HA T TAX I C AB MUR DER AND THAT C ONVI CT IO N WAS A FFIR ME D , W ASN'T I T?

T HE CON VI CTION WAS ABS OLUTELY A FFIR MED BUT T HERE IS A D IFFE RE NCE I N T HA T THI S GOES TO THE WEIGH T. N OT WHETH ER MR. MEL TO N WAS G UILTY OF A F ELON Y MUR DE R , B UT T O T HE WEI GH T AND T O HIS C ULPABI LITY AND THE W EI GH T T O BE A SS IG NE D T O T HI S PRIOR V IOLENT FELON Y. THOSE ARE TWO DIF FE RENT T HI NG S AND I T HINK T HAT T HE R ONPE LL A CAS E RECOG NIZES T HAT. > > CHIE F JUSTICE: THE W EI GHT WOULD GO T O W HA T YOU REA LL Y W OULD INT RO DUCE WOULD B E S OM E KIND OF A L IN GE RING D OUBT , IS T HAT WHA T YOU ARE SAY IN G THA T A GAIN J UST T RYING T O FOL LO W I T THROUGH T HAT AT THI S TRI AL D EFENSE COU NSEL S HOULD H AV E PUT ON THESE, S HOUL D H AV E DIS CO VERED AND P UT O N T HESE J AI L HO US E C EL L M ATES WHO A T L EA ST ONE O F T HE M H AD S AI D H E PRO BABLY WOULDN'T HAVE T ESTIFIED IF H E HAD BEE N A SK ED TO G IV E A D IF FE RENT VER SI ON O F T HE PRI OR M URDE R ? I S TH AT RIGHT?

I N E SS ENCE , YE S , BEC AUSE I N THE P RI OR C AS E THA T HAD COM E O UT W HERE MR. H OUST ON A ND M R. LEWIS MADE I T O UT AS I F M R. MEL TON S HO T T HE T AXI CAB D RIVE R IN A V ER Y COL D- BLOO DE D MANNER. WEL L , D EF ENSE COU NSEL I N THE P ENALTY PHA SE O N T HE PAW N S HO P C ASE A CTUA LL Y INT RO DUCE D T HE COPY OF T HE J UR Y V ERDI CT WHE RE T HE Y HAD S CRAT CH ED O UT P REMEDI TATED M URDE R A ND C IRCL ED FEL ON Y M UR DE R. K IN D O F INDIC AT IN G T HA T T HE Y D IDN'T R EA LL Y BEL IEVE T HE E NTIR E TES TIMONY A S T O M R. LEWIS AND M R. H OU STON . T HIS W OU LD HAV E C ORRO BO RATE D THA T AND GIV EN A T REME NDOU S LY M ORE WEI GH T A ND M ORE V ALUE T O THA T. > > CHIE F JUSTICE: WHAT DID THE T RIAL COU RT S AY ABOUT THE C REDIBI LITY OF T HE J AI L HOUS E INF ORMANT?

