In re: Amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules

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.

Johnny Williamson v. State of Florida

SC05-1527

WE ARE GOING TO DO THE DAILY
CASE LAST ON THE CALENDAR
THIS MORNING.
WE WILL MOVE DIRECTLY TO
WILLIAMSON VERSUS STATE.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
GOOD MORNING.
I'M HARRY BRODY WITH I'M
HERE FOR JOHNNIE WILLIAMSON.
WE ARE APPEALING THE DENIAL
OF A SUCCESSOR 3.850 MOTION
AND THERE'S ESSENTIALLY ONE
ISSUE IN THIS CASE.
AND THAT IS WHETHER THIS
DEATH SENTENCE --
>> PUT YOUR MICROPHONE
CLOSER.
>> WHETHER THIS GUILT
VERDICT AND DEATH SENTENCE
WHETHER WITH THIS NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF
THE EXTENSIVE RECORD FROM
THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY
HEARING AND THE TRIAL,
WHETHER THEY ARE RELIABLE.
AT THIS POINT --
>> IT STANDARD WHETHER IT
WAS PROBABLY PRODUCED AN
ACQUITTAL.
THAT'S CORRECT YOUR HONOR.
>> YOU SAID "RELIABLE" AND
THAT THE STRICKLAND
STANDARD.
WE'RE HERE ON NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT UR -- YOUR
HONOR.
BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S A
TOUCH TONE IN THIS AREA OF
WHETHER THE VERDICT IS
RELIABLE.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT'S THE NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE STANDARD IS WHETHER
IT WILL PROBABLY --
>> YOU GOT THE SANCHEZ
VALASQUEZ AFFIDAVIT THE TIME
BEFORE HE WAS EXCUTED TO
GIVE A DEPOSITION TO
PERPETUATE HIS TESTIMONY;
CORRECT?
>> HE -- IT'S JUST THE
AFFIDAVIT THAT'S IN THE
RECORD.
>> BUT THE AFFIDAVIT IS NOT
INDEPENDENTLY ADMISSIBLE; IS
IT?
>> IT WOULD -- MIGHT BE
ADMISSIBLE FOR IMPEACHMENT
PURPOSES, ONLY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO WE'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT
MIGHT BE ADMITABLE FOR
IMPEACHMENT AND THEN WE'VE
GOT OMAR'S MOTION
THAT -- WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO
THIS COURT'S ATTENTION TEN
YEARS AFTER IT HAD BEEN
FILED THE QUESTION OF DUE
DILIGENCE.
BUT EVEN IF YOU GET PASSED
THAT, HE TESTIFIED AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND AS
DID MR. HARRISON AND
ESSENTIALLY EXPLAINED A WAY
WHAT WAS IN THE MOTION AND
THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE
CREDIBILITY FINDINGS AS TO
THAT THE MOTION REALLY WAS
BLOWING OFF STEAM SO TO
SPEAK AND THAT THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTOR
HAD DONE ANYTHING IMPROPER
AT ALL.
SO WITH THAT, AS EVIDENTIARY
FINDING AS TO THE
CREDIBILITY OF WHAT'S IN THE
MOTION AND AN INADMISSIBLE
AFFIDAVIT HOW DO YOU EVEN
REMOTELY GET TO THE JONES
STANDARD?
>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE
JUDGE -- IF I MAY
RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST IS
WRONG ABOUT HIS CONCLUSIONS
ABOUT OMAR WILLIAMSON.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT OMAR
WILLIAMSON, HE ADMITTED HE
LIED TO SAY HIS 3.850 WAS
JUST BLOWING OFF STEAM HE
BASICALLY TESTIFIED WHEN I'M
ANGRY I WILL LIE.
I FILED THE 3.850 BECAUSE I
WAS ANGRY.
BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
OUTRIGHTLIES IN THAT.
AND HE ESSENTIALLY SAYS I
WILL LIE TO SAVE MY SKIN.
AND THAT'S CLEAR.
THAT BECOMES COMPLETELY
CLEAR.
THIS MAN IS NOT CREDIBLE AT
ALL AND THAT'S THE HEART OF
THIS CASE.
THE AFFIDAVIT IS REALLY NOT
THAT IMPORTANT.
IT GOES TO THE BIAS ISSUE
AND ABOUT THE LOOKING FOR
THE KNIFE IN THE PRISON.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT,
THAT'S IMPORTANT.
BUT OMAR WILLIAMSON IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
IT IS CLEAR HE TESTIFIED AT
TRIAL HE WAS THE MAIN
WITNESS TO -- HE WAS THE
MAIN WITNESS TO
PREMEDITATION.
WITHOUT HIM THERE WOULD NOT
BE A FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.
THEN IT'S TRUE HE FIRED THIS
3.850 BECAUSE HE FELT HE HAD
A RAW DEAL.
ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT REALLY
CLEAR WHAT THAT WAS.
BUT HE FELT HE GOT A RAW
DEAL.
BUT HE WAS NOT MERELY
BLOWING OFF STEAM.
IN FACT HE TESTIFIED HE
WOULD HAVE GONE FORWARD WITH
THE MOTION IF HE FELT HE
WOULD HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF
PRISON.
IF REASON HE STOPPED WAS NOT
BECAUSE THERE WAS SOMETHING
IN -- UNTRUE IN THAT.
HOE FELT IT WOULDN'T GET HIM
OUT OF PRISON SO HE DIDN'T
PURSUE IT.
>> THE JUDGE'S FINDING THAT
HIS FIRM UNWAIVERING HEARING
WAS THAT A PLAN TO MURDER
DREW AND NOTWITHSTANDING
WITH EARLIER DENIAL HE
WILLINGLY PARTICIPATED IN
THAT PLAN.
THIS COURT FIND OMER'S
TESTIMONY IN THAT REGARD TO
BE CREDIBLE AND PERSUASIVE.
