MARSHAL: ALL RISE. HEAR YE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE.THE SUPREME COURT OF THEGREAT STATE OF FLORIDA IS NOW SESSION.ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA , DRAW NEAR , G IVE ATTENT ION AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS HONORABLE COURT. THE NE XT CASE ON THE COURT'S DOCKET IS BALLARD VERSUS THE STATE OF FLORIDA. GOOD MOR NING TO BOTH OF YOU. MR . HE LM AND MR . BROWNE. IT FEELS LIKE IT IS OLD HOME WEEK HERE.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY N AME MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

L ET'S GET MR . BR OWNE SETTLED IN.

MAY I DO THIS .

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND YOU , TOO.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS PAUL HELM, AND I REPRESENT THE AELLANT IN THIS CASE , JO HN BALLARD. MR . BALLARD WAS CONVICTED OF THE FIRST-DEGREE MU RDERS OF JENNIFER JONE S AND WIL LIE PATIN , AND O F ROBBERY OF THEM. THE TRIAL COURT SENTENCED HIM T O DE ATH FOR EACH OF THE MURDERS , AND TO 15 YE ARS IN PRISON FOR THE ROBBERY. MR . BALLARD IS INNOCENT OF THESE CRI MES . THE STATE PROVED THAT

I THINK IT IS A STRETCH TO SAY HE IS INNOCENT. YOU MAY BE CORRECT THAT HE HASN'T BEEN PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

YOUR HONO R, MY CL IENT MAINTAINS THAT HE IS INNOCENT. I BE LIEVE THAT HE IS INNOCENT. THIS IS THE FI RST ARGUMENT THAT I HAVE EVER MADE BEFORE THIS COURT, WHERE I HAVE MADE SU CH A CL AIM.

DO I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT TO BE , HERE , THAT THE ONLY EV IDENCE THAT THE STATE HAS PRODUCED TO PROVE HIS GUILT OF THESE CRIMES , IS A FINGERPRINT ON A BED P OST IN A BEDROOM AND A HAIR IN THE HA ND OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS?

PRETTY CLOSE. THE FINGERPRINT WAS ON THE BED F RAME OF THE V ICTIM 'S WATERBED IN THE MA STER BEDROOM , AND , YES , THE HAIR , THAT HAD THE SAME DNA PROFILE AS THE DEFENDANT, WAS FO UND IN HER RIGHT HAND,ALONG WITH FIVE OTHER HAIRS, AND ALL SIX HAIRS WERE UNDERNEATH A TORN P IECE OF PLASTIC THAT , A LSO , WAS IN HER HAND.

HAVE I SUMMARIZED IT THAT THAT IS YOUR POSITION THAT THAT IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE PROD UCED?

THAT IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT, IN ANY WAY , REASONABLY T IES MR . BALLAR D TO THE COMMISSION OF THESE CR IMES , AND

IT IS YOUR POSITI ON THAT THE OTHER EVID ENCE PRESENTEDIN THE CASE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE WAS A FREQUENT VISITOR TO THIS HOUSE?

THE STATE'S OWN WITNESSES TESTIFIED TO THAT , YOUR HONOR.

THERE IS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE HAIR AND THE FINGERPRINT , OTHER THAN HIS COMMISSION OF THESE CRIMES. IS THAT, I A M TR YING TO SUMMARIZE, WITH OUT PU TTING , I WANT T O BE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND

YES , YOUR HONOR THAT , IS CORRECT, BECAUSE THE STATE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FROM WHICH IT CAN BE DETERMINED WH ETHER THE FINGERPRINT WAS MADE OR WHEN THE HAIR , ALTHOUGH THE STATE'S EVIDEN CE, THE STATE'S EXPERTS TESTIFIEDTHAT THE HAIR WAS FORCIBLY REMOVED, BUT IT WAS IN THE L AST ARTELIGEN STAGE OF HAIR DEVELOPMENT, WHEN THE ROOT IS SHRINKING A WAY AND THEHAIR IS BECOMING LOOSE AND PREPARING TO FALL O UT. THIS, BY THE WAY , WAS A LI MB HAIR. IT WAS NOT A HE AD HAIR.

AM I CORRECT THAT ONE OF THE VI CTIM 'S AUTOMOBILES WAS F OUND SUBSEQUENTLY.IS THAT CORRECT?

YES . J ONES 'S MA ZDA WAS FOUND.

I AM SO RRY . IS IT CORRECTTHAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED CONNECTING THE , YOUR CLIENT TO THAT AUTOMOBILE ?

THERE WAS , THERE WERE NO EYEWITNESSES TO HIM DRIVING THE CAR.THE RE WAS NO TR ACE FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO TIE HIM TO THE CAR.

I USE THE WORD S "NO EVIDENCE" , W AS THERE ANY EVIDENCE CONN ECTING HIM?

THE STATE CLAIMED THAT , BECAUSE MR. BALLARD HAD LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE V ACANT LOT WAS LOCATED , SOME FIVE YEARS PRI OR TO THE MUR DER , THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR W ITH THE LOT AND THAT TIES HIM TO THE PRESENCE OF THE CAR.

OTHER THAN THAT KIND OF CLAIM, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE , FINGERPRINTS, B LOOD EVIDENCE , ANYTHING ELSE?

NO, SIR.

IS THAT CORRECT?

THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE CAR.IT WAS WILLIE PATI N'S BLOOD, AND THERE WAS AN UNIDENTIFIED FINGERPRINT ON THE IN SIDE DR IVERS DOOR HANDLE, WHICH I AM SUGGESTING MOST LIKELY BELONGED TO SOM EONE INVOLVED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIMES, BUT IT WAS NOT

I AM TRYING TO GET A CLEAR PICTURE, O KAY, BY MY LEADING QUESTIONS OF YOU , OF WHAT YOUR POSITION IS AS TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE STATE, AND SO LET ME RESTATE MY INITIAL QUESTION TO YOU , THAT IS , IT IS YOUR VIEW OF THIS RECORD THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY CONNECT YOUR CLIENT TO THESE CRIMES , IS THE FINGERPRINT ON THE BEDAND THE HAIR IN THE HAND , AND IS THAT , I ME AN, JUST LET ME JUST STOP RIGHT THERE , IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, SIR .

AND IT IS Y OUR F URTHER POSITION THAT , SINCE YOUR CLIENT WAS A FREQUENT VISITOR TO THESE PRE MISES, WAS IT OVER A PERIOD OF HOWMANY YEAR S?

THAT WAS NOT IN THE RECORD . WE KNOW THAT HE WAS A FR IEND AND FREQ UENT VI SITOR. WE KNOW THAT HE WAS A GU EST IN THE HO ME THE N IGHT BEF ORE THE HOMICIDE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT ON THIS, JUST TO MAKE SURETHERE , IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS EVER IN THE VICTIM'S BEDR OOM , WHICH IS WHERE

YES, YOUR HONOR , THERE IS. THE FINGERPRINT IS EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS IN THE BEDROOM. BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHEN THE FINGERPRINT WASMADE. IT IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHEN A FINGERPRINT IS MADE .

BUT, IN TERMS OF THE REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS OF INNOCENCE , YOU SAY IT COULD HAVE EQUALLY BEEN MADE BECAUSE HE WAS A FREQUENT VISITOR TO THE HOME, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT, IN HIS BEING A FREQUENT VISITOR TO THE HOME , HE WAS A FREQUENT VISITOR T O HER BEDROOM.I MEAN , IT IS THAT THEY WERE GIRLFRIEND AND BOYFRIEND OR HE WOULD GO IN THERE FOR MARIJUANA TRANSACTIONS , AND CERTAINLY WEREN'T HIS FINGERPRINTS , I MEAN , I THINK THERE WERE OTHER PLACES IN THE HOME WHER E HE WAS UNDISPUTEBLY PRESENTTHAT WEEKEND .

YOUR HONOR , THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT MS. JONES WAS A MARIJUANA DE ALER , AND THAT SHE CONDUCTED MA NY OF HER MARIJUANA TRANSACTION INS THE BEDROOM. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS IN THE BEDROOM , B UT IF I RECALL CORRECTLY , THE TR IA L PROSECUTOR AR GUED THAT H E HAD BEEN IN THE BEDROOM FOR MARIJUANA TRANSACTIONS .

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT WOULD BE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. I MEAN, THAT , TO ME , TO MEWHAT WAS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THE FINGERPRINT IN THE BEDROOM , IS I THOUGHT THAT THE STATE HAD A CTUALLY PRINTED - - PRESENTED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE EVER WAS IN THE BEDROOM. SO THAT , WOULD YOU , SO , DID THAT HAVE ANY , FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW , IN TERM S OF LOOKING AT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WHAT WE HAVE TO, OUR STANDARD IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO SEND THIS TO THE JU RY THERE , IS A ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A E QUALLY REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS O F INNOCENCE.

YOUR HONOR, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN EQUALLY REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS OF INNOCENCE.IT ONLY HAS TO BE A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS OF INNOCENCE. AND IT AR ISES FR OM THE STATE'S OWN EVIDENCE ! AND IN ADDITION TO THE EVIDENCE THAT, THE ONE FINGERPRINT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AND THE ONE HAIR THAT WAS IDENTIFIED , I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE OVER 1 00 UNIDENTIFIED FINGERPRINTS, AND THAT THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF UNI DENTIFIED HAIRS!

TELL ME WHAT THE RECORD IS TO THIS FINGERPRINT. IT WAS ADJACENT , ON THE BED ADJACENT TO WHERE MS. JONES'S BO DY WAS FOUND , CORRECT?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

WHAT WAS THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE RELATIONSH IP BETWEEN THE LOCATION OF THE FINGERPRINTS AND WHERE, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE FRI END'S LAST N AME, BUT WHERE SHE KEPT THE BOX OF MO NEY ? UNDER THE BED.