THE T RIAL C OURT DIS CO UN TE D T HEIR CRE DI BILITY B ASED O N THE F ACT A ND T HE NUM BE R O F THE IR F ELON Y C ON VICT IO NS. E ACH O NE WAS A DMIT TE D LY C ONVICT ED FELON. T HE IRONY I S THA T U SUAL LY I 'M I N T HE R EV ERSE P OS IT IO N O F S AYIN G T HA T S OM EO NE D OE SN 'T N ECESSA RILY HAVE THE C REDIBILITY I N A J AILH OU SE S NI TCH THE M OR E TRA DI TI ON AL J AI L HOUS E S NI TC H TYP E O F S ITUATION . S O T O B EL IEVE THA T THE RE A RE S IX I NDIV ID UA LS I N DIF FE RENT PARTS OF THE JAI L I N DIF FERE NT P ARTS OF THE STA TE AT T HI S P OINT IN T IM E THERE W OULD H AV E TO BE A T RE ME ND OU S CON SP IR AC Y TO BE A BLE T O G ET T HESE PEO PL E TO A LL S AY THA T MR. LEW IS T OL D T HEM - -. > > J US TICE: THESE ARE THE SAM E I NDIV IDUA LS ARE THEY N OT THAT AT LEAST SOME O F T HE M S AI D T HAT L EWIS S AI D T HA T H E I S T HE O NE THA T COM MITTED THE P AW N SHO P MURDE R , R IG HT ? > > NO , NOT AS T O THE PAW N S HOP. AS TO THE T AX I C AB . T HEY DID I NDIC AT E THE RE W AS A S TR UG GL E A ND T HA T THEY WERE ALL - - ONE O F THE M I NDICAT ED THAT THE RE W AS A STR UGGLE AND THA T MR. MEL TO N , M R. LEW IS AND T HE PAW N SHO P O WNER WERE IN A S TR UGGL E AND T HE G UN WEN T OFF A ND H E G OT S HOT. > > J USTICE: SO NONE O F T HE M TESTIFIED THAT L EWIS TOO K RES PONSIBILITY F OR T HAT? > > FOR T HE P AW N S HO P MUR DE R , N O . > > JUS TI CE: BUT THE Y D ID H AVE A STR UG GL E , HOW EVER , THAT' S T HEIR TES TIMONY CONCERNING HOW THE P AW N S HO P M URDER TOO K P LACE R EA LL Y I S I N CONFL IC T , I SN'T I T , W IT H H OW MR. MEL TO N S AI D THE D EATH OF T HE P AW N SHO P OWN ER T OOK P LACE , I SN'T I T? > > T O A DEG RE E , BUT N OT I N G ENERAL. I N GEN ER AL , M R. MELTO N W AS S AYING THAT T HERE W AS A S TRUG GLE. HE CONCEDE D T HE RE W AS A STR UG GLE AND HE C ON CEDE D THAT THE G UN W EN T OFF D URIN G THE S TRUG GL E AND SHO T M R. C AR TER IN THE H EAD.

J USTICE: BUT MR. LEW IS WAS N OT I NVOL VE D I N THE STR UGGL E WHEREAS THE OTH ER J AIL HOUSE INF ORMA NT I NDICAT E T HA T A LL THR EE O F T HEM WER E I NV OLVED I N T HE S TRUG GLE ? > > NO , M Y REC OLLE CTIO N I S T HA T H E H AD S AI D MR. L EWIS C AME O VE R WHE NEVE R THE S TRUG GLE S TARTED B ECAUSE HE HAD SAID MR. LEW IS P UN CHED M R. CAR TER IN THE H EA D A C OUPL E O F T IM ES AND H E W AS BLE ED ING FRO M H IS EYE S. > > CHIEF J USTICE: I J US T WANT TO ASK YOU I F Y OU I NTEND , S IN CE YOU C AN 'T A DDRE SS IT ON R EB UT TA L , T O A DDRESS THE INE FFEC TI VE A SSISTANCE O F C OUNS EL C LAIM D URING T HE P ENAL TY PHA SE O R ANY OF Y OU R O TH ER P ENAL TY P HASE A RGUMEN TS ? > > Y ES , I D O. A ND I T A CTUA LL Y D OVE TA IL S I N B UT I MIG HT M AK E ONE POI NT A S T O THE SIG NIFI CANC E O F MR. L EWIS' T ES TI MONY REGARDING T HE PAW N S HO P . A ND A CTUA LL Y W HA T H AD COM E OUT W AS T HI S I S O N Q UEST IO NING FROM THE S TA TE . IT S AY S AT T HIS P OINT D ID M R. CARTER M AKE ANY R ESISTANCE , D ON E ANY TH IN G A T A LL T O THW AR T YOU A LL O R H INDE R YOU O R D ID H E C OOPERATE F UL LY ?

