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.
Christopher Offord v. State of Florida
SC05-1611
THE NEXT CASE ON OUR
CALENDAR THIS MORNING IS OFORD
vs. THE STATE.
MR. MARSHAL , ARE THE
LEGISLATIVE SPOUSES HERE
YET?
ARE THEY HERE?
THEY ARE HERE.
AND ALSO WE WOULD LIKE TO
WELCOME TO THE COURT THIS
MORNING LEGISLATIVE SPOUSE
WHOSE ARE VISITING WITH US.
WE WELCOME YOU TO THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
MISS RAVINIS FORD, MISS KING,
MISS POSEY, AND MISS BENNETT,
WE'RE GLAD YOU'RE HERE AND
WE THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING.
OKAY LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT
CASE.
-- YOU TOLD ME THEY WERE
HERE.
>> THANK YOU YOUR HONOR.
NADA CAREY REPRESENTING
MR. OFFORD.
HE WAS CONVICTED
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER OF TAINA
NOSER.
HE PLED GUILT IN THE CASE.
THERE'S A PENALTY PHASE
PROCEEDING.
OUR ONLY ISSUE THAT WE RAISE
IS THE PROPORTION TPHALITY
OF THE DEATH SENTENCE.
>> LET ME ASK IF YOU AT THE
OUTSET AS YOU SAY THERE'S
ONLY ONE ISSUE.
WE'RE NOT STRAYING FROM
ISSUE TO ISSUE.
ONE OF THE POINTS THAT YOU
MAKE IN YOUR BRIEF IS THAT
THE TRIAL COURT DID FIND THE
STATUTORY MITIGATION
INVOLVED WITH THE MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES.
AND YOU RELY ON THAT HEAVILY
IN TERMS OF ARGUING ABOUT
EXTENSIVE MITIGATION WITH
REFERENCE TO AN ANALYSIS OF
THE MOST AGGRAVATED, YOU
KNOW AT LEAST MITIGATED KIND
OF ANALYSIS AND PROPORTIONALITY
REVIEW.
BUT IT STREAKS ME THAT IN
THE SENTENCING ORDER HERE,
ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL JUDGE DID
FIND THAT MITIGATION THAT
THE TRIAL COURT THEN ENDED
UP REALLY GIVING THAT RATHER
RESTRICTED WEIGHT BECAUSE OF
ITS FINDING THAT SHE REALLY
COULDN'T CONCLUDE THAT THE
MENTAL HEALTH MITIGATION HAD
MUCH RELEVANCY TO THE
COMMISSION OF THIS CRIME,
THAT IS THAT TERMS OF
LOOKING AT THE MENTAL HEALTH
HISTORY AND THEN LOOKING AT
THE DEFENDANT STATEMENTS AND
ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME THAT
INCLUDING STATEMENTS
THAT -- WELL I'VE BEEN ABLE
TO FOOL THE MENTAL HEALTH
EXPERTS.
SO I'M CONCERNED THAT YOU
DON'T ADDRESS THAT HEAD ON,
THAT IS THAT I'M ASKING YOU
TO DO IT NOW.
THAT IS THAT, YES IT'S TRUE
THAT THE JUDGE MADE THOSE
FINDING WITH REFERENCE TO
MITIGATION.
BUT THEN THE JUDGE SAID, BUT
I'VE REALLY -- HASN'T BEEN
DEMONSTRATED TO ME THAT
THESE MENTAL HEALTH
CONDITIONS REALLY DO
MITIGATE IN THIS PARTICULAR
INSTANCE.
SO HELP ME WITH THAT.
AND THEN HELPING ME WITH IT
WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR AND I
DON'T SEE HERE WITH ANY
CITATIONS TO THE EXPERT'S
TESTIMONY TYING TOGETHER THE
SCHIZOPHRENIC OR THE OTHER
DIAGNOSES THAT GO WAY BACK
OF SORT OF SAYING
ENVISIONING WITH CONDITIONS
LIKE THIS DEFENDANT HAS AN
EPISODE LIKE THIS IS
EXPLAINED.
BECAUSE OF THE DISEASE.
I DON'T SEE THAT IN
THE -- AT LEAST POINTED OUT
IN THE BRIEF.
SO HELP ME.
OKAY.
I CERTAINLY WILL, YOUR
HONOR.
I THINK THAT I READ THE
SENTENCING ORDER A LITTLE
BIT DIFFERENT THAN YOU DO.
THE JUDGE APPARENTLY DID
MAKE A NOTE OF SOME OF THE
DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS WHICH
I WOULD POINT OUT WHERE
THINGS HE SAID AT THE
SPENCER HEARING.
HE DID MAKE A NOTE OF THOSE
THINGS BUT NONETHELESS SHE
FOUND BOTH OF THE MENTAL
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
EXTREME EMOTIONAL
DISTURBANCE AT THE TIME OF
THE CRIME, WHICH IS JUST
SHORT OF INSANITY.
AND THAT HE IS CAPACITY TO
APPRECIATE THE CONDUCT TO
THE LAW AT THE TIME OF THE
MURDER WAS SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPAIRED.
SHE FOUND BOTH OF THE MENTAL
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
EXTREME.
PLUS SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT.
>> BUT I WANT TO JUST
FOLLOW-UP ON WHAT JUSTICE
ANSTEAD STATED.
AND ARRIVE READ THE
SENTENCING ORDER AND THE
TESTIMONY.
THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE CASE.
I APPRECIATE THE COURT
FOCUSED ON WHAT THE CRITICAL
ISSUE.
YOU'VE GOT A SITUATION
THAT'S UNCONROVERTED FROM
THE TIME HE WAS FIVE OR SIX
YEARS OLD.
AND SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS.
DIAGNOSEABLE THAT WILL
CONTINUE THROUGH OUT HIS
ADULT LIFE.
