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.

Jesus Delgado v. State of Florida
SC04-2274

THE MARSHAL: PLEASE RIS E . L ADIE S AND GENTLEMEN, T HE FLO RI DA SUPREME COURT. P LEASE BE S EA TED. CHIE F JUSTI CE: ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT C AS E O N T HI S M ORNI NG'S D OCKET I S DEL GADO V ERSUS STATE OF FLO RIDA . M R. W ASSON?

GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. IT IS ROY W ASSO N REP RESENTING T HE A PPEL LANT , M R. D EL GADO IN THE CAP ITAL M URDE R CAS E . I NVOL VING N OTAB LY T WO DEA TH P ENALTI ES , JUS T I MPOS ED U PO N 9 TO 3 R ECOM ME NDAT IO NS B Y THE JURY. SOY THINK THAT THE ERR OR S I N T HE C AS E NEE D TO B E L OOKE D A T WITH T HE U ND ER ST ANDI NG T HA T THR EE JUR OR S O N EAC H O F THE SEN TENC ES DID N OT G O A LONG WIT H I T . CHIE F J US TI CE: CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WHAT IS THE R ELEV ANCE O F THAT? I D ON'T SEE Y OU H AV ING RAISED ANY P ENAL TY P HASE I SSUE . C OUNS EL F OR T HE S TA TE A RGUES HAR MLES S E RROR , H ARMLES S ERROR. W ELL , E VE N W ITH THE E RROR , T HREE J UR OR S --. CHIE F J USTICE: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GUILT PHASE. THEY WERE U NANI MO US I N F INDI NG G UILT . SOME O F T HE I SSUE S HER E. CHIE F JUSTICE: W HICH I SS UES ARE YOU GOI NG TO ARGUE?

THE FIRST ISSUE I W OU LD LIKE TO A RGUE IS THE P EN R EGISTE R I SSUE . CHIEF JUS TICE: DOES T HA T MEAN YOU A RE G OING T O R EL Y O N YOUR B RI EF F OR YOU R D OUBLE J EOPA RD Y A RG UMEN T?

CHIEF JUSTICE: . NO , I WIL L B E HAP PY T O A RGUE THAT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: S TART WITH THE PEN REGISTER.

THE FIRST I SSUE I W OU LD LIKE TO TAL K A BO UT I NVOL VE S W HAT I THI NK I S PRE TT Y I MPORTANT E VIDE NC E THA T WAS P RETTY SIG NI FICANT INDICATOR.THIS IS A T OTALLY C IRCUMS TANTIA L E VIDE NC E C ASE. I F T HI S PEN R EGIS TE R THI NG W AS A CC URAT E , I T S UPPO RT ED THE S TA TE'S R EV ENGE THE OR Y O R M OT IV E THA T T HE DRY C LEAN ERS B USIN ES S D EA L G ON E S OU R WAS THE R EASO N FOR T HE M URDERS . T HE EVI DENC E W AS SOP I MPOR TANT T HA T --. J US TICE : P EN R EGISTE RS H AVE BEE N A RO UND F OR M ANY YEARS, CORRECT?

YES, THEY H AV E B EE N A ROUN D.

JU STICE: I A SSUM E THA T T HERE H AV E B EE N O THER S TATE C OURTS AND F EDER AL C OURT S THAT HAVE D ETER MINE D W HETH ER Y OU NEED T O E STAB LISH T HE S AME EVI DENT IA RY BAS IS T O I NTRO DUCE P EN R EG ISTE R R ECORDS A S Y OU WOU LD FOR B REATHALY ZER T ES TS O R O TH ER T YPES O F TES TS ? W EL L , I H AV E ONE THA T S PECIFI CA LLY HELD IT. I FOU ND A T L EAST TWO C ASES T HAT I CIT ED I N T HE B RIEF S THAT TALK ABOUT THE EXP ER T W ITNESSES T ES TIFY ING REGARDING THE PEN REG ISTE R , AND I F OUND O NE T HA T THE C ASE OF C ROUCH I THINK I T I S CAL LED T HA T S AI D THA T THE E XPER T O N THE PEN R EG IS TE R W AS S UF FICI ENTL Y Q UALI FI ED H ERE SO THE I SSUE I N T HA T CASE WAS THE NEED F OR EXP ER T TESTIMONY TO LAY THE F OUNDATION FOR THE PEN R EGISTER.

JUSTICE: IS THERE A NY CASE THAT HAS SAI D T HAT T HE EVI DENC E O F P EN R EGIS TE RS COULD NOT BE I NTRO DU CE D A S B USIN ESS R ECORDS AND YOU NEE DED E XP ER T TES TI MO NY T O B E ABL E T O I NTRO DU CE I T? I T HINK THE RE I S A D IF FERENCE BETWEEN A B USINES S R EC OR D AND S O FOR TH A ND SOMETHI NG THAT I S C RE ATED BY A MAC HI NE THA T I DON'T KNO W H OW I T WOR KS I NSIDE. I D ON 'T K NO W --.

JUS TI CE : MY QUE STION I S IS THERE A NY C AS E W HERE OTHER STATE S , F ED ERAL C OURT , T HA T A GREES WIT H Y OU R P OS ITIO N THA T E XP ER T WIT NE SS TESTIMONY IS NECESSARY? I J US T HAV E THE CAS E THA T I CITED HER E T HA T REF ERRE D T O WH ETHER OR NOT A N E XPER T WAS QUALIFI ED O R T HE N EE D , T HE E XPER T' S T ESTI FYIN G ON THE I SS UE S O T O M E T HOSE I NDICAT E THAT E XPER TS W ER E R EQUIRE D IN T HOSE CAS ES. J US TICE : W HA T' S THE STAND ARD WE APP LY T O THI S ISSUE O F THE PEN REG IS TE R AND THE A DMIS SI ON O F THA T E VIDE NC E ?

I 'M SOR RY ?

JUSTICE: THE STA ND AR D W E A PPLY , I S I T A BUSE O F D ISCRETION?

YES. > > J US TICE : SO HOW DID T HE T RIAL COURT A BUSE I TS D ISCRETION?