HE C OOPE RA TE D. > > W HA T W AS H E S AYIN G? HE W ASN' T S AY IN G N OT HING . Q UESTION : W AS T HERE - - D ID Y OU S EE A F IG HT O R A S CU FFLE O R ANY TH IN G BETWEEN M R. MELTON AND M R. C AR TER? N O, SIR . D ID M R. CAR TE R D O ANY TH IN G YOU SAW OR SAY A NY THIN G A GGRESSIV E O R I N A F IGHT IN G MAN NER? N O, SIR. T HIS I S I N C OM PLET E C ON TRAS T TO W HA T T HE SE I NDIV ID UA LS H AD SAI D REG AR DI NG MR. L EW IS ADM ITTING THAT T HERE WAS A S CUFFLE AND T HA T I T H AD WEN T O N. T HE WAY M R. L EW IS POR TRAY ED I T W AS MOR E O F A C OL D- BLOO DED ACT AND H E W AS OFF T RYING TO OPE N THE SID E DOOR. HE HEARD A C OU PL E O F G UNSHOT S AND S AW M R. CAR TE R O N HIS KNE ES . T HAT'S A F AC TUAL SCE NA RI O A S T O WH ET HER OR NOT THIS IS A D EATH CASE. AS TO THE P EN ALTY PHA SE , I T W AS CLE AR T HA T D R. G IL GU N W AS ONL Y H IR ED O NE W EE K B EFORE T HI S CAS E BEG AN . T HAT H E DI D N OT S PE AK TO ANY F RIENDS . H E DI D N OT S PEAK T O ANY R ELATIV ES. HE BASICALLY H E WAS G IV EN T HE P OLIC E R EPOR TS A ND THE D EPOS IT IONS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I T SEEMSTHAT THE TRIAL J UD GE A LM OS T C ONCEDE D THA T I T L OOKE D L IK E IN THI S C AS E A W EE K B EF OR E THE RE W AS N O E XP LA NATI ON FOR I T , BUT W HA T HE T HE N W EN T O N T O S AY I S B ASIC ALLY T HERE WAS N O P REJU DICE , S O W OULD Y OU ADDRE SS THE P RE JUDI CE PRO NG?

THA T'S E XACT LY T HE W AY THAT I R EAD I T I S THA T H E C ON CEDE D THA T THE RE W AS. > > CHIEF J USTICE: NOT C ON CEDED BUT S AI D L ET 'S A SS UM E THAT?

AS TO THE PRE JUDI CE , WHE N Y OU LOOK A T D R. D EE'S T ES TIMONY , H E C OM ES T O THE C ONCL USION B AS ED O N ALL O F THE I NFORMATION THAT IS P ROVIDED TO HIM THA T M R. MEL TON W HO HAD A V ER Y , I S UBMI T HAD A V ERY U NI QU E B ACKGROUND. T HIS IS NOT THE S TA ND AR D TYPE OF M ITIG AT IO N C AS E T HA T T HIS COU RT HAN DLES T HA T G OE S T HROUGH HOR RE NDOU S INS TA NCES OF A BU SE . IT CAM E U P THA T M R. M ELTO N WAS ACTUALL Y V ER Y OVE RPRO TECTED A ND V ER Y I MMAT UR E . D R. DEE'S T ESTI MONY S AY S HE WAS STRIKINGLY I MM ATUR E A ND SHE LTER ED AND H E FAL LS I N B EC AUSE OF T HE WAY THE C IRCUMS TANC ES WHERE HE IS T RYING TO ASS ERT I NDEPENDE NCE AND H E L EA VE S H OME F ALLS I N WIT H M ORE S TREE T- WISE S OPHI ST IC ATED C RIMINA L TYPES T HAT H E V IEWED A S M OR E SOP HI ST ICAT ED T HAN H IMSELF AND HE W AS S UBJECT T O MAN IP ULAT IO N O N T HAT. T HAT G OES B AC K A ND P LA YS I NTO A L OT O F W HA T W E A RE SEE ING WIT H THESE W ITNE SS ES C OMING FORWARD S HOWI NG H OW MR. L EWIS I S PLA YING THE S YSTEM TEL LING T HEM I'M D OING WHAT I 'VE G OT T O D O. > > CH IEF J USTICE: HOW OLD W AS M R. LEW IS ? > > MY R ECOL LECT ION I S H E I S 2 0 , 2 1 Y EARS O LD . > > CHIE F JUSTICE: YOU SEE , I GUESS WHAT I WAS TRYIN G T O F IGUR E OUT SOM ETIM ES SOM EO NE S AYS THI S I S W HA T I T L OOKE D L IK E THE N A ND T HI S I S W HAT IT LOO KS L IK E NOW . H OPE SOMETHI NG S TICK S. W AS IT DEV EL OP ED I N T HI S CAS E , T HE D EFEN DA NT I S 1 8 A ND T HE J UDGE F INDS T HA T NOT T O B E M IT IGAT IN G A T A LL A T T HE TRIAL . D ID Y OU T RY T O A RGUE T HA T W HAT S HO UL D H AV E B EE N A DVANCE D W AS THA T A GE W AS T O B E A S IG NI FICA NT MIT IG ATIN G F ACTO R AND T HAT T HE D EF ENSE C OUNSEL W AS I NE FFEC TIVE I N F AILING T O R EA LL Y P UT T HI S T OGET HER T O SHOW T HA T H E WAS R EA LL Y H AD A M EN TAL M ATUR IT Y OF A 1 4- YEAR -OLD ? W AS THA T Y OU R A RG UMEN T ? > > I D IDN' T DEV ELOP THI S A T THE E VIDE NT IARY HEA RING S TAGE . T HAT WASN' T P UT F ORWA RD A S F ORCE FUL.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU WERE NOT T HE TRIAL COUNSEL? > > I PIC KE D T HI S C AS E UP A FTER I T WAS C ON CLUD ED A T THE E VIDE NT IARY H EA RING STAGE. WE D ID SOM EWHA T A RG UE T HA T IN O UR S TATE H ABEA S A S TO WHET HER OR NOT ROPER V ERSU S S IMMONS A PPLI ES .

