LET'S MOVE TOW THIS FINAL
CASE OF THIS MORNING.
THAT IS EVANS VERSUS THE
STATE OF FLORIDA.
>> MR. HENDRY.
MATE PLEASE THE COURT I REP
SUSPECT THE APPELLANT IN THE
MATTER STEVEN MAURICE EFENS,
WE ARE FROM MIDDLE REGION,
IT IS HONOR TO SPEAK BEFORE
YOU THIS MORNING ON THIS
CASE.
WILL START WITH ISSUE NUMBER
1 IN OUR BRIEF.
I MOVE ON TO ISSUE NUMBER 2.
I BELIEVE I WILL HAVE TIME
TO ADDRESS, ADDRESS THE
ISSUE NUMBER 3 IN THE BRIF.
THE FIRST ISSUE DEALS WITH
THE 8th AMENDMENT AGAINST
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
AND IN THIS CASE KRB --
>> ISN'T THAT PREMATURE?
THE CLAIM PREMAY SURE?
EYE DON'T BELIEVE SO.
THE REASON WHY IT IS NOT
PREMATURE IS THAT WHEN YOU
LOOK AT DECISIONS AN ACTIONS
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS
THE CLASS OF PEOPLE AND
CERTAINLY MR. EVANS, THE
ARMINGS, THE CLASS OF PEOPLE
A SEVERELY MENTALLY ILL, YOU
LOOK AT THE ATKIN'S CASE,
THAT IS PROHIB BUY AGAINST
THE EXCUSE OF THE MIDDLE
EAST.
>> AS FOR WHAT HAPPENED AT
THE TIME OF TRIAL, THAT IS
MENTAL RETARDATION AT THE
TIME OF THE OH FENCE.
IT HAS ONSET AT 18, SO YOU
ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING
LIKE ME, I THOUGHT YOU WERE
YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT COULD
BE EX KULTED.
YOU ARE NOT ALLEGING THAT
SOMETHING THAT COULD OCCUR
AFTER THE CRIME COULD BE
SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD
DETERMINE NOW AS TO WHETHER
THEY WOULD BE PROPERLY
EXECUTED.
WHAT IF SOMEONE STARTS TO
DEVELOP DEMENTIA, IT IS
ONGOING THING.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE
GOING TO BE AT THE TIME OF,
CUSHION.
WHY SET UP THAT SOMETHING
THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLORED
WHEN AN IF A WARRANT IS
SIGNED?
>> BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT
WHEN THIS CRIME OCCURRED.
THIS CRIME OCCURRED IN 1996.
AT THE TIME OF 1996, STEVEN
MAURICE EVAN WAS SUFFERING
FROM A MAJOR ILLNESS.
THERE WERE SEVERAL
PSYCHIATRIST WHO WERE
INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND THE
EXAMINATION OF STEVEN
MAURICE EVANS.
>> I THOUGHT WERE YOU
TALKING ABOUT IN THE CLAIM
THIS DISEASE THAT OCCURRED
THAT HAD ITS ON SETH MORE
RECENTLY.
>> THERE IS TWO COMPONENTS.
IT INVOLVES AT THE TIME OF
THE OFFENSE, STEVEN MAURICE
EFEN WAS SEVERELY MENTALLY
ILL.
HE WAS PARANOID
SCHIZOPHRENIC.
THAT IS IN THE REPORT AND
THE REPORT, THERE IS
DIAGNOSIS, SCHIZOPHRENIA,
BUY POLL RAR DISORDER.
>> US WHAT THE THRESHOLD
THAT YOU WOULD ASK FOR?
I MEAN, HE HAS BEEN FOUND
COMPETENT?
CORRECT.
>> IF YOU HAVE A COMPETENT
PERSON.
WHAULS THE TLRBHOLD THAT
WOULD YOU SUGGEST TO THIS
COURT?
>> MY SUGGESTION IS BECAUSE
ACTIONS PROHIBIT THE
EXECUTION, BECAUSE --
>> AS THRESH HOMD, WE AGREE
ON MENTALLY RETARDED.
THE GAT ARE CAT FOR ARE IN
THE RULE, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT.
>> WHAT OBJECTIVE THRESHOLD
WOULD YOU SUGGEST FOR US?
IN THE ARGUMENT?
>> THE THRESHOLD IS IN
GENERAL I WOULD SAY SEVERELY
MENTALLY ILL, A DIAGNOSIS
THAT GIVE A PARANOID
SCHIZOPHRENIC INDIVIDUAL, I
WOULD SAY, THAT HAS ITS
PLACE IF YOU LOOK AT THE
RESULTS OF THE CASE WHICH I
BELIEVE IN 1998, ADDRESS THE
CASE.
THAT SAID IT IS CRUCIAL AN
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, YOU
SHOULD NOT BE EXECUTING
PEOPLE.
SO BECAUSE OF THE DY
DECISION, BECAUSE OF THE
EVOLVING STANDARDS, OUR ARE
OUR ARGUE AM IS THAT IT IS
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT.
ONE OF THE CLASS OF PEOPLE
WHO COULD BE ELIGIBLE.
>> DIAGNOSIS WOULD BE, YOU
COULD NOT BE EXECUTED.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD
ARGUE THAT.
I WOULD STICK TO THE CASE,
THE INDIVIDUAL CASE.
>> LET'S STICK TO HIS CASE
THEN.
HOW WAS THIS ISSUE PRESENTED
TO THE TRIAL COURT?
WAS IT PRESENTED TO THE
TRIAL COURT?
>> THIS ISSUE WE RAISED THIS
IN OUR 3851 MOTION.
WE RAISED IT AS A CLAIM OF
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
AGAINST STEVEN MAURICE EVANS
BECAUSE HE HAD THIS
DIAGNOSIS OF PARANOID SKITS
SCHIZOPHRENIA, SOMETHING
WHICH CAME LATER, BUT I
THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY THERE
IN HIS SYSTEM AT THE TIME HE
WAS ON TRIAL.
THAT WAS -- WE HAVE AN YID
THAT IS SHOT ONLY PARANOID
SCHIZORENIC, HE WAS ON
COCAINE THE NIGHT OF OH
FENCE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A
SITUATION WHERE IN 1996 --
EYE UNDERSTAND, THE
SITUATION THAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT, BUT THIS D
THE TRIAL JUDGE ACTUALLY
RULE ON THIS PARTICULAR
ISSUE?
