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.

Robert Anthony Preston, Jr. v. State of Florida

SC05-781 | SC06-351LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
OKAY.
THE FINAL CASE ON THE
CALENDAR THIS MORNING IS
PRESTON VERSUS STATE OF
FLORIDA.
STRAIN, ARE YOU READY TO
PROCEED?
YES, SIR.
IF THE COURT PLEASE,
ROBERT STRAIN FROM CCRC
MIDDLE REGION FROM TAMPA FOR
THE DEFENDANT.
FIRST, MR. PRESTON
RECOGNIZES THAT THE DNA
TESTING IN HIS CASE IS MUCH
LIKE HILDEN IN WHICH THE
RESULTS OF THE TEST DOES NOT
MAKE THIS ONE CONCLUSIVE EX
ON NATION.
MR. PRESTON ALSO RECOGNIZES
THAT THESE CASES WERE THE
INNOCENCE IS NOT TOTALLY
PROVEN BY THE DNA TESTING
WILL OFTEN TURN ON DIFFICULT
THIN MARGINS IN THE ANALYSIS
OF THE IMPACT OF THE NEW
EVIDENCE CONSISTING OF THE
DNA TEST RESULTS VERSUS THE
EVIDENCE THAT MAY EXIST
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.
YOUR HONOR, AS I WOULD POINT
OUT THAT NEITHER THE COURT
FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF
THIS PENALTY PHASE,
POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDING
PROVIDED THE KIND OF
ANALYSIS OF THE REMAINING
EVIDENCE ONCE IT WAS
ESTABLISHED BY THE DNA
TESTING THAT THE BELT BUCKLE
HAIR WAS NOT THAT OF THE
VICTIM.
I HAVE A PRELIMINARY
QUESTION.
WAS THERE ANOTHER THEIR WAS
FOUND ON THE JACKET?
YES, MA'AM.
WAS THAT HAIR RETESTED
FOR DNA?
IT WAS NOT OM -- YES, IT
WAS RELEASED FOR TESTING,
YOUR HONOR, AN WE EVEN HAD A
SECOND ORDER BECAUSE THE
FIRST ROUND OF THE
LABORATORIES, THEY NEEDED TO
GO FURTHER AND EVEN WITH THE
SECOND ROUND OF TEST, THEY
DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS
CONCLUSIVE SEQUENCE EVIDENCE
SO THAT NO CONCLUSION OR
FURTHER TESTING THEY COULD
NOT PROCEED WITH THAT
RESPECT.
HOW ABOUT THE BLOOD?
THAT BLOOD TYPING
CONSISTENCY IN THE FIRST GO
AROUND, ANY DNA TESTING ON
THE BLOOD?
NO, YOUR HONOR, THE
JUDGE, IN FACT, DID IN THE
ALLOW THE BLOOD TO BE
RELEASED.
WE HAD SOME PRETTY EXTENSIVE
HEARINGS ON THE DNA MOTION.
AS YOU MAY RECALL, I WAS
FILED PRELIMB PARRY TO THE
NEW RULE, THE NEW STATUTE
FOR THAT, SO MUCH OF IT WAS
KIND OF NEW FOR ALL OF US IN
THAT RESPECT.
BUT THE DETAILS WE EVEN HAD
ORIGINAL BLOOD ANALYSTS COME
DOWN AN TESTIFY AND
SEARCHING FOR THE EVIDENCE
IN THIS CLARK'S OFFICE WAS A
REAL MESS.
THE BLOOD WAS ACTUALLY FOUND
IN UNREFRIGERATED CARDBOARD
CONTAINER AS UNDERSTAND JUST
A FEW INCHES WIDE.
THE SEVERAL VIALS INSIDE
APPARENTLY HAD CASE NUMBERS
OR POLICE REPORT NUMBERS, SO
ONE, WE WERE PRET PRETTY
CERTAIN MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE
BLOOD DRAWN FROM THE VICTIM
BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER, BUT
AS FAR AS THE OTHER, WE
FIGURED IT PROBABLY WAS
INVOLVED WITH THE PRESSING
CASE, BUT IT WAS SUCH A MIX.
YOU HAD NO STANDARDS TO TEST
FOR THE DNA OF THE VICTIM,
JUST THE BLD ON THE BACKKET
OR THE SHIRT?
RIGHT.
IT STAYED THE SAME AS IT
TWRAS THE TIME OF TRIAL.
BUT GOING BACK TO THE BELT
BUCKLE HEY, YOU KNOW AS FROM
MY ARCMENTS TO THE COURT
BELOW, WE FEEL THAT THE BELT
BUCKLE HAIR WAS THE KEY AND
SEOUL ITEM OF EVIDENCE
LINKING THE DEFENDANT TO THE
VICTIM.
I MEAN, THAT CAN'T BE,
THE BLD ON THE JACKET, THE
FINGERPRINTS.
THE QUESTION JUSTICE
LOUIS, OR THE ANSWER, I
MEAN, IS WHEN, LET ME,
AGAIN, PREVIOUS, REMIND THE
COURT THAT THE JUDGE BELOW
DID NOT ANALYZE LIKE AS THE
JENS REREQUIRED TO GIVE
ANALYSIS OF THE WEIGHT OF
THE NEW EVIDENCE WHICH
THEREFORE WOULD
AUTOMATICALLY KICK INTO A
COST ANALYSIS IF I MAY ARGUE
OF ANALYZING THE REST OF THE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
SEE IF THERE MAY BE A
REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS OF
INNOCENCE OBTAINING EVENT.
AGAIN, --
WAS THERE ANY REQUEST,
ONCE YOU RECEIVED THE ORDER
FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE AN REALIZED
THE DEFICIENCY THAT YOU ARE
NOW ARGUING, WAS THERE EVER
A REQUEST MADE TO THE TRIAL
COURT TO DO THE ANALYSIS?
YOUR HONOR, I ANTICIPATED
THAT QUESTION TODAY AN HAVE
BEEN DOING THIS POST
CONVICTION WORK FOR SEVEN
YEAR AND I DONE KNOW IF I
WILL EVER GET TO THE POINT
TO WHERE I KNOW WHEN TO TELL,
ASK THE JUDGE TO REWRITE HIS
ORDER, SO THAT IT WOULD BE
TIGHT ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE LOSE.
WHAT THIS COURT NOT ONLY DB
--
WITH ALL DO RESPECT, IT
SEEMS LIKE FOR EFFICIENCY
PURPOSE, IF YOU THINK IT IS
DEFISH SIT, YOU TALK TO THE
STATE, YOU AGREE THE JUDGE
HAS NOT MADE THE ADEQUATE
EVALUATION, EFFICIENCY
PURPOSES INSTEAD OF I ASSUME
A REMEDY HERE WOULD BE TO
SEND IT BACK TO THE TRIAL
JUDGE NOW AFTER A COUPLE OF
YEARS TO SAY PLEASE DO NOUR
ANALYSIS?