CHIEF JUSTICE: I'M NOT SAYING ROPER V ERSU S SIM MO NS . SO YOU ARE SAY IN G THE CLA IM R EALLY WASN' T D EVEL OPED W HICH S EE MS T O B E W HA T W OU LD BE A L EG ITIM AT E C LA IM THA T THI S WAS A N IMM ATUR E 1 8-YE AR -OLD THA T THE T RI AL C OUNSEL W AS I NEFF EC TIVE , BUT Y OU DID N' T , Y OU C ONCE DE T HA T W ASN'T DEV ELOP ED ?

THAT WAS N' T DEV ELOP ED E XA CTLY LIK E THAT. I A M Q UOTING FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DR. D EE A ND T HA T H E WAS S TRIK IN G LY I MM ATUR E A ND S HELT ERED , AND WHE N YOU C OUPL E THA T WIT H SOM E OF W HAT W AS S UP PR ESSE D W HICH W AS T HE S TATE HAD MAD E I T O UT AS I F T HE Y SUB PO ENAE D M R. LEWIS . M R. L EWIS CAM E FOR WA RD I N !!!! I NV OLUNTARY WHE NEVE R I N P OST-CO NVICTION M R. J ENKI NS WAS PUT UP.

CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW YOU 'R E T HROW IN G GOING BACK TO T HE B RADY CLAIM ABOUT A D EA L , R IGHT? > > B AC K TO THE BRA DY C LAIM - -.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I MEAN THEONLY REASON I ASK I S BEC AUSE Y OU ARE S KIPP IN G A ROUND HER E AND IT MAKES I T V ER Y D IFFICU LT FOR THE C OURT TO FOL LOW W HICH ARG UM EN T A ND W HI CH CLAIM YOU ARE RAI SI NG . IF YOU J US T T HROW THA T B AC K O UT.

