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.
William Melvin White v. State of Florida
SC05-1613
PLEASE RISE.
>> GOOD MORNING.,,
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
>> NEXT CASE ON OUR CALENDAR
THIS MORNING AND FINAL CASE IS
LIGHT VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA.
MR. CANNON?
>>
>> CHIEF JUSTICE, ASSOCIATE
JUSTICES, MY NAME IS PETER
CANNON, ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM
WHITE.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, IN THE
SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME THAT I HAVE
RESERVED FOR ARGUMENT, I WOULD
LIKE TO FOCUS THE COURT'S
ATTENTION TO TWO ARGUMENTS,
ARGUMENT ONE, RESPONDED ON PAGE
13 OF THE BRIEF WHICH ADDRESSES
THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
CLAIM IN ARGUMENT SIX, FOUND ON
PAGE 49 OF THE BRIEF WHICH
ADDRESSES THE GIGLIO ISSUE.
WITH REGARDS TO ARGUMENT, THE
FIRST ARGUMENT, ARGUMENT ONE,
THE POST CONVICTION COURT, THE
COURT BELOW COMMITTED ERROR WHEN
IT SUMMARILY DENIED MR. WHITE'S
CLAIM INVOLVING THE NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REGARDING
FRANK MESARA'S STATEMENT AND
THIS IS A STATEMENT THAT AGAIN,
SHOWS THAT RICHARD DEMARINO, WHO
WAS INVOLVED WITH THIS CRIME,
CONFESSED TO THE MURDER OF
GRACEIE MAY CRAWFORD.
WHEN I SAY HE CONFESSED TO THE
MURDER, IT CHANGES FROM HIS
ORIGINAL TESTIMONY.
>> ONE ISSUE YOU HAVE HERE IS
SEPARATING OUT THESE CLAIMS.
RELATING TO THE MOST RECENT
PENALTY PHASE AND THEN CLAIMS
RELATING TO THE GUILT PHASE.
SO THIS IS ONE OF THE CLAIMS
RELATING TO THE GUILT PHASE.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
>> HOW DO YOU OVERCOME THE
PROCEDURAL HURDLE, THAT THE
STATE SUGGESTS REALLY SHOULD BE
IMPOSED WITH REFERENCE TO ANY
GUILT PHASE ISSUES THAT YOU
RAISE IN POST CONVICTION NOW?
>> YEAH.
>> WHEN WAS THE ORIGINAL
CONVICTION AND WHEN DID THAT
BECOME FINAL?
>> ORIGINAL CONVICTION WAS IN
1978.
>> WAS THAT CONVICTION EVER SET
ASIDE?
>> THE CONVICTION, NO.
THE SENTENCE WAS.
>> OK.
BUT THE CONVICTION WAS NEVER SET
ASIDE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK
TO THE 1970'S?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> SO WITH REFERENCE TO GUILT
PHASE ISSUES, HOW DO YOU
OVERCOME THE PROCEDURAL BAR THAT
THE STATE SUGGESTS SHOULD BE
IMPOSED?
>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, I WILL
AGAIN, BY STATING THAT THIS
CASE, AS I'VE OUTLINED IN THE
BRIEF IS VERY SIMILAR
PROCEDURALLY TO MR. HITCHCOCK'S
CASE.
>> WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, IT'S
NOT, BECAUSE HITCHCOCK, WE HAVE
NOT EVER DEALT WITH A POST
CONVICTION MOTION ON GUILT.
WHEN WE LAST HAD IT HERE, AND WE
SENT IT BACK FOR A DETERMINATION
ON POST CONVICTION, AS TO GUILT.
HERE, IN OUR 1999 DECISION, WE
SPECIFICALLY SAY, WE AFFIRM THE
TRIAL COURT'S DENYING RELIEF AS
TO APPELLANT'S GUILT PHASE
ISSUE.
THAT'S AS TO THE POST CONVICTION
GUILT PHASE ISSUE, SO WE DEALT
WITH IT IN OUR 1999 DECISION,
UNLIKE WHAT WE DID IN HITCHCOCK.
>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, WHEN I SAY
IT'S SIMILAR TO HITCHCOCK,
PROCEDURALLY, WHAT I'M REFERRING
TO IS TO THE OLD VERSION OF THE
RULE, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN
MODIFIED, PRIOR TO 1984.
THERE WAS NO ABSOLUTE BAR ON
FILING A SECOND POST CONVICTION
MOTION.
THE SUCCESS OF MOTION BAR THAT
WE HAVE TODAY IS DIFFERENT THAN
WHAT WAS BACK IN 1984.
AND --
>> THAT WASN'T THE PREVAILING
LAW THOUGH IN 1999 OR WHATEVER
IT WAS THAT THAT DECISION WAS
RENDERED BY THIS COURT.
>> THE -- WHEN THIS --
>> ANY ASSERTIONS THAT YOU HAVE
SORT OF AN OPEN-ENDED SITUATION,
CLEARLY DIDN'T EXIST IN 1999
WHEN WE DID TREAT SOME GUILT
PHASE POST CONVICTION ISSUES, AN
REJECTED THEM.
SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR A
MARKER, LET'S JUST WORK OUR WAY
BACK TO THAT, IN TERMS OF --
EVEN IF YOU JUST -- IF YOU USE
THE 1999 DATE FOR A MARKER?
WHY AREN'T YOU UNDER A
REQUIREMENT THAT IF YOU ARE
GOING TO ASSERT GUILT PHASE
ISSUES, NOW IN THE SUCCESSIVE
CLAIM, BECAUSE CLEARLY THERE WAS
A CLAIM THERE, THAT THIS COURT
DEALT WITH, WHY YOU DON'T CARRY
A BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE WHY
THOSE ISSUES WEREN'T RAISED
BEFORE.
>> AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD GO
BACK AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE --
OPERATING UNDER THE OLD RULE,
THE ORIGINAL RULE, THE
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS CASE,
AGAIN, IS SOMEWHAT DRAWN OUT.
IT TOOK A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
TIME FOR THAT ORIGINAL POST
CONVICTION MOTION TO BE FINALLY
HEARD, AND THEN RULED UPON BY
THIS COURT.
IN ADDITION, BACK UNDER THE OLD
RIEWM, WE COULD HAVE -- RULE, WE
COULD HAVE A HABEAS POSITION
PROCEEDING, AND THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENED, WE HAD A HABEAS
PROCEEDING WITH REGARDS TO A
HITCHCOCK CLAIM, AND THEN AT THE
SAME TIME THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON SIMILAR ISSUES, ON
THE MITIGATION, WAS HELD UNTIL
THE RESOLUTION OF THE HABEAS.
>> BUT THE STATEMENT, YOU'RE
COMPLAINING ABOUT -- YOU'RE
CLAIMING THIS IS YOUR FRANK
STATEMENT, IS THIS THE ONE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> WHEN DID YOU KNOW ABOUT THE
STATEMENT?
WHEN WAS THIS STATEMENT MADE?
>> WHEN DID MY OFFICE --
>> WELL, WHEN DID THE ATTORNEY
FOR MR. WHITE KNOW ABOUT THIS
STATEMENT?
THE STATEMENTS FROM MY
UNDERSTANDING, FIRST APPEARED
DURING MR. WHITE'S LAST RECENT
TENSE.
>> AND THAT WAS WHAT YEAR?
>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND THE
YEAR, LET'S SEE, AROUND 2000.
AROUND THAT TIME.
>> SO WHEN WAS IT RAISED IN THIS
SUBSEQUENT -- I MEAN, THAT'S
WHAT PART OF THIS IS.
WHEN WAS IT RAISED NOW?
>> IN THIS HEARING HERE.
>> RIGHT.
>> THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN, AGAIN,
BECAUSE OF THE PROCEDURE -- THE
WAY THE CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN
PROCEEDING, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN
THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
SUCH GUILT PHASE EVIDENCE TO THE
COURT.
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE BRINGING
THIS HAS A NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE CLAIM?
>> CORRECT.
>> WELL, THEN, I MEAN, ANY TIME
A NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
CLAIM, DON'T YOU HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO FILE THAT --
[INAUDIBLE]
IN THE TRIAL COURT?
>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE
RE-SENTENCING ATTORNEY WAS
PROCEEDING ON JUST THE
SENTENCING.
THE PENALTY PHASE.
THIS WAS A GUILT PHASE ISSUE,
AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
ISSUES LIKE THIS WERE ADDRESSED
TO THE COURT.
>> YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU CLAIM
IS GOING TO LEAD TO THE
PROBABILITY OF AN ACQUITTAL.
DO YOU THINK WE HAVE SOME RULE
THAT SAYS THAT THOSE -- THAT
TYPE OF THING AS OPPOSED TO AN
INEFFECTIVE POST CONVICTION HAS
TO WAIT TILL SOMETIME 10 YEARS
IN THE FUTURE, IF YOUR CLIENT
WOULD ACTUALLY BE INNOCENT OR
COULD GET A LIFE SENTENCE?
I FIND THAT TO BE REALLY KIND OF
DISINGENUOUS AS FAR AS POLICY
THAT WOULD SAY THAT IF THERE IS
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, AN WE
SOMETIMES SEE THINGS FILED IN --
AT THE END OF THE TRIAL.
THERE'S A MOTION FOR NEWLY -- IF
THERE'S NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR A
MEGS FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE.
IT'S TIED INTO WHEN YOU LEARN
ABOUT IT.
DO WE AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH
THIS?
>> I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR, BUT
THE LOWER COURT IN DEALING WITH
THESE ISSUES, I BELIEVE THIS
ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED ALSO, SAID
YOU'RE GETTING INTO RESIDUAL
DOUBT.
WE'RE JUST HERE ON RECENT
TENSING.
I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THAT.
THEN WE HAVE TO ADDRESS IT IN --
>> YOU'RE DEALING WITH MR. MOW
RASE' STATEMENT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND THE TRIAL JUDGE ACTUALLY
HERE FOUND THAT YOU HAD FAILED
TO DEMONSTRATION WHY THIS HAD
NOT BEEN DISCOVERED WITHIN ONE
YEAR OF WHEN YOU FILED YOUR
MOTION.
AND THAT'S OUR CASE LAW.
OUR CASE LAW IN MILLS EXPRESSLY
STATES THAT ON NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE, THE MOTION HAS TO BE
FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR.
THE TRIAL COURT SPECIFICALLY
FOUND YOU DID NOT DO THAT.
I MEAN, THAT'S -- THAT'S WHAT
THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING WAS.
THE TRIAL COURT DIDN'T DEAL WITH
IT, THE TRIAL COURT DEALT WITH
IT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M HAVING
TROUBLE.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
SITUATION, THE RAUL, 3.851,
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, IS
GOVERNED BY WHEN THEY DISCOVERED
THAT EVIDENCE, SO I HAVE ANOTHER
I GUESS ASSUMING THERE'S SOME
WAY TO GET THROUGH A PROCEDURAL
BAR, WHICH I DON'T THINK THERE
IS, HOW DO YOU -- THE TESTIMONY
THAT THIS MORASSA, THAT DEMARINO
SAID HE HAD TO GET RID OF A GIRL
LAST NIGHT, HOW IS THAT
INCONSISTENT WITH HIS TRIAL
TESTIMONY?