YOU WOULD ASK US TO JUST
SIMPLY SAY THAT, THAT
CREDIBILITY FINDING IS
SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.
>> IS NOT SUPPORTED BY
COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.
AND I WOULD TELL THE COURT
THAT THE STATE WROTE THAT
ORDER AND THE JUDGE ADOPTED
THE STATE'S ORDER.
THE STATE SENT UP THE FIRST
ORDER AND THE JUDGE'S
ADOPTED IT WORD-FOR-WORD.
HE MADE ONE CHANGE WITH A
PENCIL WHICH HE LEFT IN THE
ORDER.
BUT IT'S THE STATE'S ORDER.
>> WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIAL
COMPETENT EVIDENCE YOU SAY
THAT REFUSED THIS
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION?
>> THE EVIDENCE -- VERY MUCH
LIKE IN THE MILLS CASE.
THE EVIDENCE IS THAT OMER
WILLIAMSON CANNOT -- IS A
LIAR.
WE CAN'T RELY ON HIS
TESTIMONY.
HE WOULD SAY ANYTHING TO
HEUFPL HIMSELF.
-- TO HELP HIMSELF.
HE'S IN THIS MOTION.
HE SAYS THAT THE STATE
THREATENED THAT HE WOULD BE
KILLED IF HE DIDN'T LEAVE.
HE SAID HE HAD FIVE MINUTES
FROM THE TIME HE WAS ADVISED
OF WHAT HE WAS GOING TO HAVE
TO PLEAD TO.
HE WAS TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY
WHAT HE NEEDED TO PLEA TO.
THE SUBSTANCE.
THEY NEEDED PREMEDITATION.
HIS ATTORNEY TESTIFIED THAT,
THAT'S WHAT HE NEEDED.
>> SO TO BELIEVE THAT, BUT
NOT THE LATER STATEMENT?
>> I CAN'T URGE THIS COURT
TO BELIEVE ANYTHING OMER
WILLIAMSON SAID.
>> YOU CAN'T BELIEVE HE
WOULD LIE -- WE CAN'T
BELIEVE HE WOULD LIE TO SAVE
HIMSELF.
>> I CAN'T BELIEVE HIS WORD
ON IT.
I BELIEVE THE REVIEWING THE
RECORD WE CAN COME TO THAT
CONTEMPLATE KRAOUGS.
BUT HE SAYS IT WE CAN'T
BELIEVE IT -- I CANNOT IN
GOOD FAITH URGE THIS COURT
TO BELIEVE WHAT HELPS ME AND
NOT BELIEVE WHAT DOESN'T
HELP ME.
>> WAS THE CREDIBILITY
ATTACKED AT THE ORIGINAL
TRIAL?
>> SOMEWHAT.
IT WAS.
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A LOT
THAT WAS NOT PRESENTED.
AND A LOT OF THAT CAME UP AT
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
IT WAS ALSO ATTACKED THERE.
SOMEWHAT AT THE FIRST
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
>> SO YOU BASIC POSITION
WOULD BE ANYTIME AFTER A
TRIAL THAT THERE'S EVIDENCE
MORE EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH
SOMEBODY THAT, THAT'S ENOUGH
TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL?
>> WELL AS LONG AS IT'S
PROPERLY RAISED.
THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT
THIS WAS PROPERLY RAISED.
THE ONLY REASON THEY HAPPEN
TO FIND --
>> PROPERLY MEANING TIMELY?
>> SURE.
THERE'S A MOTION.
AND THE ONLY REASON WE FOUND
THIS 3.850 ALONG WITH
WILLIAMSON WE WENT OVER TO
THE COURT AND WERE LOOKING
FOR JOHNNY WILLIAMSON.
WE WEREN'T SENT A COPY OF
THIS.
NOBODY KNEW ABOUT THIS THAT
HE HAD EVEN FILED THIS
MOTION.
WE WERE OVER THERE WHEN WE
FIRST GOT ON THE CASE AND WE
HAD TO -- JUST HAPPENED TO
FILE IT.
WE WERE LOOKING FOR
SOMEONE -- SOMETHING IN THE
OTHER WILLIAMSON CASE.
>> AND HE FILED IN HIS OWN
CASE.
>> YES.
YES.
HE FILED A 3550.
HE WAS EVIDENTLY ANGRY I
DON'T KNOW -- THAT HE DIDN'T
GET A NAME CHANGE.
HE HAD HIS OWN CASE.
HE WAS -- LIKE A PEDOPHILE
CHARGE OF SOME KIND.
>> LET'S APPROACH IN A
DIFFERENT WAY.
LET'S TAKE WILLIAMSON AWAY
FROM THE EQUATION HERE.
WILLIAMSON OMER.
AND BASICALLY THAT'S -- THAT
TESTIMONY WOULD GO TO
WHETHER THERE WAS A PREMET
TATED INOR NOT NOT WHETHER
OR NOT THE DEFENDANT STABBED
HIM; CORRECT?
THIS DOESN'T GO AND
EXONERATE THE DEFENDANT OF
MURDER.
>> WELL, IF YOU TAKE AWAY
THE SELF-DEFENSE, THE
SELF-DEFENSE.
>> IT STILL HAS -- IT STILL
HAS THE DEFENDANT STABBING
THE DEFENDANT.
-- STABBING THE VICTIM.
>> THE VICTIM.
>> YES.
THE JUDGE FOUND THE TRIAL
EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING
THAT WILLIAMSON STAPLED DREW
REPEATEDLY WHILE OMER HELD
HIM.
WILLIAMSON'S OWN STATEMENT,
THAT'S THE DEFENDANTS AND
THE TESTIMONY OF NUMEROUS
WITNESSES ASIDE FROM OMER
ESTABLISHED THAT FACT.