IT IS A N A BUSE O F D ISCR ET ION BUT H ERE THE RE I S N O E VI DENCE THA T WOU LD S UPPORT A FINDING THA T THI S WITNESS THAT LAID THE FOUNDATION FOR THIS WAS A N EXP ERT.HE SAID BY HIS OWN TES TIMO NY H E W AS N OT A N EXP ER T O F I F I C AN BACK U P JUS T A L IT TL E BIT I JUST T HINK I NEE D T O M AK E A POI NT THA T Y OU N EE D T O H AV E EXPER T T ES TI MONY O N THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS T HE SORT OF THING THA T' S BEYON D T HE AVE RA GE PER SON O R T HE A VE RAGE LAWYER. WE DON'T KNOW H OW T HESE T HINGS W ORK , WHA T I T TAK ES .

JUS TI CE : I S A P EN R EGISTE R SOMETHING THAT IF YOU DON'T CAL IB RATE I T RIG HT IT IS GOI NG T O GIV E YOU THE W RONG R ES UL TS ?

I DON'T K NO W BEC AU SE W E DON'T H AVE A N E XPERT T O E XPLAIN T HAT TO U S. J US TI CE: DID YOU H AV E A N EXPERT THAT SAID IN O RD ER T HAT A P EN REG IS TE R I S S OMETHING THAT N EEDS TO B E C ALIBRA TED ON A R EG ULAR B ASIS ?

N O , B UT W E D ON'T K NO W W HA T I T NEE DS , A ND T HAT' S JUST THE PROBLEM HERE. T HE P RO PONE NT O F T HE E VIDE NC E DI D NOT TELL THE JURY WHY THI S M AGIC AL B LACK B OX YOU COU LD P US H A B UTTO N A ND IT W OU LD GIV E EVIDE NC E THA T W AS I MPOR TANT ENO UG H T O ARG UE A ND C LOSI NG , SUP PO RTED T HE P ROSE CUTI ON 'S T HEOR Y. CHIE F JUS TICE: I GUE SSTHE POINT THAT IN FOLLOWI NG UP WITH JUSTICE C AN TERO 'S Q UESTION, I F THE RE I S NOT T HA T I N C HALL ENGI NG I T T O T HE TRIAL J UD GE A S T O WHETH ER I T SHO UL D COM E I N , I SN'T IT THE OBL IG ATIO N T O E XPLAIN W HY EXP ER T TES TIMO NY IS NEE DE D ?

I DON 'T T HINK S O BEC AU SE I T HINK I F T HERE I S S OMETHI NG T HA T I S B EING O FFERED T HA T I S J UST O N THE F ACE OF IT B EYON D THE A VERAGE JUR OR I D ON 'T THI NK Y OU CAN J US T TAK E O N FAI TH T HAT I F YOU SAY W E H OOKE D U P T HI S BOX T O THE P HO NE A ND P US HED A B UTTO N A ND I T GAV E US THE LAS T NUM BE R I DON 'T T HINK YOU NEED TO MAK E A F ORMAL . J US TI CE : D ID N' T THE STA TE INT RO DUCE T HE COM PUTE R PRI NTOUT O F T HE D EFEN DANT 'S P RIOR REC OR D , W OU LD THE S FA T H AVE T O - - W OU LD THE STA TE HAV E T O P RE SENT EXP ER T T ES TIMONY THAT T HI S PRI NT ER P RINT ED OUT E XA CTLY WHA T'S IN THE C OM PU TE R A ND THA T YOU DON'T NEED TO CAL IB RATE I T , T HAT THIS I S HOW THI NG S W OR K A ND AS SOON AS Y OU P US H THE P RINT BUT TON T HA T I T PRI NT S O UT E XACT LY W HA T WAS O N THE S CREE N O R E XACT LY T HE PAG E NUM BERS THAT YOU WAN TED? I MEAN, IS T HA T S OMET HING A LSO THAT I S B EY OND T HE K IN OF THE ORD IN AR Y P ERSON? I D ON'T THI NK S O B ECAU SE MOS T PEOPL E U SE C OMPU TE RS ALL OF THE TIME AND IT I S C OMMON K NOWLEDGE HOW C OMPUTERS ARE R ELIA BL E AND I T HINK THA T TAK ES Y OU T O T HE S ITUATI ON W HERE I F T HERE WAS A CHALLEN GE T O I T Y OU N EE D T O SAY WHY A N E XP ERT W OULD BE NEEDED I N T HA T SITUATION.