AS I UNDERSTOOD WHERE THE FINGERPRINT WAS, IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE ON THE SIDE OFTHE BED, WHE REAS HER TESTIMONY WAS AS TO WHERE SHE KEPT HER MIGHT NOT , IT WAS THE TOP CORNER E RROR HER MONEY, I T WAS THE TOP CORNER ER ROR BOTTO M CORNER O F THE WA TERBED MATTRESS , SO IF ONE WERE LO OKING UNDERTHE CORNERS , REACHING FORTHE MONEY, IT DOESN'T SE EM TO M E TO BE LIKELY THAT T HEY WERE TOUCHI NG THE MIDDLE OF THE SIDE OF THE FRAME.

AND WHAT ABOUT WHERE SHE WOULD ACTUALLY KEEP HER BAGGIES OF MARIJUANA? IS THAT WHAT THIS PLASTIC BAG WAS ASSU MED O R ARGUED BY THE STATE , TO BE , MARIJUANA?

NO, YOUR HONOR . NOBODY AT THE TRIAL HAD ANY IDEA WHERE THE PIECE OF PLASTIC CAME FROM, AND THEREIS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AS TO WHERE SHE KEPT HERMARIJUANA , JUST THAT SHE DID MOST OF HER TRANSA CTION INS HER BEDROOM, AND SHE - - TRANSACTIONS IN HER BEDROOM , AND SHE SOMETIMES KEPT HER MONEY UNDER A CORNER OF THE WATERBED MATTRESS . SHE SOME TIMES KEPT IT IN HER PURSE , AND SOMETIMES , I THINK , KEPT IT IN HER CL OSET .

MR . HELM , IS THEREEVIDENCE OF WHEN MR . BALLARDWAS IN THIS RESIDENCE THE SATURDAY NIGHT BEFO RE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THIS WAS , THE USE OF MARIJUANA ON THE PREMISE , IS THERE ANY , WHAT IS THE REASONABLE INF ERENCE THAT HE U SE D MARIJUANA, THAT THIS WAS A GROUP OF MARIJUANA US ERS, OR THEY ARE TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS ANYTHING IN THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT HE WAS A MARIJUANA USER , A REASONABLE INFE RENCE THIS .

YOU WOULD, YOU COULD ONLY DRAW A REASONABLE INFERENCE OF THAT, BASED ON THE GENERAL CIRCUMSTAN CES THAT THEY WERE , THAT THE WOMAN WAS A MARIJUANA DEA LER. AARENTLY HER FRIENDS WERE AWARE THAT SHE WAS A MARIJUANA DEAL ER.

AND THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON THAT SATURDAY NIGHT BEFORE ABOUT DRUG US AGE, MARIJUANA USAGE.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT DRUG USAGE IN THE

HOW ABOUT THE LOT? IS THERE ANYTHING WITH REASONABLE INFERENCE , THERE SOMETHING UN USUAL OR PARTICULAR ABOUT THIS LOT , AS OOSED TO JUST BEING A LOT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA , THAT WOULD CONNECT HIM IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THESTATE , THAT WOULD CONNECT THIS PERSON TO THE LOT IN SOME WAY?

ONLY THAT HE HAD LI VED IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE YEARS EARL IER.

NOTHING ELSE AT ALL.

NO. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

HOW ABOUT THE LOCATION , THO UGH , OF, AGAI N, THIS OCCURRED , WHAT WAS , DID I T O CCUR IN ACITY OR WHERE DID THIS , THE M URDER , S WHERE WAS THE HOME ? AND HOW FAR WAS THE , WHERE THE VEHICLE WAS FO UND FROM THE HOME?

THE VEHICLE WAS FOUND 1.3MILES AWAY FROM THE HOME OF THE VICTIMS AND THE HOME OFTHE DEFENDANT , BECAUSE HE LIVED BASI CALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE VICT IMS .

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO IT WASN'T LIKE IT WAS FOUND 50 MILES AWAY AND IT JUST SO HAENED 50 MILES WAY , IT WAS NEAR SOMEPLACE WHERE HE LIVED.

CORRECT. IT IS IN THE GE NERAL VICINITY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS IT I N A H IDDEN AREA, IN T ERMS OF THE

WELL , I BELIEVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE CARWAS FOUND IS THE GOLDEN G ATE AREA NEAR NA PLES . I THINK IT IS A FAIR , THE RECORD DOESN'T CL EARLY ESTABLISH THIS , SO MY IMPRESSIONS WITH OTHER CASESARE NOT AROPRIATE. I DON'T THINK IT WAS A HEAVILY POPU LATED - -

WHAT DOES THE RECORD REFLECT IN RESPECT TO ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS IN THAT CAR?

THERE WAS A FINGERPRINT F ROM SOMEONE NAMED FRE EMAN , ON A CD IN THE CAR . THERE WAS WILLIE PATIN'SBLOOD IN THE CAR . THERE WAS , ON THE SEAT, I BELIEVE , AND THERE WAS AN UNI HAD DIED UNI DENTIFIED FINGERPRINT FOUND ON THE INSIDE DR IVERS SIDE DOOR HANDLE.

WHAT WAS THE STAT E'S HYPOTHESIS AS TO WHY THIS DEFENDANT WHO LIVED ACROSS THE ST REET WOULD K ILL THESE INDIVIDUALS , STEAL THE MONEYAND THEN STE AL THE CAR AND THE N JUST DU MP THE CAR ?

THE PROSECUTORS ARGUMENT TO THE JURY AS TO THE MO TIVE , WAS SI MPLY ROBBERY. BUT THAT IS A GENERIC MOTIVE THAT COULD BE ALIED TO ANYBODY WHO WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THESE OFFENSES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER , THAT MR . BALLARD EVER EXPRESSED ANY INTEREST IN ROBBING THE VICTIMS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SH OW THAT HE POSSESS ED ANY OF THEIR BELONGINGS , MONEY OR THEIR

THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A ROBBERY. THE QUESTION IS WHE THER MR . BALLARD COMMITTED THE ROBBERY , COR RECT? BECAUSE THE CAR WAS GONE , THE MONEY . MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

WAS HE WORKING AT THE TIME?

NOT ON A SUNDAY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WAS HE EMPLOYED. IN OTHER WO RDS A LOT OF THESE CASES W E SEE THAT SOMEBODY DI SEASE PRATT FOR MONEY , AND THEN THEY END UP RIGHT AFTERWARD , HAVING , SPENDING MONEY TRI PS OR

BECAUS E, I THINK BECAUSEOF HIS LEARNING DISABILITY AND HIS OTHER PROBLEMS , THAT MR. BALLARD 'S WORK HISTORY WAS SUCH THAT HE WENT FROM JOB TO JOB , B UT , ALSO , HEWAS A HARD WORKER , AND H E SUORTED HIS FAMILY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: HE WAS LIVING WITH

HE HAD A WIFE ANDCHILDREN.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND WAS LIVING WITH THEM AT THE T IME OF THE MURDER.

YES.

AND WHAT WAS , HE DIDN'T HAVE AN ALIBI, BUT WAS I T SOMETHING ABOUT A FAMILY BARBECUE THAT WEEKEND? WHAT IS THE TIME FR AME ON THAT?

THE BARBECUE WAS LATE SUNDAY AFTERNOON, I BELIEVE. THE MURDERS WERE AARENTLY COMMITTED SOMETIME DU RING THE DAY ON SUNDAY OR , WE DON'T ACTU ALLY KN OW. WE KNOW THA T THE VICTIMS HAD GUESTS S A TURDAY NIGHT , AND THE L AS T GUESTS LEFT , I THINK , ABOUT EL EVEN O'CLOCK AT NIGHT. BALLARD HAD AL READY LEFT . AND THE BODIES MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

NONE OF THE GU ESTS , DID ANY OF THE GUESTS TESTIFY ABOUTANYTHING TO DO WITH BALLARD?

ONLY THAT HE WAS THERE. ONE OF THEM COUL DN'T REMEMBER WHETHER HE WAS THERE THAT NIGHT OR THE NIGHT BEFORE. ONE W OMAN TESTIFIED THAT HEWAS THERE ON SAT URDAY .

HOW WAS BALLARD 'S HYPOTHESIS OF IN NOCENCE PRESENTED TO THE JURY ? WAS THERE A QUESTIONING OF THE STATE WITNESSES, TO ESTABLISH THE HYPOTHESIS , OR WAS IT SIMPL Y ARGUMENT BY THE DEFE NSE COUNSEL IN CLOSING ARGUMENT, TO ESTABLISH IT ?

WELL , MOST OF THE EVIDENCE PRESEN TED, WAS PRESENTED BY THE STATE. THERE WAS LI MITED EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENSE , INCLUDING TESTIMONY B Y THE GENTLEMANWHO REPO RTED FIN DING THE VICTIMS' CAR IN THE V ACANT LOT , AND HE TESTIFIED THAT THE VA CANT LOT WAS A LOCATION WHERE PE OPLE FREQUENTLY GA THERED T O PARTY , AND HOW HE P ILED ROCKS ANDSTICKS, T RYING TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THE LOT .

I WOULD AS SUME THAT, IN CLO SING ARGUMENT, THEN , THE DEFENSE AT TORNEY ARGUED WHAT , THAT THE STATE DIDN'T PROVE THAT YOUR CLIENT DID IT , BECAUSE THERE IS A REASONABLE HYPO THESIS OF INNOCENCE HERE, AND HE LAID THAT OUT. WHAT WAS

YOUR HONOR , I DON'T REMEMBER THE DETA ILS OF THE CLOSING ARGUMENT , BUT THE CASE NEVER SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE JURY, BECAUSE THE STATE'S OWN EVIDENCE GAVE RISE TO A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS OF INN OCENCE. THE TRIAL COURT WAS OBLIGATED , AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO G RANT THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQU ITTAL .

YOU SA Y THAT , BUT HOW WOULD THE TRIAL JU DGE DEAL WITH THE HAIR IN THAT SCENARIO ? IF THERE IS

YOUR HONOR, THERE I S ABSOLUTELY, THE STATE HAD , IF THE STATE IS GOING TO TIE THE DEFENDANT TO THE MU RDERS THROUGH FORENSIC EVIDENCE, SUCH AS THE HAIR AND THE FINGERPRINTS, THE STATE HAS THE OBLIG ATION TO PROVE THAT THOSE WERE PLACED AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME , AND AT NO O THER TIME , AND THE STATE DID NOT DO THAT!