DO YOU STILL HAVE IAZ WAS
ONE OF SEVERAL INMATE
WITNESSES CALLED TO TESTIFY.
HE TESTIFIED ON DIRECT THAT
WILLIAMSON ASKED HIM FOR A
SHANK BEFORE LUNCH TIME ON
THE DAY DREW WAS KILLED AND
SAID HE WANTED TO QUOTE
"KILL THE SON OF A BUSH"
FOLLOWING CROSS-EXAMINATION
AND THEN HE SAID FURTHER
ABOUT THE KNIFE ON THE
AFTERNOON OF THE MURDER.
SO YOU'VE GOT OTHER
WITNESSES.
YOU'VE GOT STEVEN BISHOP.
YOU'VE GOT VARIOUS PEOPLE
THAT EITHER TESTIFIED TO
WHAT HAPPENED LEADING UP TO
THE MURDER OR WITNESSED THE
STABBING.
>> YES.
AND THERE WERE -- AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THERE
WAS AT LEAST THREE
WHPBS -- WITNESSES THAT
THE VICTIM HAD THE KNIFE.
THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
THERE WAS NO
REASON -- JOHNNIE
WILLIAMSON -- JOHNNY
WILLIAMSON HAD NO REASON TO
KILL THE VICTIM.
HE WAS FRIENDS WITH THE
VICTIM.
ALL HE WAS DOING WAS TRYING
TO HELP OMER.
OMER OWED THE VICTIM MONEY.
HE WASN'T GOING TO BE ABLE
TO PAY HIM.
FRANKLY OMER'S WIFE WAS IN
DANGER.
OMER ENGINEERED THIS.
JOHNNY WAS GOING TO GO AND
HELP TALK TO HIM.
THEN THE VICTIM PULLED THE
KNIFE ACCORDING TO JOHNNY.
>> BUT THEN YOU WOULD HAVE
TO SAY THAT BIAZ WAS LYING.
>> BIAZ I DON'T BELIEVE HE
TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW IT.
HE WAS ONE OF THE WITNESSES
WHO TESTIFIED, I BELIEVE
THAT JOHNNY ASKED HIM FOR A
KNIFE.
AND THAT HE WANTED TO KILL
THE ST. SON OF A BUSH."
RIGHT.
>> THAT'S WHAT -- SON OF A
BITCH".
IT SOUNDS PRETTY
PREMEDITATED.
WE'RE NOT HERE ON WHETHER
CERTAINLY IT IS SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE ASIDE FROM OMER
WILLIAMSON TO CONVICT THE
DEFENDANT OF MURDER.
THE ISSUE IF YOU HAVE
PRODUCED ANYTHING IN THIS
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT
WOULD LEAD TO A PROBABILITY
OF AN ACQUITTAL OF
PREMEDITATED MURDER.
>> CORRECT?
-- PARTIALLY.
ALTHOUGH THERE WOULD BE
WITHOUT OMER WILLIAMSON
THERE WOULD BE AN ISSUE OF
SELF-DEFENSE.
THAT THE KNIFE WAS THE
VICTIMS AND THAT HE PULLED
THE KNIFE.
>> THIS GOES BACK TOCK THE
TRIAL COURT FOUND OMER
WILLIAMSON AND WHAT HE SAID
AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
REAFFIRMING WHAT HE SAID AT
TRIAL WAS CREDIBLE.
SO I, AGAIN, HAVE PROBLEMS
WITH HOW WE JUMP OVER AND
SAY WE -- IST SAYING THERE
IS OTHER -- I WAS SAYING
THERE WAS OTHER EVIDENCE
ASIDE OMER WILLIAMSON.
I DON'T SEE YOU YOU CAN
IGNORE THE TRIAL COURT'S
FINDING THAT WHAT WILLIAMSON
SAID AT THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING WAS CIDABLE AND
CONSISTENT WITH HIS TRIAL
TESTIMONY.
>> I BELIEVE THE COURT
REVIEWED THE 3.850 WHICH WAS
SWORN TESTIMONY AND HIS
HEARING TESTIMONY THE COURT
WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
MAN IS NOT A CREDIBLE
WITNESS.
HE ADMITTED THAT HE WOULD
LIE TO SAVE HIMSELF.
THIS CASE IS FULL OF CONDUCT
BY THE WAY.
IT TOOK PLACE IN THE PRISON
FOR THERE TO BE OUTSIDE
WITNESSES.
>> WELL, OF COURSE.
RIGHT.
JOHNNY WILLIAMSON HAD NO
MOTIVE.
HE WOULD GET OUT IN A YEAR
OR TWO.
>> THAT'S A PERFECT ARGUMENT
THAT WAS MADE AT TRIAL.
I MEAN AT THE HEARING HE
FURTHER -- HE FINALLY COMES
BACK TO SAYING THAT, THAT
THERE WAS A PLAN, AT ONE
POINT, HE SAY THERE WAS NO
PLAN.
THERE WAS NO PREMEDITATION,
AND THEN, HE COMES BACK AT
THE HEARING AND SAYS, WELL,
THERE WAS A PLAN, BUT HE IS
THE ONLY ONE THAT HAD
ANYTHING TO GAIN, AND I DO
BELIEVE THAT THE COURT IS
NOT GOING TO WANT TO HAVE A
DEATH SENTENCE AND THE
COURT'S FINDING THAT HE WAS
CREDIBLE AN BELIEVABLE, THAT
YOU DID TAKE ONE THING THAT
HE SAYS AND SAYS WELL HE WAS
BLOWING OFF STEAM OR IT IS
SWARN TESTIMONY AND WHEN HE
SAYS I WOULD LIKE TO SAVE
MYSELF, WELL, HE TOTALLY
DOESN'T MEAN THAT.