JUSTICE: L ET ME G IV E Y OU A CLOSER EXAMPLE. THERE ARE CASES ALL O VE R THE COUNTRY T HAT HAPPEN I N COURTS ALL OF THE TIM E W HE RE YOU GET A WIRETAP AND A P HONE C OMPA NY PERSON TO COM E I N AND THE P HONE C OM PANY P ER SONN EL W IL L H AV E T HE C OM PANY R UN A LIS T O F PHO NE N UMBERS L IK E WHA T THI S PEN R EGISTE R DOES , A ND THA T'S A DMITTE D A S A BUS INES S RECORD. A ND T HERE H AS NEV ER BEE N T O M Y KNOWL EDGE A NY R EQUI RE MENT T HAT S OM E EXP ER T F ROM T HE P HONE C OMPA NY C OME AND TESTIFY AS TO THE A CCUR AC Y OF THE EQUIP MENT. T HEY S IMPL Y T ES TIFI ED TO T HAT YOU D O A P RI NTOU T O F T HE P HONE C ALLS TO THI S P HONE NUM BE R , YES , A ND WHA T T IM E P ERIO D , YES , AND T HE N T HEY A DM IT TE D I T A S A B USIN ESS REC OR D. I T HAS NEVER BEE N Q UEST IO NE D A S TO T HE UND ERLY IN G ACCURACY OF THE EQU IPME NT I TSELF . WELL, I D ON 'T KNO W ABO UT THE U NDER LY IN G A CCURACY B UT AT LEAST TESTIMONY FROM THE P ERSON WHO DID T HE TES T A ND CAN SAY I D ID I T AND I D ID I T R IGHT . I DID IT THE R IGHT W AY A ND THE WITNESS HERE W AS N OT T HE P ERSON W HO H OOKE D U P T HE PEN R EGISTE R. EVEN IF YOU DON'T NEE D E XPERT T ES TIMO NY T O LAY THE F OUND ATIO N , YOU NEE D T ESTIMO NY T HA T S OM EB OD Y K NOWLED GEAB LE DID T HE TAS K HER E , S OM EBOD Y WIT H E XPER TI SE DID THE TASK. I'LL GO B AC K TO THE Q UESTION ABOUT C ASES AND I'L L S AY THERE IS THE CASE I CIT ED O N P AGE 5 2 O F T HE I NITI AL B RI EF C ALLE D UN ITED STATES VERSU S K OHNE A ND THA T WAS BAS ED , T HA T WAS A M OT IO N F OR N EW T RIAL B AS ED P ARTL Y O N T HE A RGUMENT TH AT THE P EN REG ISTER EVI DENCE WAS P RODUCE D W IT HOUT SUF FICIENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY. THERE IS A QUOTE H ERE A BOUT W HY T HE S PE CIAL AGE NT , F BI A GENT I N T HA T C AS E HAD S UFFICIENT E XPER T T ES TIMONY, A M ONTH OF S PECI ALIZ ED TRA ININ G A ND EIG HT MON TH S P RA CT ICAL EXP ER IE NC E , R EA D B OOKS DEALI NG WIT H P EN R EGISTE R SO T HA T CAS E T O M E T HE Y F OU ND T HE SKB ER T TO B E Q UL FID I N T HA T CAS E AND THAT STAND S FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT YOU DO N EE D E XPER T TES TI MONY.

JUSTI CE: WAIT A MIN UTE. I SN'T T HERE A L OG ICAL L EA P T HAT Y OU J US T TOO K B ETWE EN SAYING THAT THE EXPERT WITNESS THAT THE STATE H APPENE D T O P RE SENT W AS Q UALIFIED IN THA T C AS E , AND A H OL DI NG THA T A N E XP ER T W ITNESS I S N ECESSARY I N T HA T C ASE? I DON'T T HINK T HA T C OURT HEL D THA T AN E XP ER T WITNE SS WAS N ECESSARY. O NLY THAT THE STATE , THA T THE STATE PRESENTED A N E XPERT W ITNESS A ND THA T E XPERT WITNESS W AS Q UALI FI ED I N TH AT C AS E. W EL L , THE Y NEVER WOU LD H AVE H AD T O ANS WE R THE QUESTION IF THE EXPERT WAS QUA LIFI ED I F N O E XPER T TES TIMONY IS N EE DED. IF N O EXP ER T TES TI MONY I S N EEDED YOU SAY , WEL L , W E DON'T CAR E I F THE E XPER T WAS Q UALI FIED O R NOT . > > J USTI CE : A ND C ON VERS EL Y Y OU DON'T HAV E TO H OL D WHETHER THE E XPERT WAS NEEDED, EITHER.

EITHER W AY, BUT Y OU N EVER GET TO THA T Q UESTION IF T HE E XPER T , I F T HE E XPER T T ESTIMO NY IS N OT N EEDE D . I T HINK T HE COU RT U ND ERSTAN DS MY POSITION ON THE N EED FOR THE E XPER T TESTIMONY.I J UST M EN TION ED ONC E AGA IN T HA T T HE WIT NESS S AI D H E DI D N OT HAV E ANY E XPER TISE I N T HAT A RE A. HE DID N OT VOU CH FOR T HE Q UALI FI CATIONS OF T HE P ERSO N WHO HOOKE D THI S U P O R H E S AID HE H AD S OM E EXP ERTI SE B UT HE D IDN'T S AY W HAT I T W AS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: DO YOUWANT TO GO ON TO , ONL Y I T HINK YOU H AV E A DEQU AT EL Y EXPLAINED YOUR POSITION ON THA T . I'LL M OV E T O T HE D OU BL E J EOPARD Y A RG UMENT. THI S WA S A C AS E I N W HI CH M Y C LIENT W AS JUD ICIA LL Y A CQUITT ED O F T HE FIR ST , I N THE FIR ST A PP EA L OF T HI S C AS E S EVER AL Y EARS AGO . HE W AS TRIED O N DUA L THE OR Y !!IE S T HE F IR ST T IM E O F FEL ON Y M URDE R A ND PRE ME DITA TE D M URDER. BOTH OF T HOSE T HE ORIE S I N T HAT TRI AL R EQ UIRE D PRO OF THA T T HE D EFEN DANT I NTEN DE D T O KILL T HE VIC TIMS B EC AU SE THE KIL LING WAS THE O NL Y C RIME THAT T HE S TA TE T HE OR IZED THAT T HE DEF EN DANT INTENDED WHEN H E WAS ON THE V ICTIM' S PR OPERTY , ALL EG EDLY A FTER CON - - C ON -- C ON SENT WAS W IT HD RA WN .

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU B ELIEVE I T W AS L EGAL I N S UF S S EU V ERSU S - - INS UV SEU ON T HE FEL ON Y M UR DE R BUR GL ARY? I T W AS L EGALLY T HE E VIDENC E W AS L EGAL LY I NSUFFI CIENT BECAUSE THERE W AS NO E VI DENCE O N T HE E LEMENT O F REM AI NING I N T HE P ROPE RT Y WITHOUT CON SE NT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: RIGHT. AND SO HOW DOES T HA T A FFEC T WHE N WE S EN D I T B AC K S PECI FI CALLY F OR A T RI AL T HAT H E S OM EH OW I S IN DOU BL E JEO PARD Y ON THE PRE MEDI TA TE D M URDER?