WELL, THAT WOULD BE ONE
REMEDY, BUT MY POSITION,
JUSTICE BELL, IS THAT THIS
COURT NOW WAS -- WITH THE
GUILT, EXCUSE ME, WITH THE
GUILT PHASE, POST-CONVICTION
PROCEEDING BEING CONCLUDED
IN 1986 AND WITH THE 1988
OPINION, AND NOW WITH OUR
RESENTENCING POST CONVICTION
SPREEINGD CONCLUDED THAT YOU
CAN DO THIS WITHOUT SETTING
IT BACK, BUT JUSTICE BELL, I
REMIND YOU AND THIS COURT
THAT IN 1988 ON THE CORAM
NOBIS OPINION THAT YOU
REJECTED THE NEW EVIDENCE OF
THE THREE JAIL HOUSE INMATES
WHO ALERTED COUNSEL THAT
ROBERT PRESSTON'S BROTHER
SCOTT HAD CONFESSED TO THIS
HOMICIDE WITH THEM, THAT
THIS COURT SIMPLY ALSO
TALKED ABOUT THE PERSUASIVENESS
OF THE BLOOD, HAIR, AN
FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS, BUT
WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DETAILS
ABOUT IT.
SO OUR POSITION IS THAT THIS
COURT, TODAY, IS NOW GIVEN
THE OPPORTUNITY MUCH LIKE
OUR CUMULATIVE CLAIM WAS
PRESENTED ON THE CLOSING
ARGUMENT FASHION, AN IN
BRIEFING TO YOU, THAT UNDER
JONES, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO
ANALYZE THE WEIGHT OF EACH
ONE OF THESE ITEMS AND THEN
CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO
REASONABLE CERTAINTY AND
MORAL CERTAINTY THAT ROBERT
PRESTON --
BACK TO THE QUESTION THAT
JUSTICE LEWIS HAD POSED TO
YOU, THE FACT IS, THAT IN
THE RECORD, THERE IS
EVIDENCE OF FINGERPRINTS,
CORRECT?
YES, SIR.
AND THERE IS THE FOOD
STAIN EVIDENCE?
YES, SIR.
AND THERE IS THE BLOOD ON
THE COAT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED
AS BEING HAVING FACTORS IN
IT THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT
WITH YOUR CLIENT?
CORRECT?
THAT IS CORRECT.
AND SO THERE ARE THESE
OTHER MATTER, IN ADDITION TO
THE HAIR?
THAT ARE ON THE RECORD THAT
WOULD BE FACTORS THAT WOULD
WEIGH AGAIN THIS ANNUALLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.
JUSTICE WELL, THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER UNDER A
COST ANALYSIS, ANYTHING THAT
CAME OUT AT TRIAL OR
RESENTENCING OR ON THE POST
CONVICTION THAT ROBERT
PRESTON EXPLAINED BY ANY
THOSE ITEMS WHAT IMPACT THAT
WOULD HAVE AND REALLY THE
QUESTION IS SIMPLY WHETHER
DEFENSE COUNSEL HAS ANYTHING
TO ADDRESS AND QUICKLY THIS
IS WHAT THEY ARE.
NUMBER ONE, BLOOD ON THE
JACKET JUST PROVES THAT THAT
JACKET WAS AT THE CRIME
SCENE.
IF THERE IS NO MORE FOR
RENSIVE EVIDENCE LINKING THE
BLOOD SPOTS TO THE VICTIM.
NUMBER ONE, MR. PRICETON AT
ONE OF THE HEARING, IF NOT
MORE THAN ONE, INDICATED
THAT THE STAINS WERE FOUND
BY HIM THE FOLLOWING MORNING
AFTER THE HOMICIDE OF WHEN
HE WENT TO GET CIGARETTES AT
THAT NEARBY LITTLE CHAMP
CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE
FINGERPRINT, IF YOU RECALL,
NOT ONLY AT THE TRIAL, BUT I
BELIEVE, PARTLY IN THE 1986
POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDING,
THAT THE ATTORNEYS DID A
FAIRLY GOOD JOB IN TRYING TO
POINT OUT THAT, WELL, YES,
THESE FINGER PRINS WERE
FOUND, SELF MAYBE 4 TO 5
INCLUDING A PALM PRINT OF
MR. PRESTON ON THE TOP OF
THE CARD, ON THE MARBLE
CIGARETTE, BUT WHY WAS IT
THAT NO FOT PHOTOGRAPHS OF
THE LOCATION OF THEM, OF THE
CIGARETTES AND THE CAR, THAT
WAS THE ONLY PLACE THAT THE
DPLIS NOT TAKE PHOTOGRAPH OF
ALL OF THE CONTENT, IF GOU
THROUGH THE LIST, THIS WAS,
THIS CAR WAS FILLED TO THE
BRIM WITH ASSORTED STUFF.
THE OTHER THING ABOUT IT.
WITH A WAS THAT SUPPOSED
TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAC THAT
NO PICTURE WAS TAKEN TELLS
US WHAT?
WELL, THAT IS JUST PART
OF IT.
THE OTHER PART IS THAT, IT
SEEMS, THE ATTORNEYS AT
TRIAL TRIED TO ARGUE THAT IT
WAS RATHER IN INCREDIBLE
THAT ONLY ONE PERSON'S
FINGERPRINTS SHOWED UP ON
ALL OF THE PLACES THEY
TRIED.
IF THE VICTIM WAS TAKEN AS
NO DOUBT ONE CAN SAFELY
CONCLUDE TO THAT FIELD IN
HER OWN CAR, WHERE WERE HER
FINGERPRINTS?
THERE WERE NO FINGERPRINTS
THAT THEY IDENTIFIED AT THE
CONVENIENCE STORE WITH THE
DOOR OR THE COUNTER OR THE
MAGAZINE OR THE CASH DRAWER
OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
MR. STRAIN, YOU KNOW,
THESE ARE THINGS THAT IT
DEPEND ON THE QUESTION THAT
ONE MUST ASK AND ANSWER
AFTER YOU TALK ABOUT THESE
THINGS AN IF IT IS ONE, DOES
IT GIVE YOU SOME QUESTION?
THE ANSWER MAY BE FAR
DIFFERENT BE THAT BASED UPON
THIS CHANGE, DOES IT
DEMONSTRATE THAT WOULD YOU
HAVE A DIFFERENT RESULT.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HAVING
TROUBLE.