HE DOESN'T MEAN HE WILL PUT
A MACHINE ON DEATH REAND LET
THAT MAN DIANE SO HE DOESN'T
FAITH THE DEATH SENTENCE OR
SO THE STATE, SO HE WON'T BE
KILLED, HE DOESN'T MEAN
THAT, BUT WE CAN PICK AN
CHOOSE.
HE IS NOT A RELIABLE
WITNESS, THE STATE CAN NOT
BELIEVE ANYTHING THIS MAN
SAYS AND I RESPECTFULLY
SUGGEST THAT OUTSIDE OF HIS
TESTIMONY, WITHOUT HIS
TESTIMONY, THERE IS NOT
ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN
EITHER THE CONVICTION TO SAY
THERE IS NOT A PROBABILITY
THAT MR. WILLIAMSON WOULD BE
ACQUITTED ON THE CHARGE OF
MURDER, FIRST-DEGREE MURDER,
OR THAT HE WOULD RECEIVE THE
DEATH PENALTY, IT IS VERY
MUCH LIKE THE MILLS CASE
WHERE I BELIEVE JUDGE EATON
CONCLUDED THAT, YOU KNOW, I
JUST CAN'T BELIEVE ANYTHING
THAT THIS CODEFENDANT IS
SAYING.
>> THE PROBLEM IS, IT IS POT
VERY MUCH LUKE THE MILLS
CASE, BECAUSE THERE THE
TRIAL JUDGE MADE THE
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION.
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR
HONOR.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THE STATE
WROTE THE ORDER, THAT THE
JUDGE SIGNED.
>> YOU ARE WELL INTO YOUR
REBUTTAL.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY
NAME IS MEREDITH KARBULA, AN
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
AN REPRESENT THE STATE OF
FLORIDA IN THE CASE.
MR. WILLIAMSON'S ARGUMENT
RISK RESTS PRIMARILY AND HE
HAS ARGUED HERE TODAY THAT
THIS COURT MUST OR SHOULD
REJECT THE COURT'S SPECIFIC
FINDINGS THAT OMER
WILLIAMSON, WILL USE THE
WORD OMER, BOTH THE
DEFENDANT AND THIS WITNESS'S
NAME WILLIAMSON AND THEY ARE
NOT RELATED, THE COURT
SPECIFICALLY FOUND OHMER'S
TESTIMONY AT THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING HELD ON THE SUCCESS
OF CLAIM CREDIBLE AND AND
MR. WILLIAMSON, OMER
WILLIAMSON AFFIRMED IT WAS
ABSOLUTELY CORE REMEMBER,
BUT IF YOU LOOK --
>> THAT TESTIMONY, IN THE
TESTIMONY HERE, SUPPLIES, IS
IT ONLY HIS TESTIMONY THAT
SUPPLIES THAT AGREEMENT TO
KILL AND THAT JOHNNY
WILLIAMSON ACTUALLY
COMMITTED THE STABBING?
>> NO, MA'AM, BECAUSE WE ARE
GOING TO LOOK -- WHEN WE ARE
LOOKING AT THE JONE
STANDARD, WE'RE GOING TO
LOOK FORWARD TO A RETRIAL,
SO WHAT WOULD THE EVIDENCE
BE CONSIDERING THIS NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
PRESENTING IT IS ADMISSIBLE
AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS
ADMITTED AND IS THERE A
PROBABILITY OF AN ACQUITTAL?
AT TRIAL, KEN BAE ZSAID
BEFORE LUNCHTIME ON THE DAY
OF THE MURDER WHICH WAS JULY
20th, 1985, MR. WILLIAMSON
CAME TO HIM AND SAID "KEN,
YOU HAVE A SHANK?"
>> IS DEFENDANT.
>> WILLIAMSON, NICKNAMED
ALABAMA, ALABAMA DIME HIM IN
THE MORNING OF JULY 20th,
1985, AND SAID, KEN, YOU
HAVE GOT A SHANK? I AM GOING
TO KILL THE SON OF THE
BITCH.
MR. BAE ZTESTIFIED HE DID
NOT IDENTIFY THE S SO B HE
WAS REFERRING TO.
HE SAID NO, I DON'T HAVE A
SHANK.
STEVEN MARK BISHOP TESTIFIED
AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
SANCHEZ-VELASKCO AFFIDAVIT.
THE SANCHEZ-VELASKO WAS
TESTIFIED TO BEFORE JULY OF
1995 BECAUSE IT WAS REFERRED
TO IN A MOTION TO RECALL THE
MANDATE, WE DON'T KNOW THE
DATE, BECAUSE IS WAS NOT
ADMITTED AT THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BUT THE TRIAL COURT
DID FIND THAT THE CLAIM WAS
UNTIMELY, BUT IN ANY EVENT,
STEVEN MARK BISHOP TESTIFIED
AT TRIAL ON THE MORNING OF
THE MURDER, HE APPROACHED
MR. WILLIAMSON AND OMER WHO
WERE SITTING ON THE STEPS
MARE THE B AND C DORM AN
DURING THAT CONVERSATION,
THEY ASKED HIM FOR A KNIFE.
HE BELIEVED IT WAS
MR. WILLIAMSON WHO WAS THE
ONE THAT ACTUALLY ASKED HIM
ALABAMA, ALABAMA WAS THE ONE
WHO ACTUALLY ASKED HIM FOR
THE KNIFE.
AFTER THE MURDER, RONNY
PRESLEY WHO SAW HIM
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE
MURDER WITH BLOOD ALL OVER
HIS PANTS, IN FACT, HE
WALKED HIM BACK TO THE
LAUNDRY ROOM AND SHIELDED,
ATTEMPTED TO SHIELD HIM FROM
THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
WHO MIGHT SEE HIM EN ROUTE,
HE TOLD RON PRESLEY THAT,
THE SON OF BITCH WOULDN'T
DIANE HE ALSO TOLD HIM THAT,
I THOUGHT I COULD GET AWAY
THIS, BUT NOW, IT IS CLEAR,
I CAN'T.