>> THE TRIAL JUDGE RULED, I
BELIEVE, THAT THIS ISSUE IS
BARRED AND RAISED ON DIRECT
APPEAL.
THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE
ORDER IS THAT THE JUDGE DID
NOT ANALYZE WHETHER OR NOT
THIS WAS CRUEL AN UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT AS APPLIED TO
STEVEN MAURICE EVANS, THE
JUDGE, I BELIEVE, IN HIS
HORDER, WHEN HE SPOKE UP,
BASICALLY, THE FLORIDA'S
DEATH PENALTY TEAM HAS BEEN
RULED CONSTITUTIONAL.
>> IF HE, IN FACT, WAS
DIAGNOSEED WITH THESE
ILLNESSES, WHY WASN'T THAT
AN ISSUE THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN
RAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL?
>> WELL, IT WAS RAISED AS
THE MAIN DISCUSSION ON
APPEAL.
IT WAS DISCUSSED VERY
THUNDERSHOWER ALY.
WAS -- THOROUGHLY.
WAS THE MAIN ARGUMENT WAS
HOW COULD THERE BE THIS
FINDING CERTAIN AGGRAVATEORS,
CALCULATED AN PREMEDITATED,
AND YET, AT THE SAME TIME,
THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE
STATUTORY MIT GITORS UNDER
EXTREME MENTAL STRESS AN THE
INABILITY TO CONFORM HIS
CONDUCT THROUGH REQUIREMENTS
OF LAW, SO IT WAS ADDRESSED.
IT WAS TALKED ABOUT ON
DIRECT APPEAL.
>> SO THEN, IF IT WAS TALKED
ABOUT ON DIRECT APPEAL, HOW
DO WE GET TO IT HERE?
IS A UNDERSTAND THIS RECORD,
THIS GENTLEMEN HAD THREE
MEPAL HEALTH EXPERTS TESTIFY
AT HIS MENDTE PHASE.
THEY TALKED ABOUT WHAT KIND
OF MENAL PROBLEMS HE HAD.
AND AS A RESULT OF, THAT THE
TRIAL JUDGE DID IN FACT GIVE
WAY TO ONE OF THE MENTAL
HEALTH MIT GITOR, HE
CERTAINLY CONSIDERED AND HE
GAVE SOME WEIGHT TO THE
OTHER MENTAL HEALTH MIT
GITOR.
THAT IS WHAT THE STATE OF
RECORD WOULD DEM TRAT?
EYE DON'T KNOW -- I DONE
KNOW.
>> HE GAVE, HE GAVE THAT ONE
MORE WEIGHT THAN HE GAVE THE
OTHER ONE.
ONE OF THEM HE GAVE MER
WEIGHT THAN THE OTHER.
CORRECT?
BOTH OF THEM WERE, IN FACT,
DISCUSSED FOUND BY THE TRIAL
JUDGE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I SEE A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN MENTAL RETARDATION
AN MENTAL ILLNESS.
IT SEEMS LIKE MENTAL RETARD
AIR, YOU CAN'T CURE, AN ONCE
IT IS ONSET, IT DOESN'T
AWAY.
MENTAL ILLNESS IS DIFFERENT.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE
JURISPRUDENCE OF COMPETENCY
ADDRESSES YOUR CONCERN AS HE
IS SO MENTALLY ILL THAT HE
IS INCOMPETENT AT THE TIME
OF HIS SCHEDULED EXECUTION.
THEN HE WON'T BE EX SKUTED.
EVEN IF HE IS MENTALLY ILL
NOW, THERE IS NOTHING TO SAY
HE WILL STILL BE MENTALLY
ILL AT THE TIME OF EX, COULD
YOU VICE VERSA, IF HE IS NOT
NOW, HE MAY BE AT THE TIME
OF EXECUTION.
SO GOING BACK TO JUSTICE
PARIENTE'S CONCERN, WHY
DOESN'T IT ASSUME AN
ADEQUATELY'S DRESS THE
ARGUMENT THAT HE SHOULD NOT
BE EXECUTED BECAUSE HE IS
MENTALLY ILL?
I WOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE
THAT ISSUE ISN'T ADDRESSED.
IT ISN'T ADDRESSED.
IT IS NOT, IT IS NEATH ARE
ADDRESSED IN THE FORD CASE
WHICH DEALS WITH THE
EXECUTION OF THE INSANE.
THE MAIN ARGUMENT IS THAT
YOU CAN'T EXECUTE THOSE
GROUPS OF PEOPLE BASED ON
THE RECENT CASES IN THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT.
IN THE STEVEN MAURICE EVANS
CASE, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO EXECUTE PARANOID
SCHIZOPHRENIC WHO IS
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT TO
STAND TRIAL DUE TO THE MENAL
INESS.
>> HE HAS BEEN CONFIDENT
NOURK RIGHT?
>> HAS HE BEEN JUDGED COME
TENT NOW?
>> THERE WAS FINDING POST-
CONVICTION.
>> OKAY, IF THERE IS A
FINDING IN POST CONVICTION
NOW HE IS COME TEN, AT LEAST
WE CAN SAY THAT HE IS
SOMETIMES COMPETENT AND
SOMETIMES INCOMPETENT.
HE MAY BE COMPETENT AT THE
TIME OF EXECUTION.
WHY ISN'T THAT TIME WHEN WE
DETERMINE WHETHER HE CAN BE
EXECUTED OR NOT?
>> WHEN HIS DIAGNOSIS IS A
RARE FORM.
THAT CAME FROM THE DOCTOR
WHICH IS KNOWN, WHICH
MR. EVANS, HE IS GOOD AT
MAXING MENTAL ILLNESS.
HE DOESN'T WANT TO APPEAR
MENTALLY ILL.
THE LAST THING HE WANTS TO
DO IS FOR PEOPLE TO SEE THAT
HE IS MENTALLY ILL.
>> THAT IS ONE VIEW OF HIS
SITUATION.
THE OTHER IS THAT HE IS JUST
REFUSING TO COOPERATE WITH
HIS ATTORNEYS AN NOT
NECESSARILY DOO DUE TO
MENTAL ILLNESS SO I AGREE
THERE IS ONE POSSIBILITY
THAT YOUR EXPERTS PUT FORTH,
BUT THAT IS NOT DEALING
AGAIN WITH WHAT IS THE
FIPING OF THE TRIAL COURT ON
THIS ISSUE.