HE WAS IN AND OUT OF MENTAL
AND CRIMINAL INSTITUTIONS.
SO WHAT IS MISSING IN ORDER
TO MAKE THIS ALMOST LIKE A
SLAM DUNK AS FAR AS
PERSONALITY IS THAT THE
EXPERT THEY ENCAN'TED THIS
HISTORY, BUT THEY THEMSELVES
DIDN'T EXPLAIN HOW THIS
HORRENDOUS CRIME WHERE HE
TOLD HIS WIFE THAT WAS THE
PRODUCT OF HIS MENTAL
ILLNESS.
ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH YOU
THAT THE JUDGE FOUND THESE
IN TERMS OF -- BUT THEN SHE
ALSO FOUND THAT THIS ONING A
GRAY SRAEUTOR OUTWEIGHTED --
THISING A GRAY SRAEUTOR
OUTRIGHTED WHAT CAN YOU
POINT TO IN THE RECORD THAT
TIES IT TOGETHER AND MAYBE
BY SAYING THIS WE'RE
HERE -- WILL SAY POST
CONVICTION RELIEF --
[INAUDIBLE]
>> TIE IT TOGETHER.
THEY CAN PROBABLY TIE IT
TOGETHER.
IS I TIED TO ERGT -- TOGETHER
BY ANYBODY.
>> IT'S NOT.
IN SHORT, THERE REALLY
WASN'T A PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT
TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE AT
THE PENALTY PHASE.
THE TWO EXPERTS ONE OF THEM
WAS A PSYCHOLOGIST AND SHE
ONLY SUMMARIZED THE
DOCUMENTED MENTAL HEALTH
HISTORY.
THERE WAS NO EXPERT WHO
DESCRIBED THE MENTAL
ILLNESSES OR INFORMED THE
JURY OF EXACTLY HOW THEY
RELATED TO THE CRIME.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT.
THERE'S A STACK OF RECORDS
THIS BIG ALSO DOCUMENTING --
>> THEY ARE NOT IN EVIDENCE
WHICH -- THIS COURT JUST FOR
THIS FUTURE FOR EVERYONE
WE -- THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT
THAN WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT
AFTER THE FACT DIAGNOSING
MENTAL ILLNESS AND THERE'S
NO RECORD.
HERE YOU HAVE A LIFE HISTORY
OF IT.
I REALIZE YOU'RE THE
APPELLANT LAWYER AND WE
CAN'T CORRECT THAT.
IS BUT SO YOU ARE BEING
CANDID ABOUT THE FACT THAT
NO IT'S NOT LINKED UP.
SO REALLY THE SENTENCING
JUDGE WAS ALMOST GENEROUS IN
FINDING THE STATUTORY
MITIGATORS.
>> DESPITE THE FACT THAT
THERE WAS NO EXPERT, I THINK
THE EVIDENCE WAS NONETHELESS
VERY COMPELLING.
MR. OFFORD COMES TO FLORIDA.
HE HAS THIS LONG HISTORY.
HE IS ADMITTED TO
PSYCHIATRIC WARD IN PANAMA
CITY FOUR TIMES BEFORE HE
COMMITS THIS CRIME DURING A
PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS.
THE LAST TIME WAS THREE
WEEKS BEFORE HE COMMITTED
THE CRIME.
HE HAS GOT DIAGNOSE CEASE
SINCE THE AGE OF 6, REALLY
OF SCHIZOPHRENIA.
A DISORDER WHICH IS A MENTAL
ILLNESS.
REALITY -- LACK OF REAOLITY
BASE MENTAL ILLNESS.
BIPOLAR WHICH IS SEVERE MOOD
DISORDER AND VARIOUS
PERSONALITY DISORDERS THAT
LAST -- HIS LAST ADMISSION
TO THE HOSPITAL THREE WEEKS
BEFORE THE CRIME HE TOLD THE
PEOPLE AT THE HOSPITAL HE
WAS HAVING HOMICIDAL
IDATION.
HE HAD HISTORY OF AWEDTORY
HALLUCINATION AND
SUICIDAL --
>> THE TROUBLE WE'RE HAVING
WITH THIS THAT YOU'RE MAKING
THE CASE FOR THAT.
IN MUCH A WAY WE SEE RECORDS
FOR MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS DO
EXACTLY THAT.
BUT I'M READING THE
SENTENCING ORDER.
AND THE TRIAL COURT REJECTS
THAT.
THE TRIAL COURT IN THE FIRST
MENTAL HEALTH MIT GOTOR AND
I -- HIT GATER AND I LET
STATE BUT SAID A CAREFUL
REVIEW OF THE MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT SHOWS THAT THE
PSYCHIATRIC WHO TREATED HIM
IN A FOUR-MONTH PERIOD
BEFORE THE MURDER STATED
THAT HIS DIAGNOSIS OF
SCHIZOPHRENIA WAS BY HISTORY
ONLY.
AND AOEPL SEEMED TO SUGGEST
THIS PRIMARY -- AND SEEMED
TO SUGGEST THAT HIS PRIMARY
PROBLEM WAS SUBSTANCE ABUSE.
THE DEFENDANT DID THE STAFF
THAT HE WANTED TO
HIS -- KILL HIS WIFE AND HE
WAS TIRED OF HER CONTACTING
HIM AT THE TIME OF THE
OFFENSE HE WAS NOT UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR
DRUGS.
HE HAD WORKED ALL DAY.
AND ONLY DRANK TWO OR THREE
BEERS AT A BAR.
BOTH HE AND HIS WIFE WERE IN
GOOD MOODS.
AND THERE WAS NO PARTICULAR
TRIGGER TO EXPLAIN HIS
SUDDEN URGE TO KILL HER.
NOR HIS EXCESSIVE BRUTALITY
IN CARRYING OUT THE ACT.