YOU SEE, I CAN CERTAINLY
UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE
GOING AND IT RAISES THIS
QUESTION AND THAT QUESTION,
BUT THE QUESTION WE MUST
ANSWER IS WHAT?
WHAT IS THIS QUESTION?
THE QUESTION YOU MUST
ANSWER AND I BRIEFED IT, IT
WAS BRIEFED TO YOU.
I UNDERSTAND, IT IS NOT A
MRAL CERTAINTY.
IT IS NOT WHAT YOU JUST
STATED.
WHEN THE PROSECUTOR TOLD
THE JURY IN CLOSING
ARGUMENT.
AGAIN, WHAT THUS HE
QUESTION WE MUST ANSWER.
WHETHER THE WEIGHT OF
THAT BELT BUCKLE HAIR EQUALS
WHAT THE PROSECUTOR TOLD THE
JURY THAT HE SHOULD --
THAT IS THE JONES TEST?
WHAT WE MUST HAVE TO GIVE
RELIEF?
WHAT WE MUST TEEN GUFF
RELIEF IN THE CASE?
THAT THE BELT BUCKLE HAIR
WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT
EVIDENCE OUT OF THE REST OF
THE EVIDENCE.
AGAIN, WHEN THE PROSECUTOR
TOLD THE JURY IN CLOSING
ARGUMENT THAT MR. PRESTON
SHOULD BE CLEARED OR
EXCULPATEED AS THE RESULT OF
DIANA BUSINESS ANALYSIS CAME
OUT DIF RIP.
WHAT ARE THE LEGAL
STANDARDS?
ACCEPTING THIS EVIDENCE,
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT CAN YOU
DO JUST STATE TO US AGAIN,
THE JONES TAN STANDARD THAT
IS A TRIAL COURT MUST APPLY
IF IT FINES INDEED THERE IS
SOME NEW EVIDENCE.
THE STANDARD IS WHETHER
OR NOT THE NEW EVIDENCE
COMBINED WITH THE AMAUL ZUFS
ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THROUGH
TRIAL AND THROUGH POST
CONVICTION WOULD PROBABLY
PRODUCE AN ACQUITTAL.
AS JUSTICE, ROBERTS
INDICATED IN DECENT IN THE
HOUSE CASE, IT IS THE VALUE
OF ALL OF THESE.
THEN, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT
ISSUE ON CLAIMS AND WHAT
HAVE YOU, BUT THE FEDERAL
LAW IS MUCH THE SAME.
IT IS WHETHER A REASONABLE
JURY WOULD FIND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
NOW, OF COURSE, ON THE HOUSE
JUSTICE ROBERT SAID THAT
THERE WOULD BE AT LEAST ONE
JUROR WHO WOULD SIGN, AND
THAT IS WHY HE DEFENDED, BUT
THEN, AGAIN, JUSTICE LEWIS,
THE REST OF THE KOUR, WHEN
THE PROSECUTOR TELL THESE
JURY THAT MR. PRESTON SHOULD
BE CLEARED, THAT THE BELT
BUCKLE HAIR WAS NOT THE
VICTIM, THAT IS TELLING,
GIVING A JUROR OUT OF 12,
ONE PRETTY GOOD DOUBT, WHEN
THE, WHEN ON RETRIAL, WHICH
IS APPROPRIATE FROM THIS
RECORD, WHEN THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS CAN GO BACK.
THAT IS THE ARGUMENT,
BECAUSE ARE TWO SAY THAT MAN
IS ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL
BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE THE
PROSECUTORS SAID THAT
PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE
WAS SO IMPORTANT?
WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS RECORD,
WE KNOW DHA EVEN AT THE
TRIAL THE EVIDENCE WAS THAT
THIS HAIR COULD, NOT THAT IT
WAS, BUT THIS HAIR COULD
HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM'S HAIR
AND NOW WE HAVE DNA EVIDENCE,
I ASSUME, A DIFFERENT KIN OF
DNA TESTING THAT SHOWS THAT
IT WAS NOT THE VICTIM'S
HAIR.
SO INSTEAD OF THE JURY AND
THE COURT CONSIDERING THE
FACT THAT THIS COULD HAVE
BEEN, IT IS NOW NOT THE
VICTIM'S HAIR.
IN RELATIONSHIP TO ALL OF
THE OTHER EVIDENCE.
AGAIN, THE POINT REMAINS
THE SAME IS THAT, YES, WE
RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT DIANA
BASS TESTIFIED ABOUT WHAT
COULD HAVE BEEN SIM ALSO, A
BUT WHEN JONES AND ALL OF
THE OTHER NEW EVIDENCE
STANDARDS COME AND THIS
COURT IS REQUIRED WAS THE
COURT BELOW TO WEIGH THE
VARIOUS NEW EVIDENCE AGAINST
THE TOTAL EVIDENCE TO ALL OF
THE POST-CONVICTION
PROCEEDINGS, WHAT BETTER
DEFINITION THAN WHAT THE
JURY WAS TOLD.
JUSTICE QUINCE, IF THIS JURY
WAS TOLD, AND THIS IS HOW
YOU LOOK AT IT, WHEN THEY GO
IN AND SAY, OH, NO, THE
PROSECUTOR'S WEIGHT THAT HE
WAS TELLING YOU IN CLOSING
ARGUMENT ABOUT CLEARING
MR. PRESTON, I DON'T SEE HOW
THERE COULD ALMOST BE ANY
BETTER DEFINITION OF HOW
THAT JURY, NOT THE COURT'S
SUBSEE QUEENLY, IF YOU WILL,
BUT THAT JURY HEARD FROM
THAT PROSECUTOR THAT THIS
BELT BUCKLE HAIR WAS THE
VICTIMS.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION
ON THAT.
HOW AT THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING WHEN YOU CALLED THE
TRIAL ATTORNEY AT THE GUILT
PHASE, HOW DID HE SPEAK TO
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
EVIDENCE?
WELL, BASICALLY HE TOOK
THE STAND TO TESTIFY AB THE
UNRELATED CLAIM THAT THE IC
FOR NOT REQUESTING DIFFERENT
TO BE LABORATORY TESTS FOR
PCP PRESENCE THAT MR. CUE
CHY ESSENTIALLY DISMISSED
THAT HE FELT THE HAIR
EVIDENCE WAS NOT IMPORTANT
SO HE NEVER GOT INTO IT AND
ATTACKED THAT I MUCH, ALSO,
HE DID NOT INDICATE AS HIS
RECORDS SHOW HE DID NOT
RETAIN AN EXPERT BECAUSE HE
TESTIFIED THAT HE THOUGHT
THAT IF HE GOT A HAIR
ANALYSTS MUCH LIKE DIANA
BASS THAT THE RESULTS WOULD
BE IDENTICAL TO HER
CONCLUSIONS.