IN OTHER WORDS, JUST ON THE FACE
OF IT, HOW WOULD THAT EVEN HAVE
A THRESHOLD BASIS FOR AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE
SECOND PRONG OF --
[INAUDIBLE]
PROBABLY LEADING TO AN
ACQUITTAL.
>> IF I COULD ADDRESS, I'M GOING
TO TRY, BOTH QUESTIONS AT ONCE,
AN THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM.
WE NEVER HAD AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING ON THIS ISSUE.
WE PRESENTED THE FACT THERE WERE
NOT SHOWN BY THE STATE OR ANY!!!!!!!!
REBUTTED CONCLUSIVELY.
WE WERE JUST ASKING FOR A
HEARING.
>> I'M ASKING YOU, ASSUMING YOU
GET THROUGH A PROCEDURAL BAR,
THE STATEMENT IS THAT HE HAD TO
GET RID OF A GIRL LAST NIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
>> CORRECT.
>> AS FAR AS ALL THE EVIDENCE IN
THIS CASE, HOW DOES THAT -- NOT
UNDERMINE, HOW WOULD THAT LEAD
TO THE PROBABILITY OF AN ACQUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
ACQUITTAL FOR MR. WHITE OF FIRST
DEGREE MURDER WHEN THAT'S NOT --
I MEAN, DEMARINO NEVER STATED
THAT HE WASN'T INVOLVED IN THIS
KILLING.
>> RIGHT.
AND I AGREE WITH THAT.
HE -- WHEN HE DID TESTIFY, YOUR
HONOR, HE MINIMIZED HIS ROLE,
WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HE
TOLD OTHER PEOPLE AND ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY WE HAVE THE JONES
HEARING AND THAT'S ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY WE HAVE EVIDENTIARY
HEARINGS AND THAT'S THE REASON
FOR THE POLICY OF THIS COURT, SO
WE DON'T SPECULATE IN INSTANCES
LIKE THIS, IS TO ASCERTAIN NOT
ONLY THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE
STATEMENTS, BUT ALSO THE
CORROBORATION.
>> ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE
REQUIRE PLEADINGS IS SO THAT YOU
SET OUT, OK, HERE'S THE NEW
EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE DISCOVERED
AND HERE'S WHY IT WOULD AFFECT A
DETERMINATION OF THE GUILT OF MY
CLIENT.
NOW YOU'VE LEFT OUT THAT WHOLE
SECOND PART IN YOUR PLEADING
HERE.
YOU HAVEN'T SET THAT OUT.
HERE'S WHAT THIS NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IS, BUT
HERE'S HOW IT WOULD ESTABLISH
EITHER THE INNOCENCE OF MY
CLIENT OR WHATEVER.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE MOTION
ABOUT THAT, IS THERE?
>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE DO HAVE
SEPARATED OUT THE CLAIMS.
>> BUT IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE
PETITION THAT SAYS THAT, THAT
IS, HERE'S WHAT THE NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IS, AND
HERE'S HOW IT WOULD HELP MY
CLIENT.
>> I BELIEVE IN THE PETITION, IT
STATES THAT IT'S CORROBORATING
THESE OTHER TWO STATEMENTS THAT
WE HAVE FROM JOSEPH WATTS, WHO
DID TESTIFY ONLY AT THE SPENCER
HEARING.
>> WELL, LET ME -- YOU KNOW,
YOU'RE DOWN TO LESS THAN SEVEN
MINUTES NOW, AN ARE YOU GOING TO
ADDRESS ANY PENALTY PHASE ISSUES
THAT WERE RAISED?
>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD
CONTINUE WITH THIS ISSUE, I DID
HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE, WHICH IS
RELATED, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS
THE -- THIS IS THE THIRD PERSON
THAT HAS COME FORWARD AND
TESTIFIED NOW OR IS WILLING TO
TESTIFY STATING THAT,
MR. DEMARINO, RICHARD DEMARINO
CONFESSED TO ME, NOW HIS
BROTHER, JOHN DI MARINO AND
MR. WATTS, BOTH TESTIFIED, ONE
AT THE SPENDS HEARING AND THEN
AT THE --
>> WHAT HAPPENED TO DEMARINO?
>> WHICH ONE, THE -- RICHARD?
HE WAS CONVICTED AND RECEIVED 15
YEARS.
BUT --
>> THERE'S NEVER BEEN A POINT IN
WHICH ANYBODY HAS DENIED THAT HE
WASN'T INVOLVED IN THIS, HAS
THERE IS THIS.
>> NO, BUT THE ISSUE, YOUR
HONOR, IS THE FACT THAT EVIDENCE
HAS COME TO LIGHT THAT HE LIED.
HE WAS THE ONE THAT KILLED THIS
PERSON, BECAUSE HE DOES ADMIT TO
TWO OTHER PEOPLE, MR. WATTS AND
ALSO TO HIS BROTHER, THAT HE WAS
THE ONE THAT BOTH STABBED HER
AND SLIT HER THROAT.
NOW HIS ORIGINAL TESTIMONY WAS,
IT WAS MR. WHITE THAT DID THE
STABBING, AND HE MADE ME SLIT
HER THROAT, SO I WOULD BE, YOU
KNOW, INCULPATED IN THE CRIME.
>> GO BACK TO THIS.
WHAT DI MARINO TELLS MARISSA,
VERSUS WHAT MARISSA SAYS DI
MARINO TELLS THEM IS!!!!!! IS HOW TO GET
RID OF A GIRL.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO
WAS THE ACTUAL PERPETRATOR OF
THIS CRIME, CORRECT?
THAT'S THE SUM OF WHAT YOU
ALLEGE THAT MARISSA WOULD
TESTIFY TO, CORRECT?
>> WELL, THERE'S A LITTLE MORE.