THE TRIAL COURT FIP AS HE
WAS PRESENTLY ILL AND UNABLE
TO ASSIST WITH HIS DEFENSE,
YOU ARE NOT APPEALING -- ARE
YOU APPEALING THAT PART OF
THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER?
>> THERE IS ISSUES WITH
REGARD TO COME PEN YOU SY.
ONE OF THE CLAIMS INVOLVED.
THE FAILURE TO SUPPORT THE
NECESSARY INFORMATION AT THE
TIME OF TRIAL.
>> YEAH.
I AM ASKING -- YOU HAVE
RAISED IT TO BE EXECUTE.
BUT DID YOU RAISE ON AN
ISSUE OF APPEAL THAT THE
TRIAL COURT FINING HIM COME
TENT TO PROCEED WITH THIS
PROCEEDING?
>> BECAUSE THE STANDARD
INVOLVED IN THAT.
WE ARE NOT CHALLENGING THAT.
>> THAT GOES BACK TO WHAT
THE JUST IS SAID WHICH SAID
HE MAY BE OF DEP AT THE
TIME.
HE MAY NOT.
HE IS REFUSING MEDICATION
THAT MAY HELP OR MAY NOT
HELP WITH HIS MENTAL
ILLNESS.
>> ONE THING IS.
-- A DOCTOR SPENT ONLY FIVE
MINUTES WITH HIM.
WITH MR. EVANS, HE HAD A
SERIES OF REVIEWS.
MY INTERACTIONS WITH
MR. EVANS, HE DID NOT WANT
TO PURSUE ANYTHING WITH
REGARD TO MENTAL ILLNESS,
PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA OR
ANYTHING.
WE DID IT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO
DO IT.
SETING ASIDE THE ISSUE OF
COMPETENT SY.
HE HAS SEVERE MAJOR MENTAL
ILLNESS.
OUR ARGUMENT IS HE SHOULD
NOT FIT IN THE SAME CLASS OF
PEOPLE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
THE DEATH PENALTY.
I HOPE THE COURT CAN REVIEW
THE DECISION.
HE HAS QUESTION HE NEEDS TO
ASK.
>> PROBABLY GET YOU WHAT WAP
THROUGH THIS QUESTION.
IN ARTICLE 1:00 SECTION 17
OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION,
OUR STATE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES MANDATES THAT THIS
COURT CONSTREW CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE
DECISIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES' SUPREME COURT.
HOW CAN WE DO THAT?
>> QUESTION DO THAT.
THIS COURT WILL REVIEW.
THE CASE OF FITZPATRICK,
THOSE ISSUES IN 1988.
IN THIS CASE, THE COURT DID
A PORTIONALITY ANALYSIS,
AGAIN WITH THE CASE, AND
ASKED IS THIS REALLY SOMEONE
WHO CAN FIT THE CLASS OF
PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE
EXECUTED?
STATED THAT IT MUST BEGIN
WITH A PREMISE THAT DEATH IS
DIFFERENT.
>> LET ME ASK YOU UNANOTHER
WAY -- CAN YOU CITE TO ME,
THE UNITED NATIONS' SUPREME
COURT CASE THAT HOLDS IT IS
A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST
CRUEL AN UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
TO EXECUTE SOMEBODY WHO IS
COV DENT, BUT HAS A VE VEER
EP MENTAL ILE ILLNESS.
I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE
FORD CASE, A 1988 CASE WHICH
SAID THAT YOU CAN'T EXECUTE
MENTALLY INSANE PEOPLE.
THIS COURT, THIS COURT CITED
TO JUSTICE STEVENS WHEN HE
SAID THE DEATH PENALTY IS
UNIQUE IN THE TOTAL AND IT
IS UNIQUE AS BASIC PURPOSE
OF KRILL NAL JUSTICE, IT IS
UNIQUE FINALLY ON THE
RENUNSATION OF ALL THAT IS
EMBODIED IN THE CONCEPT OF
HUMANITY.
IN AUGUST OF 2004, THEY
WHEELED -- HE WAS COMPLETELY
FINE.
SEVERELY MAJORLY MENTALLY
ILL.
THE POINT IS, HE SHOULD KNOB
EXECUTED.
HE SHOULD NOT BE ON DEATH
ROW.
HE DOESN'T FIT THAT CLASS OF
CITIZENS.
HE SHOULDN'T BE THERE.
>> THAT IS NOT THE
DISCUSSION THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN HELD AT THE CONCLUSION
OF THE PENALTY PHASE AND ON
THE SENTENCE AN DIRECT AHEAL
RATHER THAN A SITUATION THAT
WE ARE INTO NOW?
WOULD Y WOULD THAT NOT BE
THE SCEN MAUR YO AS YOU GO
THROUGH A PROCESS?
>> HERETOFORE, WE NEVER
DISCUSSED HIS MAJOR PHYSICAL
ILLNESS THAT IS RUNNING
RAMPANT LUGE THE BODY.
IT?
COMPLETELY ATTACKED HIS
EYES.
IT ACTS LIKE A CANCER.
IT IS SPREAD INTO THE WHITE
BLOOD CELLS AND HE IS BLIND.
ETTE IS ON THE LUNG,
PANCREAS, STOMACH, A THESE
WERE ALL THINGS NOT KBIRD
THE JURY WHEN THEY MADE
RECOMMENDATION.
>> THEY DIDN'T EXIST THEN?
CORRECT?
>> IT WASN'T DIAGNOSED.
>> HE WASN'T BLIND BACK
THEN?
>> NO.
I LOOKED AT THE RECORDS,
THERE WERE SIGN, SYMPTOMS
WITH HIS SKIN.
HE WAS SCRATCHING HIS EYES.
>> THE PROBLEM I AM STILL
HAVING IS THAT THERE ARE
MANY CONDITIONS AS WE HAVE
INCREASINGLY LARGER NUMBER
OF INMATES ON DEATH ROW,
THEY GET, AS THEY AGE, THEY
MAY GET CONDITIONS THAT WILL
MAKE IT AT THE TIME THE
GOVERNOR SIGNS THE DEATH
WARRANT THAT MAYBE HUMAN
DEE-DEE SENSE SY IS GOING TO
SAY THIS PERSON SHOULD BE
PUT OUT OF HIS MISERY
ANOTHER WAY OR SOMETHING.