GO BACK OVER FOR MEERXWHERE THERE THIS FOR ME , WHERE THIS HAIR WAS LO CATED.

IT WAS IN THE PALM OF THE VICTIM'S HA ND, BUT THE STATE'S OWN EXPERTS TESTIFIED ABOUT HOW HAIRS ARE REA DILY TRANSFERRED FROM SURFACE-TO-SURFACE, ANDTHERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO ATTEMPT MADE BY THE STATE, TO PROVE WHEN THE HAIR WAS REMOVED FROM JO HN BALLARD'S ARM OR LEG! THERE WAS N O WAY THEY COULDPROVE THAT .

HOW M A NY OTHER HAIRS WERE IN THE HAND , THE SAME ON E?

THERE WERE FIVE OTHERHAIRS IN THAT VICTIM'S HAND. THE OTHER VICTIM HAD 59 HAIRS ON ONE HAND AND , I THINK , 64 HAIRS ON THE OTHER HAND , NONE OF WHICH CAME FROM JOHN BALLARD .

DID THEY I DENTIFY WHERE THE HAIRS CAME FROM ON THE VICTIM? THE OTHER HAIRS ?

L E T'S SEE. I BELIEVE THREE OF THEM WERE MS. JONES'S OWN HAIRS , AND , I THINK , TWO WERE UNIDENTIFIED FRAGMENTS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: GO BACK O N THE HAIR , AS TO WHAT EVIDENCE, IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE STATE , W ASTHERE THAT THIS HAIR WAS HAIR THAT WAS FORCEFULLY REMOVED , WHICH WOULD BE , WOULD THE IDEA THERE BE ING THAT, I F YOU ARE STRUGGLING AND SHE GRABS HIS FORE ARM , THAT SHE GR AB S HIS FOREARM AND HAIR CO MES OUT FORCEFULLY FROM THERE. I MEAN, THAT

YOUR HONOR, THE TESTIMONYOF THE STATE 'S OWN EXP ERTSWAS THAT THEY COULD NOT DETERMINE THE DEGR EE OF FORCE NECESSARY TO RE MOVE THE HAIR, BECAUSE IT WAS I N THE TELEGEN PHASE, THAT M ERELY SCRATCHING OR NO RMAL DAILY ACTIVITIES COULD REMOVE THE HAIR. IN OTHER WORDS , WE KNOW THAT MR. BALLARD WAS IN THE BED ROOM , BECAUSE OF THE FINGERPRINT, OKAY . WHEN HE WAS IN THE BEDROOM , WHENEVER HE WAS IN THE BEDROOM , IF H E SCRATCHED HIS ARM OR RUBBED HIS ARM OR, I F THERE WAS SOME INNO CENT CONTACT BETW EEN HIM AND MS. JONES OR ANYBODY EL SE IN THE ROOM , THE HAIR COULD HAVE FAL LEN OUT! AND THE HAIR COULD HAVE BEEN ON FURNITURE IN THE ROOM OR ON THE CARPET IN THE ROOM , AND MS. JONES , N EAR THE TIME OF THE MURDER, COULD HAVE TOUCHED THAT SU RFACE ANDGOTTEN THE HAIR ON HER HAND . THERE WAS, ALSO , THE TO RN P LASTIC BA G. THE HAIR COULD HAVE BEEN RESTING ON THE P L ASTIC BAG. HOWEVER , THE PIECE O F TORN PLASTIC GOT INTO HER HANDS, THAT IS HO W THE HAIR GOT INTO HER HAND. WE DON'T KNOW . THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. THE STATE HA SN'T PROVEN MR . BALLARD 'S GU ILT .

YOU SAID BEFORE THAT THERE WAS EV IDENCE THAT MR . BALLARD HAD BE EN IN THE HOUSE , BEFORE, AND WAS THERE EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW REC ENTLY HE HAD BEEN THERE? WAS THERE EVIDENCE?

Y ES. THE NIGHT BEFORE THEHOMICIDE.

HE WAS THERE THE NIGHTBEFORE.

ACCO RDING TO ONE OF THE STATE'S WITNESS. ANOTHER STATE'S WITNESS SAID HE WAS THERE E ITHER FR IDAY N IGHT OR SATURDAY NIGHT ANDHE COULDN'T REM EMBER.

THERE WAS A SO CIAL GATHERING AT THE HOW IS THE NIGHT BEFORE.

YES. YES.

WERE AT THE HOUSE , THE NIGHT BEFORE.

YES. YES.

WERE SAM PLES TAKEN O F DAILY AND I CAN'T REME MBER DALEY AND I CAN'TREMEMBER THE OTHERS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERECORD REFLECTS THAT , YOUR HONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THERE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD AS TO WHETHER THEY INITIALLY LOOKED AT EVERYBODY THAT HADBEEN AT THE SOCIAL GA THERING SATURDAY NIGHT, AND DID THEY MAKE A STATEMENT?

YOUR HONOR , THE RE IS NO TESTIMONY AS TO HOW HE BECAME A SUSPECT.

SO I T DOES SEEM PRETTY ATYPICAL, SO NO OTHER SOCIALGOERS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS DEFEND ANT SAID ANYTHING ABOUT I AM GOI NG TO GO BACK THERE O R ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. NO STATEMENT. IT MENTIONED , FROM MR . BALLARD.

THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTELY NO ADMISSIONS BY MR . BALLARDIN THE RECORD.

EVEN NO CONVERSATION THAT IS THE STATE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH SOME BODYTHAT WAS INTERESTED IN , HOW , LIKE THE MONEY. THE $1,000. WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT SHE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT MONEY THAT NIGHT OR ?

ONE OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES, ONE OF HER F EMALE FRIENDS , WAS A WA RE THAT SHE HAD THE MONEY . THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE FRIEND SEEMED TO GENERALLY KNOW THAT JONES AND PA TIN WERE PREP ARING TO MOVE T O TEXAS.

THERE WAS , AC CORDING TO THAT SAME FE MALE TESTIMONY , WHEN SHE LEF T THE APARTMENT, THERE WAS ONLY JONES AND P ATIN AND ONE OTHER PERSON. I BELIEVE THERE WAS A MR . O R MS. DALEY LEFT IN THEAPARTMENT. WAS THERE ANY INVESTIGATIONOF THAT PERSON?

YOUR HONOR, I AM SO RRY . I BELIEVE THAT THE FEMALE WITNESS WAS THE LAST ONE TO LEAVE, AND THAT MR. DAILY LEFT JUST BEFORE MR . DALEY LEFT JUST BEFORE HER. I MAY HAVE THAT BACK WARDS . E ITHER MR . DALEY OR THAT LAST PERSON WAS THERE THAT NIGHT, AND TH ERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHAT SOEVER ABOUT INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE ELSE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT IS MR . BALLARD'S SI ZE? THESE WERE TWO VICTIMS WHODIED IN PRETTY FORCEFUL TRAUMA.

WELL, SOMEBODY CRUSHED THEIR SK ULLS WITH A B LUNT OBJECT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT WAS THE BL UNT OBJECT?

WELL , THE, ACCORDING TO THE STATE , NOBODY KNOWS. HOWEVER , THERE WAS A CURL BAR AND AN OLYMPIC BARBELL WEIGHT, FOUN D IN THE , IN THE S PARE BEDROOM , IN WHICH MR . PATIN'S BODY WAS FOUND , AND THEY HAD BLOOD ON THEM , AND THEY HAD BL OODY FINGERPR INTS ON THEM. THE BLOODY FINGERPRINTS WERE NOT IDENT IFIED. I THINK THAT MR . BROWN POINTED OUT , IN HIS BRIEF , THAT ONE OF THEM WAS K IND OF SMUDGED AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFI ABLE , BUT THE POINT IS THAT THERE WERE BLOODY FINGERPRINTS PRESENT ON THOSE I T EMS , AND THE MEDICAL EXAM INER TESTIFIED THAT THE WEIGHT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE INJURIES THAT WERE INFLICTED .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT HE DIDN'T REALLY , THEY COULDN'T SAY WITH CERTAINTY IT WAS THE WEIGHT THAT

EXACTLY. AND I BELIEVE THE STATE'S THEORY WAS THAT THAT WASN'T THE WEAPON . THE PROSECUTOR SUGGESTED THAT THE WEAPO N WAS REMOVED FROM THE SCENE AND PLACED IN THE SEAT O F THE VICTIM'S CAR , A ND THAT IS HOW BLOOD GOTTRANSFERRED INTO THE CAR .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT WASTHE SI ZE OF THE DEFENDANT?

I DON'T RECALL WHETHER THE RECORD REF LECTS HIS SIZE . I HAVE MET HI M. HE IS A PRETTY NORMAL-SIZED GUY.HE WOULD BE LARGER THAN BOTH VICTIMS. BOTH VICTIMS WERE R ATHER SMALL.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IN FACT THE VICTIMS, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF THE RECORD , ONE WAS 5 FOOT 6 AND ONLY WEIGHED 88 POUNDS, AND THE OTHER 5-7 AND 94 POUNDS.IS THAT - -

THAT IS WHAT THE RECORD SAID, YOUR HONOR. THAT, WELL, YOU COULD DRAW AN INFE RENCE THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN USING DRUGS OTHER THAN MARIJU ANA .