HE HASTY!!!!!!!!!!!! HAS THE VAN AND HE'S HOLDING
MS. CRAWFORD'S WIGAND HE'S
SAYING HE HAD TO GET RID OF A
GIRL LAST NIGHT.
NO WAY DOES HE IMPLICATE, LIKE
HE DOES IN HIS TESTIMONY,
MR. WHITE.
>> BUT NOW YOU SAY WATTS
CORROBORATES IT, WHEREAS NOW
THERE WAS AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
ABOUT WATTS, AND SPENCE'S
COUNSEL SAYS IN THE PENALTY
PHASE HE DIDN'T CALL WATTS
BECAUSE HE FOUND HIM TOTALLY
UNPREDICTABLE AND
UNCONTROLLEDBLE.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
>> WE DID HAVE A -- ONE-HALF OF
A CLAIM ON THE -- MR. MARKHAM
ISSUE.
>> BUT HE EXPLAINED WHY HE
DIDN'T CALL WATTS.
>> WELL, HE DID -- MR. WATTS DID
TESTIFY AT THE SPENCER HEARING.
>> WHY HE DIDN'T CALL HIM AT THE
PENALTY PHASE, RE-SENTENCING.
>> AT THE PENALTY PHASE --
>> WHY THE DEFENSE LAWYER DIDN'T
CALL HIM FOR THE JURY TO HEAR
THIS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS
WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AN
ACQUITTAL OR SOMETHING ON
RETRIAL, IS THAT SPENCER'S
COUNSEL SAID HE DIDN'T FIND HIM
TO BE A PREDICTABLE OR
CONTROLLABLE WITNESS.
>> WELL, YOUR HONOR, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING WITH REGARD TO THE
RE-SENTENCING, THE REASON WHY HE
DIDN'T WANT TO CALL THESE
WITNESSES, MR. MARKHAM AND
MR. WATTS, WAS BECAUSE OF THE
FACT THAT THEY WERE OUT -- YOU
KNOW, MEMBERS OF A GANG AND HE
DIDN'T WANT MR. WHITE TO BE
IMPLICATED BY ASSOCIATION.
THAT WAS HIS MAIN REASON FOR NOT
CALLING THESE INDIVIDUALS.
BUT HE DID -- YOU KNOW, THIS
PERSON WHO IS UNCONTROLLEDBLE OR
A BAD WITNESS, HE DID CALL AT
THE SPENCER HEARING, SO I FIND
THAT SOMEWHAT EXPERIENCE, THAT
ARGUMENT, BECAUSE IF HE WAS
UNCONTROLLEDBLE, THEN HE WOULD
BE JUST AS UNCONTROLLABLE IN
FRONT OF A JUDGE DURING THE
SPENCER HEARING, THAN HE WOULD
BE IN FRONT OF A JURY.
I KNOW THERE IS SOME LIMITATIONS
WITH REGARDS TO A JURY, BUT THE
FACT THAT HE'S UNCONTROLLEDBLE.
NOW, WHEN WE'RE --
>> YOU AGREE MR. MULL
CERTIFICATE A QUITE
EXPERIENCED -- MULLER, IS A
QUITE EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL
DEFENSE LAWYERS WITH SUBSTANTIAL
CREDENTIALS, BOARD CERTIFIED,
HANDLED ALMOST 15 -- I THINK IT
WAS 14 OR 15 CAPITAL CASES,
CORRECT?
>> OH, SURE.
HE'S EXPERIENCED, BUT, YOU KNOW,
CY YOUNG WINNERS CAN HAVE A BAD
DAY PITCHING AND LAWYERS CAN
HAVE A BAD DAY DOING TRIALS.
HIS EXPERIENCE DOES COUNT.
I'M SORRY.
>> IF YOU'RE NOT FINISHED, GO
AHEAD AND FINISH THAT, THEN I
HAVE A QUESTION FOR.
>>
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, YES,
HIS EXPERIENCE DOES COUNT.
BUT IT DOESN'T AB!!!!!! AP!!!!!! ABSOLVE HIM FROM
ANYTHING AND ACTUALLY SHOULD BE
LOOKED AT THE FACT THAT HE'S
DONE THESE TRIALS AND WELL, WHY
DIDN'T YOU DO IT IN THIS CASE.
>> IF YOU WOULD, YOU KNOW, YOU
TALKED ABOUT THESE PEOPLE,
WHAT -- AND WHAT THEY SAID.
IF YOU COULD CONCISELY TELL US
WHY, EVEN IN COMBINATION, WHAT
YOU CONSIDER TO BE NEWLY
DISCOULD HAVE HAD EVIDENCE,
WOULD PUT THIS CASE IN SUCH A
DIFFERENT LIGHT, THAT MR. WHITE
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO IN THE
TRIAL?
>> WELL, WE DO HAVE MR. MORASSA,
AGAIN, CLAIM ONE, WHO
SIGNIFICANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!IS -- ISSAYING THAT HE SEES ZS MR. DI
MARINO DRIVE UP IN THE VAN THAT
HE BORROWED WITH A WIG SAYING HE
HAD TO GET RID OF A GIRL LAST
NIGHT.
>> IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT
WENT ON TRIAL?
WASN'T HE THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY
ASKED MR. WHITE TO EVEN GET
INVOLVED IN THIS AND COME HELP
HIM.
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND.
>> WASN'T IT THIS MR. DI MARINO
WHO STARTED THE WHOLE THING AND
GOT MR. WHITE INVOLVED IN IT?
THE TRIAL TESTIMONY TOO.
>> WELL PLRKS DI MARINO IS OUR
ONLY WITNESS TO BASICALLY ALL OF
THESE FACTS, THAT THIS COURT HAS
FOUND IMPORTANT IN CONCLUDING
THE HACC AGGRAVATOR AND WHO
ACTUALLY DID THE STABBING, AND
THE MURDER.