THE ONLY REA SO N I A M DOING THAT IS T O SHO W HOW T HESE W OR K T OG ETHE R T O SHO W T HAT M R. M ELTO N W AS , A ND E NDS U P I N A C OHES IV E T HEOR Y T HA T MR. TER RELL , HIS T RI AL D EFENSE C OU NS EL C OULD ADVANCE ALTHOUGH I H AD M Y TIM E C OVERED UP AND I REALIZE I AM I NT O M Y R EBUTTAL S O I 'L L SAV E THE R EST O F M Y T IME. THA NK Y OU . > > MAY I T P LE AS E T HE C OURT . C HARMAINE M ILLS AP S R EPRESE NTING THE S TATE. I WOULD LIKE TO S TART A T THE E ND W IT H YOUR H ONOR 'S QUESTION. I CAN PRE TT Y M UCH T EL L YOU WHY THEY DID N OT M AK E A R OPER -LIKE CLAIM I N POS T-CO NVICTION. Y OU WOULD N OT GET ANY WHER E W ITH A N INE FF EC TIVE A SSIS TA NCE OF COUNSEL. THAT WAS ONE OF T RIAL C OUNSEL'S M AI N T HE ORIE S. I F YOU LOO K A T T HE S ENTE NCING ORDER Y OU WILL S EE T RIAL COU NS EL N OT O NL Y A RGUED THA T E XTEN SIVE LY A T THE SPENCER H EARI NG BUT H E WRO TE A SEN TENC IN G M EM R AN UM AND THA T W AS - - M EM R AN D U M. T HAT W AS HIS B IG A RG UM EN T T HAT THE DEF ENDA NT W AS O NL Y A FEW D AY S OVE R 1 8 W HE N THI S P AW N S HO P M URDER W AS C OM MITTED AND HE W AS 1 7. IT WAS A R OPER -LIK E CLA IM B EFORE R OP ER . COU NSEL D ID T HAT. HE D ID THA T A T T HE S PE NCER HEARING.HE DID THA T I N H IS SEN TENCING MEM OR ANDU M. Y OU WIL L S EE T HE J UD GE'S S EN TE NC ING ORDER O NE OF THE FIR ST BIG T HING S H E C ONSIDERS B UT REJ EC TS .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHA T I 'M - - THA T W AS N OT T HEN R AI SE D ON APP EA L? > > NO , THA T W AS N OT R AI SE D O N APPEAL. I'M TEL LING YOU W HY C OU NSEL N EVER D ID T HAT. HE WOULD NEVER W IN O N THA T . > > CHIE F J USTICE: SO WHA T YOU ARE SAYING I S THA T THE T HRUST OF THE MIT IGAT IO N I N T HI S C AS E WAS T O R EALL Y E MPHA SIZE THE AGE O F T HE DEFENDANT ONLY BEING 1 8 A ND T HAT H E HAD EMO TION AL I MMAT UR ITY. THAT THE TRI AL COU RT N OT O NLY G AV E I T , R EJEC TE D I T , G AVE I T N O WEI GH T. I T W AS N EV ER B ROUG HT U P A S A N I SS UE ON APP EA L , MAJ OR T HR UST O F THE M ITIG AT IO N C ASE ?

N O , I MEA N I T WAS N' T A PPEALE D. I T W AS N' T A PPEA LE D AS F AR A S T HAT GOE S. I M EA N , AS F AR A S H ER E BUT T HAT' S WHY T HE Y D ID N' T D O I T , B UT T HAT' S N OT B EING R AI SE D H ERE A S A N INE FFEC TI VE A SSIS TANCE OF C OU NS EL C LAIM.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I'M TRYING TO GET A PICTURE. W E HAV E A N O BLIG ATIO N AND W E W ILL S TICK TO THE ISS UES I N P OST- CONVICTION BUT IT J US T S TRUCK ME WHE N I L OO KE D A T T HI S D EFEN DA NT'S H IS TORY AND YOU READ THE S ENTENC ING ORD ER THA T THERE A RE A RE M ANY THINGS THAT A RE U NEXP LAINED, Y OU KNOW, YOU GO F RO M O NE E XT EN T WHE RE Y OU H AV E A D EFEN DA NT W HO I S S UPPO SE D LY HAS T HI S STR IC T R ELIGIOUS UPB RING IN G A ND T HAT THAT' S W HY H E DEF ENDA NT H OME AND THE N ON THE O THER HAN D H E I S L IV IN G WIT H A N A BUSIVE S TE PFAT HER W HO I S S O ABU SI VE T HAT H E B REAK S H IS M OTHE R' S A RM AND THA T S OMEH OW THA T A LL D OE SN'T F IT TOGETHER TO ME. > > L ET M E S EE IF I C AN M AK E I T F IT . S HE B ECOM ES R EL IG IO US L ATER . IT I S VER Y CLE AR F RO M T HE M OTHER'S TES TIMONY A T THE P ENAL TY PHA SE THA T S HE B ECOMES M OR E R ELIG IO US A S T HIS GOES O N .