THE ISSUE O F WHE TH ER D OUBLE JEO PA RD Y W OU LD BAR T HE R ETRI AL W AS NOT B RI EF ED A ND I T WAS N OT A RG UE D I N T HE F IRST APP EA L. A ND I BEL IEVE I CIT ED CAS ES T HAT HAV E H EL D T HA T E VE N W HERE A P ER SO N HAS A SKED FOR A NEW TRI AL A ND T HE C AS E I S R EMANDE D FOR A N EW T RI AL I F T HEN WHEN Y OU G ET B AC K T O THE RET RI AL Y OU REA LIZE D OUBL E JEO PARD Y A PPLI ES H ERE. THE FACT THAT Y OU ARE NOT E -ESTOP PED FROM RAI SI NG DOUBLE J EOPARD Y DOE S NOT E STABLISH THE L AW O F THE CAS E T HA T DOU BL E J EOPA RD Y DOES NOT A PPLY , B ECAU SE THE P EOPLE , T HE PAR TIES AND T HE C OURT DID NOT BRI EF A ND A RGUE A ND D ECID E THE QUESTION OF DOUBLE J EO PARD Y H ERE . THE LAW O F T HE CAS E H ER E I T D OES , AND I ASK T HE COU RT T O THI NK ABO UT THI S F OR A MINUTE. THE LAW IN THE C ASE I N T HI S C ASE D OE S E STAB LISH THA T T HE F EL ON Y MUR DE R THE OR Y W AS P AR T OF T HE V ERDI CT I N T HE FIR ST TRI AL , OKA Y? Y OU KNO W , WE H AD A GEN ERAL V ERDICT A ND T HE J UR Y SAI D GUI LTY , A ND S O Y OU C AN S AY H YPOT HE TICA LLY WE DON'T KNOW IF THE JURY FOUND P REME DITATED M URDER O R FEL ONY MURDE R , BUT BEC AUSE THI S C OU RT REV ER SE D , BEC AUSE T HIS C OU RT FOU ND H ARM I N THE P ROSECU TION OF T HE C AS E O N T HE FEL ON Y MUR DE R THE OR Y , W E H AVE T O EST ABLI SH THE LAW O F T HE CAS E T HAT FEL ON Y MUR DE R WAS PAR T O F THE V ER DICT I N THE F IR ST TRI AL . W EL L , THA T F EL ON Y M URDE R C HARGE AND T RIAL I NCLU DE D THE FACT O F INT EN T T O K IL L , A ND A N ESS ENTI AL E LE MENT I N T HE P REME DI TATE D M URDE R .

CHIE F JUS TICE: I T W AS N' T A N E SS ENTI AL E LE MENT O F T HE F ELONY MURDER , WHI CH W AS T HE O NLY C HARG E T HA T W E F OU ND L EG ALLY I NS UF FICI EN T? I T WAS A N E SS ENTI AL P AR T O F T HE ACT UA L T RI AL O F T HE F ELONY MU R DER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INTENT T O COM MI T A NY O THER C RI ME O N T HA T P REMI SE S T HAT THE Y A RGUE D W AS S UPPORTED THE B UR GLAR Y . I T WAS A N E SSEN TI AL PART O F T HE T RI AL . JUSTICE : B UT THE I NTEN T F OR P REME DITA TE D M URDE R IS N OT , THA T DOE SN'T INV OL VE A F ELONY AT ALL . I F THE F UL LY FOR ME D I NT ENT.

BU T T HI S IS THE O NL Y C AS E I 'V E EVER S EE N I N W HI CH T HE FELON Y I NC ORPO RA TE D T HE S UBSTANTIVE C HA RG E B EC AUSE HERE THE ONL Y F EL ONY T HA T H E W AS A CCUS ED O F T HE B URGL AR Y W AS R EMAI NING O N THE PRE MISE S WITH THE INTENT T O K ILL.

CHIEF JUSTICE : B UT T HAT' S W HERE I GO B AC K T O W E DID N' T , W E F OUND THA T T O B E L EG ALLY I NSUF FICIENT. W E D IDN'T S AY THA T I T WAS F ACTUAL , I NSUF FICI EN CY A S T O WHETHER HE LACKED THE INTENT TO KILL , CORRECT? > > NOT T HA T.

CHIEF JUSTICE: B UT T HA T' S I MPOR TANT.

BUT SOM E E LEME NT O F THA T C RIME WAS NOT EST AB LISH ED . T HE ELE MENT T HAT W AS N OT E STABLI SHED WAS T HE REM AINI NG IN P REMI SE S. CHIE F JUS TICE: NOT THE I NT EN T PART.

NOT THE INTEN T P AR T , B UT , B UT T HE D EF ENDA NT W AS A CQUITT ED OF THE F ELON Y W HICH A S P AR T A ND PAR CE L O F T HAT BUR GLAR Y WAS T HE I NT EN T TO KILL. > > CHIEF JUSTICE: BECAUSE THERE WAS LEGAL I NSUF FI CIENCY IN T HA T THE REMAINING IN WAS HELD N OT T O B E HAV IN G B EE N I NS TRUC TE D O N N OT A PRO PE R ELE ME NT O F B URGL ARY SO I T HINK W E U NDERSTAND YOUR A RG UMENT ON THAT.

OUR POSITION IS Y OU C AN'T T RY A DEF ENDANT TWI CE , ONC E FOR FEL ON Y M URDE R , O NC E F OR P REMEDI TATE D MUR DE R I F T HE RE W AS SOM E - -.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND I HAVEN'T GONE BACK , BUT ALL OF T HE SUPREME C OURT C AS ES THAT S AY W HE N THE RE I S A N A LTERNATIVE V ER DICT AND Y OU HAVE A L EGAL I NSUF FI CI EN CY THAT YOU'VE GOT TO REV ERSE WOULD BE DOUBLE J EOPA RD Y CAS ES AND I WOU LD B E HAR D-PRES SED T O T HINK THA T THE SUPREME COURT WAS SAY IN G WHEN YOU REVERSE FOR A NEW T RIAL Y OU R EALL Y C AN'T D O T HAT.