SO MR. DI MARINO, WE PUT A LOT
OF FAITH IN HIS TESTIMONY, BUT
HE'S ALSO TOLD, MOVING ON TO
MR. WATTS, HE TOLD MR. WATTS,
WHICH IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM
HIS TESTIMONY, THAT HE STABBED
HER AND SLICED HER NECK.
AND THE MEDICAL EXAMINER SAID
THAT IT WAS THE STABBING THAT
CAUSED THE DEATH, AND THEN
MR. DI PA REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MARINO, SO TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION, JUSTICE QUINCE, THOSE
THREE STATEMENTS THERE, ARE VERY
IMPORTANT, AND THEN I GUESS I
CAN SORT OF DOVETAIL THEM TO
CLAIM SIX, WITH REGARDS TO THE
GIGLIO ISSUE.
I KNOW THIS WAS AGAIN RAISED
PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THIS COURT AND
AS I OUTLINED IN THE BRIEF, THIS
COURT FOUND THAT THE.
FIRST TWO PRONGS OF GIGLIO DID
EXIST.
>> IT LEADS TO IT CONCISE --
PLEASE CONCLUDE CONCISELY
BECAUSE YOU'VE EXHAUSTED YOUR
TIME.
>> THE MATERIALITY THAT THIS
COURT RELIED UPON WAS WRONG FOR
NEARLY 10 YEARS, AND IN
MR. WHITE'S CASE, NOT ONLY DID
IT CON FLAT BRADY AND GIGLIO, IT
SHIFTED THE BURDEN TO HIM.
AND IT WAS AN IMPROPER STANDARD.
SO I'M ARGUING IN CLAIM SIX, WE
HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THE ISSUES,
WE DIDN'T GET AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING, MR. WATTS TESTIMONY,
AND MR. DIMARINO'S TESTIMONY,
PUT THAT INTO THE MATERIALITY
EQUATION THAT WAS DONE
INCORRECTLY, ORIGINALLY WHEN
THIS CASE -- NOT ORIGINALLY,
BACK IN 1999, AND THEN WE HAVE
TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN, BECAUSE WE
CAN'T -- IT'S LIKE A PUZZLE, WE
CAN'T LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL
PIECES, BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT
THE WHOLE THING.
I'LL RESERVE THE REST OF MY
TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, THE
STATE WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE
TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE CLAIM
FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT IT WAS
PROCEDURALLY BARRED.
I THINK JUSTICE QUINCE ASKED
COUNSEL, WHEN WAS THIS
DISCOVERED?
I STILL HAVEN'T REALLY HEARD AN
ANSWER AS TO THAT.
IT'S NEVER BEEN PLEAD WHEN THIS
QUOTE UNQUOTE, NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE WAS IN FACT DISCOVERED.
WE DO KNOW FROM THE RECORD THAT
CHAIN MULLER IN 1999, KNEW OF
MR. MORASSA AND IT WAS PUT ON
THE RECORD AT THAT TIME AT THE
TIME OF RE-SEND!!!!!!!! SENTENCING HE DID
NOT CALL THIS WITNESS --
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IS
MR. CANNON CORRECT THAT THE
CASE, THE STATE'S CASE AGAINST
MR. WHITE GOES!!!!!!!!!! FALLS ON WHAT DIMARINO
HAD TO SAY?
>> I DO BELIEVE THAT OBVIOUSLY
MR. DIMARINO'S TESTIMONY WAS KEY
AS TO THE FACTS UNDERLYING IT,
BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE SEA WORLD
EMPLOYEES, WHERE THEY, AFTER THE
MURDER, THEY RAN OUT OF GAS, AND
WERE OBSERVED BY NUMEROUS SEA
WORLD SECURITY PERSONNEL, AND
MR. WHITE WAS NOT WEARING A
SHIRT AND HAD BLOODSTAINS ON HIS
ARM, WHEREAS MR. DIMARINO WAS
FULLY CLOTHED WITH TO
BLOODSTAINS AND THE MEDICAL
EXAMINER'S TESTIMONY WAS,
WHOEVER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS
STABBING, WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY
MUCH HAD BROUGHT ON HIS PERSON,
WE NEVER DID FIND MR. WHITE'S
SHIRT, OR WHERE THAT WAS LOCATED99!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOCATED, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT
THAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH
DIMARINO'S TESTIMONY SUPPORTED
HIS VERSION OF EVENTS.
WE KNOW THAT DIMARINO AND WHITE
WERE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT
TOOK THIS VICTIM OUT TO THIS
DESERTED AREA AND THEY WERE THE
ONLY TWO THERE.
DIMARINO HAS NEVER REALLY DENIED
HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE.
PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH
COUNSEL'S CLAIM ABOUT DIMARINO
TELLING PEOPLE, QUOTE UNQUOTE,
WE GOT RID OF A GIRL LAST NIGHT,
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE TESTIFIED
TO.
THE JURY HEARD ALL THIS.
DIMARINO NEVER SAID, I WASN'T
THERE AND I WASN'T DOING IT.
HE JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, WE DID
THIS TOGETHER, UP UNTIL THE
POINT WHERE MR. WHITE STRADDLED
THE VICTIM AND STABBED HER.
HE, DIMARINO ADMITTED TO
SLASHING HER THROAT.
THE JURY HEARD ALL THAT.
SO EVEN IF YOU GET OVER THE
PROCEDURAL BAR ON THIS --
>> DID THE STATE WORK OUT A DEAL
THEN WITH DIMARINO.
>> NO, HE WAS CHARGED WITH FIRST
DEGREE MURDER AND CONVICTED OF A
LESSER 3rd DEGREE BY THE JURY,
AND THEN HE TESTIFIED IN THIS
CASE, BACK IN 1978, 1979, WHEN
THIS ORIGINAL TRIAL TOOK PLACE.