BUT WHAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING
FOR WOULD REQUIRE CONSTANT
HEARINGS AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS
SOME TYPE OF IMNESS, IT
COULD BE CANCER, IT COULD BE
ALZHEIMER'S TYPE, TO EARE
WAIT IF THE PERSON IS, YOU
KNOW, DETERIORATEED TO A
POINT AT WHICH THEY SHOULD
NO LONGER BE ON DEATH ROW
AND AS JUSTICE SAID, HOW DO
YOU, WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS
THAT YOU USES TO EVALUATE AS
WE TELL THE TRIAL JUDGE TO
COME AT?
I SEE, I MEANT YOU ARE IN
THE REBUTTAL?
THAT IS MY PROBLEM IS THAT
IT IS ONGOING SITUATION AND
YOU ARE ASKING US TO FIX IT
AT A PERIOD OF TIME THAT
REALLY INDETERMINE ATE.
>> I WOULD RESPOND TO THAT.
I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO
REVIEW THAT OPINION.
YOU HAVE, GOING TO THE OTHER
ISSUE HERE.
WHAT MR. EVANS WAS DOING ON
THE NIGHT OF THE OH FENCE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASE.
THERE IS A DISCUSSION ON THE
WAY HE LOOKED ON THE NIGHT
HE WAS CRAZY.
NOW, IN THE EVANS CASE, YOU
HAVE ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES
HERE IS THAT THE FAILURE
COUNSEL FAILED TO SUPPORT
THIS REPORT TO THE MENTAL
HEALTH EXPERTS UNTIL THAT
WEEK BEFORE RILE.
ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE
BROUGHT UP HERE --
>> WAS THAT ALL?
I REMEMBER THAT DR. GUTMAN
SAID THAT, BUT I THOUGHT
THAT THE OTHER EXPERTS SAID
THAT THEY DID IN FACT READ
THE STATEMENTS OF THE CO-
DEFENDANTS.
>> THEIR LETTERS, MY
RECOLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE
IN THE HEARING IS THAT THERE
IS WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION
SAYING THIS INFORMATION WAS
MET FORWARD TO EITHER
DOCTORS THIS THE WEEK BEFORE
THE TRIAL.
>> WELL, ISN'T THERE A
LETTER FROM THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEY TO ONE OF THE
EXPERTS WHERE SHE ACTUALLY
TALKED ABOUT THE TWO
CODEFENDANTS CAN AN THEM
SAYING THEY WERE DRINKING
AND DOING MARIJUANA.
>> SEPTEMBER OF 1998, THIS
WAS A WILLING LETTER FROM
THE TRIAL COUNSEL.
ABOUT IT TALKED ABOUT
DRINKING.
IT DID NOT TALK ABOUT
COCAINE USE.
>> IT TALKED ABOUT, WELL,
THEY INITIALLY SAID THAT
THERE WAS DRINKING AND USE
OF MARIJUANA.
IT WAS LATER ON THAT SOMEONE
SAID AND THERE WAS SOME
COCAINE.
EYE DONE REMEMBER I DON'T
REMEMBER COCAINE BEING
DISCUSSED.
>> YOU ARE DOWN TO TWO
MINUTES INTO REMAINING, SO
USE YOUR TIME AS YOU PLEASE.
I WANTED REMIND.
>> DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS DUE
DUTY TO OBTAIN FILE, PAST
FILES OF MR. EVAN, THAT WAS
NOT DONE IN THE CASE.
THE TRIAL COUNSEL DIDN'T
KNOW KNOW ABOUT IT OUT
THERE.
LEAKED OUT WHEN EVANS TOOK
THE STAND THAT HE HAD BEEN
CONVICTED OF ESCAPE.
WE CALLED PUBLIC KEY FENER
TO EXPLAIN THIS WAS NOT WITH
KILLING GUARDS OR ANYTHING
LIKE THAT.
>> WAS IT PRESENTED TIP THAT
MANNER?
>> IT WAS RESENTED AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
>> NO, I AM SAYING AT THINK
TIME THE EVIDENCE CAME
BEFORE THE JURY, THERE WAS
NOTHING SAID EXCEPT ESCAPE.
THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT
THIS WAS SOME KIND OF
VIOLENT ACTION.
NO INDICATION THAT THIS WAS
SOME KIN OF TUMBLING AN ULF
THIS?
IT JUST SAID HE ESCAPED,
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> ONCE THE JURY HEARD
ESCAPE CONVICTIONS THEY
THINK IT IS A DANGEROUS MAN,
HE COULD ESCAPE AGAIN.
WE'LL IM PO POSE THE DEATH
PENALTY.
I WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> MR. NUNNELLEY?
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
I REP SBT THE STATE OF
FLORIDA IN THIS SPREADING.
WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST
CLAIM, WHAT WE'RE LABELING
FOR EXECUTION CLAIM, IT IS
REALLY NOT THAT.
IT IS NOT A FORWARD CLAIM.
WE HAVEN'T LITIGATED THIS
UNIR FORD BECAUSE THE
DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO
DO SO, IF HE HAD, IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN UNTIMELY BECAUSE
THERE IS NO DEATH PAR
WARRANT.
WHAT WE HAVE IS A PREMATURE
-- IT WINCE OF TWO THINGS,
AND I AM NOT SURE IT IS.
IT IS EITHER A PREMATURE
CLEMENCY ARGUMENT OR IT IS
AN ATTEMPT TO RELITIGATE THE
DIRECT APPEAL FINDING OF
THIS COURT THAT DEATH IS AN
APPROPRIATE STHINT CASE.
I AM NOT QUITE SURE WHAT IT
IS.
IT SEEMS TO MUTATE BETWEEN
THE ONE OR THE OTHER BUT TO
THE EX DENT THAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT
PROPORTIONALITY.
IT IS NOT REQUIRED UNTHE 8th
AMENDMENT BY THE WAY.
BUT ASSUMING THAT IS WHAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT.
THE TRIAL COURT GAVE
SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT TO THE
EXTREME EMOTIONAL
DISTURBANCE AGGRAVATEOR AN
GAVE SOME WEIGHT OR I AM
SORRY MIT GITOR.
AND GAVE SOME WEIGHT TO THE
UNABLE TO APPRECIATE AND
CONFIRM MITIGATOR.
THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED TO THE EXTENT
THAT THIS IS THE ATTEMPT TO
RELITIGATE THOSE ISSUES,
THAT RELITIGATION IS
PROCEDURALLY BARRED.