THEREFORE, THIS FACTOR IS
GIVEN ONLY SOME WEIGHT.
AND THEN THE JUDGE IN THE
SECOND MENTAL MITIGATOR
ESSENTIALLY DOES THE SAME
THING AND CONCLUDES THAT WZ
THE STPHEPBS THE DEFENDANT
ALSO STATED THAT HE DIDN'T
THINK HE WAS CRAZY AT ALL.
THE COURT THEREFORE GRANTS
MODERATE WEIGHT TO THIS
FACTOR.
IN OTHER WORDS THE COURT THE
WAY I READ THIS THE COURT IS
REJECTING THE VERY ARGUMENT
THAT YOU IN A VERY
PERSUASIVE WAY YOU KNOW ARE
ATTEMPTING TO MAKE BUT THE
PROBLEM IS WE HAVE NO EXPERT
WITNESS THAT SAYS HIS DENIAL,
FOR INSTANCE OF BEING CRAZY
OR ALL THIS OTHER THINGS ARE
CLASSIC SYMPTOMS OR WHATEVER
OF THIS.
SO WHERE WOULD WE LOOK IN
ORDER TO SAY THE TRIAL COURT
IS WRONG IN REALLY GIVING
VERY SLIGHT WEIGHT TO THESE
MITIGATORS.
I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK THE
SAME PLACE I LOOKED.
FIRST OF ALL BY HISTORY ONLY,
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE TRIAL
JUDGE MEANS BY THAT.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT
THE TRIAL JUDGE MEANS.
IT SAYS THAT THE PATIENT IS
NOT DEMONSTRATING ANY OF
THIS AND THAT THE DOCTOR IS
ONLY FINDING IT BECAUSE IT'S
A HISTORY.
>> OKAY.
I AGREE AN EXPERT WOULD HAVE
BEEN NICE.
HOWEVER, I THINK THE HISTORY
IS COMPELLING AND PERHAPS
THAT'S WHY THE DEFENSE
LAWYER CHOSE TO PUT THE
HISTORY ON.
THIS KID WAS IN MENTAL
INSTITUTIONS WHEN HE WAS 6
YEARS OLD.
WHEN DID HE START LINGERING
WHEN DID HE START FAKING HIS
ILL 6?
9?
13?
WHEN HE HEARD VOICES AT 17?
THIS IS DOCUMENTED.
THIS IS DOCUMENTED BY JILL
RAWLIN AND HER LIST.
IT'S ALL IN THERE.
WE HAVE A SUMMARY OF IT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE PRECISE
SEMI -- TESTIMONY TO EXPLAIN
IT.
I THINK THE HISTORY OF THE
MENTAL ILLNESS IS COMPELLING
ENOUGH AND.
>> AND IT IS COMPELLING
THIS -- THIS IS A A TOUGH
DIFFICULT CASE.
WHATEVER REASON THE
DEFENDANT TOOK THE STAND ON
BEHALF IN THE SPENCER
HEARING BASICALLY TO DO
HIMSELF IN.
I MIGHT SAY THAT USUALLY WE
HAVE DEFENDANT THAT ARE
TRYING TO SAY THEY ARE
MENTALLY ILL AND HE'S NOT.
HE TAKES THE STAND AND SAYS,
I'M NOT MENTALLY ILL.
I'VE BEEN FAKING.
-- I'VE BEEN FAKING IT FOR
ALL THESE YEARS.
I FIND THAT PROBABLY TO BE A
QUESTIONABLE VALIDITY BUT
THE JUDGE WHO WAS THERE
ACCEPTS THOSE WORD, WHICH
IS -- I TOLD THE POLICE --
[INAUDIBLE]
THAT WASN'T TRUE.
I'M TELLING YOU I DIDN'T
HAVE.
>> HOW DO WE GET AROUND
THOSE CREDIBILITY
DETERMINATIONS ABOUT I THINK
THAT WITHOUT THOSE DEFENDANT
TAKING THE STAND IT WOULD
BE -- ONCE THE
DEFENDANT -- TOOK -- NOT THE
STAND, TOOK THE STAND BUT IN
THE SPENCER HERE -- HEARING,
HOW DOES THE JUDGE IGNORE
AND MAKE A DECISION THAT HE
SAYS REALLY THIS IS WHAT HE
SAYS.
WHAT HE DID WAS THE PRODUCT
OF EXACTLY A PRODUCT OF DID.
>> HE DIDN'T DENY HAVING
AWEDTORY HALLUCINATION.
HE SIMPLY DIDN'T MENTION
THEM.
HE WAS ASKED SPECIFICALLY.
HE BASICALLY ANSWERED THE
QUESTIONS THAT HE WAS ASKED.
HE SAID HE WANTED TO DIE, I
THINK THREE TIMES, THAT HE
DESERVED TO DIE.
I THINK HE WANTS THE DEATH
PENALTY AND A -- I AGREE
WITH YOU.
YOU HAVE THIS HISTORY FROM
AGE 6.
HE'S BASICALLY BEEN
INSTITUTIONALIZED IN AND OUT
OF MENTAL HOSPITALS HIS
WHOLE LIFE.
HE SAID TO THE UPBL SKWR,
NO, I'M NOT CRAZY AT ALL.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S OF
ANY HAVE A I WILL I KWREUD.
>> YOU DON'T THINK SO BUT
THE JUDGE BOUGHT THAT.
AND WE'RE HERE IN TERMS OF
THE WEIGHT THAT THE JUDGE
GIVES TO THE STATUTORY
MITIGATORS FOR VIEWING THOSE
FINDING BASED ON COMPETENCE
OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
HOW TO WE -- HOW DO WE SAY,
NO THE JUDGE WAS WRONG WHEN
SHE SAID THAT HE -- WHATEVER
IT WAS.