THE FINGERPRINTS ON THE IMPLEMENTS THAT WERE FOUND AND SOME WERE SMUDGED , BUT WERE SOME OF THE QUALITY THAT PR INTS COULD BE LIFTED , T HEY JUST COULD NOT IDENTIFY OR CONN ECT THEM WITH ANYONE , O R

MY IMPRESSION WAS THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE BLOODY PRINTS WAS OF THE QUALITYTHAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. I DON'T THINK THAT IS C LEAR IN THE RECORD , WHETHEREITHER ONE WAS IDENTIFIABLE , BUT THE FACT I S , IF YOU , HERE ARE THE BLOODY FINGERPRINTS AND THEY CLEARLY AREN'T MAT CHED TO MR . BALLARD, AND THERE IS THE FINGERPRINT ON THE IN SIDE D OOR HANDLE OF THE CAR THAT WAS NOT MR. , IT WAS , THAT ONE CL EARLY WAS IDENTIFIABLE , AND IT WASN'T JOHN BALLARD'S FINGERPRINT ! I SEEM TO HAVE GOTTEN INTO MY REBUTTAL TIME. IF THE COURT HAS NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR NO W, I WILL RESERVE THE REST OF MY TI ME.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU, MR. HE LM .

GOOD MORNING. SCOTT B ROWNE FOR THE STATEOF FLORIDA .

MR . BROWN , I HAVE ONLY MR. BROWNE , I HAVE ONLY BEEN ON THIS COUR T FOR TH REE Y EARS, BUT IN MY TIME HERE , I HAVE NOT SEEN A CASE BASED ON LESS EVIDENCE THAN THIS ONE. IN CR ANE V ERSUS STATE WHIC H MR. HEL M WAS , A LSO , INVOLVED IN, WE AFFIRMED BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BUT IT WAS NOT AN UNANIMOUS OPINION, AND THERE WAS A LOT MORE EVIDENCE OF THAT DEFENDANT 'S INVOLVEMENT THAN HERE. THIS ONE LITERALLY HANGS BY A HAIR , AND THERE WERE OTHER HAIRS PRESEN T THAT WERE NOT IDENTIFIED, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS L I KELY CONNECTED TO THE PERPETRATOR AS MR . BALLARD WAS. THERE WERE OTHER FINGERPRINTS IN THE ROOM THAT WERE NOT IDENTIFY IDENTIFIED, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CONNECTED TO THE SUSPECT , JUST AS MR . BALLARD'S WAS. CAN YOU EXPL AIN HOW THE STATE PROVED ITS CASE BEYONDA REASONABLE DOUBT.

YES, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, THE STATE'S CASE DOES NOT HANG BY A HAIR , BUT , A LSO , A FINGERPRINT , AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE WHERE THAT FINGERPRINT WAS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THAT FINGERPRINT ON THE WATERBED FR AME. AELLANT WAS

DON'T WE HAVE AUTHORITYOUT OF THIS COURT FOR FINGERPRINTS ON, LIKE, THE SHAMPOO OR SOMETHING ANDTHAT THAT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PLACE THE INDIVIDU ALTHERE IS, BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE TOUCHED IT IN A STORESOMEPLACE OR SOMETHING. ISN'T THERE SOME AUTHORITY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

WELL , YOUR HONOR , THERE IS AUTHORITY. I KNOW THERE WAS HYPOTHESIS IN ONE CASE , WHERE THE DEF ENDANT CLAIMED HE WAS A T A GROCERY STORE AND MIGHT HAVE PICKED UP A BO X THAT WAS FOUND IN THE VICTIM'S HOME.

RIGHT.

AND IN F ACT IN THAT C ASE, THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND SUFFICIENT , SO IN HER ENTLY UNLIKELY FOR THAT FINGERPRINT OF THE STORE ANDTHOUSANDS OF ITEMS , YOU GET ONE FINGERPRINT OF HIS AND HE OTHERWISE D ID NOT KNOW THE VICTIMS I N THAT CASE, SO I THINK , AND , ALSO , THE STATE CITED KS, A CHILD. IN THAT CASE , THERE WAS A FINGERPRINT SE VEN FE ET OFFOF THE WINDOW, I THINK , SEVEN FEET ABOVE THE GROUND , AND THAT I S AN AREA WHERE A CASUAL VISITOR WO ULD NOT HAVE PLACED A FINGERPRINT, SO IF YOU

WH Y IS THIS CASE SO , WE KNOW THAT MS. JONES AND MR . PATIN WERE DRUG DEALERS , AND THAT A LOT OF THE TRANSACTION S TOOK PLACE IN THE BEDROOM. WHY IS N'T IT A REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS THAT THAT FINGERPRINT COULD HAVE GOTTEN INTO THAT BEDROOM AT A TIME WHEN THEY WERE , HE WAS EITHER PURCHASING DRUGS OR DOING DRUGS WITH THESE PEOPLE.

WELL, YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE SPECULATING . BOYS BASED ON THIS RECORD , THERE IS - - SPECULATING. BASED ON THIS RECORD , THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT MR. BALLARD WAS ONCE INSIDE THAT BEDROOM. ALL WE KNOW IS THAT HE WASIN THE HO USE

WE KNOW HE WAS IN THE HOUSE AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER. THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM AS I SEE IT , IS HOW DO WE KNOW , IT WAS AT THE TIME OF THEMURDER AND NOT AT SOME OTHERTIME WHEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE BEDROOM?

YOUR HONOR, I SUBMIT TO THIS COURT THAT THE ONLY REASONABLEECTS PLANATION FOR THAT FINGERPRINT, REMEMBER, THAT FINGERPRINT IS ON T HE FRAME OF THE WA TERBED AND THE RI GHT THUMBPRINT . HOW DOES HE GET HIS RIGHT THUMBPRINT THERE?

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT HE REACHED DOWN IN FRONT OF THEBED?

THAT IS NOT A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR , THAT FINGERPRINT WAS WITHIN TWO AND-A-HALF FEET OF JENNIFER JONE S'S BODY, AND, REMEMBER , SHE IS AT THE FO OT OF THE BED , SO THE STATE SUBMITS IT IS INDEED AN AREA OR A C O RNER WHERE ONE MIGHT LOOK FOR MONEY.

WERE THOSE THE ONLY FINGERPRINTS FOUND IN THAT VICINITY? WERE BALLARD 'S THE ONLY FINGERPRINTS FOUND IN THAT A REA?

NO - -

BUT THERE WERE OTHER FINGERPRINTS, S O IT IS JUST AS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY WITH THOSE OTHER FINGERPRINTS COULD HAVE COMMITTED THE MURDER.

NO , YOUR HONOR. IN ADDI TION TO THE FINGERPRINT WE HAVE THE HAIR , BUT REMEMBER THAT FINGERPRINT IS IN THE EXACT LOCATION WHERE YOU WOULD EXPECT SOME ONE TO LI FT UP

SO WERE THE OTHER FINGERPRINTS.

YOUR HONOR , THREE WERE UNIDENTIFIED. THEY WERE SMUDGING , AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THERE WERE 115 FINGERPRINTS , LIFT PARTS IN THIS CASE, ONLY 11 IDENTIFICATIONS. S IX BE BELONGED TO VICTIM PATIN , FOUR TO JONES AND ONE TO ANOTHER SUBJECT WHO WASCLEARED , N AMED FREEMAN , AND

IS THERE ANYTHING CL EAR IN EVIDENCE THAT WASTLOINGED BALLARD?

Y ES, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS HI GHLY SIGNIF ICANT , AND THAT IS WHY THE HAIR IS SUCH COMP ELLING EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE , BECAUSE YOU HAVE A BLOOD SA MPLE TAKEN FROM THE RIGHT HAND OF JENNIFER JONES , AND THIS IS THE HAND WITH BALLARD 'S FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIR IN IT. WHAT, A LSO, IS FOUND IN THAT HAND? SCRAPINGS UNDER HER FINGERNAIL. I T IS THE BL OOD OF WI LLIE PATIN. THERE IS NO OTHER BLOODIED FIED OF WIL LIE PATIN IN THAT ROOM. HOW DID SHE GET THAT BLOOD OF WILLIE PATIN IN HER HAND?

DID YOU HEAR JUSTICE WELLS 'S QUESTION?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

WOULD YOU

MY QUESTION WAS , IS THERE ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ON PATIN THAT IS LI NKED TO BALLARD ?

ON PAT I AM? N O, YOUR HONOR. O N PAT IN? NO , YOUR HONOR. NO , YOUR HONOR.

OKAY.IS THERE ANY OTHER , A M I CORRECT IN ASSUMING IT THAT L AW ENFORCEMENT DID A COMPLETE S WEEP OF THIS HOUSE ?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

CH ECKED FOR FINGERPRINTS , CHECKED FOR CARPET.

YES, YOUR HONOR .

LE AVING S. DID THE WHOLE NINE YARDS AND DID IT IN THE BEDROOM.

YES, YOUR HONOR .

AND THE ONLY THING THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN THAT , WAS A HAIR THAT WAS ON THE PA LM OF THE HAND.

YES, YOUR HONOR.

OF ONE OF THE TW O. AND THIS FINGERPRINT , WHICH WAS ON THE BED , RIGH T?

THAT IS COR RECT.

NOW , IT , DID IT AL SO DO A SWEEP OF THE CA R?

YES, YOUR HONOR , THEY DID.

AND WAS TH ERE ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE LINKED TO THIS DEFENDANT IN THE CAR?

NO PH YSICAL EVIDENCE , NO , YOUR HONOR, BUT , AGAIN , REMEMBER THE CAR WAS LO CATED IN ALL O F CO LLIER COUNTY, WHERE IS THAT CAR ABANDONED? IN A VAC ANT LOT RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE MR . BALLARD USED TO LIVE WITH HIS FATHER-IN-LAW.

CHIEF JUSTICE: FIVE Y EARS.

WITHIN FIVE Y E ARS , I THINK IT WAS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: A MILE AND-A-HALF FROM WHERE THE VICTIMS LI VED.