SO HE TOLD RONNY PRESLEY
THAT MR. WILLIAMSON HIMSELF
TESTIFIED DURING' THE
PENALTY PHASE OF HIS CAPITAL
TRIAL AND ADMITTED THAT HE
PROBABLY SAID THAT TO RONNY
PRESLEY.
SO WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF
PREMEDITATION.
WE ALSO HAVE EVIDENCE, EVEN
INTRODUCED AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE
INITIAL POST CONVICTION THAT
HE WAS SEEN IN THAT AREA
WITH A GROUP INCLUDING OMER
WILLIAMSON WHICH IS
CONSISTENT WITH OMER
WILLIAMSON'S TESTIMONY.
WE HAVE OMER WILLIAMSON'S
TESTIMONY THAT THE PLAN WAS
TO GIVE DANIEL DREW A $5
BILL IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT
THERE COULD BE NO CLAIM THAT,
UM, HE, THEY WERE ATTEMPTED
TO ROB HIM, INSTEAD, THEY
THAT THEY WOULD GIVE HIM $5
AND IF LATER THEY HAD TO
EXPLAIN THEMSELVES, THEY
COULD CLAIM THAT THEY GAVE
HIM $5 EVEN THOUGH THEY OWED
HIM MORE, AN THAT WAY IT
WOULD LOOKIC HE GOT MAD AND
PULLED A KNIFE AND THEY HAD
TO KILL HIM IN SELF DEFENCE.
THE $5 BILL WAS FOUND BY THE
LAB IN HIS BLOODY PANT,
DANIEL DREW, THE VICTIMS AND
HIS BLOODY PANTS, MORE
COLLABORATION FOR OMER'S
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PLAN AND
IT WAS ALABAMA WHO SUGGESTED
THAT MR. BRODIE SUGGEST THAT
ALABAMA HAD NO PRIOR MOTIVE
TO KILL DANIEL DREW.
MR. OMER WILLIAMSON
TESTIFIED THAT HE WENT TO
WILLIAMSON WHO WAS HIS
PARTNER, HIS RUNNING BUD DIN
PRISON.
THEY WATCHED EACH OTHER'S
BACK.
THEY DEALT DRUGS FOR DANIEL
DREW AND TOLD HIM I OWE
DANIEL DREW $15 AND I AM NOT
GOING TO PAY HIM BECAUSE I
THINK HE IS LYING US TO
ABOUT SOME -- AND HE
TESTIFIED IT WAS ABOUT DOPE
FROM A PREVIOUS DEAL AND IF
HE GIVES ME A HARD TIME.
I WILL BUST HIS HEAD.
THE MEDICAL EXAM NEVER
TESTIFIED AT TRIAL THAT
DANIEL DREW IS 5'7" AND 144
POUND, HE IS A PRETTY LITTLE
GUY, SO I AM GOING TO BUST
HIS HEAD.
JOHNNY WILLIAMSON SAID TO
HIM, DREW IS A COUNTRY BOY.
HE IS GOING TO STAB YOU IF
YOU DON'T PAY HIM.
SO IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO
PAY HIM.
WE'LL HAVE TO KILL HIM.
SO OMER TESTIFIED IT WAS
JOHNNY WILL YOUIAMSON WHO
SUGGESTED THAT THE ONLY WAY
THAT OMER WAS GOING TO GET
OUT FROM DANIEL DREW IS TO
KILL HIM.
EVEN ONE WITNESS, I THINK,
KENNETH HAGGARD AS THE POST-
TRIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING
TESTIFIED THAT DANIEL DREW
WAS, UM, A QUIET GUY, WHO
KEPT TO HIMSELF, DIDN'T LOOK
FOR TROUBLE, SO I THINK THAT
THAT IS CONSISTENT TESTIMONY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT AT
SELF-DEFENSE, EVEN JOHNNY
WILLIAMSON, I MEAN JOHNNY
WILLIAMSON MADE TWO
STATEMENTS -- ONE OF WHICH
CAME OUT AT TRIAL AN ONE OF
WHICH CAME OUT EVIDENTIARY
HEARING.
THE ONE THAT CAME OUT OF
TRIAL WAS THAT HE, YOU KNOW,
HE STARTED TO WUK AWAY FROM
DANIEL DREW AFTER DANIEL
DREW SEEMED APPEASED AT THE
$5 HE WAS GIVING AND
WILLIAMSON'S PROMISE TO GIVE
HIF MORE, HE TURNED AROUND,
OMER HAD JUMPED ON DREW.
AT SOME POINT, HE TRIED TO
GRAB THE NAIF AND GOT CUT.
THERE WAS CUT ON THE PALM OF
HIS HAND, WHICH IS ENTIRELY
CONSISTENT, MAYBE WITH
GRABBING IT, BUT ALSO
STABBING SO VICIOUSLY, THAT
THERE IS NO DISPUTE THIS WAS
VICIOUS STABBING, WOULD CUT
YOUR OWN HAND.
THE -- MR. WILLIAMSON
TESTIFIED THAT, YOU KNOW,
ALL OF THE SUDDEN, HE HEARD
HIS NAME CALLED.
HE WAS ON TOP OF DANIEL DREW
AND COVERED WITH BLOOD.
SO WILLIAMSON NEVER DENIED
HE WAS THE STABBER.
EVEN THE WITNESSES AT THE
INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING
TESTIFIED THAT THEY SAW
DANIEL DREW WITH THE KNIFE
FIRST, UM, AN THAT THERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT WILLIAMSON
TOOK IT AWAY FROM HIM, THEN
AFTER HE HAD OVERPOWERED
HIM, STABBED HIM.