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED,
TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT COMPETENCY FOR
EXECUTION, WE ARE NOT THERE
YET.
THAT WASN'T WHAT WE WERE
TALKING BEEN THE HEARING IN
ORLANDO THE WEEK LEADING UP
TO HURRICANE FRANCIS.
WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
DOWN THERE WAS, WE HAD ONE
WITNESS WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT
THAT.
THIS IS SOME KIND OF
AUTOIMMUNE SYSTEM DISEASE.
I DON'T DISPUTE THAT
MR. EVANS IS BLIND.
WE HAVE EXPERT TESTIMONY
FROM OPTHMOLOGIST WHO HAS
TREATED HIM TO THAT EFFECT.
TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE A
SUGGESTION THAT THE FACTS OF
THAT DISEASE HAVE CARRIED
OVER INTO HIS LIVER, SFOM
ACHE AND PANCREAS LUNGS,
STOMACH AND PAN CREE YIX I
DON'T RECALL WHAT COUNSEL
SAID EXACTLY.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE RECORD
WILL SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT
THAT IS WHAT HE IS GOING ON
WITH MR. EVANS.
IT MAY BE WHAT IS GOING ON
NOW.
AFTER TWO YEARS, AFTER THE
TWO YEARS HE HAS LAPSED SUNS
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
>> DID I UNDERSTAND TO SAY
YOU, HE WAS NOT BLIND AT THE
TIME OF THE EDARY HEARING?
>> NO, MA'AM.
HE WAS BLIND AT THE TIME OF
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT.
I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT.
>> WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE AS
TO HIS EXPECTED LIFE
EXPECTANCY AT THE TIME OF
THE POST CONVICTION HEARING?
>> I AM GOING TO GIVE YOU A
TWO-PART ANSWER.
I AM NOT TRYING TO DEFLECT
YOU HERE.
WE HAD TWO MD DOCTORS WHO
TESTIFIED HE SAID, YOU KNOW,
THEOTOMY IMMUNE SYSTEM
DISEASE, I DON'T KNOW THAT
MUCH ABOUT IT.
HIS TESTIMONY IS VERY, VERY
LIMITED.
THE OTHER WITNESS WHO
TESTIFIED WAS AN OPTH
OPTHMOLOGIST WHO HAS DRAETED
MR. EVANS IN EARLY 2000 FOR
BLINDNESS.
SHE DIAGNOSED THIS DISEASE.
SHE DESCRIBED MR. EVAN'S
CONDITION AS THE MOST SEVERE
CASE SHE HAD EVER SEEN.
I WILL GIVE HIM THAT.
SHE DID NOT SAY THAT HIS
PROGNOSIS IS OF A LIFE
EXPECTANCY OF 3 YEARS OR
ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
IT DID NOT GO TO THAT POINT.
THAT WITNESS WAS NOT AND DID
NOT PROPORT TO BE A
SPECIALISTS IN THE AREA OF
THE DISEASE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
RATHER UNUSUAL CONDITION
THAT REQUIRES A -- THAT
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO
SPECIALIZE IN IT, THERE WAS
NO SUCH TESTIMONY.
WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT
MR. EVAN'S LIKE EXPECTANCY
IS.
I AM SORRY.
THAT EVIDENCE IS NOT IN THE
RECORD.
>> MR. NUN NELLLY, IT
APPEARS YOUR OPPONENT IS
SAYING THAT WE HAVE A PERSON
WHO HAS GONE THROUGH THE
PROCESS AND IS NOW IN SUCH A
CONDITION THAT HE OR SHE
OUGHT NOT BE EITHER ON DEATH
ROW OR EVEN CONSIDERED FOR
EXECUTION AND THIS IS SOME
WHERE BETWEEN THE TRIAL AND
A WARRANT.
I THINK THAT IS REALLY WHAT
THEY ARE ARGUING AND SO DO
WE HAVE ANY KIND OF ROW SEED
DURES?
IS THEIR LAW THAT AFFORDS
REMEDY OR RELIEF OF THE LAW
TO AFFORD REMEDY OR RELIEF
UNDER THAT SCENARIO?
I GUESS THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
REALLY TALKING ABOUT THIS
MORNING.
>> HIS REMEDY, CHIEF JUSTICE
IN CLEMENCY, THAT IS WHERE
IT BAE LONGS.
THIS IS NOT AN ATKINS-
SIMONS CIRCUMSTANCE.
ATKIN AN SIMONS ARE FOUND BE
THE RELATIVE CULLENABILITY
OF THE OFFENDER.
BE HE MENTALLY RETARDED OR
OF YOUNG AGE.
THOSE FACTORS THAT ARE
PERSONAL TO THE DEFENDANT
RELATE DIRECTLY UP ARE THE
SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENT TO
THE CULPABILITY OF THAT
OFFENDER.
>> WAS THERE AN INSANITY
DEFENSE PRESEN SNOOD NO,
SIR.
MR. EVANS REFUSED TO ALLOW
AN INSANITY DEFENSE TO BE
PRESENTED.
>> THAT SEEMS TO BE THE
ARGUMENT TOO, HE WAS INSANE
AT THE TIME.
THAT SEEMS TO BE INSANITY SO
HE DID NOT HAVE THE INTENT
TO COMMIT THE CRIME.
THAT KIND OF ARGUMENT.
>> WELL, MR. EVANS WANTED TO
USE AN ALIBI DEFENSE.
THE ALIBI DEFENSE BLEW UP ON
HIM WHEN HIS ALIBI WITNESS
ADMITTED TO HAVING PURGERED
HERSELF BY PROVIDING AN
ALIBI IN DEPOSITION BY THE
TRIAL.
OBVIOUSLY TRIAL COUNSEL
COULD NOT TELL THAT WITNESS.
ON THE EXERCISE OF
REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT.
MR. EVANS TESTIFIED OVER
COUNSELS STRONG
ENCOURAGEMENT NOT TO DO SO,
BUT IN COMING BACK TO YOUR
QUESTION.
MR. EVANS CONFIDENCE SY TO
PROCEED AND WE ALL, I MEAN,
THERE ARE VARIOUS LEVELS,
AND IT IS RELATIVELY LOW
STAN TARTED OF COMPETENT SY
AND WHILE TO PROCEED IS WHAT
HIGHER.