HE DIN BELIEVE THAT THIS
EVIDENCE WAS MUCH POTENT
VALUE YOU?

THAT IS CORE RE.
YOU ARE INTO YOUR
REBUTTAL.
ONE LAST THING.
PUTTING ALL OF THIS IN
PERSPECTIVE, REMEMBER THAT
AFTER THE FIRST OPINION CAME
OUT ON THE MER RITZ OF THIS
CASE THAT WAS WHEN THE TRIAL
COURT SUPPRESSED THE ROOM
SEARCH AND THE STATE
APPEALED TO THIS COURT AND
THAT YOU ACCEPT IT ALL BACK
DOWN TO THE DTA TO PUT THE
WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE TONE OF
WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH
MR. PRESTON'S CASE AT THE
TIME REMEMBER THE DCA HAD TO
DISAPPROVE THE USE OF BLACK
JACKS AND FIVE CELL
BATTERIES TO ENCOURAGE
MR. PRESTON AS A SUSPECT TO
COOPERATE WITH THE POLICE.
IT CAME UP DURING
EVIDENTIARY, ALTHOUGH,
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT AT ANY
GUILT PHASE ISSUE, BUT THE
STATE IS WELL AWARE THAT
THERE IS A POLICE REPORT 11
DAYS AFTER THE HOMICIDE THAT
INDICATES INTELLIGENCE
OFFICER RECEIVE CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANTS REPORT THAT SCOTT
PRESTON AND DONNA MAXWELL
WERE WITH ROBERT PRESTON
DURING THIS HOMICIDE.
YOU PU PUT ALL THOSE THINGS
IN CONTEXT OF WHAT IT WAS
LIKE IN SANFORD IN 1978
COMBINED WITH THE
SHORTCOMINGS OF THE
FINGERPRINT INVESTIGATION,
THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S
MOTHER SAID IT WAS SCOTT'S
JACKET, HE HAD WARN IT IN
THE PAST.
HE SRN CLI HAVE WARN IT THAT
NIGHT AN THE COUPONS WERE
ADDRESSED BY MR. PRESTON, WE
ASK FOR RELEASE.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS BARBARA DAVIS.
I REPRESENT THE STATE OF
PLOR DID AS IF AS THE ISSUES
NUMBER ONE, THE ANNUALLY
DISCOVERED DNA EVIDENCE, THE
JONES STANDARD THAT IT
PROBABLY WOULD PRODUCE AN
ACQUITTAL ON RETRIAL, THE
TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT
EXAMINING AND EVALUATING THE
TOTALITY OF ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE THAT WAS ADMITTED
IT WOULD NOT PRODUCE AN
ACQUITTAL ON RETRIAL.
THAT STANDARD AND THAT
CUMULATIVE ISSUE.
FIRST, IN THE CASE YOU
CITED, AND TO ME, I THOUGHT
IT WAS STRONGER AS FAR AS
WANT AGNEW TRIAL.
I SEEM TO SEE HERE A LOT OF
OTHER EVIDENCE THAT POINTS
TO THIS DEFENDANT AS THE
PERSON THAT COMMITTED THIS
CRIME.
BUT IN LOOKING AT THE
CUMULATIVE ISSUE, THAT IS,
WHAT ELSE HAS HAPPENED ON
THE PAST, THE THREE INMATES
THAT SAID THAT SCOTT PRESTON
WAS THE ONE THAT COMMITTED
THIS MURDER, AND ALSO, THE
COUNSEL CLAIM BY FAILING TO
CALL COB AT THIS PARTICULAR
HEARING.
IF THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE
THAT CAME UP NEXT TIME THAT
WAS ANOTHER PIECE OF
EVIDENCE, AT WHAT POINT DO
YOU DO THE CUMULATIVE
ANALYSIS AN LOOK TO WHETHER
IT UNDERMINES CONFIDENCE IN
THE OUTCOME AS OPPOSED TO
SIMPLY THE JONES STANDARD
THAT WE HAVE GOT TO COME UP
AND SAY, WELL, THERE IS A
PROCT OF AN ACQUITTAL THAT
YOU LOOK AT THE SUM OF
EVERYTHING THAT TAKES PLACE
IN THE CASE OVER A PERIOD OF
YEARS AND SAID SAY, YOU KNOW
WHAT?
THERE IS JUST ENOUGH DOUBTS
HERE, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE
THAT THE STATE RELIED ON HAS
BEEN UNDERMINE.
THE OTHER PIECE OF HAIR
EVIDENCE VERIFIED ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER THAT YOU SAY THAT
THERE IS JUST TOO MANY
THINGS OUT THERE, THAT CAUSE
YOU TO NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE.
WHAT DO YOU SEE THAT NO
MATTER WHAT, IF IT IS NEW
EVIDENCE, YOU GOT TO JUST
EVALUATE IT UNDER THE JONES
STANDARD.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME
SAY, ALTHOUGH, THE JUDGE DID
A COMPLETE EVALUATION, COURT
HAS PREVIOUSLY REJECTED ALL
OF THE CLAIMS THAT
MR. STRAIN WAS BRINGING UP
AT THE END.
IF I MAY GO THROUGH THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST MR. PRESTON
AND THE TIME LINE IS VERY
IMPORTANT, FIRST OF ALL, LET
ME SAY THAT HE WAS SEEN
WEARING THIS PACIFIC BACKKET
THAT HAS THE BLOOD ON IT AT
2:20 A.M.
COULD YOU ANSWER JUSTIN
PARIENTE'S QUESTION FIRST
AND THEN GO BACK AN OUTLINE.
SHE ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTION?
AT WHAT POINT DO YOU
REEXAMINE EVERYTHING?
THAT WHAT IS THE TRIAL JUDGE
DOES.
HE REEXAMININGS EVERYTHING.
HE EVALUATES THE TOTALITY
THE EVIDENCE.
AT SOME POINT THAT PROCEDURE
MAY UNEARTH TO THE DEFENDANT
BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AND
THAT WHAT IS JONE SAY FUSS
LOOK, YOU EVALUATE ALL OF
THE EVIDENCE, I LOOK AT IT.
THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THIS
CASE DID NOT DO THAT.
I MEAN, AT LEAST DIDN'T
WRITE IT DOWN.
WELL, HE MADE MAY NOT
HAVE WRITTEN IT DOWN, BUT HE
DID SAY IN THE ORDER RECORD
2133 THAT BECAUSE THE BELT
BUCKLE WAS NOT THE ONLY ITEM
IN THE EVIDENCE THAT TIED
INTO THE VICTIM, IT SHOULD
BE DISMISSED, THE BLOOD AND
THE FINGER PRINS ARE
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
GO AHEAD.