CH IE F J US TICE: W HAT IS THE AGE THAT H E I S E XPOS ED T O THI S ONG OING DOM ESTI C V IOLENCE? > > BELIE VE I T O R N OT S HE WAS N OT V ERY GOO D A T TEL LI NG U S E XACTLY WHE N SHE W AS M ARRI ED A ND WHE N SHE W AS D IV OR CED BUT BAS IC ALLY S HE SAY S THA T B ASICALLY H E W AS A BO UT FOU R OR SIX W HE N THE Y STA RT ED R ELATIONS HIP WITH T HE S TE PF AT HER W HO I S A BUSI VE T OWARDS H IS M OTHE R. T HAT'S W HA T THE TES TI MONY W AS . A ND T HE N T HE Y G ET D IV ORCE D . I T DOE SN 'T E VE N SOU ND L IK E H E WAS --. > > CH IEF J USTICE: W AS H E THERE WHEN THE MOTHER' S ARM W AS BROKEN?

ACCORDING TO THE T ESTIMONY --.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WAS THAT B RO UG HT U P - - THA T WAS B ROUGHT U P B Y T RI AL C OU NSEL A ND PRESE NTED T O T HE J UR Y I NITI ALLY?

IN THE PENALTY PHA SE. I 'M GETTI NG ALL OF THI S F RO M THE PENALTY P HA SE . > > CH IE F JUSTICE: IT W AS BROUGHT UP IN THE PENALTY PHASE OF THE FIRST T RIAL ?

YES , M ELTO N' S FAT HE R R EFERS T O C OM IN G OVE R T O S EE H IM. H IS BIO LO GICA L F ATHE R. N OT THE MAN W HO B ROKE THE A RM. T HE M AN WHO B REAK S THE ARM I S NAM ED B OOKE R. H E IS A S TEPF AT HE R . M ELTO N 'S F ATHE R COM ES O VE R A ND S EE S THE BRO KE N ARM AND FRO M HIS T ES TIMO NY I T I S V ERY CLE AR THA T H E T HINK S T HAT T HE S TEPF ATHE R HAD B ROKE N M EL TON' S M OTHE R' S A RM , H IS --. > > CHIE F JUSTICE: A ND A T T HE E VIDENT IA RY HEARING WHO TESTIFIES T O T HI S DOM ESTI C V IOLENCE?

THERE WER E S EV ERAL P EO PLE WHO T ES TI FI ED A GA IN , BUT T HAT T HERE W AS D OMES TI C V IOLENC E W AS ALR EA DY E STABLISH ED R EA LL Y . I WOULD A LS O LIKE T O A DD RESS HIS CLAIMS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE B IOLO GICAL F ATHE R? > > NO , T HE B IOLO GI CA L FAT HE R IS N EV ER R EA LLY PAR T O F M EL TO N' S L IF E. WHE N MEL TO N I S B OR N, THE F ATHE R J OINS THE A RM Y A ND I S I N T HE A RM Y WHI LE H E I S T HERE . HE H AS A BAD B AC K ACHE. H E EXPLA IN S ALL O F THI S A ND H AS A S ERIE S O F O PE RATI ON S , S OUND S LIK E Y EARS D EALING WITH HIS BACK. S O AND H E T ES TIFI ES H E W AS NOT INV OLVE D I N MEL TO N' S CHI LDHO OD .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHO T ES TIFIED TO T HE DOM ESTI C V IOLENC E A T THE O RIGI NA L PENALTY PHASE?