BUT EVEN ASSUMING YOU CAN JUMP
OVER THAT PROCEDURAL BAR,
COUNSEL DOESN'T MEET THE
STANDARD IN JONES FOR, YOU KNOW,
GETTING RELIEF ON A NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE CLAIM.
AS I WAS STATING, THE FACT THAT
DIMARINO SAID, WE HAD TO GET RID
OF A GIRL LAST NIGHT, SIMPLY IS
NOT GOING TO CAST DOUBT ON
MR. WHITE'S GUILT IN THIS CASE.
THE JURY, AS I SAID, HEARD
TESTIMONY FROM RICHARD DIMARINO
ADMITTING HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE
CASE.
>> HOW ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL
STATEMENT THAT THEY'RE ALLEGING,
THAT IS THAT HE ALSO SAID THAT
HE WAS THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY
KILLED HER?
>> THAT'S INCORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE PLEADING SAYS MR. MORASSA'S
STATEMENT IS HE HAD TO GET RID
OF A GIRL.
THAT'S ALL THERE AS TO
MR. MORASSA.
NOW COUNSEL HAS SAID THAT
MR. DIMARINO HAS ADMITTED TO
OTHERS TO KILLING AND STABBING
THE VICTIM.
THAT IS ALSO KIND OF INCORRECT
IN THE SENSE THAT YES OR NO
DIMARINO, RICHARD'S BROTHER IS
THE ONLY PERSON THAT HAS EVER
SAID THAT RICHARD SAID THAT HE
STABBED HER AND SLIT HER THROAT.
HE'S THE ONLY ONE, BOTH WATTS
AND MORASSA JUST SAID, DIMARINO
ADMITTED TO GETTING RID OF A
GIRL.
BUT THE JURY HEARD FROM JOHN
DIMARINO, THE BROTHER, THE JURY
HEARD THAT RICHARD WAS GOING
AROUND BASICALLY BRAGGING THAT
THEY GOT RID OF THIS GIRL.
SO IT'S NOTHING NEW THAT WOULD
CHANGE ANY OUTCOME IN THIS CASE,
IT'S SIMPLY CUMULATIVE AS TO
WHAT THE JURY HEARD, AT BOTH THE
1978 TRIAL AND THE RESENTENCING
IN 1999, SO I DON'T SEE -- I
THINK THE TRIAL COURT WAS
CORRECT IN BOTH THE PROCEDURAL
BAR AND GOING AHEAD AND
ADDRESSING IT ON THE MERITS AND
STILL DENYING RELIEF BASED ON
THAT.
>> ON THE PROCEDURAL BAR, IS ONE
OF THE ELEMENTS THAT THEY -- MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISCUSSION,
THEY DID NOT FILE THIS TIMELY?
>> NO.
NO, YOUR HONOR.
THEY DIDN'T.
>> DO YOU NOT NEED TO KNOW WHEN
THEY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN?
>> IT WAS NEVER EVEN IN THE
ALLEGATION AS TO WHEN THEY
DISCOVERED IT, AND CLEARLY --
>> IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
NECESSARY FOR THE PLEADING IS
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> YES.
AND CLEARLY THEY WERE ON NOTICE
OF IT FROM 1999, AT LEAST
MR. MORASSA, THEY WERE ON NOTICE
OF IT OR DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS.
>> THE WITNESS CAN CHANGE
TESTIMONY.
>> SURE.
>> THAT DOESN'T ANSWER.
>> WE DON'T KNOW EXACT MY WHAT
THEY WERE AWARE OF IN 1999, IT
NEVER CAME OUT, BUT ESTIMATE,
COUNSEL HAS AN OBLIGATION TO
PLEAD IN HIS MOTION.
>> EXACTLY.
>> I BELIEVE THE ONLY VAGUE
ALLEGATION IN THE MOTION WAS
THAT THIS COURT IS AWARE THAT
THE OUTLAWS HAVE A CODE OF
SILENCE, THAT'S ALL THERE WAS
REGARDING THAT.
SO THERE WASN'T ANYTHING ELSE IN
ADDITION TO THAT.
MOVING ON TO CLAIM SIX, WHICH
WAS THE --
>> GO BACK TO THIS ISSUE ON THE
MOTION IN THE TRIAL COURT, THE
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
YOU AGREE THAT WE DON'T HAVE
SOME RULE THAT SAYS, NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, THAT YOU
WAIT UNTIL ALL OF THE
PROCEEDINGS ARE FINISHED, SO WE
MAKE SURE ALL COUNSEL KNOW THIS,
THAT WHEN SOMETHING COMES TO
LIGHT, SOMEONE SAYS IS FOOL
DISCOVERED --
>> THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO
FILE A MOTION, CORRECT.
AND COUNSEL WAITED UNTIL THIS
POST CONVICTION MOTION AND FILED
IT AND THEN NEVER SAID WHEN IT
WAS EVEN DISCOVERED.
>> WELL, HOW DO YOU FILE IT
EXACTLY IF THERE ARE CURRENTLY
OTHER PROCEEDINGS GOING ON, SAY
RESENTENCING --
>> WELL, IN THIS CASE, THERE
WEREN'T ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS
GOING ON.
THIS WAS THE INITIAL POST
CONVICTION MOTION, BUT ARE YOU
TALKING ABOUT, LIKE, SAY IN
1999, WHEN TRIAL -- RESENTENCING
COUNSEL SAYS MAY, I KNOW FRANK
MORASSA?
>> YES.
>> OBVIOUSLY, IF HE HAD THAT
INFORMATION AT THE TIME THAT
MR. MORASSA WAS SAYING THAT,
WHICH PRESUMABLY IS WHAT THE
CASE IS, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT,
BUT ONCE CURRENT COUNSEL FINDS
OUT ABOUT IT, HE HAS A DUTY TO
FILE IT AND HE DID FILE IT.