WELL I WOULD FOLLOW-UP ON
JUSTICE PARIENTE'S QUESTION,
WE HAVE SAID VERY CLEARLY,
HAVE WE NOT, THAT FOR
ANNUALLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE,
THAT IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING,
THAT THERE IS A PROCT THAT
THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENT
RESULT UPON RETRIAL,
CORRECT?
YES, SIR.
WE STALLLY -- WE
ACTUALLY, THIS COURT, HAS
SET EVEN MORE RIG LOUSE
STANDARD, CORRECT?
YES, SIR.
BUS THAT WAS POSSIBILITY
STANDARD THAT WAS FIRST SET
AN IN SO FAR AS ANNUALLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IS
CONCERNED WHAT THE COURT HAS
TRADITIONALLY BEEN CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT IS ANNUALLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE STRIKES
AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF
FINALITY TO THE FACT THAT
YOU DON'T GET THE EVIDENCE
DURING THE FIRST TRIAL,
CORRECT?
YES, SIR.
WHICH IS VERY DIFFERENT
THAN IN STRICKLAND WHERE YOU
ARE EVALUATING THE COUNSEL
DID AND SO THAT IS A
DIFFERENT STANDARD OF LACK
OF CONFIDENCE ON THE OVERALL
OUTCOME, CORRECT?
YES, SIR.
AND IF I MAY JUST ADDRESS
THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE,
THE TIMELINE IS VERY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE
MR. PRESTON LEFT THE HOUSE
SAYING WAS GOING TO ROB
SOMEBODY.
ASKING SCOTT AND DONNA, HIS
BROTHER, HIS GIRLFRIEND TO
COME HELP HIM.
COB SAW HIM AT 2:20 AT THE
JACK IN THE BOX WHICH IS
NEAR THE CONVENIENCE STORE.
EARL EARLINE WALKER DID THE
LAST TRANSACTION AT 2:45,
THE OFFICER SAW HER MISSION
AT 3:30.
WAE AS JUKED BETWEEN 2:4 AND
3:30 A.M. MR. PRESTON WAS
BACK AT HOME AT 4:3 A.M.
TELLING HIS BROTHER IT DID
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL A. CAR,
HAVING FOOD STAMPS THAT WERE
TORN FROM THE BACK WHICH
MATCHED THE CONVENIENCE
STORE, UM, SO THE TIMELINE
US VERY IMPORTANT.
DID VERY THE FOOD STAMPS
THAT POINT? I MEAN, AS YIND
STEER STOOD IT, THEY FOUND
THE FOOD STAMPS LATER?
DID SCOTT OR THE GIRLFRIEND
EVER TESTIFY THAT HE HAD THE
FOOD STAMPS AT 4:30?
I DON'T RECALL ABOUT FOOD
STAMPS BUT THEY FOUND THEM
IN THE TRASH THE NEXT DAY
PURSUANT TO A CONCEPT
SEARCH.
HE TESTIFIED AT TRIAL, HE
HAD FOUND THEM ON THE
ROADWAY.
BUT YOU HAD JUST SAID,
JUST SO I MAKE SURE, THE
TYPELINE THAT YOU SAID THEY
GOT BACK AT THAT TIRJ HE HAD
THE FOOD STAMPS WITH HIM.
I AM SORRY.
THAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED.
HE HAD SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT
OF CASH AND HE SAID I IT
DID.
DIDN'T HE SAY, I DID IT
WAS THAT HE SUPPOSEDLY COMES
UP WITH THE STORY THAT HE
HAD ROBBED SOME POKE AT A
GAY BAR OR SOMETHING?
THE STATE HAD SECURITY
GUARDS.
HE DIDN'T SAY I DID IT,
LIKE I DID IT, LIKE I KILLED
AERLINE WALKER.
A NO, HE SAID I IT DID.
HE HAD GONE TO ROB SOMEBODY.
HE CAME BACK.
I DID IT.
I HAVE THE MONEY.
THEN, HE SAID TO HIS BROTHER,
AGAIN, IN THE MORNING, AND
TO DONNA, AT 9:00, THEY
FOUND THE BODY OUT IN THE
WOODS.
HE HAD DUMPED HER, WHERE HE
HAD FINALLY KILLED HERS WITH
A QUARTER MILE FROM HIS
HOUSE.
HE SAID AT 9:00 A.M., THAT
THERE WAS, THEY HAD FOUND
THE BODY.
A LOVE OF THIS OF WHAT
YOU ARE SAYING RELIES ON THE
CREDIBILITY OF THIS BROTHER
AND HIS GIRLFRIEND?
YES.
SO WHAT ABOUT -- HAS THE
EARLIER TESTIMONY, OR THE
EARLIER CASE WHERE THERE
WERE INDIVIDUALS THAT SAID
THAT THIS GUY SCOTT PRESTON
IS THE PERSON THAT COMMITTED
THIS MURDER?
THERE IS ANYTHING TO THAT?
I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, ARE
THEY STILL AS CREDIBLE AS
WITNESSES?
NO.
THE JURY EVALUATED THEIR
CREDIBILITY IN THE ORIGINAL
TRIAL.
MR. PRESTON TESTIFIED ALSO,
THEY CONVICTED HIM.
BUT I AM SAYING
SUBSEQUENTLY, AS THERE BEEN
ISSUES CONCERNING THE
CREDIBILITY OF EITHER DONNA
MAXWELL OR SCOTT PRESTON?
NO.
YOU ALL HAVE ADDRESSED THIS
TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THE
PRIOR -- REMEMBER, THIS IS
THE 11th PUBLICED OPINION
THAT THE OPINION FROM
RESENTENCING AN ALL OF THESE
ISSUES WHERE THEY BROUGHT IN
THE AFFIDAVITS FROM JAIL
MATES WHO WHO WERE FRIENDS
OF SCOTT PRESTON, OR FRIENDS
OF BOB PRESTON AND SAYING
SCOTT PRESTONS THE BAD GY
AND HE DILT.
WHEN I ASKED EARLIER,
THOUGH, ABOUT, AT SOME
POINT, WE SAID, WELL, AT
THAT POINT, WE SAID, YI,
THERE IS THE HAIR ON THE
BELT BUCKLE.
YOU KNOW?
IN OTHER WORDS, AT WHAT
POINT DOES THE BUILDING
BLOCK, YOU LOOK AT ONE POINT
AND TIME, AND IT IS REALLY
LOOKS SOLID BECAUSE YOU GOT
ALL OF THIS SORT OF PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE, THEN, DOWN THE
ROAD, YOU GO, WELL, WAIT A
SECONDS, NOW, AIM LOOKING
BACK AT -- I AM LOOKINGKING
BACK, WHAT IF THE ANNUALLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE HAD COME
UP BEFORE THIS EM WE HAVE
LOOKED A THAT HE NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE PLUS
THIS.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE M
NATE, THE BELT BUCKLE HAIR
IS INSIGNIFICANT.