HIS COMPETENT SY HAS BEEN
LIT GAYED THROUGHOUT THESE
PROCEEDINGS.
HE WAS SENT OFF TO FLORIDA
STATE HOSPITAL FOR
EVALUATION AND OBSERVATION
AND ULTIMATELY HE WAS FOUND
COMPETENT.
THAT WAS NOT, AS I RECALL, A
MAJOR ISSUE ON DIRECT
APPEAL, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE
IS COV TENT SY, AT THE TIME
OF TRIAL, HAS BEEN
DETERMINED.
THIS COURT WROTE OF THE
ISSUE.
AND POINTED OUT THAT THE
REPORTS OF EXPERT WITNESSES
ARE ADVISORY TO THE COURT.
THEY ARE TO THE TRIAL COURT.
THEY ARE NOT BINDING ON THE
TRIAL COURT.
THE TRIAL COURT RETAINS THE
RESPONSEK FOR MAKING THE
DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT THIS INDIVIDUAL IS
COMPETENT TO GO TO TRIAL.
MR. EVANS THEN LITIGATED HIS
COMPETENT TO ROW SEED IN THE
3.851 SPREEINGD UNDER THE
PROCEDURES SET OUT IN THE
RULES AND THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND THAT HE WAS, IN FACT,
CONFIDENT TO GO FORWARD.
THAT ISSUE IS RIGHT BEFORE
THIS COURT ON DIRECT APPEAL.
ON THIS APPEAL, I AM SORRY,
WHAT WE HAVE IS A HYBRID
SORT OF ISSUE.
I AM NOT SURE WHAT IT IS
HYBRID BETWEEN, IT IS NOT
ATKINS OR SIMONS BECAUSE
THOSE CASES ARE DIFFERENT.
IT IS NOT FORD BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE A SHOWING THAT
MR. EVANS DOESN'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO
HIM AND WHY.
AND WITH A FOOTNOTE WE DON'T
HAVE A WARRANT ACTIVE ANYWAY
SO WE ARE NOT TO THE
DETERMINATION YET.
WHAT WE SEEM TO HAVE IS SORT
OF A MID GROUND CLAIM THAT
WHILE THE EXTREME MENTAL
EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE MIT
GITOR WAS APPLIED TO THIS
DEFENDANT AND WHY WHILE THE
PROPORTIONALITY ANALYSIS
CONDUCTED BY THIS COURT ON
DIRECT APPEAL AFTER I FIRMED
THE DEATH SENTENCE
NONETHELESS WE GET THE
DEFENDANT GETS TO COME BACK
IN POST-CONVICTION AND
RELITIGATE PROPORTIONALITY
USING THE SAME EVIDENCE THAT
WAS BEFORE THIS COURT ON
DIRECT APPEAL AND ARGUE THAT,
OKAY, I GOT THIS MITIGATEOR,
I STILL GOT A DEATH
SENTENCE, OKAY, THE LABEL
THAT GOES TO IT IS PARANOID
SCHIZOPHRENIA OR PIE POLAR
DISORDER.
THEREFORE, I AM NOT ELIGIBLE
FOR THAT.
>> LET ME ASK THIS YOU -- ON
THIS ISSUE, I THOUGHT THAT
WHAT WAS RAISED IN THE TRIAL
COURT, AT 3.850 LEVEL FOR
LIKE 2 DIFFERENT KIND OF
ISSUES, I THOUGHT HE RAISED
ISSUE OF HIS COMPETENT SY TO
PROCEED AND I THOUGHT HE
ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER OR NOT OUR WHOLE
PROCEDURE RAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
ALLOWED FOR US TO EXECUTE
SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN FOUND
INCOMPETENT.
NOW ARE THOSE ISSUES THAT
WERE LIT LITIGATED BELOW OR
WAS THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IN
THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE HAVE
IT NOW LITIGATED BELOW?
>> JUST I AM NOT CERTAIN IN
MY OWN MIND THAT THE
ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEING
PREVENTED TO THIS COURT
TODAY WERE THE ARGUMENTS
THAT WERE LITIGATED IN THE
TRIAL COURT.
IN THE TRIAL COURT, MY -- I
DON'T MEAN TO RECITE THE
RECORD, I AM AFRAID, THAT IS
WHAT I AM ABOUT TO DO.
MY TAKE ON THE TRIAL COURT
CLAIM IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF
THE CLAIM ON THE TRIAL COURT
WAS THAT THE EXISTENCE OF
THE DISEASE ENTITLED
MR. EVANS TO EITHER A NEW
OPINION TY PHASE OR RELIEF
FROM HIS DEATH SENTENCE.
THAT IS THE RELIEF THAT HE
ASKS FOR.
I THINK IT IS PLAINLY ABSURD
TO SUGGEST THAT A CONDITION
THAT MANIFESTED ITSELF AFTER
DIRECT APPEAL WAS OVER OR
CLOSE TO THE TIME DIRECT
APPEAL WAS OVER, I THINK
THEY PINPOINT THE ONSET AS
THE YEAR 2000 WHICH WOULD
HAVE BEEN SHORTLY BEFORE DIR
RK APPEAL IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO A
NEW OPINION TY PHASE.
>> DO YOU KNOW IF THERE HAS
BEEN OTHER INSTANCES OF
PEOPLE ON DEATH ROW WHO HAVE
DEVELOPED SOME KIN OF MAJOR
IMNESS ILLNESS ONCE THEY
WERE ON DEATH ROW?
DO WE HAVE ANY CASE WHERE
ANY KIND OF CLAIM CONCERNING
THAT THOSE ILLNESSS WERE
BROUGHT TO THE COURT?
>> JUSTICE QUINCE, THE TWO
CASES THAT COME TO PLIND THE
HUFF CASE AND ANOTHER CASE.
I THINK THERE HAS BEEN
ANOTHER, I KNOW THERE HAVE
BEEN OTHER, BUT THROWS THE
TWO THAT I AM THE MOST
FAMILIAR WITH.
BOTH OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS
DIED ON DEATH ROW OF CANCER.
ONE DIED OF STOMACH CANCER.
I THINK THAT IS ALSO WHAT
DID AWAY WITH MR. HUFF, BUT
I AM NOT ENTIRELY CERTAIN
ABOUT THAT.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NEITHER OF
THOSE DEFENDANTS RAISED SUCH
AN ISSUE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT A
SIMILAR CLAIM HAD A RATHER
LIFE IN VIRGINIA WITH AN
UNMATE WHO WAS PARALYZED AS
A RESULT OF A STABBING BY
ANOTHER INMATE WHILE HE WAS
ON DEATH ROW.