SIGNIFICANTLY; HOWEVER,,
DR. MAT TRA TESTIFIED.
HE WAS CALLED BY THE DEFENSE
IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT
INEFFECTIVE FOR CALLING
MENTAL MITIGATION.
THE DOCTOR TESTIFIED THAT
WHAT JOHNNY WILLIAMSON TOLD
HIM HE NOTICED THAT DANIEL
DREW HAD A KNIFE.
>> WHAT IS IT THAT WE SHOULD
BE LOOKING AT TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS KIND
OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD
PROBABLY PRODUCE AN
ACQUITTAL ON A RETRIAL?
ARE WE LOOKING AT
ELIMINATION NATING --
ELIMINATING OMER'S TESTIMONY
ALTOGETHER OR WHAT IS IT IT
THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
ACQUITTAL ON PROBABILITY OF
ACQUITTAL ON RETRIAL?
>> WELL, THINK, WHAT THIS
COURT HAS TO DO IS LOOK AT,
LOOK AT THE JONE'S STANDARD,
ARE YOU TO LOOK AT THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE
COURT HAD SAID IN
RUTHERFORD, WAS THAT WHEN
YOU CONSIDER, UM, ALL THE
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
THAT WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE,
FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T THINK
THAT THE ONLY THING THAT
WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE
REGARDING OMER WILLIAMSON'S
38-50 MOTION WOULD BE
IMPEACHMENT.
AN SO IT WOULDN'T BE
ADMISSIBLE, SUBSTANTIVE
EVIDENCE, IT MIGHT BE
ADMISSIBLE AS IMPEACHMENT
EVIDENCE, THEN, YOU LOOK,
YOU EVALUATE THE WEIGHT OF
THE NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE, THE EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED AS TRIAL, WELL,
THE ONLY THING THAT
MR. WILLIAMSON SWORN MOTION
WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE FOR
IMPEACHMENT, WHEN YOU LOOK
AT ALL OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE
THAT WAS INTRODUCED AT TRIAL,
UM, THAT IS YOUR STANDARD
THAT YOU OUTLINE IN JONES
AND REITERATED CONSTANTLY,
IN THIS COURT'S DECISION IN
BROWN, UM, THIS COURT WAS
FACED, IN WHICH THIS COURT
HAS CITED, THIS COURT HAS
CITED BROWN FOR THE NOTION
THAT RECAN TATION OF A
WITNESS EVEN IF YOU ASSUME
WHICH IT IS NOT, IF YOU
LOOKED AT THE BOD OF THE
MOTION, OMER WILLIAMSON
CLEARLY SAY THAT JOHNNY
WILLIAMSON REPEATEDLY
STABBED DANIEL DREW.
HE NEVER RECANTED.
BUT EVEN IF HE YOU, UM, YOU
LOOK AT THAT EVIDENCE AND
LOOK AT THIS COURT'S
DECISION IN BROWN WHERE IN
THAT CASE MR. FLOYD GAVE A
EX PARTE STATEMENT TO THE
DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THEN
LATER AT AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING UNDER OATH THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION REAFFIRMED
THE PROCESS, THIS COURT SAID
THAT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
GRANT A NEW TRIAL.
THAT IS STILL GOOD LAW.
THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE
SITUATION WE HAVE HERE.
EXCEPT IN THAT CASE,
MR. FLOYD, IT IS SHOWN HERE,
IN THAT CASE, MR. FLOYD, IN
HIS POST-TRIAL STATEMENT TO
DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID, YOU
KNOW, ESSENTIALLY EX KAMENTATED
THE DEFENDANT AND THEN LATER
AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
SAID,, NO MY TRIAL TESTIMONY
WAS RU.
HERE, WE HAVE 38-50 MOTION
SWORN BY MR. WILLIAMSON IN
1993 THAT SAYS
MR. WILLIAMSON IS A STABBER
AND, YOU KNOW, I ENDED UP
HAVING TO GO ALONG WITH IT.
NOT OF MY OWN FREE WILL,
BUT, YOU KNOW, HE NEVER SAID
THERE WAS NOT A PLAN.
HE NEVER SAID HE DIDN'T
PARTICIPATE LIKE THE
COLATERAL COURT FOUND.
HE ONLY SAID, HE TRIED TO
DIMINISH HIS OWN CULPABILITY
WHEN HE CAME BACK, HE SAID
THAT I WAS ANGRY, I THOUGHT
THAT THE STATE HAD
OVERREACHED BY ONLY GIVING
ME FIVE MINUTES, I THOUGHT I
GOT A RAW DEAL BECAUSE THE
STATE BREACHED THE PROMISES
TO IMPOSE A CONCURRENT
SENTENCE OR TO RECK MEN.
WAS MAD.
I WAS NOT RU.
HEED WITH HAD A PLAN.
WE ALWAYS HAD A PLAN TO KILL
DANIEL DREW AND THAT IS WHAT
WE DID.
I THINK THIS COURT'S
DECISION AN BROWN IS
DISPOSIVE OF THIS ISSUE.
I WOULD LIKE TO JUST BRIEFLY,
MR. WILLIAMSON IS ALLEGING
THAT THE COURT, THE
COLLATERAL COURT ADOPTED THE
STATE'S PROPOSED ORDER IN
THAT ORDER THE CONTRARY TO
COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATION,
THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT
OMER WILLIAMSON CLAIM WAS
PROPERLY FILED.
THERE IS A DISPUTE, THE
COLLATERAL COURT
SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DIDN'T
RAISE SUFFICIENT ALLEGATIONS
TO OVERCOME THE TIME BAR.