HOW DO WE SECOND GUESS THOSE
FINDING?
I'M ASKING YOU THAT.
JUST IN TERMS OF OUR
CASELOAD.
I WOULD SAY THE JUDGE DID
FIND HE WAS UNDER EXTREME
DISTURBANCE AT THE TIME.
SHE REJECTED CCC FOR THE
SAME REASON, BY THE STATE
ARGUED SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED.
SHE REJECTED THAT FOR THE
SAME REASON.
AND SHE FOUND IMPAIRED
CAPACITY.
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED
CAPACITY.
SO YOU KNOW I THINK YOU HAVE
TO LOOK AT THOSE.
WHEN YOU COMPARE WITH CASE
WITH OTHER CASES.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME THE WHOLE
ARGUMENT HERE HAS BEEN
REALLY NOT FOCUSED ON
PROPORTION TPHALITY.
BECAUSE IN A PROPORTIONALITY
WE REALLY HAVE TO ACCEPT
WHAT THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND.
THEN LOOK AT HOW IT IS
PROPORTIONATE.
TO THE OTHER CASES.
DON'T WE?
HOW -- IT SEEMS TO ME THIS
ARGUMENT GOES TO THE BACK
DOOR THAT TRIES TO SET ASIDE
WHAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID AS
OPPOSED TO -- AND I THOUGHT
THAT THE WHOLE ISSUE THAT
YOU RAISED WAS THE
PROPORTION TPHALITY.
THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THE
MENTAL MITIGATOR.
IN OTHER CASES WHERE THEY
WERE FOUND I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER THEY WERE SOME
WEIGHT.
MODERATE WAIT.
SHE DIDN'T GIVE THEM LITTLE
WEIGHT OR VERY LITTLE
WEIGHT.
SHE GAVE THEM SOME WEIGHT
AND MODERATE WEIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE
WORDS MEAN.
I DON'T KNOW A JUDGE HAS
GIVEN A MENTAL MITIGATOR
GREAT WEIGHT.
>> WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO
BE THE STATE'S -- THE
HARDEST CASE FOR YOU TO
OVERCOM AS FAR AS
PROPORTIONALITY.
>> I FRANK I WILL DON'T
THINK THERE'S A SINGLE CASE
THAT'S EVEN CLOSE TO THIS
ONE IN THE STATE CITED THREE
OTHER CASES BLACKWOOD,
BUTLER AND ARDONO THAT WERE
SINGLE AGGRAVATOR CASES
WHERE THE SINGLE AGGRAVATOR
WAS HHC.
THOSE ARE THE CLOSEST.
BUT IN THOSE CASES THERE
WASN'T ANY AMOUNT OF
MITIGATION LIKE YOU HAVE
HERE.
THERE WAS NO LONG DOCUMENTED
HISTORY OF SEVERE MENTAL
ILLNESS, NONE OF THE MENTAL
MITIGATORS WERE FOUND IN
THOSE CASES.
EXCEPT CARDONA IN THAT CASE
THE CASE FOUND BOTH OF THE
MEANT MITIGATOR.
THE DEFENDANT'S COCAINE USE.
THAT WAS THE CASE YOU DON'T
RECALL.
>> THE CHILD WHO WAS
TORTURED AND ABUSED.
I THINK WAS THE PRIMARY
REASON IN MY READING OF THE
CASE THAT THE COURT AFFIRMED
THE DEATH SENTENCE IN THAT
CASE.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE
CASES WHERE THERE'S ONE
AGGRAVATOR ANDING A GRATE
SURVEYOR IS HHC.
ON -- ON THE OTHER HAND
THERE'S A LONG LIST OF CASES
ROBERTSON, KRAMER, SEGERT
WHERE THERE'S HHC AND SOME
OTHER AGGRAVATEORS IN SOME
OF THOSE CASES AND THERE'S
MITIGATION WHERE THE COURT
HAS REDUCED THE SENTENCE TO
LIFE.
I THINK THIS CASE FALLS
SQUARELY INTO THAT ONE.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE
DIDN'T HAVE AN EXPERT
TESTIFY.
>> IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT
THE COURT FINDS BOTH
STATUTORY MENTAL HEALTH
MITIGATEORS AND THERE'S ONLY
ONE AGGRAVATOR THAT
ESSENTIALLY HAS A MATTER OF
LAW.
THAT'S NO PROPORTIONAL.
>> NO.
NO.
I THINK IT'S THE TOTALITY OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT
THE WHOLE -- ALL OF THE
MITIGATION AND I THINK
YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK TT -- AT
THE AGGRAVATION IN TERMS OF
THE FACTS HERE IN THE JUDGE
SAID THERE'S NO EXPLANATION
FOR THIS CRIME.
THE EXPLANATION IS, GOSH
WHEN IT'S A PSYCHOTIC RAGE
YOU WALK IN THE KITCHEN IT'S
LIKE I NEED TO KILL HER.
THE VOICES TOLD HIM OR THE
IDEA WAS PLANTED IN HIS HEAD
AND HE COULDN'T RESIST IT
AND HE JUST DID IT.
HE SAID HIMSELF HE -- THEY
THAT GREAT EVENING THEN ALL
OF A SUDDEN.
>> IN THE LONG HISTORY
THEY -- IS THERE ANY HISTORY
IN THE LONG RECORD OF
REACTING OUT THAT WAY BY
EMPLOYMENT, INSTITUTIONS HE
WAS IN OR OTHERWISE.
THAT SHOWED HE WOULD BREAK
AND BACK OUT VIOLENTLY?
>> THERE'S NOTHING -- I'M
TRYING TO REMEMBER EXACTLY
WHEN HE WAS SIX YEARS OLD HE
WENT AFTER HIS MOTHER WITH A
BUTCHER KNIFE.
>> RIGHT.