THIS C ASE IS DIF FE RENT, BEC AUSE I N T HI S CAS E T HERE W AS A F AC TUAL ELE ME NT M ISSING FROM T HE F IRST , F RO M T HE T RI AL ON F ELON Y M UR DE R , O KAY? CHIEF JUSTICE: W ELL , IT IS A VERY CRE ATIV E ARG UMEN T. W E'LL CONSIDER I T . THANK Y OU . THE N EX T ARG UMEN T I W OU LD L IK E T O MAK E I S O N T HE D EFEN DANT W AS I MP ROPE RL Y H ANDICAPPED I N M AKIN G C LOSING A RGUM EN T O N A V ER Y I MP ORTANT ISSUE ABOUT T HE S TATE'S F AI LURE T O P UT O N A NY D NA E VIDE NC E . THE D EFEN SE C OUNS EL A RGUE S T HE STA TE D ID N' T T ES T T HI S BLO OD THA T W AS O N T HE F LOOR FOR DNA . T HEY DIDN'T D O I T BAC K I N 1 99 8 A ND T HE Y D IDN'T D O I T IN 2 00 4 B EF OR E T HE TRI AL . CHIE F JUS TICE : I S T HA T I SSUE 7?

I 'M SOR RY? CH IEF JUSTICE: ISSUE 7 YOU ARE G OING TO N OW ? WEL L , LET M E S EE . CHIE F J USTICE: W HE RE DEL GADO W AS D EPRIVE D O F A F UNDA MENT ALLY F AI R TRI AL WHEN THE TRIAL C OURT SUSTAINED THE S TATE 'S O BJECTION TO DEFEN SE C OUNS EL'S KPLENTS T O C LO SING A RGUM ENT R EGARDING THE STA TE'S FAI LURE T O P RE SENT D NA E VIDE NCE. YES , T HA T'S THE ONE . T HAT IS T HE O NE . O KAY . H ERE COU NSEL , Y OU K NOW , E VERYBODY KNO WS D NA I S THE , I S ON T HE M IN D O F THE P UBLI C I NCLU DING T HE J UR OR S , AND E VERYBODY K NO WS THA T DNA T ESTING IS B ET TE R A ND M OR E R ELIABL E AND MUC H B ETTE R E VIDE NCE T HA N EVI DENC E THA T T HE S TA TE PRESE NT ED HER E W HICH WAS B LO OD G RO UPIN GS W HICH T HERE W AS B LOOD H ER E T HAT WAS C ONSI STEN T WITH T HE VIC TIM'S B LOOD AND B LOOD T HERE T HA T T HEY SAI D W AS C ONSIST ENT WITH THE D EFENDA NT'S BLOOD. T HEY DID NOT, T HI S E VIDE NC E DID NOT E STAB LISH T O A NY D EGREE O F CER TAINTY THAT I T WAS THE D EF ENDA NT'S BLO OD O R THE V ICTI M' S B LOOD B UT THE RE W ERE C HARA CT ERIS TI CS T HA T MAT CHED IN THE B LOOD G ROUPING. SO I T HINK A VER Y I MP ORTA NT P ART OF THE D EF ENSE CLO SING T O Q UE STION THE R ELIA BI LITY OF THA T A ND C OM PARE I T T O W HA T I S , Y OU KNO W , THE W AV E OF T HE P RE SENC E D NA EVI DE NC E A ND DEF ENSE COU NSEL SAI D T HEY D IDN'T TES T I T I N 199 0. T HEY SA ID I T W AS T OO E XPENSI VE AND T HEY D IDN' T TEST IT IN 200 4 , AND T HE N H E M ADE A C OM MENT YOU W OULD K NOW P OS IT IVEL Y , AND T HA T W AS STR ICKE N. T HAT WAS STR IC KE N . JUSTI CE : DID THE D EF EN SE QUESTION ANY OF THE S TATE 'S W ITNE SSES REG AR DING T HE B LOOD FOUND I N THE H OM E? I'M S OR RY . I DID N' T HEA R. W HAT?

JUS TICE: DID THE S TA TE P RESENT ANY WIT NESS ES R EGARDI NG T HE B LOOD F OUND I N T HE HOME?

SOME OF THE B LOOD G ROUPIN GS WERE CON SI ST EN T W ITH.

JUSTICE: AND DID THE D EFENSE COUNS EL C ROSS -EXAMINE THAT WITNESS?

I D ON 'T R EC AL L THA T. I D ON 'T REC AL L THA T O NE W AY OR T HE O TH ER F OR S OM E R EASO N.

JUSTICE: IT SEEMED TO M E THAT THE DEFENSE H AD THE OPP ORTUNITY TO E LICI T O N C ROSS -E XAMINATION SOME OF T HE ARG UMEN TS T HA T W ER E M AD E A T CLO SI NG , A ND I F THA T H AD BEE N D ONE T HE N THE C LO SI NG ARGUMENT WOULD HAV E B EE N LEG IT IMATE IF YOU W OULD HAV E ASKED THE W IT NESS DID Y OU CON DUCT A NY D NA E VIDE NC E , T HE DNA EVI DENC E , W AS I T AVA ILABLE T O CON DU CT DNA EVI DENC E I N P REPA RA TION FOR TRIAL IN 2 00 4 , D ID Y OU D O T HAT?

THERE WAS SOM E OF T HA T OFFERED.I DON'T REMEMBER IF I T WAS O N CRO SS -E XAMINATION BUTT HERE WAS SOM E DIS CUSS IO N O F DNA T ES TING A ND W HY I T W ASN' T DONE IN T HE E VI DENCE , Y ES. T HERE WAS T HA T , S O I T HINK - -.

JUSTICE: I BELIE VE W HE RE THI S QUESTION IS G OING I S THAT YOU DO AGREE THA T T HE A RGUMEN TS O F C OUNS EL I N W HATEVE R THE CASE I S , M US T B E D IREC TE D TO THE E VIDE NC E T HAT'S BEEN PRE SENT ED T O T HE JURY? A BS OLUTELY.

JUSTICE: AND YOU AGREE WITH THAT FUN DAME NT AL P RINCIPLE , A ND T HE N I S I T Y OUR ARG UMENT THAT DNA I S S O , THE RE I S S UC H C OMMO N K NOWLEDGE ABOUT DNA THA T THAT IS THE SAME T HING A S W HEN YOU W AN T T O A RGUE T HA T D NA W OULD POS IT IV EL Y D O T HIS O R THAT , T HAT T HAT' S THE SAM E TH ING AS T AL KING A BOUT T HE MIA MI HER ALD?