EXACTLY, WITHIN E ASY WALKING DISTANCE, AND IT ALL FITS , IF YOU PUT ALL OF THEPIECES OF THE PUZZLE TOGETHER, YOUR HONOR, IT FITS. THAT HAIR I S FORC IBLY REMOVED.THERE IS SUFFICIENT GENETIC MATERIAL

CHIEF JUSTICE: LET GO BACK TO THE FORCIBLY REMOVED. I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS , WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE HAIR WAS FORCIBLY REMOVED? MR . HELM REPRESENTED THAT IT WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO WHETHER, WHAT T YP E OF HAIRIT WAS, WHETHER IT IS H AIR THAT MIGHT FALL OUT ANYWA Y R ATHER THAN ACTUALLY BE YANKED OUT . IT IS NOT LIKE A CL UMP OF HAIR. YOU ARE TA LKING ABOUT A SINGLE HAIR OF A FOREARM BEING ON THE HAND, WITH FOUR OTHER HAIRS THAT WERE SOMEONE ELSE'S.

WELL , IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THRE E OF THE HA IRS WERE IDENTIFIED AS MS. JONES'SHAIR, AND THE OTHER TWO HAIR FRAGMENT WERE TOO SHORT TO DRAW ANY IDENTIFICATION ON, SO IT IS NOT LIKE SHE HAD 100 HAIRS IN HER HAND. SHE HAD IN HER HAND, ALONG WITH A MIXTURE OF BLOOD THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH HER O WN AND WILLIE PATI N'S BLOOD. IN THAT HAND , ALONG WITH THAT HAIR , BUT , AGAIN, THAT HAIR HAD FOLLOW I CANLAR MATERIAL ON IT FOLLICULAR MATERIAL ON IT OR SALIVARY MATERIAL TO GIVE A SUFFICIENT DNA ANALYSIS. THERE WERE 12 OF 13 MATCHEDON THE MARKS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I DON'T HEAR MR . HELM SAY I T WAS HIS HAIR.

THERE IS ADEQUATE SAMPLE MATERIAL, SO THAT EVEN IF I T WAS FORCIBLY REMOVED , EVEN THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY CONCEDED THAT THERE WAS SOME F ORCE INVO LVED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: ISN'T IT YOUR CONCERN THAT THE BLOODY FINGERPRINTS ON WHAT WOULDBE THE M URDER WEAPON , I S NOT LINKED TO THE DEFENDANT , AND THE BLOODY FINGERPRINT IN THE CAR IS IDENTIFI ABLE BUT NOT MR . BALLARD , DOESN'T THAT CAUSE THE STATE ANY CONCERN THAT HE IS NOT LINKED UP WITH THE MU RDER WEAPON, BUT THAT SOMEBODY ELSE MUST HAVE HELD THAT M URDER WEAPON?

NO , YOUR HONOR , AND HERE IS WHY. NUMBER ONE, I T WAS NOT A BLOODY FINGERPRINT ON THE CAR HANDLE, ON THE D R IVERS SIDE, AND N UMBER TWO , THOSE BLOODY, SO-CALLED BLOODY PRINTS ON THE OLYMPIC BARBELL AND THE EASY CURL BAR, WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE , AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE. EXAMINER BA RBER WENT THROUGH

CHIEF JUSTICE: UNIDENTIFIED.

EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR. REMEMBER , 1 15 PR INTS WERE LIFTED. IF IT WAS A SMUDGE , IT GOES BACK TO A DIFFERENCE BETWEENSAYING IT I S UNFINAL FINGERPRINT AND A BLOODY S MUDGE, WHICH YOU CAN 'T IDENTIFY, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE , B ASED ON THIS RECO RD.

IN THIS CASE THE EVIDENCE IS THAT BALLARD TOOK THE VICTIM'S CAR AND LEFT THE VICTIM' CAR IN THE PARKINGLOT , IS THAT RIGHT? ' WHY, YOUR HONOR .

NOW, DOE SN'T IT STAND T O REASON THAT, I F BALLARD WAS IN THIS CAR AND DROVE THIS CAR , THAT , AND I ASS UME THAT PATIN'S BODY MUST HAVE BEEN IN THIS CAR , CORR ECT?

PATIN'S BLOOD WAS IN THE CAR. HIS BODY WAS NOT.

YOU DON'T THINK, I MEAN , THERE IS NO , SO PATIN'SBLOOD WAS IN THE CAR. THAT THERE IS NO LINK IN ANY KIND OF SCRAPINGS IN THE CAR CARPET OR ANYWHERE ELSE , THAT WOU LD LINK THE CAR TO BALLARD?IS THAT REASONABLE?

YES, Y OUR HONOR. HERE IS WHY. REMEMBER THE VICTIMS LIVED IN THEIR OWN HO ME, AND THEY ONLY HAD HOW MA NY FINGERPRINTS? FOUR IN THEIR ENTIRE H OUSE, AND WE KNOW THEY LIVEDTHERE.IT IS NOT LIKE P EOPLE LEAVE FINGERPRINTS EVERYDAY ON EVERY ITEM YOU TOUCH. I MEAN, IT IS RARE. I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD EXPECT TO FIND T RACE EVIDENCE OF BALLARD IN A CARTHAT HE DROVE. BALLARD DIDN'T HAVE

BUT WE K NOW THAT THERE ARE THIN GS THAT C OME OFF SHOES , HAIRS THAT COME OFF , OBVIOUSLY ONE HAIR CAME OFF OF BALLARD SOME WHERE IN TIME. NO HAIRS OR ANY TYPE O F THING THAT CAME OFF BALLARD IN THAT CAR?

NO , YOUR HONOR , AND HERE IS AN OTHER THING TO REALIZE ABOUT HAIR. IN THAT ENTIRE HOUSE , WHERE THE VICTIMS WERE FOUND , THERE WERE HAIRS AND HAIR FRAGMENTS BURKES THERE WERE ONLY FIVE FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIRS IN THAT ENTIRE HOUSE , THAT THE VICTIMS LIVED IN ! IT IS NOT LIKE THERE WERE SHEDDING FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIRS ALL OVER THE PLACE. YOU ARE NOT GO ING TO HAVE THAT. IT IS UNREALISTIC .

LET'S GO BACK TO THE CARAGAIN.WHAT WAS THE STATE'S THE ORY OF WHY THIS CAR WAS EVEN REMOVED?I M EAN , IT WAS LEFT THERE. IT WASN'T LIKE , I DON'T KNOW , WHAT WAS THE STATE 'S THEORY OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE CAR AT ALL ?

YOUR HONOR, THE THEORY IS THAT IT DELAYED DISCOVERY OF THE MURDERS, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE SUOSED TO GO OUT ON A BO AT THE VERY N EXT D AY, AND IF THE CAR WAS MISSING FROM THE FRONT DRIVEWAY , AS I N DEED HAENED , PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT PERHAPSTHEY WERE JUST OUT , SO IT DELAYED DISCOV ERY OF THE MURDERS BY , THE BOD IES WEREN'T FOUND UNTIL MONDAY.

SO WE HAVE THIS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AS, YOU KNOW , SORT OF , AS SOME M ENTAL PROBLEM , WOULD YOU CONCEDE THAT HE HAS SOME K IND OF DEVELOPMENTAL OR ME NTAL PROBLEM?

HE HAS A LEA RNING DISABILITY, YOUR HONOR.

OKAY. HE HAS SOME LEAR NING DISABILITIES AND HE CAN'T W ORK ALL THE TIME , Y ET HE HAS PL OTTED THIS THING TOTHE POINT WHERE I AM GOING TO DELAY DISCOVERY OF THE B ODIES BY JUST MOVING THIS CAR .

EXACTLY. IT WAS CORRECT , YOUR HONOR. IT DID DELAY. I MEAN , AND REMEMBER WHAT D R . DEE TESTIFIED TO, AND THIS GOES INTO THE SENTENCING ISSUE A LITTLE BIT, BUT DR . DEE TESTIFIED HE IS, ALSO , AN IMPULSIVE RISK-TAKER TYPE , FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST ING. THAT IS DR . DEE'S SPEAK FOR PSYCHOPATH.

LET ME AS K YOU A QUESTION , WHAT WAS THE STATE'S HYPOTHESIS OR THEORY AS TO, IF ANY, AS TO THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE ATTACKER AND MS. JONES AND THE TORN PLASTIC AND THE HAIRS?

THAT IS AN INT EREST ING QUESTION, YOUR HONOR , AND THE THEORY IS , OBVIOUSLY IT IS BECAUSE MS. JONES, WEKNOW, WAS AT ABLINGD RIGHT AT THE WAS ATT ACKED RIGHTAT THE FOOT OF HER BED. THERE WAS NO TRAIL OF ACTIVITY ATTACHED WITH HER, SO SHE F ELL RIGHT WHERE SHE IS. SHE PUTS OUT HER LEFT A RM AND GETS A BROKEN FINGER, DEFENSIVE WOUND, AND THEN SHE IS REACHING OUT WITH HER RIGHT. NOW, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THEYDID NOT FIND THAT OTHERPIECE OR MATCHING PIECE OF THAT PLASTIC. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A BA GGY IN HER HAND. CAN COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING CO VERING, THEORETICALLY , MR . BALLARD'S PROTECT AGAINST BLOOD SPLATTER. SO WE DON'T KNOW, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY ARGUMENT FOR YOU.

DOES IT GO TO THE NATURE OF WHETHER THERE WAS A STRUGGLE OVER THE PLAS TIC BAG.

WELL , THE FACT THAT IT IS GRASPED IN HER HAND MIGHT INDICATE THAT, BUT , AGAIN , I WANT TO GET BACK TO W E DON'TKNOW. THERE WAS NO MATCHING PIECE OF PLASTIC FOUND. BALLARD PROB ABLY

THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE THAT SOME GANG MEMBERS HAD SHOT INTO THIS HOME EARLIER?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

HOW MUCH EARLIER BE FORE THESE MURDERS?

I THINK WITHIN TWO WEEKS, YOUR HONOR.

NOW, WERE THE OTHER FINGERPRINTS OR HAIR FRAGMENTS OR WHAT EVER , MATCHED AGAINST THE ME MBERS OF THAT GA NG THAT DID THE SHOOTING?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

SO THE EVIDENCE CAME OUT , AND THAT THERE WAS NO MATCHES?