BACK TO THE TIMELINE, THEY
FOUND HER BODY AT 1:45.
THEY DID CONSENT SEARCH.
THEY FOUND THE FOOD STAMPS
IN HIS TRASH CAN THAT THE
MOTHER HAD AGREED TO CONSENT
SEARCH, THEY FOUND BLOOD ON
THE JACKET, HE WAS WEARING
THAT COB SAW HIM IN AT 2:20
WHEN ARLENE WAS BE A JUKED
BETWEEN 245 AND 3:30.
HIS FINGERPRINTS.
THERE WERE THREE
FINGERPRINTS OF HIS INSIDE
OF THE VEHICLE.
ONE ON A CIGARETTE PACK,
WHICH HE SMOKED.
IT WAS MAR BORROW CIGARETTE
PACK AND A PACK TAT THE
HOUSE.
RED AND WHITE CIGARETTE
PACK.
AND THEN THE BLOOD ON THE
JACKET WAS ANALYZED AND THE
LAB ANALYSTS DID AS MUCH AS
THEY COULD BACK IN 1980
MATCHED THE PROTEIN TO THE
VICTIM AND THE ENZYME TO THE
VICTIM AND SAID THAT THOSE
TWO MATCHES WOULD ONLY
HAPPEN IN ONE PERCENT OF THE
POPULATION, SO THE FOOD
STAMP, THE FINGERPRINT, THE
TIMELINE, THE BLOOD ON THE
BACKKET, CLEARLY POINT TO
PLR PRESTON.
WAS THERE ANY ATTEMPT AT
THE TRIAL TO EXPLAIN, DID
MR. PRESTON KNOW THE VICTIM,
AT ANY OTHER TIME, THE
FINGERPRINTS WOULD COUP HAVE
GOTTEN WHERE THEY WERE?
NO, IN FACT, HE DENIED
THAT IN EVERY STATEMENT,
WHEN HE TVRED.
HE DENIED THAT HE HAD BEEN
AT THAT STORE, HE KNEW
WALKER OR ANY OTHER WAY THE
FINGERPRINTS COULD HAVE
GOTTENEN SIDE OF THE CAR.
THERE WAS POSSIBILITY THE
CIGARETTE COULD HAVE
TRANSFERRED THE FINGERPRINT,
BUT NOT THE PRINCE INSIDE OF
THIS CAR.
MISS DAVIS, AN IMPORTANT
PART IT SEEMS TO ME OF THE
MAJORITY IN THE CASE WAS THE
FACT THAT THE STATE REALLY
DID NOT FILE A RAPE CASE OR
A SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE AN
REALLY HAD NOT PLACED THAT
MUCH EMPHASIS OR WEIGHT
DURING A PROCEEDINGS ON WHAT
WAS FOUND ON THE LAUNDRY
BASKET.
IN THE CASE, AS I AM LOOKING
THROUGH, LOOKING AT THE
CLOSING ARGUMENT, IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT THIS MAY TAKE IT
TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL,
BECAUSE THEY ARE TALKING
ABOUT SCIENTIFIC PROOF AN
NOT ONE, BUT TWO REFERRING
TO THE HAIR FINDINGS, DOES
THAT TAKE THIS CASE, INTO A
DIFFERENT LEVEL, BECAUSE OF
THE WAY THE STATE APPROACHED
A PARTICULAR PIECE OF THIS?
NO, SIR.
REMEMBER, THIS WAS NOT
SEXUAL-BATTERY CASE EITHER.
I UNDERSTAND.
AND THE THING WITH THE
HAIR IS, DIANA BASS
TESTIFIED THIS POSSIBLY
COULD HAVE COME FROM THE
VICTIM.
AND SHE WAS RIGOROUSLY
CROSS-EXAMINED.
WAS NO FORCIBLE EXTRACTION,
NO HAIR FOLLOW CULE.
IN THE STATE'S YUS OF
ENCLOSING ARGUMENT.
THAT WAS ONE PAGE OUT OF
42 PAGES OF CLOSING
ARGUMENTS WHERE HE WAS
ADDRESSING THE PUBIC HAIR
BECAUSE, UM, THE -- TO SHOW
-- WELL, LET ME JUST SAY,
THERE WERE A LOT OF HAIRS ON
THE JACKET.
THAT THEY EXTRACTED.
DIANA BASS COULD NAIL IT
DOWN.
SHE SAID BETWEEN 1 AND 12.
THERE WERE MORE THAN 1 HAIR,
SO THE ONE PUKE IN HAIR IN
THE BELT BUCK APPROXIMATELY,
THERE WERE ALSO OTHER HAIR,
WHICH THE ONE HAIR THEY HAD
TESTED AT TRIAL WAS
INCONCLUSIVE.
THE ONE PUBIC HAIR, I MEAN,
CLOSING ARGUMENT IS NOT
EVIDENCE.
AND --
WELL RING IT THEORY OF
THE STATE'S CASE AND THE
WEIGHT THAT THE STATE IS
PLACING ON IT AND TRYING TO
CONVINCE THE JURY AND IT IS
WHERE YOU WILL FINE THE
POSITION OF THE STATE WITH
REGARD TO WHAT IS REALLY
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE, WHAT
IS NOT.
WELL, THAT WAS NOT THAT
SIGNIFICANT.
YOU MEAN, THE STATES WITH
AGGRESSIVELY ARGUING EVERY
PIECE OF EVIDENCE, BUT THE
MAIN PARTS OF THE EVIDENCE
ARE THE TIMELINE WITH ROBERT
PRESTON'S COMING AND GOING
AN BEING SEEN IN THAT
JACKET, THE BLOOD ON THE JK
KET, THE FOOD STAMPS AND THE
FINGERPRINTS UNHER CAR,
WHERE WE SAID HE HAD NOT
BEEN, HE DIDN'T KNOW HER, HE
HAD NEVER BEEN IN THE CAR,
THE BODY IS A QUARTER MILE
FROM THE HOUSE.
AND AS IF AS THE BLOOD ON
THE JACKET, I MEAN, THAT WAS
VERY STRONG EVIDENCE.
THE FINGERPRINTS.
EVEN DEFENSE COUNSEL, THE
GUILT PHASE COUNSEL, AT THE
HEARING WE HAD ON THIS SAID
THAT THE BELT BUCKLE HAIR
WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT.
I WAS ONE THEIR WAS NOT
FORCIBLY BE A STRUCK AED
THAT POS MIA HAVE COME FROM
THE VICTIM, AND IT WAS JUST
NOT SIGNIFICANT, GIVEN THE
TOTALITY OF ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE AND THAT IS WHAT
THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND.