OR THE S UN W OULD H AV E COME UP IN THE M ORNI NG . IS T HAT W HA T YOU ARE SAY ING? A BS OL UTEL Y , Y ES , YO UR HONOR . THAT IS A FAI R A RGUM EN T. I THINK WE A LL K NO W T HA T N OTHI NG I S 1 00 %, NOT HING I S T OTALLY IRR EF UTAB LE . JUSTI CE: BUT Y OU D ON'T THINK Y OU NEED A NY EVI DE NCE AT ALL BEFORE THA T ARG UMENT W OULD BEC OME A PRO PE R A RGUMENT? N O EVIDENCE AT A LL W AS N ECESSA RY? YOU MEA N AS FAR A S T HE P ERCENTAGE OF THE R EL IABILITY O F D NA E VI DE NC E , H OW , W HETH ER I T IS 90% R ELIABLE? I DON'T T HINK SO. I THINK I T I S C OMMO N K NOWLEDGE T HAT IT I S , Y OU K NOW, I T I S R ELIA BL E ENO UG H T HAT THE PRO SE CU TION I S S TARTIN G T O T UR N P EOPL E LOOSE WHEN THEY GET T HE DNA E VIDENC E A ND SEE THE WRO NG P ERSO N HAS B EE N - -.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I DON'T THINK WE ARE A RGUI NG O R D ISCUSSING T HA T PRO POSI TI ON . T HE QUE STIO N I S W HA T T HE E VIDE NCE E ST ABLISHED I N THI S C ASE. C AN A DEF ENSE LAW YE R J US T SAY I N ANY C AS E WHE THER I T IS N OT D NA E VI DE NC E AND THERE IS NO D ISCU SS IO N O F W HY THE RE W AS O R W ASN' T , C AN T HE Y J UST SAY , L OO K , THE Y H AD A N OPP OR TUNI TY T O PUT O N D NA EVIDE NC E AND T HE Y D IDN'T. I S Y OU R A RG UM EN T THA T I N A NY C AS E T HAT WOU LD BE A P ROPE R A RGUMEN T F OR A DEF EN DANT TO MAKE KIND OF L IKE A M IS SING WIT NESS ARGUMENT?

W EL L , I D ON 'T THI NK I T IS A M IS SING W IT NE SS A RG UMENT. I T HINK IT I S L IK E T HERE A RE N O FIN GE RPRI NT S F ROM M Y CLIENT ON T HE MURDER W EAPO N.

CHIE F JUSTICE: THAT'S WHAT YOUR POSITION IS?

YES.

DID YOU HAV E T O ELI CI T T ESTI MONY EIT HE R O N D IREC T O R CRO SS-E XAMINATION THAT THERE WAS BLOOD STI LL A VAILABLE FOR TES TI NG I N 2 004 , A ND T HE STA TE N EVERTH ELESS N EG LECT ED T O TEST IT?

WELL , T HE STA TE A RGUE S --.

JUSTICE: DID Y OU AT LEAST HAVE TO SHOW T HAT?

T HA T T HE RE WAS SOM E B LOOD? J USTICE: AVAILABLE FOR T ESTING .

I'L L G O W IT H THAT. I 'LL ACCEPT T HA T FOR T HE P URPOSE O F T HE DISCUSSION.

JUSTICE: A ND W AS THA T ELI CITE D O N D IREC T O R CROSS-EXAMI NATION THAT THERE W AS S TILL BLO OD A VAIL AB LE FOR TESTING?

I THINK IT WAS .

JUS TICE : YOU THI NK . I THI NK T HA T M AKES A BIG D IFFE RENCE WHETHER THERE WAS OR NOT.

AND I 'L L E XP LAIN I T H ER E . C OUNS EL A RGUE D THAT T HE EVI DENC E WAS N OT THE RE , B ECAUSE A ND T HE Y S AY O N PAG E 7 8 OF T HE IR ANS WE R B RI EF , T HAT T HE E VI DENCE WAS NOT A VAILABLE T O B E D NA TES TED. H OWEVER , T HA T' S N OT W HA T T HE E VIDE NC E S HO WED. T HE T ES TIMO NY THA T THEY A RE R EFERRI NG T O O N PAG E 7 8 I S T HAT T HERE W AS NOT E NOUG H BLO OD LEF T T O T ES T F OR B LOOD G ROUPINGS O N ALL O F THE S AMPLES. B LOOD GRO UP IN G. S O I F THE RE I S N OT E NO UG H L EF T T O TES T F OR B LOOD G ROUPINGS WHICH I BEL IEVE T AKES M OR E O F A S AM PL E T HE N T HE S IN GL E HAI R O R THE S INGLE CEL L O R WHA TEVER IT TAK ES F OR D NA T HAT' S N OT E VIDE NC E, I MEA N T HA T' S EVIDENCE THAT T HERE WAS S OM E S AMPLE LEF T B UT N OT E NOUG H TO D O T HE B LO OD GRO UP INGS AND I T HI NK E VERY BODY K NO WS THAT IT ONLY T AKES A L IT TL E T INY BIT O F B LOOD O R HAI R O R A NYTH ING ELSE T O T ES T FOR D NA. S O T HERE WAS E VI DE NC E THAT T HERE I S E NOUG H FOR D NA TES TING .

JUSTICE: WAIT A MINUTE. SO WHAT WAS THE E VIDE NC E THAT THERE WAS E NOUG H B LOOD T O DO THE D NA T ESTI NG T HA T YOU ARE T AL KI NG ABOUT?