I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING IN
THERE ABOUT HIM STARTING A
FIRE WHEN HE WAS NINE OR
TEN.
THERE'S NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF
VIOLENCE THAT I CAN RECALL.
HOWEVER HE -- YOU HAVE TO
RECALL HE'S BIN -- BEEN
INSTITUTIONALIZED MOST OF
HIS CHILDHOOD AND HIS
TEENAGER YEARS.
LET ME GO BACK TO THE
QUESTION THAT JUSTICE CAN
STAIR -- CANTERO ASKED.
WHAT HE ASKED YOU
WAS -- DOES IT LOOK BASED ON
ALL OF OUR CASE LAW THAT
WHEN THERE'S ONLY ONE
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE AND
THERE ARE STATUTORY
MITIGATION, THAT THE DEATH
PENALTY IS AS A MATTER OF
LAW DISPROPORTIONATE BASED
ON ALL OF OUR CASES.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT
AS -- FOR YOUR POINT OF VIEW
IF WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS HAC,
WHICH DONE IN A PARTICULARLY
HEINOUS WAY, BUT IF THIS
JUDGE HAS FOUND ESPECIALLY
THE MENTAL MITIGATOR
STATUTORY, THAT THEY WERE
PLAYING A PART AT THE TIME
OF THE DEFENSE AND IT IS A
DISPROPORTIONATE --
[INAUDIBLE]
MITIGATION OUTWEIGHS THING A
GRAY SRAEUGS BASED ON ALL OF
THE CASES.
TELL ME, OTHERWISE, IN TERMS
OF TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT,
YOU SAY WELL ON A
CASE-BY-CASE BASIS WE JUST
THINK THIS ONE SHOULDN'T
HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY AND
THAT FOES BACK TO WHAT
SKWREUFT BELL SAID OTHERWISE
WE'RE ENGAGING IN THIS
REWEIGHING OF SOLIDITY OF
THE MENTAL HEALTH STATUTORY
MITIGATOR.
I THINK THAT'S WORTHY TO
ASK.
JUST PARIENTE IF THERE'S
ONING A GRAY SRAEUTOR AND
THEY ARE BOTH
MENTALMENT -- MENTAL MILL
GATOR IS THAT
DISPROPORTIONATE AS A MATTER
OF LAW.
I WOULDN'T ARGUE AS A MATTER
OF LAW.
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT
OTHER CASES THAT WILL COME
UP.
BUT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH
THE CASE LAW UP UNTIL THIS
POINT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CASE
WHERE THERE'S ONE
AGGRAVATEOR WHERE THE COURT
AFFIRMED THE DEATH SENTENCE.
TYPICALLY THERE'S OTHER
MITIGATION IN ADDITION TO
THE MENTAL MIT TKPAEUTOR.
WHAT THE COURT HAS SAID
REPEATEDLY IF THERE'S ONLY
ONE AGGRAVATEOR, DEATH IS
NOT APPROPRIATE UNLESS
THERE'S LITTLE OR NO
MITIGATION.
I THINK THERE'S A LONG
OF -- LINE OF CASES WHERE
THE COURT SAID.
I THINK ALMEDA WAS THE LAST
CASE.
>> IS THAT -- I'M LOOKING AT
NEITHER -- NEIBERT SAYING
THIS INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL
MITIGATION WE HELD
SUBSTANTIAL MIT TPWAEUGS MAY
MAKE THE PENALTY -- DEATH
PENALTY INAPPROPRIATE EVEN
WHEN THE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN
PROVED.
IS THAT THE BEST STATEMENT
THAT YOU WOULD BE RELYING
ON?
>> I THINK THE BEST
STATEMENT IN ALMEDA AND I
DON'T REMEMBER PRECISELY
WHAT IT IS.
I THINK IT'S MORE ALONG THE
LINES OF IF DEATH PENALTY IS
IN -- INAPPROPRIATE WHEN
THERE'S ONLY ONE AGGRAVATOR
UNLESS THERE'S LITTLE OR
NOTHING IN MITIGATION.
>> MAYBE THERE WILL BE
ANOTHER --
>> YOU JUST SAID SOMETHING.
AND I NEED TO GO BACK TO IT.
I'M NOT SURE IT'S
SIGNIFICANT OR NOT.
THAT THIS JUDGE DID NOT
INSTRUCT THE JURY OR CCP
BECAUSE OF HER FINDING OR
BECAUSE OF THE TESTIMONY OF
THE MENTALLY ILL
INDIVIDUALS.
WELL, BASED ON --
>> WHERE IS THAT?
IN -- IS THAT IN THE
COLLOQUY?
>> IT'S IN THE CHARGE
CONFERENCE RIGHT BEFORE THE
JURY WAS INSTRUCTED.
AND SHE FOUND THAT BASED ON
HIS EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE AT
THE TIME SHE COMMITTED THE
I'M.
SHE SAID THIS IS NOT COLD.
THIS IS A CRIME OF RAGE.
HE WAS OBVIOUSLY EMOTIONALLY
DISTURB AT THE TIME.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING
WHY THAT HASN'T BEEN ARGUED.
WHAT HAPPENS BETWEEN THAT
AND SHE TESTIFIES THE
SPENCER HERE -- HEARING
SEEMS LIKE MAYBE SHE HAD A
DIFFERENT VIEW OF THAT
NATURE.
>> WILT, I DON'T MEAN TO
BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT -- I DON'T READ TORDER
THAT WAY.
SHE IS PUTTING IN WHAT SHE
HEARD ON BOTH SIDES OF AND
SHE COMES DOWN ON FINDING
THE MIT GOT GATORS EXISTED.
OMIT GATORS EXISTED.
AGAIN, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT
THE CASE LAW, THERE IS NO
CASE THAT IS SIMILAR TO ONE
WHERE THE COURT COURT HAS
AFFIRMED THE DEATH SENTENCE.