WELL , THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS LATER CONVI CTED , I BELIEVE , I AM NOT S U RE THEY COULD COMPARE HIM TO ALL 80 MEMBERS OF THE GANG , BUT THELEAD MEMBER OF THE GANG THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE SHOOTING, HE DIDN'T LEAVE ANY FINGERPRINTS BE HIND, AND THE STATE PRES ENTED THAT IN REBUTTAL, SO WE KNOW AT L EAST THE PERSON MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SHOOTING , HE DID NOT , THERE WAS NO T RACE EVIDENCE LINKING HIM, AND, AGAI N, THAT IS SUCH A DIFFERENT TYPE OF OFFENSE. THAT IS A DRIVE-BY SHOO TING. THIS IS A BE ATING DE ATH OF TWO INDIVIDU ALS FOR MONE Y.

HOW M A NY OF THE OTHER FINGERPRINTS FOUND IN THE BEDROOM WERE IDENTIFIABLE BUT NOT IDENTIFIED ? IN OTHER WO RDS THEY WEREN'T SMUDGEES, BUT THEY COULDN'T IDENTIFY THEM TO A PARTICULAR PERSON "A".

I AM NOT SURE WE HAVE THAT BREAKDOWN FROM THE BEDROOM. THERE IS A BREAKDOWN OF , I THINK THERE WERE 20 OR 2 5 IN TOTAL , THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME BA SIS FOR IDENTIFICATION, BUT WERE NOT IDENTIFIED TO A NYONE , BUT, A GAIN, YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT THERE WERE ONLY EL EVEN FINGERPRINTS. THESE VICTIMS WHO LIVEDTHERE FOR A LONG TIME , MR . PATIN ONLY LEFT S IX FINGERPRINTS IN HIS OWNHOME. THAT IS IT , AND MS. JONESLESS THAN THAT, SO AELANT 'S FINGERPRINTS

SO IT IS EVEN MORE COMPELLING THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER FINGERPRINTS FOUND.

IT IS HE EVEN MORE COMPELING THAT BALLARD 'S FINGERPRINT WAS FOUND IN AN AREA WHERE THE VICTIM WAS KNO WN TO KEEP MON EY. AGAIN , YOU CANNOT HAVE A CASUAL VISI TOR I N YOUR HOME COME UP THERE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE HELPED THEM MOVE, NO EVIDENCE OF A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP THERE. IS NO EVIDENCE, PERIOD, THAT BALLARD WAS IN THE MA STER BEDROOM , YET WE HAVE HIS FINGERPRINT RIGHT THERE ON THE WA TERBED FR AM E , ON THE EXACT LOCATION WHERE YOUWOULD LIFT UP THE WATERBED .

THERE WAS INDICATION THAT HE HAD BEEN TO THE HOUSE BEFORE, CORRECT?

CORRECT. ABSOLUTELY.

AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE VICTIMS SOMETIMES CONDUCTED THEIR DR UG TRANSACTIONS FROM THE BEDROOM?

SOMETIMES. THEY, A LSO , DID IT IN THE KITCHEN. I AM NOT SURE. THE MAJORITY OF THEM WERE INTHE BEDROOM , BUT , AGAIN , WE DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT BALLARD WAS , PARTICIPATED IN THOSE DRUG TRANSACTIONS OR WAS EVER IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. EVEN IF HE HAD WA LKED BY THE MASTER BEDROOM , W HAT ARE THE ODDS OF THEM GETTING A FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIR RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE BED , WHERE THE VICTIM WAS GOING TO PICK THAT UP , AND REMEMBER THE VICTIM'S HANDS, GENTER JONES'S HANDS WERE PROTECTED FROM CONTAMINATION AT THE CRIME SCENE. P LASTIC BAGS WERE T AKEN OVER THEM, AND AN E MT TECHNICIAN CAME IN AND CHECKED FOR A PULSE AND THAT WAS IT .

HOW DID THE BLOOD FROM THE OTHER VICTIM GE T ON HER?

IT IS A TRANSFER , YOUR HONOR.

WELL, I , TRANSFER.

WELL , HE IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE AS TO HOW, NOT CONJECTURE OR SPECULATION OR WHAT WAS THE TESTIMONY AS TO HOW THE BLOOD FROM THE OTHER VICTIM THAT WAS FOUND , WHERE , IN ANOTHER BEDROOM?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

OKAY. HOW DID THE BLOOD FROM THAT VICTIM GET ON THE WO MAN VICTIM ?

ON HER FINGERNAIL. THE ONLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT

WHAT WAS THE TESTIMONY?

THAT WAS THE TESTIM ONY.

THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT IT GOT THERE HOW?

WELL , I DON'T KNOW THAT WE , THERE WAS TESTIMONY SAYING EXACTLY HOW , BUT THE ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCEFROM THAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, IS THAT SHE REACHED OUT AND GRABBED BALLARD. REMEMBER, BALLARD HAD ALREADY ATTA CKED WILLIE PATIN AT THIS POINT. THAT IS THE STATE'S THEORY.HE WAS ATTACKED IN THE BATHROOM.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD ATTACKED THEOTHER VICTIM ? ARE YOU TE LLING ME YOU HAVE DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT HEATTACKED THE OTHER VICTIM?

NO , YOUR HONOR.

THIS IS ALL COMING FROM

THE PH YSICAL EVIDENCE.

THE HAIR AND THE FINGERPRINT , CORRECT?

THAT'S CORR ECT.

WHAT WAS THE TESTIMONYAND WHO GAVE IT , AS TO HOW THE BLOOD FROM THE OTHER VICTIM GOT ON THE WOMAN VICTIM?

WELL , THE DNA SEROLOGIST TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS BLOOD U NDER THE VICTIM'S FINGERNAILS FROM PATIN, ANDWE KNOW THAT JENNIFER JONES WAS ATTACKED RIG HT THERE IN THE BEDROOM AND FELL WHERE SHE WAS.

I TAKE IT NOBODY TESTIFIED AS TO THERE WAS NO EYEWITNESS , YOUR HONOR.

THE ME DICAL EXAMINER, DIDYOU HAVE A BLOOD SP ATTER EXPECT PERTH?

EXPERT?

YES, WE DID, YOUR HONOR .

DID ANY OF THEM TESTIFYAS TO HOW ONE VICTIM'S BLOOD GOT ON THE OTHER VICTIM?

NO , YOUR HONOR , BUT IT ISTHERE. THE ONLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION, IN HER RIGHT HAND.

MY QUES TION WAS , DID THEY TESTIFY TO THAT OR DID THEY NOT?

NO, YOUR HONOR, BUT IT IS AN INFERENCE THAT THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO AT THIS LEVEL.

CHIEF JUSTIC E: O KAY. TELL ME WHAT , OKAY , TH ROW O UT THE INFERENCE , THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BLOOD , PATIN'S BLOOD BEING ON THE O THER, ON JONES.

THE FINGERNAIL. BECAUSE THAT IS HER RIGHT HAND. SHE REAC HES OUT, AND IN THAT SAME HAND IS THE FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIR. AT THE SAME TIME SHE IS G ETTING BALLARD'S HAIR, SHEIS GETTING BLOOD , BECAUSE BALLARD WAS COVERED IN BLOOD SPLATTER FROM WILLIE PATIN. THERE WAS BLOOD ASSOCIATED W ITH WILLIE PATIN, ALTHOUGH THERE WASN'T SPLATTER IN THE BATHROOM AND IN THE H AUL.

I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU JUST SAID THAT SHE OBTAINED PATIN'S BLOOD OFF OF BALLARD'S BODY.IS THAT

THAT I S THE ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE I THINKTHAT CAN BE DERIVED FROM THE EVIDENCE, BECAUSE , REMEMBER, THERE IS NO OTHER BLOOD FROM PATIN IN THE ROOM WITH GENTER . WITH JENNIFER.THAT IS IT. IT IS A TRAN SFER. IT HAS TO BE , AND IN THAT SAME HAND IS A FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIR FROM JO HN BALLARD.

WHOSE FINGERPRINT WAS FOUND ON THE IN SIDE CARDOOR?

UN FIED, YOUR HONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I WAN T TO GO BACK TO MAKE SURE , SO , WAS THE THEORY ARGUED TO THE J URY THAT THE BLOOD ON , HE KILLS PATIN FIRST?

THAT IS THE STATE'S THE ORY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: OKAY. HE GETS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD. HE, THEN , GOES INTO JONES'S ROOM, AND THEN K ILLS HER, AND BECAUSE HIS BLOOD GETS ON , I MEAN PATIN'S BLOOD GETS ON THERE BECAUSE THE BLOOD IS ALL OVER MR . BALLARD?

YES, Y OUR HONOR. CORRECT.

CHIEF JUSTICE:

AND WERE ANY BLOODY CLOTHES OR SHOES OR ANYTHINGLIKE THAT EVER RECOVERED?

NO , YOUR HONOR. BALLARD 'S HOME WAS NOTSEARCHED UNTIL HE WAS EVICTED OVER A YEAR L ATER. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. HIS CAR WASN'T SE ARCHED UNTIL A MONTH LA TER, SO WE DON'T HAVE THE TIE-IN WITH SOME LATER MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

SO THEY DIDN'T COME UP WITH HIM AS A POSSIBLE SUSPECT ANYWHERE , IMEAN, ONLY UNDERSTANDINGTHAT THEY DIDN'T GRASP OR SEE ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN WHERE THIS VEHICLE WAS FOUND, IN TERMS OF IT BEING NEAR WHERE MR. BALLARD LIVED?

YOUR HONOR , HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DETECTIVE, YES, I THINK, ANDI CAN'T IMPART THAT TO YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IT IS NOT IN THE RECORD.

IT IS NOT IN THE RECO RD.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS VACANT LOT , WAS IT A PLACE THAT GENERALLY THERE WERE KIDS THAT WERE PART I HAD IN THAT AREA , THAT IT WASN'T PARTY IN THAT AREA, THAT IT WASN'T LIKE SOME SECRET SPOT THAT ONLY SOMEBODY ON THAT LANE WOULD KNOW EX ISTED ?