>> I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED,
THOUGH, DURING THE COURSE OF
THE HEARING, THE STATE
DIDN'T, ON THAT ISSUE, ON
THE TIME BAR, THAT THE STATE
DID NOT PURSUE THAT ISSUE
AND SO UNTIL THE FINAL ORDER
WAS ENTERED, THERE WAS
REALLY NOT AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR THEM TO BE UNNOTICED
THAT THE STATE WAS
CONTINUING TO ASSERT A TIME
BAR.
WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT THAT?
>> WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
HUFF HEARING, WHICH WAS HELD
ON THIS CLAIM, THE INITIAL
ARGUMENT, THEY ARGUED THE
SANCHEZ-VELASCO AFFIDAVIT
FIRST AP THEN OMER
WILLIAMSON.
WE ALERTED THE TIME BAR IN
SANCHEZ-VELASCO WHEN
MR. BROD I DY GOT UP TO
ARGUE OMER WILLIAM SON.
HE MADE A CLAIM, HE SAID,
WELL, I THINK CLEAR LET US
NOT TIME BARRED.
AT THAT POINT, PROSECUTORS
SAID, WELL, EVENTUALLY, OUT
OF ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, I
THINK THIS COURT SHOULD
GRANT A LIMITED EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON OMER WILLIAMSON
CLAIM.
LIMITED TO THE ALLEGATIONS
MADE TO SPECIFICALLY IN OMER
WILLIAMSON'S 388.50 MOTION.
THE TRIAL COURT LOOKED TO
MR. BRODIE AND SAID ANY
OBJECTION, HE SAID NO.
SO CERTAINLY, HE WAS AWARE
OF OF TIME CONCERNS HE
INITIALLY BROUGHT IT UP WITH
THE BLANKET STATEMENT, I
THINK IT IS TIME, NOT TIME
BARRED.
THE COLLATERAL COURT ASKED
EACH PARTY TO SUBMIT A
PROPOSED ORDER AND I THINK
SEVERAL TIMES IT HAS BEEN
IMPLIED THAT THE STATE HAS,
OR THE COLLATERAL COURT
ACTED IMPROPERLY IN SIGNING
THE STATE'S ORDER AND, IN
FACT, BOTH PARTIES WERE
INVITED TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED
ORDER, BOTH PARTIES
SUBMITTED A MIRER RANDOM TO
THE JUDGE, I THINK, THE
DEFENSE WAS MORE, WHICH IS
VERY COMMON.
THERE WAS NO OBJECTION.
>> DOES IT MAKE ANY KIND OF
BINDING OR ANY KIND OF
INDICATION ON THE RECORD AS
TO WHAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME
OF THE HEARING?
>> HE DID NOT.
>> I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING
FROM THE RECORD.
HE SIMPLY ASKED THE PARTIES
TO SUBMIT A CLOSING
ARGUMENT, I MEAN, A PROPOSED
ORDER, BOTH PARTIES DID SO,
THEY WERE SERVED ON EACH
OTHER, AN NO OBJECTION WAS
MADE BY MR. WILLIAMSON TO
THE STATE'S PROPOSAL OR A
MOTION FOR REHEARING BASED
ON ANY IMPROPER CONDUCT BY
THE STATE IN A THINK THAT
EVEN SO AT THE END OF THE
DAY, THE, UM, THE TRIAL
JUDGE'S ORDER AS WRITTEN IS
SUPPORTED BY CONFIDENCE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND
LASTLY, UM, YOUR HONORS, IF
YOU HAVE NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS.
THE STATE WOULD ASK THAT YOU
WOULD AFFIRM THE COLLATERAL
COURT'S ORDER DENYING
MR. WILLIAMSON'S SUCCESSIVE
MOTION POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF.
THANK YOU.
>> BRODY?
>> THE DEFENSE SUBMITTED A
WRITTEN CLOSING ARGUMENT.
WE DID SUBMIT A PROPOSED
ORDER.
>> WERE YOU GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY?
>> WE WERE NOT SUBMIT A
PROPOSED ORDER UPON REASON
WE WOULD LOSE.
WE WOULD NOT DO THAT.
WE DID SUBMIT -- HE ASKED
FOR WRITTEN CLOSURE?
>> YOU HAVE BEEN RAISED AS A
SEPARATE GRANT FOR APPEAL OR
A POINT OF ERROR THAT THE --
>> OKAY.
I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING WRONG
NECESSARILY.
I SAID WHEN YOU ARE
CONSIDERING THE, THE, WHAT
THE CIRCUIT COURT BASED ITS
PLOSION ON THAT I THINK YOU
CAN CONSIDER THAT HE SIGNED
THE STATE'S ORDER WITHOUT
CHANGING IT.
>> DO WE HAVE A CASE THAT
SAYS IF WITH PROPER
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THAT
A TRIAL JUDGE ADOPTS THE
ORDER THAT THOSE CREDIBILITY
FINDINGS ARE ENTITLED.
>> NO, YOUR HONOR.
YOU KNOW?
I JUST THINK THE COURT HAS
INDICATED THAT IT PREFERRED
FOR THE COURT TO WRITE IS
OWN ORDERS IN GENERAL IN
THESE MATTERS.
THE SANCHEZ-VELASCO, THIS
CASE, OUR ARGUMENT BOILS
DOWN TO OMER WILLIAMSON, I
DO BELIEVE WHEN THE COURT
LOOKS AT, LOOKS AT ALL OF
HIS STATEMENTS AND THE
TESTIMONY OF THIS COURT IS
NOT GOING TO BE COMFORTABLE
RELYING UPON A DEATH
SENTENCE BASED VERY
IMPORTANTLY AND VERY
SUBSTANTIALLY UPON HIS
TESTIMONY, BAE ZAND THE
OTHER PEOPLE, THE OTHER
PRISONERS ARE VERY PER REF
RAL, VERY SMALL POTATOES
COMPARED TO OMER WILLIAMSON.
OMER WILLIAMSON WOULD SAY
ANYTHING TO HELP HIMSELF AND
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT DID HE
IN THE CASE.