T HA T THE TES TIMO NY T HA T THE RE W ASN' T E NOUGH T O D O B LOOD G RO UP IN G T ESTI NG IMP LIED T HAT T HERE W AS SOM E L EFT AND T HE RE B EING S OM E LEF T I THI NK I S E NO UG H , BEC AUSE I T HI NK T HA T EVERYBODY K NOWS IT ONL Y TAK ES T HE T INIE ST A MOUN T O F A NY S ORT O F B OD Y TIS SU E T O T EST F OR DNA . CHIE F J USTICE: NOW , Y OU SAV ED A LOT O F T IM E F OR R EBUT TAL BUT YOU ARE S UBST ANTIALLY IN THE TIME Y OU SAV ED . I'L L C LOSE THE N O N THE D IREC T B Y S AY IN G THA T T HE S TATE I MP RO PERL Y A RG UE D A BOUT T HE D EF ENSE L AST-MI NUTE C ON CESSION A BOUT T HE M URDE RS BEI NG P REME DITATED. I BEL IEVE T HE Y ASK ED THE J URY T O Q UE ST IO N W HY T HE D EFENDA NT DID NOT PUT O N EVIDENCE AND ERR ON EOUS LY S HIFTED T HE B URDE N O F PROOF . I T HI NK THA T --. CHIEF JUSTICE: ON T HA T ARGUMENT, THOUGH , DID IN T HE C LOSING , D ID T HE DEF EN SE C ONCE DE T HAT IT W AS PRE ME DITATED?

YES.

CHIEF JUS TICE: ALL RIGHT. S O W ASN' T THA T A LL THA T THA T A RGUM ENT SOU GHT T O DIS CUSS , WHICH IS THAT , Y OU K NO W , H ERE W E ARE PUT TI NG O N P RE ME DI TATED M URDER A ND NOW THEY ARE C ON CEDING I T? NO , I T W AS JUS T C AS T THE D EFENSE IN A B AD L IGHT B Y S AYING W HY DID N' T W E HEA R THAT TWO WEE KS A GO A T T HE B EGINNING OF T HA T TRI AL A ND IT WAS ASK IN G , P UTTI NG T HE B URDEN O N T HE D EFEN DANT . CHIEF JUS TICE: DID THE TRIAL C OURT SUSTAIN T HAT OR DID T HEY O VERR UL E T HA T?

I T WAS OVE RRUL ED . THE S TA TE SAY S T HERE W AS N O C LEAR R ULIN G O N I T , I B ELIE VE , B UT I W IL L P OI NT T O IT A T THE MOV E F OR M IS TR IA L A ND THE C OU RT SAI D , I 'M N OT S USTAIN ING T HA T O BJEC TION E XC EP T FOR I THINK IT S AI D S OM ETHING L IK E UNT IL YOU D ON'T G O DOW N T HA T R OAD O R S OMETHING BUT I'M N OT SUSTAINING THAT OBJECTION SO T HE COU RT I S OVE RRUL IN G THE O BJECTI ON . T HANK Y OU VERY MUCH A ND I ASK T HAT T HE COURT REV ER SE AND DISCHAR GE T HE D EFEN DA NT . MA Y I T P LEASE T HE C OURT. S AN DR A J AGGA RD , A SS IS TANT A TTORNE Y G ENERAL O N B EHAL F OF THE STATE. WITH REGARD TO J US TICE C ANTERO'S QUESTION ABOUT THE EVIDENCE REGAR DI NG D NA , THA T W AS E LICI TE D O N C ROSS I F Y OU L OOK A T P AG E 2 02 9 T HE L AS T Q UESTION ON THE PAG E. I PRESUME B AC K I N '90 E ITHE R D NA W ASN' T A ROUN D O R IT WAS C ERTAINLY MORE EXP EN SI VE THAN IT IS N OW . I S THAT C OR RECT ? T HE ANS WE R A T THE T OP O F 2 03 0 : D NA W AS A ROUN D , W E HAD N OT YET V ALID ATED I T HER E IN DA DE C OUNT Y . SO T HE RE WAS N O E VI DENC E PRE SENTED T HAT THE DNA WAS N OT D ONE B ECAU SE I T W AS E XPEN SIVE , AND T HE E VIDE NC E P RESE NT ED THE DEF EN SE THE MSEL VE S ELI CI TE D F RO M THE C RIME S CE NE T ECHN ICIA N THA T C ONTAIN ERS THAT HAD H EL D B LOOD S AM PLES WER E N OW E MP TY B ECAUSE THE Y H AD BEE N C ONSUME D , AND THE RE W AS T ESTIMONY FROM T HE S EROLOGIST THA T HE COULD N OT E VEN CON DUCT ALL OF THE T ESTING HE W AN TE D BECAUSE THE TESTING CON SUME D THE SAM PLE AN D T HE RE W AS N O M OR E SAM PL E L EF T T O C ONTI NU E HIS T ESTING S O T HERE W AS N O EVIDENCE THAT W E COULD , T HA T WE DIDN' T D O THE T ES TING I N ' 90 B ECAU SE I T W AS E XPEN SIVE AND T HERE WAS NO E VIDE NC E T O S UGGEST T HA T W E STI LL H AD S AMPLES LEFT. IN FACT , THE EVIDENC E T HAT WAS PRESENT ED S UGGE STED W E D IDN'T , A ND Y ET T HE DEF EN SE G OT U P I N C LO SING A ND SAI D Y OU H EARD F RO M A LPIZ AR TOD AY , D NA I N 2 00 0 A LL T HE Y H AV E T O D O IS SUBMI T I T. T HA T I S WHA T G ET S THE O BJECTION S US TA INED B ECAUSE THA T IS NOT ONLY S UP PORT ED BY THE EVI DENCE BUT I S A CTUALL Y CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE. AFTER THAT OBJECTION IS S USTA INED T HE DEF EN SE T HE N COM MENT S HE T ES TI FI ED T HI S STUFF W AS N OT D NA T ES TE D S O T HE JUR Y K NE W W E DID N' T D O D NA T ES TI NG . THE PROBLEM WAS WHEN H E G OT U P A ND M AD E C OMME NT S THA T W ERE CON TRARY TO T HE E VIDENCE A BOUT WHY I T W AS N' T D NA T ESTE D AND B EC AUSE THE Y W ERE C ONTRARY T O THE EVIDENCE, THE T RIAL C OU RT PRO PERLY SUSTAINED T HA T O BJECTION . W ITH REG ARD TO T HE P EN R EGISTE R, T HE WAY Y OU GET A P HONE B OO K , A P HONE BIL L I S B ECAUSE T HE P HO NE COM PANY H AS PEN REG IS TERS O N T HE L INE. C ALLE R I D I S A PEN R EGIS TE R T HAT RECOR DS THE I NC OMIN G C ALLS AS O PP OS ED T O T HE OUT GOIN G C AL LS. THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A N EXPERT TO T ESTI FY ABOUT A P HONE BIL L AND THE RE FO RE THE 9 TH C IRCU IT I N A P UB LI SHED D ECIS ION SAID THE RE W AS N O NEE D TO H AV E A N EXP ER T T ESTIFY ABOUT A PEN REGISTER. THAT IS THE O NL Y DEC ISIO N T HE S TATE W AS A BLE T O F IN D THAT EVEN D ISCU SSES T HE MATTER. THE CASES T HA T M Y O PP ONEN T SUG GESTED TO YOU D O HOL D THA T WAS A C AS E I N W HICH A N O FFICER HAD A CTUA LL Y G IVEN AN OPINI ON ON T HE REL IABI LITY O F A P EN R EGISTER. DET ECTI VE R EY ES WAS NEV ER A SKED H IS O PINI ON O N T HE R ELIABILITY OF THE PEN REG ISTER. HE JUST IDENTIF IED IT. THERE IS NO BUT TO N O N THE P EN R EG ISTE R THA T Y OU P USH. THE B UTTO N I S O N T HE P HO NE WHI CH IS T HE LAS T NUM BE R DIA LED BUTTO N. WITH REGARD TO T HE D OU BL E J EOPARD Y ARGUMENT THERE WAS NO D OUBL E J EOPA RD Y. THERE WAS N O LAW O N P REMEDI TATI ON A ND N O LAW O N F ELON Y M URDER. THERE WAS A D ET ERMI NA TION THA T THE THE OR Y W AS L EGAL LY I NSUFFICI ENT BECAUSE O F THE CHANGE IN THE D EF INITION OF B URGLAR Y THAT OCCURRED IN T HE I NI TI AL A PPEA L I N THE C ASE , A ND T HE P ROBL EM W IT H T HA T B EC AM E T HAT. CH IEF J US TI CE : F RA NK LY T HE I SSUE T HA T W AS R AISE D L AST I S T HE I SSUE T HA T I 'M M OST C ONCE RN ED W IT H , A ND IT I S A L SER IO US O F THI NG S - - IT I S A SER IE S O F T HI NG S. I T HAS B EE N AWH IL E S INCE THE P ROSE CUTOR HAS REA LL Y B EE N S TEPPIN G OVER T HE L IN E, A ND THE T RI AL JUD GE S TART ED R ECOG NIZING THAT , AND J US T S OME OF THE T HI NG S T HA T H APPE NED A T S IDEB AR W HERE T HIS P ROSE CUTO R IS TAL KI NG A BOUT S OMEO NE B EI NG A LOA D O F CRA P AND LUD ICRO US A ND T HING S I A M SUR E Y OU JUS T CRINGE.