YES , YOUR HONOR. IN FACT THE NEIGHBORS .MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

YES, YOUR HONOR, WHAT?

THE DEFENDANT'S FATHER-IN-LAW AND ACTU ALLY ANEIGHBOR WHO STILL LIVEDTHERE WHO FOUND THE CAR , DIDTESTIFY THAT THERE WERE KI DSIN THE AREA. HE USED THAT HE DIDN'T LIKE IT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO THERE WASN'T ANY TYPE , SO THE STATE CAN'T DR AW ANY PARTICULAR INFERENCE , AGAIN , THINKING BACK TO THE C RANE CASE, WHERE WE HAD AQUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE B ODY WAS OUT IN THE WAT ERAND THINGS THAT HE HAD SAID IN THE CRANE CASE, NOT HING , REALLY, THAT WO ULD MAKE THIS SOMETHING ONLY SOMEBODY WHOLIVED THERE WOULD KNOW EXISTED .

NO , YOUR HONOR , BUT ITHINK IT FITS. IT IS JUST ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE I F YOU WILL. I MEAN , OF ALL OF COLLIER COUNTY, I MEAN , YOU , G RANTED THE STATE'S MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE IS CERTAINLY THE FINGERPRINT AND THE HAIR, B UT, THEN AGA IN, THE CAR 'S ABANDONED RIGHT WHERE THE DEFENDANT KNEW THERE WAS A VACANT LOT THAT HE COULD DITCH THE CAR SA FELY , WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF HISHOME.

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE P ERSON WHO LEFT THE FINGERPRINT ON THE INSIDE DOOR HANDLE WASN'T THE KILLER?

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LEAVEA FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIR IN THE VICTIM'S HAND.

SO THE IDEA WOUL D BE THAT SOMEBODY, WHOEVER THIS I S , T AKES, INCLUDING HIM , HE , DRIVES, HE KILLS , FIRST , PATIN , AND HE KILLS JONES, THEN HE GOES , LOOKS FOR THE M ONEY.

IT IS PR ETTY CLEAR HE WAS LOOKING FOR MONEY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AFTER HE KILLS THEM BO TH.

CORRECT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THEN HE TAKES THE MONEY , AND , I NTO THE CAR , DR IVES THE CAR AMILE A WAY TO CR EATE A SUBTERFUGE, SO THEY WOULDN'T THINK THAT PEOPLE WERE KILLED, TA KES, THEN , THE MONEY, AND THEN W A LKS HOME. IS THIS AT NIGHT, DURING THE D AY, IN BROAD DAYLIGHT , WALKS ST RAIGHT OUT HOME, WITH THE MONEY IN HIS POSSESSION, TO HIS HOUSE?

WE COULDN'T IDENTIFY THE EXACT TIME OF THE MURDERS. IT WAS SOMETIME, I BE LIEVE , AFTER ONE O'CLOCK, WHEN THE LAST G UEST LEFT , AND E ARLY THE NE XT MOR NING WHEN HER FRIEND HIRAMBULUS COULDN'T REACH HER, THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO BA SED ON THE WAYTHEY WERE DRESSED , JEN NIFER J ONES WAS FOUND NAKED IN HER MASTER BEDROOM , WAS THAT IT WAS EA RLY SUNDAY MORNING , BUT , AGAIN , WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THE EXACT TIM E.

WHEN DID THE CAR GET TO THE V ACANT LOT?

WHEN DID THE CAR GET THERE?

WHAT WAS THE EV IDENCE AS TO THE CARBING AT THE VACANT LOT?

- - TO THE CAR , BEING AT THE VACANT LOT?

I BELIEVE THERE WAS A DEF ENSE WITNESS WHO FEST TESSFIED. I DON'T KNOW WE KNOW WHO TES TIFIED. I DON'T KNOW WE KNOW THE EXACT TIME.

WASN'T THERE A NEI GHBOR WHO SAW IT THERE ON A REGULAR BAS IS?

THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT HEDID NOT NOT ICE THE CAR THE PREVIOUS EVENING WHEN HE WAS WALKING THE DOG , I BELIEVE , OR THAT SUNDAY.

THANK WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE SUNDAY EVEN ING?

CORRECT. I MAY HAVE HAD THE TIME WRONG , BUT THE STATE WOULD ESTABLISH THAT THE CAR WAS PARKED D E EP WITHIN THE LOTAND HE DIDN'T PAR TICULAR LY LOOK TO SEE IF THERE WAS A CAR THERE , BUT, YES , YOUR HONOR, THERE WERE MATERIALS STACKED UP AR OUND IT AND HE DIDN'T NOTICE THAT THEY WERE DISTURBED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE, FOR YOUR HYPOTHESIS TO BE CORRECT, THAT THE VEHICLE WAS LEFT THERE , SOME WHERE BETWEEN AFTER ONE O' CLOCK ON SATURDAY NIGHT AND EARLY IN THE MORN ING ON SUNDAY MORNING .

CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: S O IF SOMEBODY DIDN'T SEE THE VEHICLE THERE DURING THE DAYON SUNDAY , THEN THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT

HE DIDN'T KNOW. HE WASN'T PARTICULARLY LOOKING.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AGAIN , I AM TRYING TO THINK OF REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS , AND USUALLY , FRANKLY, THE DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS SEEMS LIKE A RIDICULOUS HYPOTHESIS, BUT HERE YOUR HYP OTHESIS IS THAT SOMEBODY WOULD, THEN, IN THE E ARLY MORNING HOURS, WHEN IT IS LIGHT OUT , WALK TO HIS O WN HOME WITH THE MONEY , J UST DO ESN'T , JUST DOE SN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE!

WELL , I SU SPECT , YOUR HONOR , AGAIN, THERE WAS NO A LIBI TESTIMONY. I SUSPEC T IT WAS EARLY IN THE MORNING , SOMETIME AFTERONE O'CLOCK , WHERE IT WAS STILL DARK OUT, BUT, AGAIN, GETTING BACK , THAT I S JUST ONE OTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, BUT THE PRIMARY P IECES ARE A CASUAL VISITOR IN THE HOME IS NEVER GOING TO HAVE A FINGERPRINT ON THE WATERBED FRAME.

HOW MUCH AFTER , WHEN WAS THE WA RNT WARRANT I S HOULD FOR HIS AR REST , SUBSEQUENT TO THE MUR DERS ? I AM T RYING TO F I GURE OUTHOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

MORE THAN A YE AR , BECAUSEI KNOW HIS HOUSE WASN'T SEARCHED FOR A YEAR, AND, AGAIN , I DON'T HAV E AN E XACT DATE FOR Y OU.

SO IT TOOK AN AROXIMATEYEAR BEFORE THEY FELT THEY HAD ENO UGH EVIDENCE TO GET AWARRANT?

YES, YOUR HONOR. PERHAPS EVEN LO NGER THAN THAT. DNA TESTING TO OK TIME , BUT , AGAIN , EACH ONE OF THESEPIECES OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE , PERHAPS EACH ONE A LONE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH, THE FINGERPRINT ALONE IS COMPELLING, MA YBE THAT WOULDN'T BE ENO UGH, BUT A FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIR IN THE VICTIM'S HAND THAT IS BALLARD'S , AND WE HAVE NO TESTIMONY HE WAS EVEN IN THAT BEDROOM EVER!

AND YOU MAINTAIN THAT THIS HAIR AND THIS FINGERPRINT DEMONSTR ATES BEYOND AND TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERY REASONABLE DO UBT, THAT MR . BALLARD IS THE MURDERER HERE.

I MAINTAIN THAT, YOURHONOR, AND THAT WAS THEDECISION OR CONCLUSION THATTHE JURY WAS ENTITLED TO MAKE. THE STATE IS ENT ITLED TO A MORE FAVORABLE REVIEW A T THIS LEVEL, AND MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

GO BACK TO THIS HAIR, BECAUSE YOUARE MENT IONING FORCIBLY REMOVING, AND MR . HELM IS TALKING AB OUT HAIRS THIS THEIR HAIRS IN THEIR LAST STAGES, IT DOESN'T TAKE ALOT FOR THEM TO BE REMOVED. DID YOU SA Y THERE WERE FIVE OTHER FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIRSIN HER HAND?

NO, NOT IN HER HAND. IN THE ENTIRE HOUSE A

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHERE WERE THE HAIRS?

ONE O N A TORN P OSTER IN THE ROOM AND TWO MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE VICTIM PATIN'S HAND AND TWO MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE SP ARE BEDROOM.

SO A FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIR IN VICTIM PATIN'S HAND.

POSSIBLY. I M I GHT HAVE THAT WRONG.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IDENTIFIABLE?

I THIN K IT WAS PATIN'S , YES , I THINK , I F I MAY , IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH HIS. I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG. THERE WERE 100 HAIRS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIR ON A POSTER.

I AM NOT SURE. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

I GUESSWHAT I AM SAYING IS, WHEN WE THINK OF FORCIBLY REMOVED , WE THINK OF SOMEONE Y ANKING SOMEONE'S HAIR. A HAIR AT THE END OF ITS L IFE DOESN'T TAKE A LOT FOR IT TO COME OUT BUT THESE OTHER HAIRS DI DN'T , THEN THIS CONCEPT OF FORCIBLY REMOVED , JUST DOESN'T , YOU K NOW , HAVE THE FORCE AND EFFECT THAT YOU ARE CON OATING THAT IT SH OULD. CON NOTI NG THAT IT SHOULD . IN OTHER WORDS WHAT IS A FORCIBLY -REMOVED HAIR DOING ON A POSTFEHR? HOW WOULD THAT - - ON A POSTER? HOW WOULD THAT G ET ON THERE?