HE FILED IT IN HIS INITIAL POST
CONVICTION MOTION, AND IT'S
SIMPLY NOT ALLEGED SPECIFICALLY,
WHAT HE NEEDS TO HAVE IN THERE,
TO GET RELIEF.
>> IS IT PENDING ON APPEAL, FOR
EXAMPLE --
>> RIGHT.
>> YOU CAN RELINQUISH
JURISDICTION.
>> SOMETHING THAT BRINGS IT TO
THE COURT'S ATTENTION.
>> CORRECT.
YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO
BRING IT FORTH.
ON THE CLAIM SIX, THE LOWER
COURT FOUND THAT PROCEDURALLY
BARRED, THIS WAS A CLAIM
LITIGATED BY THIS COURT BACK IN
I BELIEVE IT WAS 1999 THAT THE
OPINION CAME OUT.
THIS COURT ADDRESTED THE GIGLIO
ISSUE AT THAT TIME.
>> DID WE MAKE A MISTAKE?
BECAUSE I KNOW FOR A WHILE, WE
WERE DEBATING THE TWO STANDARDS.
>> CORRECT.
>> IN SUBSEQUENT CASES, YES,
YOUR HONOR, GUZMAN, YOU POINTED
OUT THAT YOU'D BEEN USING OM
IMPRECISE LANGUAGE AS IT RELATED
TO THE MATERIALITY PRONG OF
GIGLIO.
THAT WAS THE CASE, BUT
NONETHELESS, IT WAS STILL
ANALYZED BY THIS COURT AT THAT
TIME, AND FOUND NOT TO BE
MATERIAL AND I WOULD SUBMIT EVEN
IF THIS COURT WAS GRATUITOUS TO
RELOOK AT THIS ISSUE AGAIN,
UNDER THE REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
LANGUAGE, IT WOULD STILL BE THE
SAME RESULT.
>> THEY'D HAVE TO -- DID WE
FIND -- WHAT EVIDENCE ARE WE
SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT?
>> THE EVIDENCE IS TWOFOLD, IT'S
ONE, THAT DIMARINO COULD HAVE
BEEN CHARGED AS A HABITUAL
OFFENDER AND WAS NOT.
THAT WAS PART OF HIS AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE, AND THAT THE
STATE ALLEGEDLY PAID HIS SPOUSE
$1,000.
HE TESTIFIED ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THE
STATE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, TAKING
CARE OF HIS WIFE AND CHILD, IN
THIS COURT, IN PART OF THEIR
ANALYSIS, IN BOTH THE LOWER
COURT AND THIS COURT, BACK IN
THE ORIGINAL POST CONVICTION HAD
ADDRESSED AND SAID, WELL, THE
JURY DIDN'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS,
BUT KNEW THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
THE DEAL THAT DIMARINO LIED
WHENEVER IT BENEFITED HIM AND
THAT HE HAD GOTTEN A DEAL WITH
THE STATE TO GET A LESSER CHARGE
AND ALL THIS.
THEY JUST DIDN'T KNOW THOSE TWO
SPECIFIC INCIDENCES, BUT THEY
WERE AWARE OF NUMEROUS --
>> I THOUGHT THAT -- AGAIN, I
HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE
OPINION, BUT I THOUGHT THAT THE
COURT DID FIND THAT THIS
EVIDENCE WAS -- IN GIGLIO, THAT
IT HAD TO BE FALSELY -- THE
WITNESS TOOK THE STAND KNOWING
THE TESTIMONY WAS FALSE.
WE DIDN'T FIND IT TO BE IGLIO
VIOLATION.
>> I BELIEVE THIS COURT QUOTED
THE LOWER COURT THAT DID THE
SAME THING AND BASICALLY THIS
COURT'S ANALYSIS IS PRETTY MUCH
TAKEN VERBATIM, THE TRIAL
COURT'S ORDER WHICH DIDN'T
ADDRESS THE FIRST TWO PRONGS OF
A GIGLIO CLAIM WHICH SAID THIS
WASN'T MATERIAL AND THIS COURT
RELIED ON THAT, AND IN SUMMARY
FASHION, SAID WE AGREE WITH THE
LOWER COURT'S ORDER.
>> THE STATE, IF IT'S GIGLIO,
THEN THE STATE HAS TO ESTABLISH
THAT IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
>> RIGHT.
REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD.
>> AGAIN, WE GET CONFUSED ABOUT
THESE.
I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENS IN GIGLIO, IT TIPS THE
BURDEN BACK TO THE STATE.
>> RIGHT.
AND --
>> AND HERE WE ARE DEALING WITH
BOTH A BRADY.
>> AND A GIGLIO.
>> -- CLAIM AND WE ESSENTIALLY
SAID THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL
COURT FOCUSED ON MATERIALITY AND
WE DEALT WITH KOWEL VERSUS
WHITLEY AND WE CAME ALONG AND
SUMMARILY SAID FOR THE SAME
REASON WE DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR
UNDER GIGLIO.
>> RIGHT AND I WOULD SUBMIT IF
THIS COURT WERE TO REVIEW IT, IT
WOULD BE PROCEDURALLY BARRED,
BUT EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO
REVIEW IT, IT WOULD NOT ENTITLE
MR. WHITE UNDER RELIEF UPPED
THAT STANDARD.
>> I GUESS WHAT -- OF COURSE
SERK SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOMETHING ELSE COMES ALONG.
I THINK THE ONLY CONTINUING I'M
STILL NOT SURE ABOUT IN -- THING
I'M STILL NOT SURE ABOUT IN THE
LONG RUN IS SOMETHING THAT MAY
COME UP AS A NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE CLAIM.