I WAS NEVER ABLE TO FIND A
REPORTED DECISION THAT SET
OUT ANY DETAILS OF THAT, OF
THAT CASE AND THAT IS WHY IT
IS NOT, I COULD NOT FIND
ANYTHING TO CITE, I MERELY
HAVE ANECDOTAL INFORMATION
ABOUT THAT.
>> IN NO OTHER STATE?
DID DO YOU ANY --
>> I HAVE BEEN AWARE OVER
THE YEARS JUSTICE QUINCE OF
INMATES BECOMING ILL AND AS
JUSTICE PARIENTE POINTED
OUT.
AS THEY GET OLDER, WE HAVE
INMATES WHO DEVELOP HEALTH
PROBLEMS.
I HAD AN IN MAINTAIN IN
ALABAMA WHEN I WAS IN THAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, I
HAD A DEFENDANT THAT HAD
SERIOUS HEART ARE PROBLEMS.
LAST I HEARD, HE WAS STILL
DOING JUST FINE, TOO.
>> YEAH, I THOUGHT WE SHOULD
MAYBE AT LEAST TOUCH ON THE
ISSUES RELATING TOURB SHOES
2 AND 3 ABOUT THE FAILURE TO
PURSUE ISSUES REGARDING THE
ESCAPE CHARGE AND
SPECIFICALLY THIS ISSUE
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE THAT
THE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS
INFCTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE
A MOTION TO SUPPRESS AS A
RESULT OF THE ARREST ON
ESCAPE AND FAULTY WARRANT.
I AM -- COULD YOU GET THE
FACTUAL SCENARIO CLARIFIED.
WAS HE ARREST POR THE ESCAPE
AT THE TIME HAD THE MURDER
ALREADY OCCURRED AN EXPLAIN
THAT AND THEN THEREFORE WHAT
THE SEQUENCE IS?
>> HE WAS ARRESTED -- THE
MURDER OCCURRED ON APRIL 26,
HE WAS ARREST ON MAY 2nd OF
1996 AND INDICTED WAS
RETURNED ON MAY 10th.
I HOPE I SAID MAY 2 N FOR
ARREST DATE.
>> WHEN WAES THE ESCAPES?
>> THE ESCAPE WAS SOMETIME
PRIOR TO THAT?
>> HE COMMITTED THIS MURDER
WHILE HE WAS -- HE WAS ON
ESCAPE STATUS.
>> WHILE HE ESCAPED FROM
WORK RELEASE.
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> NOW, THAT FACT PART OF
THE PROSECUTION'S CASE THAT
THE SEQUENCE OF HOW THIS
MURDER OCCURRED?
>> IN RELATION THOUGH
ESCAPE?
HOO NO, MA'AM.
>> SO THIS ONLY CAME UP, THE
ESCAPE ONLY CAME UP WHEN A
DEFENDANT AGAINST HIS
DEFENSE COUNSEL ADVICE WAS
MENTIONED THE ESCAPE CHARGE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
YOUR HONOR, IN FACT, I WOULD
REFER YOU TO 2326 OF THE
ORIGINAL RECORD WHICH IS THE
SENTENCING ORDER WHERE THE
TRIAL COURT DITS CUSSES THE
UNDERSENTENCE OF
IMPRISONMENT, A VATING
CIRCUMSTANCES POINTING OUT
IT WAS NOT PRESENTED TO ON
THE JURY.
I WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ARGUED AT
THE HEARING.
THE ONLY WAY THE ESCAPE GOT
IN FRONT OF THE JURY WAS
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT TOOK
THE STAND AGAINST THE ADVICE
OF HIS LAWYER AND DIDN'T
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PUT TO
HIM AS HIS LAWYER HAD
COUNSELED HIM REPEATEDLY TO
DO ONCE IT BECAME APPARENT
TO HER HE WAS GOING TO
TESTIFY DESPITE ADVICE NOT
TO.
>> SO ARE THEY ARGUING THAT
THE DEFENSE LAWYERS DIDN'T
EVEN KNOW THE CIRKS OF THE
ESCAPE?
THEY WERE DEFISH SENT IN NOT
AREA IN STANDING, JUST
SOMEBODY WALKING AWAY FROM
WORK RELEASE PROGRAM?
>> I AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE
WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS.
>> I GUESS, WHAT DID COUNSEL
TESTIFY THAT HE OR SHE KNEW
ABOUT THE ESCAPE CHARGE?
>> THEY KNEW HE WAS ALL
ESCAPE AND DEFENSE, THAT HE
HAD ESCAPED AND DEFENSE
COUNSEL DID NOT RECALL
WHETHER OR NOT SHE KNEW
ABOUT THE HE IS ACT
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE HE IS
STAP.
ESCAPE.
AS IN THE COURSE OF THE
ARMING, I AM SORRY, IN THE
COURSE OF THE HEARING, THERE
WAS AN INTERESTING
DISCUSSION BETWEEN DEFENSE
COUNSEL AND THE PRIVATE
DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE
TRIAL JUDGE TO THE EFFECT
THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD
HAVE TRIED TO MINIMIZE THE
ESCAPE CHARGE BY ARGUING
THAT OH IT WAS JUST A
WALKOFF FOR WORK RELEASE.
NOW, THE FACT OF THE MATTER
IS, MR. EVANS WAS, WAS ON
WORK RELEASE STATUS
FOLLOWING A CONVICTION FOR
THE OFFENSE, I BELIEVE, IF I
AM NOT MISTAKEN.
HE HAD GOTTEN A BREAK AND
THEN PUT ON WORK RELEASE
STATUS.
AND THEN FOR HIM TO GO AND
ESCAPE FROM WORK RELEASE
STATUS.
IS A FAIRLY SERIOUS
VIOLATION, IT IS NOT ONE
THAT IS EASILY TURNED INTO
SOMETHING THAT IS OF
CHARACTER, YOU KNOW?
AS JUDGE POINTED OUT.
THIS MAY HAVE GOT A BREAK
AND IT BLEW IT BY WALKING
OFF.