THIS WOULD BE AN EXCEPTIONAL
CASE IF THE DEATH PENALTY
WERE INFORMED HERE.
>> IF THERE'S NO MORE
QUESTION I WILL SAVE MY TIME
FOR REBUTTAL.
>> MR. LATHAN.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
I WANT TO TOUCH UPON
IS -- I'M SORRY RONALD
NATHA -- LATHAN FOR THE
STATE OF FLORIDA.
I WANT ON THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD.
THERE IS -- WE'RE REVEALING
WITH SOMEWHAT MISS ROWAN
PROVIDED THE VARIOUS
HOSPITALIZATIONS.
THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF
RECORDS AND SOME NOTATIONS
FROM THE DOCTORS WHO
EVALUATED HIM PRIOR TO THIS
CRIME WHEN HE WAS LIVING IN
FLORIDA AND MARCH AND IN
APRIL THERE WAS A DOCTOR
GORMAN AND DR. BILLINGSLY.
THEY MADE THE POINT HE WAS
PARANOID BIT HISTORY.
THE MAIN POINT THEY SAID WAS
A PROBLEM SEEMED TO BE HIS
PROBLEM WITH SUBSTANCE
ABUSE.
AND MORE SPECIFICALLY --
>> WHAT REALLY DOES THAT
REALLY MEAN, THAT IF YOU
PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC BY
HISTORY.
DOES THAT MEAN THEY READ HIS
RECORD AND HIS RECORDS SAY
THAT AND THEY DIDN'T PERFORM
ANY KIND OF TEST TO VERIFY
THIS OR THAT THEY PERFORMED
TEST AND DID NOT VERIFY
THIS?
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT
THAT KIND OF NOTATION IS
SUPPOSED TO MEAN TO US.
>> RIGHT.
THE SENSE I GET FROM THE
RECORD AND THERE'S NOT
ADMITTEDLY THERE'S NOT A LOT
FROM SAY DR. GORMAN.
WE'RE RELYING ON THE NOTES
PROVIDED BY MISS ROWAN.
THE SENSE WE GET IS THAT HE
HAS HAD THIS HISTORY OF
MENTAL PROBLEMS BUT THIS HAS
TO BE QUALIFIED BY A LOT OF
HIS STATEMENT, STATEMENTS HE
MADE LATER IN THE SPENCER
HEARING WHERE ANY A LOT OF
THE HOPIZATION --
>> COULD WE MAKE SURE WE
UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS RECORD
DOES REFLECT.
THE PICTURE HAS BEEN PAINTED
AND PLEASE CORRECT IF IT IS
WRONG.
THE PICTURE HAS BEEN PAINTED
AND I THINK WHAT THEY ARE
TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS IS
NOT JUST SOME TYPE OF ANGER
REACTION THAT'S EMOTIONAL IN
NATURE.
BUT THIS IS A
LONGSTANDING -- GOES BACK TO
WHEN THIS PERSON WAS A CHILD.
IS IT IN THE RECORD THAT
WHILE IN TEXAS THAT HE TRIED
TO USE A BUT -- BUCHER KNIFE
ON HIS FAMILY MEMBERS
STARTED FIRES AND WAS
INSTITUTIONALIZED FOR THE
MOST PART OF HIS WIFE
BECAUSE OF THIS
SCHIZOPHRENIC CONDITION.
IS THAT IN THIS RECORD?
>> IN THIS RECORD, WE DO
HAVE MR. OFFORD HAS A LONG
HISTORY OF MENTAL PROBLEMS.
>> THIS IS REALLY A SICK
PERSON FROM WHAT THE RECORDS
SEEM TO SAY.
>> HE'S A TROUBLED -- VERY
TROUBLED INDIVIDUAL.
IN THIS RECORD THERE'S
RECORDS FROM HIS CHILDHOOD.
>> THAT'S IN HERE.
DID IT CONTINUE UP UNTIL THE
TIME HE LEFT TEXAS ONLY A
FEW MONTHS BEFORE THIS CRIME?
>> THE RECORD MAY NOT BE
GREAT.
THERE IS SUGGESTION STAY HE
DID HAVE, AGAIN, THERE'S
ISSUE RELATED TO MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUE RELATED TO SOME
PREVIOUS HISTORY OF PERHAPS
SCHIZOPHRENIA.
>> WHY TO YOU SAY PERHAPS
BECAUSE THIS APPEARS TO BE
YOU KNOW UNFORTUNATELY WE
SEE A LOT OF CASES LIKE THIS
IN RECORDS.
THIS APPEARS TO BE, PERHAPS
THE MOST WELL DOCUMENTED AND
SUBSTANTIALIATED HISTORY OF
MENTAL HEALTH ILLNESS DATED
ALL -- ALL THE WAY BACK TO
WHEN THIS CHILD WAS BORN.
VIRTUALLY, THAT WE HAVE
SEEN.
IN A DEATH PENALTY KA -- CASE.
THAT IS THAT UNCONTRADICTED
RECORDS.
OF HIM BEING DIAGNOSED WITH
THE SCHIZOPHRENIC AND OTHER
ISSUES TIME AFTER TIME AFTER
TIME AND AS JUSTICE LEWIS
SAYS HE'S ACTUALLY BEEN
INSTITUTIONALIZED FOR THESE
DISEASES FOR MORE OF HIS
LIFE THAN HE HAS BEEN OUT OF
THE INSTITUTIONS.
LET ME ASK YOU THE QUESTION.
OUR CASES HAVE SAID AND
PROPORTION TPHALITY REVIEW
WE REVIEW AND WE LOOK TO SEE
WHETHER THE CASE FALLS IN
THE CATEGORY OF THE MOST
AGGRAVATED AND LEAST
MITIGATED.
ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S A PHRASE WE USE.
TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME.
GRANTED THAT THE FINDING OF
THE AGGRAVATION OF HEINOUS
ATROCIOUS AND CRUEL, BECAUSE
THIS WAS A HORRIBLE
INFLICKION OF DEATH ON THIS
VICTIM.
THAT, THAT PART OF THE
EQUATION IS THERE WITH THIS
DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF THIS
DISEASE AND THE FINDING OF
THE TRIAL COURT OF THE TWO
STATUTORY MENTAL HEALTH
MITIGATORS AND THE FINDING
OF THE NONSTATUTORY
MITIGATION THAT ALL GOES TO
THE CHILDHOOD AND THE SAME
KINDS OF ISSUES, HOW COULD
WE POSSIBLY CONCLUDE THAT
THIS IS ONE OF THE LEAST
MITIGATED WHEN WE HAVE FOUND
IN CASES WHERE THERE REALLY
IS CERTAINLY MUCH LESS
MITIGATION THAN THIS THAT
THEY ARE NOT AT LEAST
MITIGATED.
HOW COULD WE CLASSIFY THIS
WITH THIS DOCUMENTED HISTORY,
THIS UNDISPUTED HISTORY HERE
AS LEAST MITIGATED?
I THINK WITH HAVE TO START
FIRST WITH THIS RECORD.
WE HAVE TO START WITH
MR. OFFORD'S OWN WORDS.
WE HAVE TO FROM HIS OWN
STATEMENT AND HE SAID A LOT
OF TIMES A LOT OF MY
HOSPITALIZATION WHETHER IN
TEXAS OR WHAT HAVE YOU WOULD
BE SOMETIME I NEEDED A ROOF
OVER MY HEAD.
SOMETIMES I FELT I WAS
CONSUMING WAY TOO MUCH
ALCOHOL.
I WAS GETTING SOCIAL
SECURITY BENEFIT AND USING
THE MAJORITY OF MY MONEY ON
ALCOHOL SO I FELT THE NEED
TO SOMETIMES I WOULD HAVE TO
INSTITUTIONALIZE MY OWN SELF
SOMETIMES I NEEDED A PLACE
TO STAY.
AREN'T THOSE MORE CONSISTENT
WITH THE DIAGNOSIS THAT HAS
BEEN MADE TIME AFTER TIME
AFTER TIME OF HIS MENTAL
HEALTH DISEASE THAN THEY ARE
OF ANY SANE PERSON YOU KNOW
THAT -- THAT WOULD
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE'S HAD
SOME SERIOUS ISSUES.
AREN'T THOSE EXPLAINED BY
THAT.
>> WOULD RESPOND ONLY TO SAY,
THAT THERE WAS NO DOCTOR
EVALUATED HIM WHILE HE WAS
LIVING -- WHILE ANY OF HIS
WHEN HE WAS ADMITTED IN
FEBRUARY, MATCH, APRIL AND
JULY.
NO DOCTOR WAS CALLED TO
TESTIFY DURING THE PENALTY
PHASE HEARING.
MOOVER DR. EDWARD TKPEUBSON.
>> WERE THE RECORDS
SUBMITTED THERE IN PANAMA
CITY?
>> WHAT WE HAVE FROM THE
PRIOR -- THE JULY, APRIL,
MARCH, FEBRUARY, WE HAVE THE
NOTES FROM THEM.
BUT WE HAVE IN THE POST
CRIME WE HAVE IN THE RECORD
I BELIEVE IT'S RECORDS OF 90,
92ND94 WE HAVE A DR. GIBSON
WHO EVALUATED HIM I GUESS IN
BAY COUNTY JAIL ANNEX AND
MADE THE POINT I SUSPECT
HE'S MELINGERING.
HE WAS GIVEN HADEROL.
THERE WAS PSYCHOTIC
THINKING.
THERE WAS SOME -- HE TOLD
THE DOCTOR I FEEL THERE'S NO
IMPROVEMENT WHATSOEVER.
THEN THE NOTES IN THE THREE
SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN AUGUST,
IN SEPTEMBER AND AGAIN IN
OCTOBER.
>> HAVEN'T WE SAID MENTAL
HEALTH MIT ESPECIALLY
STATUTORY MENTAL HEALTH
MITIGATION IS REALLY THE
MOST IMPORTANT CONCEPT OF
MITIGATION, THAT REALLY
SHOULD BE VIEWED AS
SUBSTANTIAL MIT TPAEUGS.
HAVEN'T WE SAID THAT IN CASE
AFTER CASE?
>> WE HAVE -- THERE'S BEEN
RECOGNITION THAT MENTAL
MITIGATION EVIDENCE
PRESENTATION -- MENTAL
MITIGATION EVIDENCE IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
AND WE ALSO HAVE -- WE WERE
AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HEAR EVERYTHING FROM
MR. OFFORD DEALING WITH HIS
LIST OF PROBLEMS AND HISTORY
FROM THE TRIAL COURT IN THE
TRIAL COURT HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR
MR. OFFORD --
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE.
YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE
NOTES FROM THE BAY COUNTY
JAIL.
U H HUH.
>> AND THE JAIL DOCTOR
SAYING -- WHAT I FIND
REMARKABLE ABOUT WHAT'S IN
THERE -- TRYING TO EVALUATE
THE QUALITY OF THIS MENTAL
HEALTH MITIGATION.
IT'S THE FIRST TIME IN
RECORDS THAT GO BACK TO SIX
YEARS OLD THAT SOMEONE
SUSPECTS MALINGERING.
ALL THROUGH HIS CHILDHOOD UP
TO ADULTHOOD HE'S ON SOCIAL
SECURITY, DISABILITY FOR
MENTAL ILLNESS.