I THINK WHEN I ASKED YOU, IT WAS
PRETTY WELL THE LINCHPIN PAY NOT
BE, WHETHER IT'S THE LINCHPIN
FOR THE -- ARE YOU OK?
>> OK.
SORRY, I LOST YOU THERE.
>> THAT FOR THE PENALTY PHASE,
IT COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO A
JURY, IF EVEN THOUGH WHITE IS
INVOLVED, IF DIMARINO IS REALLY
THE PERSON, SO IF YOU START TO
PUT TOGETHER -- FIRST OF ALL,
IT'S NOT EXACTLY A HIGHLY
CREDIBLE WITNESS TO BEGIN WITH,
THEN THAT HE HAS DEALS WITH THE
STATE AND THEN HE TELLS
EVERYBODY THAT HE IS THE ONE
THAT DID THE KILLING, AT SOME
POINT --
>> WELL, THAT WAS ALL KNOWN TO
THE JURY THOUGH.
ALL OF THAT WAS KNOWN, EXCEPT
THE DETAILS OF THE GIGLIO CLAIM,
BUT THE JURY HEARD ALL THESE
OTHER STATEMENTS, EXCEPT FRANK
MORASSA AND HIS STATEMENT WAS
CUMULATIVE TO DIMARINO'S
BROTHER.
>> BUT THEY DIDN'T HEAR WATTS?
>> YOU'RE RIGHT.
THE JUDGE DID AT THE SPENCER
HEARING.
>> THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS
WATTS, THE DEFENSE LAWYER SAID
WHY HE DIDN'T CALL WATTS.
>> RIGHT.
HE HAD A REASON FOR THAT AND
PRESUMABLY THAT WOULD APPLY TO
MR. MORASSA, WHO WAS ALSO A
MEMBER TOO, THAT SAME LOGIC, HE
WAS PURPOSELY, DEFENSE COUNSEL
TESTIFIED, HE DIDN'T WANT TO
PRESENT A WHOLE BUNCH OF
OUTLAWS, DIDN'T WANT TO BRING
THEM INTO THE RESENTENCING
HEARING, HE HAD A REASON FOR
THAT, TRIAL STRATEGY REASON FOR
THAT.
AND IN SUMMARY, I WOULD ASK THIS
COURT AFFIRM THE LOWER COURT'S
DECISION.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. CANNON, I'LL GIVE YOU TWO
MINUTES.
I THINK YOU'RE WAY OVER YOUR
TIME.
JUST A COUPLE MINUTES, CONCISE,
LET'S GO.
>> YES YOUR HONOR.
LET ME START WITH, AGAIN, GOING
BACK TO THE GIGLIO ISSUE.
GUZMAN CITES THIS CASE AS BEING
AN EXAMPLE OF INCORRECT
RECITATION AND THE AGREEMENT WAS
FOR LESS TIME.
HE GOT 15 YEARS, WHICH THIS
COURT IN THE ORIGINAL OPINION,
WAS KIND OF SHOCKED AT.
BUT SAID, WELL, THAT'S IT.
HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN MORE TIME,
BUT THIS MEMORANDUM SHOWED THAT
HE CUT A DEAL WITH THE STATE IN
EXCHANGE FOR HIS TESTIMONY.
WITH REGARDS TO MR. --
>> DID THIS OCCUR BEFORE OR --
HE WAS ACTUALLY TRIED FOR FIRST
DEGREE MURDER, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND SO HE ENDED UP WITH A
JURY CONVICTION FOR THIRD DEGREE
MURDER.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND SO DID THIS OCCUR, THE 15
YEARS IS REALLY WHAT YOU WOULD
NORMALLY GET FOR, IS THAT THE
SENTENCE YOU WOULD GET FOR THIRD
DEGREE OR 30 YEARS?
>> YOUR HONOR, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT HE COULD HAVE
GOTTEN MORE, BECAUSE HE HAD
OTHER CRIMES THAT THE STATE
DROPPED, AND IN HIS TESTIMONY,
HIS DEPOSITION, MR. DIMARINO,
HIS LAWYER WENT TO THE STATE AND
SAID, HEY, WE'VE GOT A DEAL FOR
YOU, I'LL TESTIFY.
GETTING BACK TO MR. MORASSA'S
STATEMENT, IT'S NOT WE HAD TO
GET RID OF A GIRL LAST NIGHT.
HE WAS VERY SPECIFIC.
HE SAID HE DID.
I DID.
I HAD TO GET RID OF A GIRL LAST
NIGHT.
AND YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY THING I
COULD SAY WITH REGARDS TO THAT
STATEMENT IS, THAT IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW,
RESENTENCING COUNSEL HAD THAT
INFORMATION, BUT HE TRIED TO
BRING THAT UP TO THE COURT.
AND YOU'RE CORRECT, WE DON'T
WANT THAT POLICY.
WE DON'T WANT FOLKS WHO MAY BE
INNOCENT HAVING TO WAIT TO GO
THROUGH THIS POST CONVICTION
PROCESS.
WE DON'T.
BUT HE DID.
AND COUNSEL AGREED, THAT HE
BROUGHT THAT UP TO THE POST
CONVICTION COURT.
I MEAN, TO THE RESENTENCING
JUDGE.
TRIED TO BRING THAT UP AND THE
JUDGE SAID NO.
SO HE'S STUCK.
HE HAS TO -- THIS IS HIS ONLY
OPPORTUNITY HE'S HAD TO PRESENT
MR. MORASSA STATEMENT AND THAT
WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT WAS
HEARD.
>> WITH THAT HUGH EXHAUSTED
ADDITIONAL TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT.
THE COURT WILL STAND IN RECESS
UNTIL 9:00 A.M. TOMORROW
MORNING.