>> SO YOU POINT, THAT WOULD
BE ISSUE 3 THAT IS IT ONLY
CAME OUT BECAUSE BECAUSE THE
DEFENDANT MENTIONED IT THAT
IT COULD HAVE BEEN A TWO-EDGED
SWORD EVEN IF THEY KNEW
ABOUT IT HOW MUCH OF THE
ESCAPE WOULD HAVE DETAILED
WOULD HAVE COME TO THE JURY.
>> WELL, THEY WERE CERTAINLY
HOPING HE WOULDN'T TURN
AROUND AND NOT FOLLOW THEIR
ADVICE AN TELL EVERYBODY HE
HAD BEEN CONVICTED.
>> WHAT ABOUT THIS, NOT
MOVING TO SUPPRESS THE
EVIDENCE THAT THAT WAS
SOMEHOW THEY COULD HAVE KEPT
THE SHOES OUT AND THEN THAT
WOULD HAVE KEPT HIM LESS
LUCK LIE TO BE CONVICTED AS
A MURDER?
>> I THINK YOU HAVE TREE
ANSWERS TO THAT EACH OF
WHICH IS EQUALLY
APPROPRIATE.
THE SHOES WERE NOT A BIG
PART OF THE CASE TO BEGIN
WITH AND NOT EVEN MENGED.
THE WARRANT THE ARREST WAR
RAP FOR HIS CASE WAS ISSUED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA
STATUTES SIGNED BY THE
DESIGNATED DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND THE
SECRETARY THE FATE OUT
PROVIDES IT BEING DONE IN
THAT FASHION, THERE IS NO
BASIS TO MOVE BASED UPON
THAT.
EVEN IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH
SOME ARGUEABLE BASIS TO MOVE
TO SUPPRESS AN EVEN IF YOU
CAN COME UP WITH SOME
PERHAPS DEFECT IN THE ARREST
WARRANT, THE FERS WHO MADE
THE ARREST CERTAINLY
ENTITLED TO RELY IN GOOD
FAITH ON THE WARRANT ITSELF.
SO FOR ANYONE OR ALL THREE
OF THOSE REASON, THE MOTION
TO SUPPRESS ARGUMENT FAILS.
>> COULD VERY BEEN ARRESTED
FOR THAT ESCAPE WITHOUT A
WARRANT?
UNDER 901.15, THE FLORIDA
STATUTES, THE STATUTE THAT
TALKS ABOUT ARREST WAS AT A
WAR RAP, IT SAYS THERE HAS
BEEN A FELONY COMMITTED AN
ESCAPE IS A FELONY, SO COULD
VERY BEEN ARRESTED UNDER
THAT WITHOUT A WAR RAP?
YES, MA'AM, I AM SORRY.
JUSTICE ASKED TO YOU SAID.
YES.
>> WITH OUR HELP, YOU HAVE
EXHAUSTED YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ARGUMENTS.
MR. HENDRY?
>> WE ARE ASKING THIS COURT
TO DO TO RECONSIDER THE
PROPORTIONALITY OF THIS
DEATH SENTENCE UNDER FORD
AND FITZPATRICK AND EVOLVING
STANDARDS OF DECENCY.
IT REQUIRED THAT A DEATH
WARRANT NEVER HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE SEIBED IN
THIS PAR TALK TOCULAR CASE.
IT IS NOT THAT CLASS OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOULD BE
ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEATH
PENALTY.
OUR ARGUMENT THAT IS THE
DEATH PENALTY AS APPLIED IN
THE CASE SLIGHT THE 8th
AMENDMENT AND THE LOWER
COURT FAILED TO DO ANALYSIS.
THEY ONLY DID GENERIC
ANALYSIS.
>> AS APPLIED ANALYSIS WOULD
INCLUDE THE FACT THAT HE IS
SICK?
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> BUT HOW COULD THAT STILL
HAVING A PROBLEM BECAUSE HE
WAS NOT IN THAT CONDITION AT
THE TIME OF THE DEATH
SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED.
HOW DOES THAT HELP YOUR
ARGUE.
HE WAS SICK, YOUR HONOR.
HE WAS SICK.
HE HAD DIAGNOSED.
>> I AM TALKING ABOUT THE
PHYSICAL.
>> THERE WAS SYMPTOMS OF IT
BUT IT WAS NOT DIAGNOSED AT
THAT POINT.
THE JURY DIDN'T GET A CHANCE
TO HEAR THAT HE HAD BEEN
STRUCK WITH THIS ILLNESS
BECAUSE IT WAS SO MUCH LATER
IT PROGRESSED WHEN IT WENT
TO THE EYES AN BODY.
>> WHERE US THE VIOLATION?
IT IS A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE CLEMENCY
WERE PROCESSES?
>> I AM SORRY.
>> WHERE US THE DILATION
THAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH,
WE GOT A LITTLE CHANGE IN
CIRCUMSTANCE, WHAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT, MAYBE A MAJOR
CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT
WHERES THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATION IF THIS IS ONE AS
YOUR OPPONENT, THE STATE
SAYS THIS IS REALLY
SOMETHING THAT IS DESIGNED
TO BE HANDLED THROUGH THE
CLEMENCY PROCESS?
>> AT THIS POINT, JUSTICE
WELLS DOES MOT COME OUT, I
TREEED TO SEE HIM.
I MAY HAVE SEEN HIM ONCE IN
TWO YEAR, HE SITS IN A CELL
COMPLETELY BLIND NEVER COMES
OUT.
>> HAS THERE BEEN AN ATTEMPT
MADE TO SEEK CLEM MEN? I IN
OTHER WORDS TO SEND THE
MEDICAL RECORDS TO SAY OUR
QLIN IS BLIND.
HE HAS A TERMINAL ULNESS.
ON THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES,S TO
LET HIM OFF DEATH ROW?
>> IT HAS NOT.
WE WOULD ASK THIS COURT
BEFORE IT NEEDS TO GET TO
THAT POINT.
WE ARE ASKING THIS COURT
UNDER AUTHORITY EITHER UNDER
APPEAL OR THE SAME ISSUE.
>> MR. HENDRY, YOU ARE
FINISHED.
WE UNDERSTAND YOUR PASSION
FOR THE CASE.
MR. NUNNELLEY, YOU HAVE EX
KPASED YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU FOR ARGUMENTS.
WE'LL TALK THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT.
THE COURT WILL STAND IN
RECESS UNTIL 9:00 TOMORROW
MORNING.
THANK YOU.
PLEASE RISE.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,