AND THE BRAVEORAL RECORDS
TALK GENUINELY ABOUT HIM
HAVING SUICIDAL AND THAT HE
IS HALLUCINATION OVER AND
OVER.
AND SO I GUESS AND THIS IS A
TOUGH SITUATION.
YOU'VE GOT TO AGREE UNLIKE A
LOT OF THE DEATH CASES THAT
WE SEE HERE WHICH MAY TALK
ABOUT A MENTAL ILLNESS THE
STATE HAS GOT TO AGREE THAT
THIS ONE IS DOCUMENTED I
GUESS THAT'S WHAT IS CAUSING
ME CONCERN ABOUT KIND OF
MINIMIZE IT BY SAYING
WHATEVER HE SAID AT THE
SPENCER HEARING DOES AWAY
WITH A LIFETIME OF
DOCUMENTED MENTAL ILLNESS.
>> YOU'RE HONOR, AND PLEASE
I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT
THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
HAS A PERFECT MENTAL HISTORY
WHEN HE WAS SIX YEARS OLD HE
WAS FAKING SYMPTOMS.
I'M NOT TRYING TO SUGGEST
THAT.
>> YOU WOULD AGREE THAT HE
WAS -- FROM CHILDHOOD TO
ADULTHOOD HE WAS A MENTALLY
ILL INDIVIDUAL THAT COULDN'T
EVEN BE CONSIDERED DISABLED
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
BECAUSE OF HIS MENTAL
ILLNESS.
>>DY -- HE DID RECEIVE
SOCIAL SECURITY AND
DISABILITY BENEFITS FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS.
THIS WAS AFTER I BELIEVE IN
SEPTEMBER OF 2000 AND HE
SAID -- THERE IS THIS
SUGGESTION.
BUT THAT AND THAT ALONE HE
SAID HE WORKED IN THE PAST.
HE MENTIONED HE WORKED 8
MONTHS IN CONSTRUCTION AND
HE WAS WORKING AT THE TIME
OF THIS CRIME.
>> EVEN WITH THE WORKING YOU
HAVE TO AGREE THAT WAS VERY
INTERMITTENT.
THERE WAS NO -- THERE'S
NOTHING IN THIS RECORD THAT
SUGGEST THAT HE EVER HAD ANY
LONG-TERM EMPLOYMENT.
IS THERE?
>> THE LONGEST THAT WE HAVE
IN THIS RECORD IS THE EIGHT
MONTHS.
THE EIGHT MONTHS OF
CONSTRUCTION WORKED THAT HE
SAID HE WORKED.
>> I'M SORRY YOUR HONOR.
A LOT OF TIME HE COMES TO MY
ABILITY TO WORK BY HIS OWN
INSISTENCE ON HE CONTINUING
TO TRIFOR WHAT WOULD
HAPPENED IS.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANT TOW
GET TO YOUR STATEMENT
EARLIER ABOUT THAT HE MADE
ON THE STAND ABOUT DRINKING
AND THE DRINKING WOULD
PROMPT HIM TO GO INTO THE
HOSPITAL SO HE WOULD NOT
SPEND HIS SOCIAL SECURITY
MONEY.
>> CORRECT.
>> WAS THERE EVER IN ANY OF
THESE DOCUMENTS THAT THE
DOCTORS WOULD YOU KNOW THE
DIAGNOSIS OR THEIR TREATMENT
OR WHATEVER NOTES THEY MAKE
WHEN PEOPLE ARE HOSPITALIZED
THAT ANY OF THEM EVER SAY
THAT, THAT WAS HIS ONLY
PROBLEM, THAT HE WAS
DRINKING TOO MUCH?
>> WELL, WE HAVE AGAIN GOING
WITH THE NOTE THE KNOW
THAEUGS THAT YOU KNOW WE DO
BELIEVE THE MAIN PROBLEM IS
SUBSTANCE ABUSE.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE -- AND I
BELIEVE IN RAW LYNN
TESTIFIED THAT THE EFFECT
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN HE WOULD
GO INTO A MENTAL
INSTITUTION.
WHO IS SAYING THIS?
>> MISS RAW LYNN.
THE CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
WHO WAS CALLED TO TESTIFY BY
MR. OFFORD AND WHAT SHE
WOULD TESTIFY TO WAS THAT
ACCORDING TO HIS HISTORY AND
ACCORDING TO MEDICAL RECORDS
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS HE
WOULD PERHAPS FEEL THESE
MENTAL SYMPTOMS AGAIN OR
SYMPTOMS OF HE WOULD GO INTO
A MENTAL HOSPITAL.
HE WOULD TAKE MEDICATION FOR
AT LEAST PROBLEMS.
HE WOULD FEEL BETTER AND
RECOVER.
GO BACK ON TO THE STREET AND
THEN HE WOULD INSTEAD OF
CONTINUING WITH HIS MED
TKPWAEUGS -- MEDICATION.
THIS LITTERED THROUGHOUT THE
RECORD.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF -- IN
JULY OF 2003, AUGUST OF 2003,
SEPTEMBER OF 2003, THERE'S A
NUMBER OF INSTANCES WHEN
HE'S IN TEXAS AND THE
NOTATION AGAIN SAYS REFUSES
TO TAKE MEDICATION.
>> IS THAT ANOTHER SYMPTOM
OF MENTAL ILLNESS THAT THE
PATIENT SEEMED FINE WHILE
THEY ARE INSTITUTIONALIZED
AND FORCED TO TAKE THEIR
MEDICATION AND THEN THEY GET
BACK OUT ON THE STREETS AND
THEN START DOING WHATEVER IT
IS THEY WANT TO DO AND NOT
TAKING THEIR MEDICATION.
>> I THINK THIS -- I THINK
THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE
THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
KNEW THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT
TAKING THE MEDICINE BUT
CONTINUED NOT TO TAKE THEM.