AND I THINK THAT EVERYTHING
IF THERE IS ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS I WOULD BE HAPPY
TO ANSWER THEM FOR THE
COURT.
IF NORTH, I WOULD ASK THE
COURT TO AFFIRM THE TRIAL
JUDGE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANKS.
DO YOU HAVE A COUPLE
MINUTES.
OKAY.
JUST A FEW CORRECTIONS, I
BELIEVE, TO WHAT MY
COLLEAGUE HAS STATED.
I DISAGREE WITH HER
INDICATION THAT THE INMATE'S
STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN
DISCREDITED WHEN THE COURT
FINALLY CONSIDERED IT IN THE
1990 DB -- EXCUSE ME, 1988
CORAM NOBIS OPINION AS NEW
EVIDENCE THEN, THIS COURT
INDICATED THAT MOST, BRING
ABOUT AN ACQUITTAL, I THINK
ONE OF THE JUSTICES
INDICATED HOW THE PROBLEM
WITH THE JILL HOUSE
CONFESSIONS COMING AT LAST
MINUTE WOULD HAVE YOU AND
THAT IS SRN THINK CASE, BUT
NEVERTHELESS, THEY, THE
COURT DID INDICATE THAT IT
COULD BE USED AS DISCREDITING
AND AT MOST, ONE FURTHER
INVITATION OF THE IMPORTANCE
THAT THE STATE HAS PLACED ON
THE BELT BUCKLE HAIR CAME
OUT DURING THE HUFF HEARING
ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2000, WHEN
THE PROSECUTORS BELOW WHILE
WE WERE DISCUSSING THE
HISTORY OF THE BROTHER'S
CONFESSIONS TO THE THREE
PRISON INMATES INDICATED,
WELL, THAT WOULD NEVER WASH,
BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS THE
PUBIC HAIR ON THE BELT, SO
EVEN BEFORE THIS STATE TRIED
TO STOP THE DNA TESTING THEY
WERE TELLING, THEY POST
CONVICTION JUDGE THAT THAT
PUBIC HAIR HAD TOTALLY
SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT AND THIS
COURT'S OPINION AS IN HILDEN
AND OTHERS THROUGH RECOGNIZE
WHAT THAT JURY HEARD AND THE
TREMENDOUS IMPACT THAT THIS
NEW SCIENCE OF DNA TESTING.
SEE, BUY LOOK AT THAT
OPINION FROM 1988 AN AND
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
AFFIDAVITS WE SAY WELL THE
CASE AGAINST HIM WAS BASED
ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
IT WAS NEVER A STRONG CASE.
THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE
FINGER PRIN, THE BLOOD, THE
FOOD STAMPS WAS MOST PER
SWAFS.
WE DON'T EVEN MENTION THE
HAIR WHEN WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT IT.
JUSTIN PARRY ENTITY, THAT
IS WHAT I WAS RESPECTFULLY
CRITICIZING THE COURT DURING
DIRECT HERE IS THAT WHEN THE
COURT IN 1988 TALKED ABOUT
THE MOST PRESWASIVE FEATURE
THAT JUST LIKE THE COURT
BELOW, THE COURT DID NOT
EVER OFFER ANY ELABORATION
OF WHY YOU THOUGHT IT WAS
PERSUASIVE AND THAT IS WHAT
I AM ASKING THE COURT TO DO
TODAY IN COMBINED THE
EXPLANATIONS OF ONE BY ONE
AS COX REQUIRES AND JONES
REQUIRES TO ANALYZE THE
WEIGHT OF EACH OF THESE
ITEMS WAS IN CONNECTION WITH
THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF
DNA TESTING COMBINED WITH
WHAT I HAVE ALLUDED TO THAT
TRIAL COUNSEL ON RETRIAL AT
GUILT PHASE WOULD HAVE
PLENTY TO SAY LOOKING
FORWARD THAT ONE JUROR WHO
WOULD HAVE ONE DOUBT TO GIVE
MR. PRESTON A FAIR TRIAL
AFTER ALL OF THESE YEARS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE COURT WILL STAND IN
RECESS.
ALL RISE, PLEASE.
WELCOME TO CAPITOL
UPDATE.
IT HAS BEEN A WEEK SINCE
TORNADOES AND STORMS TORE
THROUGH CENTRAL FLORIDA
KILLING 20 PEOPLE AND
VICTIMS LEFT BEHIND HAVE
SPENT THE TIME REMEMBERING
THOSE LOST AND PICKING UP
THE PIECES.
GOVERNOR CRIST AND OTHERS
STATE LEADERS SURVEYED THE
DAMAGE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK
STOPPING TO TALK TO FIRST
RESPONDERS WHILE IN TEARS
AND TO THE VICTIMS.
MORE DISASTER AID IS NOW
AVAILABLE TO THOSE PEOPLE
EFFECTED BY THE FEBRUARY 2nd
STORMS AN AS MR. BROWN
REPORT, DISASTROUS
ORIGINALLY DENIED THE
VICTIMS WHO EXPERIENCED A
CHRISTMAS DAY TORNADO IN
THEIARS NOW ON THE WAY.
IS A DS EAR DECLARATION
MAKES THE SEVERE STORMS THAT
HIT CHRISTMAS STORM ELIGIBLE
FOR FEDERAL AID.
WE MADE THE RECK MEJDATIONS
TO APPROVE THE DECORATIONS
WHO DID NOT HESITATE
ALTHOUGH WE SIGNED OFF ONE
LAST NIGHT AS WE WERE FLYING
IN.
AS THE AID FOR LAST
WEEK'S TORNADO VICTIMS WAS
APPROVED THE STATE APPEALED
TO THE FEMA DIRECTOR TO TAKE
ANOTHER LOOK AT DAMAGE LEFT
BE HIND ON CHRISTMAS DAY.
THIS LATEST SEPARATION COMES
AS VICTIMS CONTINUE TO CLEAN
UP ONE WEEK AFTER LAST
WHACK'S STORMS AN TORNADOES
THAT RAVAGED VOLUSIA, LAKE,
SUMTER, SEMINOLE COUNTY,
KBOF NOR CRIST HAS BEEN A
FREQUENT VISITOR TO THE AREA
TOURING THE DAMAGE BY AIR
AND THE DESTRUCTION LEFT
BEHIND ON THE GROUND IN LAKE
COUNTY, HE SAID MOST OF THE
TIME TALKING TO FAMILIES WHO
SURVIVED THE STORM, BUT LOST
EVERYTHING.
BYRD AND HER DOG MADE IT
THROUGH, HER HOME DID NOT.
THIS IS WHERE YOU LIVE?