THEY CERTAINLY WEREN'T SAID IN FRONT OF THE J UR Y A ND COULD N OT P OSSI BL Y HAV E A FFEC TE D ANY TH ING. CH IEF JUSTICE: L ET'S GO T HROUGH . I T D OE S SEE M THA T SHE S AY S A ND T HE C OM MENT I'M C ONCERN ED WITH IS T HA T I T IS A LL W EL L A ND G OO D FOR H IM T O S TAND U P N OW A FTER WE HAV E BEEN IN TRIAL FOR T WO A ND A H ALF W EEKS AND TEL L YOU , YES , T HESE ARE HOR RI BL E P REMEDI TATED MUR DER B UT T HE PROBLEM IS TWO AND A HAL F W EEKS AGO I D IDN' T HEAR T HA T C ONCESS ION AND T HEY DON'T HAVE TO CON CEDE ANY THIN G. T HERE I S A N O BJ ECTI ON , AND T HE JUD GE HAS A W HOLE LON G S IDEBAR A ND THA T'S W HERE THERE IS A LOAD O F CRA P COM MENT , A ND T HE N T HE JUD GE S AID, Y OU K NO W , I D ON'T T HINK T HAT I D ID D O THA T . T HE JUD GE S AY S YOU C AM E CLO SE T O IT. THE MOTION I S D ENIE D B UT I'M N OT SUSTA ININ G T HE O BJ EC TION E XCEPT TO THE E XT EN T I D ON'T WANT YOU T O P UR SUE A NY THIN G T HAT WOU LD S UGGEST A BUR DE N. S O I T D OE SN'T S EE M T HA T THE J UDGE D ID S US TA IN T HE OBJ ECTION TO , W OULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, THAT THE J UDGE DID NOT SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION?

I WOULD A GREE THA T THE J UDGE S EE MS T O HAV E BEE N A LL OVER THE PLACE ABOUT WHAT HE WAS RULING BECAUSE HE B OT H SAYS I 'M NOT SUS TAIN IN G THE O BJECTION BUT P RO SECU TO R I'M ADM ONISHI NG YOU , WHI CH I S W HY I S UGGE STED THA T T HERE IS N O DIS TINC T RULIN G O VERRUL E !!IN G . CHIE F J US TICE: AND T HE N THE PROSECU TO R FOL LOWS U P A ND S AYS THA T THE COU NSEL SAYS I WENT THROUGH A P IL E OF EVIDENCE A ND T HA T D OESN 'T PROVE THE D EF ENDANT DID I T , A ND THE N S HE S AY S I WOU LD S UBMI T T O Y OU THE DEF EN SE I S N EV ER S ATIS FI ED WIT H A NYTHING I N A C RI MI NA L C ASE.

AND T HA T OBJ ECTI ON I S S USTAIN ED . CHIEF J USTICE: T HAT'S S USTAINED , AND A T T HA T