W EL L , M EL TON' S B IO LO GICA L F ATHE R T ESTI FI ED O NE TIM E. > > CHIEF J USTICE: I W AS J US T A SKING Y OU I S AI D S O O NL Y T HE BIOLO GICA L FAT HE R THA T WAS N'T T HE RE I S T HE ONL Y T ESTI MONY I N THE O RIGI NA L P ENAL TY P HASE S O N OW W HO T ESTIFIED AT T HE E VIDE NT IARY H EARING O N T HE O N GOIN G A TMOSPH ERE OF D OM ESTI C V IOLE NC E IN T HI S H OUSE HO LD ? > > THEY CAL LE D S EV ER AL W ITNESSES FROM T HE FAMILY, THE AUNTS F OR I NSTA NC E WHO H AD N OT TES TIFI ED A T THE O RIGI NA L PEN ALTY PHASE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND WHAT WERE THE R EASO NS G IVEN WHY T HEY W EREN 'T C ALLE D A T THE O RIGINA L P ENAL TY P HASE ? > > I D ON'T REM EM BE R T HE T RIAL COU RT A RGUI NG A BO UT T HAT. I DON 'T REM EMBE R A F IN DI NG ABOUT THAT. T HAT'S NOT WHA T THE Y REA LL Y , H IS FOCUS ON A PPEA L I S T HE E XACT SAM E T HREE C LAIM S F OR N EWLY D IS COVERED E VI DENC E A ND A G IGLI O C LAIM O N T HE E XACT S AM E T HING W E A RGUE D IN T HE F IR ST DCA . > > JUS TI CE : WEL L , T HE Y H AV E YOU O N W HY THI NG S H AVEN 'T DEV ELOPED O R W HA TEVER , THE RE W AS A N ISS UE A BOUT T HE S HORTNE SS OF T HE T IM E B EFOR E TRIAL THAT THE M ENTA L HEA LT H E XPER T W AS R ETAI NE D . I S TH AT COR RECT? AND THE DEF ENSE LAW YER TES TIFIED THAT ORD IN ARIL Y H E W OU LD NEVER B E C AU GH T S O S HORT I N T ER MS O F DOI NG T HAT. H ELP M E , I 'M C ON CERN ED T HE T RIAL J UDGE ALL UD ED T O T HE F ACT THA T T HE DEF EN SE L AWYE R W AS IN A STA TE O F O VERL OA D . A T THI S TIM E. A ND H E S EE ME D T O A TT RI BU TE H IM N OT DOI NG MOR E O R B EING M ORE T HORO UG H FOR I NSTA NC E , H IRING THE M EN TA L H EA LT H E XPER T EAR LIER AND G ET TING M ORE INF OR MATION T O H IM T O B EING I N T HI S O VE RL OA D , AND SO C OULD Y OU GIV E M E S OM E W HAT W AS THE E VI DE NC E ABO UT T HIS O VE R LOAD A FFEC TING THE A BILITY O F THE D EFEN SE LAW YER T O A CT UALL Y P RO PERL Y PREPARE IN THIS C ASE? > > OKAY. W EL L, LET M E E ST ABLI SH S OM E F ACTS . D R. G ILGUN W HO DID T ES TIFY AT THE PENAL TY P HA SE W AS H IRED ACC OR DI NG TO H IS OWN T ESTIMONY JAN UA RY 2 8 , 199 2. T HE P EN ALTY PHA SE W AS F EBRUAR Y 5 , 199 2. > > JUS TI CE : S O I T W AS A WEE K?

ABO UT E IG HT DAY S , S EVEN D AYS T HA T T HE D EFEN SE M ENTA L HEA LTH E XP ER T H AS T O E VALU AT E T HE DEF EN DANT BUT HE, IN FACT , DOE S IT. H E N EVER T ESTI FIES T HA T H E I S, A ND H E T ES TIFI ED H E GOT THE SCHOOL REC OR DS AND H E N EVER TES TI FIED T HA T --. > > J USTICE : H OW M AN Y O TH ER C APITAL CAS ES W AS T HE D EF ENSE L AWYER T RYING T O B ALANCE AT THE S AM E TIM E H E W AS P RE PARI NG F OR THE PEN AL TY PHASE I N T HI S CAS E? > > T HERE W AS TES TIMO NY THA T BECA USE H E W AS A B OA R