I THINK I MAY HAVE MISS TATE ED MISSTATED WHAT FOR ENSIC SCIENTIST REFERRED TO , AND IT WOULD BE IN A PHASE THAT WOULD REQUIRE MORE FORCE. I THINK THE EX PERT A G REED THAT SOME TYPE OF FORCE WAS REQUIRED BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN SCRATCHING OR EVERYDAY ACTIVITY, BUT , AGAIN, YOU HAD SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON THAT ONE HAIR TO DO STR TESTING AND GET AN INCREDIBLE IDENTIFICATION OF BALD BALLARD, AND IN HIS EX OF BALLARD , AND IN HIS EXPERIENCE, IT HAS TO BE A FORCIBLY REMOVED HAIR. IT DIDN'T JUST FALL OUT. IT IS NOT LIKELY TO COME OFF IF YOU ARE SCRATCHING YOUR ARM , AND I THINK THE CONFLICT ABOUT WHAT THE EXPERTS ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE STATE IS ENTI TLED TO A MORE FAVO RABLE INFERENCE AT THIS PO INT, ONE THAT WOULD SUORT A VERDICT ON AEAL, AND, AGAIN, YOUR HONORS IT WAS REALLY THE STATE'S J O B IN THIS CASE , TO PR ESENT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT 'S GUILT. THE STATE DID THAT IN THIS CASE. ONCE THE STATE ME ET S THAT THRESHOLD , THE CASE GO ES TO THE JURY , AND THIS COURTSHOULD AFFIRM THE CONVICTION ON AEAL .

WAS THERE A MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL MA DE?

YES , YOUR HONOR.

AND THIS IS SUE WAS THE ISSUE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL COURT.

THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR . AND, AGAIN, THE STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO R E BUT EVERY S INGLE HYPOTHETICAL PERMUTATION OF EVENTS , BUT ONLY TO PRE SENT SOME EVIDENCE WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEFENDANT'S THEORY , AND THESTATE DID THAT IN THIS CASE.THERE IS NO INNOCENT EXPLANATION FOR THAT FINGERPRINT ON THE WATERBED.

AND CONSISTENT WITH AND INCONS ISTENT WITH THE DEFENDANT'S THEORY IS WHAT? JUST LAY THAT OUT AGAIN, WHAT DID THE STATE PRESENT THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEFENDANT'S HYPO THESIS OF EVENTS?

THE DEFE NDANT, BASED ON THE RECORD , THERE WAS N O EVIDENCE HE WAS EV ER IN THE MATSTER BEDROOM . THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE MOVED THEM. NO EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THAT FINGERPRINT ON THE WATERBED FRAME IN AN AREA WITHIN TWO AND-A-HALF FEET OF THE VICTIM'S BODY.

BUT THE STATE DIDN'T ACTUALLY PRO VE HE WAS NE VER IN THE BEDROOM. YOU JUST, THE STATE IS ASSUMING OR INFERRING THAT HE WAS NEVER IN THE BEDROOM BEFORE THIS MURDER.

WELL , YOUR HO NOR , I THINK WE KNOW HE WAS IN THE BEDROOM BECAUSE HE HAS THE P RINT, BUT BEFORE THAT , REMEMBER, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE RECORD HERE. IF BALLARD HAS SOME EXPLANATION FOR IT , IT WASN'T PRES ENTED , JUST THATHE WAS A CASUAL V I SITOR IN THE HOME.

YOU SAID THE STATE PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT WAS INCONSISTENT, THAT THE STATE

THAT IS CORRECT, YOURHONOR.

- - DID NOT PRESENTEVIDENCE THAT HE WAS IN THE ROOM, OTHER THAN THE ONE FINGERPRINT. THEY NEVER PRESENTEDEVIDENCE THAT HE WAS NOT THERE AT THAT POINT .

I SEE I AM OVER MY TIME, B UT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO THEORY THAT WOULD EXPLAIN THE DEFENDANT 'S FINGERPRINTON THE WATE RBED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. REBUTTAL .

O N THIS FORCIBLY -REMOVED HAIR , THE STATE'S STRONGEST EVIDENCE WAS FROM RO GER MORRISON , A LAB DIRECTOR AND DNA ANDIST FROM THEAL BAN AND AND LIST FROM THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT AND ANALYST FROM THE ALABAMADEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC SCIENCE, AND WHAT HE DID SAY IS THAT SUCH A HAIR COULD BE REMOVED , A SOFT HAIR, COULD BE REMOVED BY A P ERSON SCRATCH ING HIS OR HER LEG. THAT IS ALL THE FORCE THESTATE HAS THAT IS NECESSARY

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT IS THAT PAGE?

VOLUME TEN , PA GES 953-TO-955.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT ABOUTTHE LOCATION OF THE FINGERPRINT AND THE FACT THAT, AND ALL OF THESEPEOPLE ARE IN THE HOUSE BUTTHERE IS ONLY TEN IDENTIFIABLE FINGERPRINTS , AND THAT THIS FINGERPRINT IS ON THE BED FRAME CLOSE TO WHERE THE MONEY WAS KEPT AND CLO SE TO THE VICTIM .

YOUR HONOR , THERE WERE 46 IDENTIFIABLE FINGERPRINTS , ACCORDING TO THE STATE'S FINGERPRINT EXPERT , THEIRFIRST EXPERT WHO TESTIFIED , THE CO LLIER COU NTY SHERIFFS DEP ARTMENT DEPUTY . OF THOSE 46 , HE IDENTIFIED TEN , THREE FROM MS. JONES, SIX FROM PATIN , AND ONE FROM FREEMAN ON THE CD IN THE CAR. HE SENT 105 UNFIED LATENT L IFTS TO UNIDENTIFIED L ATENT LI FTS TO THE FDLE. THE FDLE EXAMINER TESTIFIED THAT HE IDENTIFIED THREE OF THE PR INTS. HE GAVE NO TESTIMONY AS TO TWO OF THE IDENTIFI CATIONS , AND TESTIFIED THAT THE LIFT IF THE WATERBED FRAME MATCHED MR. BALLARD'S. BY THE WAY , THE , WHILE IHAVE TO CONCEDE FOR AELLATE REVI EW , THAT A JURY COULD REASONABLY BELIEVE THE FDLE EXAMINER'S TESTIMONY , HIS TESTIMONY , HIS TESTIMONY ABOUT IDENTIFYING THAT PRINT WAS NOT SUO RTED BY THE FI RST FINGERPRINT EXAM INER, WHO EXAMINED THE FINGERPRINT. HE WASN'T ABLE TO MATCH IT TO MR . BALLARD , ALTHOUGH HE SAID HE COULDN'T EXCLUDE MR . BALLARD.

OF THE 46 THAT WERE NOT MR. BALLARD 'S , PATIN, AND JONES OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED, WHICH OF THOSE WERE TIED T O ANY AREA OF THE BEDROOM , THE S PARE ROOM , THE AUTOMOBILE OR ANY THING RELATED TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?

WELL , ONE OF THE , CLEARLYONE OF THE IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS WAS FROM THE IN SIDE D OOR HANDLE OF THE DRIVERS SIDE DO OR OF THE VICTIM'S CAR. IT IS NOT

OTHER THAN THAT ONE.

THERE WERE SO MANY FINGERPRINTS IN THIS CASE , YOUR HONOR, I DIDN'T T RACE EXACTLY WHERE ALL THE OTHER IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS WERE LOCATED.

NONE , ANY IN THE MA STER BEDROOM NOT JONES'S?

YOUR HONOR, IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD. IT REA LLY IS N'T.

I THOUGHT MR . BROWNE SAID, IN HIS PRESENTATION , T HAT THERE WERE OTHER IDENTIFIABLE FINGERPRINTS FOUND ON THE WATERBED .

I AM NOT SURE WHETHERTHERE WERE OR NOT, YOUR HONOR . I AM NOT SURE WHERE THEOTHER IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS WERE, EXCEPT THAT I KNOW FORSURE ONE OF THEM WAS ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF THE CAR , AND THE PRINTS WERE GENERALLY REMOVED FROM THE AREAS AROUND THE BO DIES AND IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, WHERE SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEARCHING.

CHIEF JUSTICE: OK AY. G OING BAC K TO JUST, AGAIN , GIVING THE BENE FIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE STATE , IF THIS WAS ON A G LASS IN THE KITCHEN OR SOMETHING ELSE , IT WOULD BE NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT. COULD YOU JUST ADDRESS YOURSELF TO THE O DDITY OF THE LO CATION , WHETHER IT IS AN ODD LOCATION, WHETHER IT COULD GET THERE FROM SOMEONE OTHER THAN SOMEONE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE .

YOUR HONOR, IF SOMEBODY WERE SITTING ON THE WATERBED , THEY MIGHT E A SILY JUST REACH DOWN AND TOUCH THE FRAME OF THE WATERBED .

I N THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PRINT WAS MADE , W AS THERE TESTIMONY AS T O WHICH DIRECTION THE HAND WAS , AS IF IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH JUST SITTING DOWN OR AS OOSED TO STANDING UP AND TRYING TO LIFT UP?

YOUR HONOR , I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ANY TESTIMONY WHATSO EVER, ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE FINGERPRINT OR HOW IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH REACH IN G IN WHATEVER DIRE CTION . Y ES. BUT

WERE THE PHOTOGRAPHSENTERED INTO EVIDENCE THAT SHOWED THE PRIN T ON THE BED , WHERE IT WAS LIFTED FROM AND THE DIRECTION ?

I D O NOT

YOU SOMET IMES

THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. I DO , IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PRINT , I DON'T RECALL THEM IDENTIFY ING A P HOTO AS SAYING , WELL , THIS IS WHERE WE GOT THE LIFT FROM THE WATERBED . I COULD BE W RONG . I DON'T RECALL ANY SUCH TESTIMONY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WITH OURHELP, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED .

THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, TO BO TH OF YOU. WHEN YOU CO ME UP HERE AS ATEAM, WE A L WAYS KNOW THAT WE WILL HAVE WELL -PREPARED LAWYERS. THE COURT WILL TA KE ITSMORNING RECESS OF 15 MINUTES.

MARSHAL: ALL RISE.

FLORIDA WAS THE L EAST POPULOUS SOUT HERN STATE, WITH MA JOR CITIES D O MINATED BY A PLANTATION ECONOMY. TODAY A FAR MORE COSMOPOLITAN FLORIDA RANKSAS ONE O F