YES, THIS IS MY HOUSE.
I WAS IN IT.
WERE YOU IN THERE?
YEAH.
I WAS IN THERE.
MY WORD.
Reporter: NEIGHBORS AN
EVEN STRANGERS ARE HELPING
HER AND OTHER VICTIMS PICK
UP THE PIECES.
20 PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN
ALMOST 1,000 HOMES
DESTROYED.
THE STORMS THAT CAUGHT MANY
BY SURPRISE.
SO FAR, BUSINESSES IN
VOLUSIA ARE ELIGIBLE TO
RESEEK SHORT-TERM LOANS
EARLIER IN THE WEEK, THE
GOVERNOR ANNOUNCED THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FLORIDA
DISASTER RECOVERY FUND AND
EXTENSION OF THE FUND SET UP
DURING THE 2004-2005
HURRICANE SEASON.
IT GIVES PRIVATE DONATIONS
TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
HELPING VICTIMS RECOVER.
IT IS TO HELP THE PEOPLE
RIGHT HERE?
IT IS TO HELP THE PEOPLE
FROM ANY FLORIDA DISASTER
THAT MAY BEE FALL OUR STATE
BUT OBVIOUSLY THE PLEA AND
THE CALL RIGHT NOW IS TO
HELP THIS DISASTER IN
CENTRAL FLORIDA.
THE DAMAGE IN SOME PLACES
AS FAVOR AS THE EYE CAN SEE.
TREES SNAPPED IN HALF.
DOCKS DESTROYED.
TRUCKS SMASHED.
IT WAS THE FIRST RESPONDERS
WHO HELPED PULL PEOPLE OUT
OF THIS RUBBLE, LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR AND THE GOVERNOR
SAT DOWN WITH SOME OF THE
FIRST RESPONDERS ON ONE OF
THEIR VISITS.
ON THE FIRST COUPLE OF
DAYS AFTER THE STORM,
REALLY, THE TIME FOR SEARCH
AND RESCUE, IS TIME TO
PROVIDE HOPE.
NEVER EXPERIENCED
ANYTHING LIKE THIS.
IT IS KIND OF A HUMBLING
EXPERIENCE.
I APPRECIATE YOU WHAT YOU DO
HAVE, NOT WORRY ABOUT WHAT
YOU DON'T.
AS OF MOST DISASTER,
RECOVERY RIS GOING TO TAKE
SOME TIME.
STATE LEADERS SAY, THEY WILL
BE THERE TO HELP.
FOR CAPITOL UPDATE, I AM
DRAS BROWN.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
DONATE OR CONTRIBUTE IN
ANYWAY TO HELP VICTIMS OF
THE CENTRAL FLORIDA STORMS
YOU CAN CONTACT THE FLORIDA
DISASTER RECOVERY FUND BY
CALLING 1-800-825-3786.
A NEW PANEL CHARGED WITH
DEVELOPING LONG-TERM
SOLUTIONS FOR IMPROVING
FLORIDA'S HOMES AGAINST WIND
DAMAGE MET FOR THE FIRST
TIME THIS WEEK.
THE WINDSTORM MITIGATION
STUDY COMMITTEE MET IN
TALLAHASSEE TO REVIEW
CURRENT PROGRAMS AN EVALUATE
THEIR EFFECTIVENESS.
THE 8-MEMBER BODY OF
CONSUMER ADVOCATE IS,
BUILDING EXPERTS LISTENED TO
FIVE HOURS OF PRESENTATIONS
FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AN
UNITS?
AMONG THE MEMBERS IS
REPRESENTATIVE, HE HELPED
DRAFT THE BILL THAT CREATED
THINK COMMITTEE DURING LAST
MONTH'S SPECIAL SESSION.
THERE IS GREAT STUFF
GOING OUT WILLING.
PROBABLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO
HARNESS SOME OF THAT AND FOE
KITS A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
WE ARE THE SMART ESTATE IN
THE COUNTRY AS IT RELATES TO
HURRICANE RISK MANAGEMENT.
THE PANEL WILL NEXT MEET
FEBRUARY 15th TO HEAR PUBLIC
INPUT A. FINAL REPORT IS DUE
BY MARCH 6th THE COMMITTEE
PINTED TO MAKE RECK
MENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE MY
SAFE FLORIDA HOMES PROGRAM.
CFO ERMNATED THE STATE'S
CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERAL
ALLIANCE FOR SAFE HOMES
WHICH HAD BEEN HIRED TO
LAUNCH THE PROGRAM ACCORDING
TO THE STATE.
THE CONTRACT HAD IMPROPERLY
INCREASED FROM LESS THAN
$500,000 TO ALMOST $3
MILLION.
LAWMAKERS SAY FLORIDA'S
FINANCIAL FORECAST MAY NOT
BE AS ROSY AS FIRST THOUGHT
A DEKRAENS THE SLOWDOWN IN
THE ECONOMY ARE PARTLY TO
BLAME.
NUMB MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
BUDGET, THE POLICY COUNCIL
DISCUSSED THE NUMBERS SAYS
DURING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER
THE GENERAL REVENUE
COLLECTIONS FELL 160 MILLION
BELOW THE ESTIMATE.
MONEY COLLECTED FROM STAMPS
THE STATE SALES TAX HELPS
FUND THE STATE'S BUDGET.
LAWMAKERS WILL USE THE
ESTIMATE GIVEN DURING THE
UPCOMING MARCH 12th MEETING.
IF THE TREND CONTINUES AS OF
JANUARY THE PAST THREE
MONTHS INTO FEBRUARY WHAT WE
ARE LOOKING AT IS JUST A
CONTINUATION BUDGET.
THAT IS WHAT THE FUND, WHAT
WE FUND LAST YEAR, WE WERE
TRYING TO FUND THIS YEAR.
NOTHING NEW.
LAWMAKERS HEARD PRESES
TATION GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED
BUDGET WHICH INCLUDES
SEVERAL PROPOSALS SOME LAW
MARKERS EXPRESSED CONCERN
OVER HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARE GOING TO BE EFFECTED.
ONE PROPOSAL IS TO DOUBLE
THE HOMESTEAD EX FROM 25,000
TO 50,000 DOLLARS.
FLORID ARE INS COULD VOTE ON
THE MEASURE IN A NOVEMBER
SPECIAL ELECTION.
LET ME TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO DO SELF-WEREDUCTION, I
WILL START WITH AGAIN SOONER
SENATOR CRIST AND YOU
PROBABLY KNOW A LOT MORE
ABOUT HIM THAN DOW BECAUSE
YOU HAVE HAD HIM ALL FOR HOW
MANY YEARS?
I WILL START WITH HIM AND GO
TO MY LEFT.