YOU CAN'T TAKE ONE, ONE
THING HE SAYS AN BELIEVE IT,
AND ANOTHER THING AND NOT
BELIEVE IT.
>> GIVE ME, AGAIN, YOUR BEST
SHOT AS TO WHY BAE ZFROM WHO
WILLIAMSON REQUESTED THE
SHANK AND MADE THE STATEMENT
IS SMALL POTATOES?
>> THERE WERE A LOT --
>> FROM MY POINT OF VIEW,
THAT IS COMPELLING
TESTIMONY.
>> WELL, THERE WERE A LOT OF
WITNESSES LIKE THAT.
WE HAD A NUMBER OF
WITNESSES, TOO, EYEWITNESSES
TO THIS KILLING THAT STATED
WAS COMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE
KILLING.
THERE WERE THREE OF THOSE.
BAE ZDIDN'T WITNESS THE
KILLING.
THE STATE HAD NO
EYEWITNESSES TO THE THING OR
THAN OMER.
THERE WERE THREE WITNESSES
THAT SAID THIS WAS SELF
DEFENCE.
NOW HE MADE CONFLICTING
STATEMENTS IN HIS DEPOSITION
AS TO THESE THINGS IN THE
GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AT THE
EVIDENTIARY, KEY HAVE BEEN
IMPEACHED.
THERE WAS IAC CLAIM AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING OF
FAILURE TO IMPEACH HIM, BUT
HIS TESTIMONY WAS NOT, IS
NOT NEARLY, I BELIEVE, AS
YOUR HONOR ARE SAYS IT IS.
CERTAINLY AS TO THE DEATH
SENTENCE.
>> I GUESS WHAT I AM SAYING
THAT IS YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT OMER WILLIAMSON WHICH
A JURY EVEN AT THE ORIGINAL
TRIAL WOULD THINK AS A
MOTIVE TO PIN THIS ON JOHNNY
WILLIAMSON, SO I WOULD
ASSUME THAT DURING THE
ORIGINAL TRIAL, THAT THE
MOTIVES OF OMER WILLIAMSON,
TESTIFYING TO THIS PLAN WHEN
HE ALREADY HAS DEAL TO GET
WEISS WEISE, HE GIS GOING TO
BE LOOKED AT WITH A CRITICAL
EYE BY THE JURY.
>> SOMEWHAT, ALTHOUGH, I
THINK, IN THE CASE, EVERY
WITNESS WAS LOOKED LIKE THAT
FROM THE JURY.
EYE GUESS THAT WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN THERE IS A PRISON
MURDER.
>> THAT IS RIGHT.
WHY IT WOULD NOT BE A DEATH
PENALTY-TYPE CASE.
YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF THESE
BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY IS SO
UNRELIABLE.
IN THE CAVE, IT HAS GONE
FURTHER THAN JUST THE TRIAL
TESTIMONY, BUT OMER
WILLIAMSON FURTHER WENT
AHEAD AP FILED THE 3850,
WHICH I DON'T NOISE, WE CAN
ARGUE ABOUT THE
ADMISSIBILITY ABOUT IT.
I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE
ADMISSIBLE AND HAS MADE
CONTINUING CONFLICTING
STATEMENTS AND I THINK THAT
THIS COURT, THAT WITHOUT HIS
TESTIMONY YOU WOULD NOT HAVE
A CONVICTION BUT ABSOLUTELY,
WOULD YOU NOT HAVE A DEATH
SENTENCE WITHOUT HIS.
JOHNNY WILLIAMSON HAD NO
REASON FOR THIS KILLING AND
THE STATE ACKNOWLEDGED IN A
NOTE THAT ITS BIG PROBLEM ON
THE CASE WAS THERE WAS NO
MOTIVE.
DREW WAS DANGEROUS MAN.
THE RECORD WILL BEAR THIS
OUT.
THIS WAS NOT A QUIET GUY
HIMSELF.
HE WAS THE MAIN DRUG DEALER.
HE WAS THE ONE THAT JOHNNY
WILLIAMSON WORKED FOR.
HE SUPPLIED JOHNNY
WILLIAMSON WITH THE DRUGS
THAT HE SOLD.
JOHNNY WILLIAMSON WHO WAS
BASICALLY KILLING THE GUY
THAT GOT HIM THE MARIJUANA
THAT HE SOLD.
IN THE PRISON.
OMER WILLIAMSON OWED THIS
GOY A VERY DANGEROUS MAN,
OWED HIM DISPUTED AMOUNT OF
MONEY.
WILLIAMSON TRIED TO MEDIATE
A DEAL.
OMER WAS THE ONE THAT WAS
GOING TO BE KILLED IF THIS
WAS NOT TAKEN CARE OF.
SO THAT IS WHAT, THAT IS THE
ONLY, THAT IS WHAT THE
RECORD WHAT SHOW, THEN YOU
HAVE OMER COMING WIN HIS
STATEMENT OF THE SUPREME
MEDITATED PLAN, BUT THERE IS
STILL NO REASON, THERE IS NO
MOTIVE IN THE CASE AN I
JUST, I URGE THE COURT TO
SERIOUSLY LOOK AT OMER
WILLIAMSON IN HIS CASE AND
THE VARIOUS TESTIMONIES YOU
GIVE AND THE ARGUMENT AS
WELL AS WE COULD SET IT OUT
BUT WITHOUT HIM, CERTAINLY,
LIKE IN MILLS, YOU DON'T
HAVE IT, THIS IS NOT A DEATH
CASE.
>> MR. BROYD, THANK YOU,
WITH OUR ASSIST IN, HAVE
USED THE TIME.
THE COURT WILL TAKE THE
MORNING RECESS.
>> ALL RISE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IS
BACK IN SESSION.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
>>