MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE . HEAR YE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE.THE SUPREME COURT OF THE GREATSTATE OF FLORIDA IS NOW INSESSION.ALL WHO HAVE CA USE TO P LEA , DRAW NEAR, G IVE ATTENT ION A NDYOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD S AVE T HESE UNI TED STATES , THIS GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS HONORABLE COUR T. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.PLEASE BE SEATED.

CHIEF JUSTIC E: I AM ELEVATED, TODAY , MAR SHAL , WAY HIGHER THAN I USUALLY HIM. I F EEL VE RY TALL . I HAVE GOT TO GET T HESECHAIRS. THESE ARE RELATIVELY NEW CHAIRS, AND WE ST ILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN, O KAY . WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREMECOURT.THE FIRST CA SE ON THIS MORNING'S DOCKET IS REYNOLDS VERSUS STATE OF FLORI DA. IT LOOK S L IKE THE PAR TIES ARE READY, AND YOU MAY PROC EED.

THANK YOU, YOUR HO NOR. MAY IT PL EASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS J AMES WULCHA K , ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFEND ER F ROM DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA, AND W E REPRESENT THE AELLANT , MICHAEL GO RDON REYNOL DS, A NDTHIS IS DIRECT AP PEAL FROM CONVICTIONS FOR SECOND-DEGREEMURDER, BURGLA RY AND TWO COUNTS OF FIRST-DE GREE MURDER , WHICH RESU LTED IN TWO DEATH SENTENCES. WE WOULD LIKE TO, THIS MORNING , DISCUSS IS SUES O NE , AS IT RELATES TO THE GUILT PHASE OF THE T RIAL, AND THEN ADDRES S THE PENALTY PHASE IN I SSUESEVEN, AND WE WOULD LIK E TO REST ON THE BRIEFS ON THE REMAINING ISSUES. THE F ACTS BRIEFLY, REGARDING THOSE ISSUES , DAN NY PRIVET , ROBIN AND CHRISTINA RA ZOR WERE FOUND DEAD IN 199 8. PRIVET HAD BEEN HIT W ITH A CONCRETE BLOCK OVER THE H EA D WHILE OUTSIDE OF THE CAM PER TRAILER WHERE THEY WERE LI VING , QUITE SOME DISTANCE AWAY FROM IT.

LET ME ASK. I THINK WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT S IN THIS CASE BU T AS YOU PRES ENT THIS ISSUE , WAS THE DEPOSITION OF PRATT EVER TAKEN?

T H OUGH -- NO , I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WAS. THEY WERE UNABLE TO LOCATE HIM UNTIL SOME TIME RECENTLY. PRIOR TO THE TRIA L, WHEN AN INVESTIGATOR WORKING WITH T HEDEFENSE, HE ARD FROM , I BELIEVE IT WAS A RE LATIVE O F PRATT. HE WAS AARENTLY LIVING I N HIS CAR, AND HE A GREED ONL Y TOMEET WITH THIS INVESTIGATOR AT THE AIRPORT, WHERE HE SAID HE WOULD VOLUNTARILY COME TO FLORIDA TO TESTIFY, WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR SHOWED UP THERE , HE GOT UP SET A B OUT SECURITY PROCEEDINGS AND DIDN'T WA NT TO COME BACK TO FLORIDA , AND DID NOT RETURN WITH HER, AND THEN IMMEDIATELY LEFT THE AREA AND COULD NOT BE FOUND AGAIN.

WAS THERE ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN PRATT AND THE ACTUA L CRIME SCEN E? I NO TICED THA T THERE WERE SOME FINGERPRINTS THAT WERE LI FTED , BUT WERE PRATT'S FINGERPRINTS LIFTED?

THERE WAS AN UNIDENTIFIED PALM PRIN T THAT WAS LIFTED AND NEVER MADE A MA TCH OF.THERE WAS AN UNIDENTIFIED FOOTPRINT AT THE SC ENE INSIDE THE TRAI LER, THAT DI DN'T MA TCH THE DEFEND ANT.

BUT TH ERE WAS NOTHING THAT WAS IDENTIFIED.

YES. PRATT'S BE LONG INGS , HIS D NA, BLOOD SA MPLE S WERE NEVER SUBMITTED FOR COMPARISON , O NEOF THE MANY FAULTS THAT WERE EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD , WITH THE INVESTIGATION THAT TOOK PLACE OV ER A FIVE-YEAR P E RIOD. VARIOUS IT EMS OF DNA , WHERE --

WELL , PRAT T HAD A RECORD, SO THE PRINTS WOULD HAVE B EEN AVAILABLE FROM PRIOR ARRE STS.

BUT THERE WAS TESTIMONY THEY WERE NEVER COMPARED, YOUR HONOR.

OKAY.

HOW ABOUT THE DNA EVIDENCE? THERE WAS NO DNA EV IDENCE THAT WAS NOT ATTACHED , WAS THERE?

THERE WAS DNA EVI DENCE THAT WAS DISCO VERED . ACCORDING TO THE ST ATE'S EXPERT WITNESSES , THERE WERE DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS . THERE WERE DIFFERENT WHIELS PRESENT THAT WOULD EXCLUDE THE DEFENDANT. HOWEVER , EVERY TIME THEY CAMEUP WITH AN INCONSISTENT RESULT, A DIFFERENT ALIEL, A DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT, A DIFFERENT BAND, THE STATE'S WITNESSES WOULD SAY THIS IS INCONCLUSIVE. THIS IS CAUSED BY LIMITATIONS OF IT IS DNA -- OF THE DNA PROCESS, SO WE ARE GOING TO DISREGARD THE BANDS THAT DO N' T MATCH THE DEF ENDANT.

CHIEF JUST ICE: AS FAR AS THE EVIDENTIARY R ULING , THE JUDGE DID AGREE WITH YOU T HAT YOU HAD MADE REASON ABLE EFFORTS TO LOCATE MR. PRATT AND HAD BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL .

YES .

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND HE DID ALLOW IN CERTAIN PARTS OF MR . PRATT'S STAT EMENT.

ESSE NTIALLY IT WAS ONE PORTION OF THE STATEMENT WHERE MR. PRATT HAD AD MITTED TO THE POLICE, WHEN HE WAS INTERVIEWED BY THE P OLICE , THAT HE DID HAVE A MO TIVE FOR THE CASE. HE AND HIS GIRLFR IEND WERE QUITE UPSET THAT THE PRIVETT S WERE BEHIND IN THEIR RENT. HE HAD MADE PREVIOUS THREATS TO THEM WITH A GUN , D RIVING BY THE NIGHT BEFORE THE KI LLING , WITH THE GUN.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT IS PRETTY POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAT CAME IN, TH AT YOU COULD, THE DEFENSE COULD US E TO AR GUE TO THE JU RY.

CORRECT, YOUR HONOR .

CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW, LET'S TALK , THEN , ABOUT WHERE T HETRIAL COURT, WH AT IS YOUR ARGUMENT, AND I , W HAT I AM , WHAT I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS YOUR ARG UMENT IS THAT THE OTHER PARTS WERE NOT HEA RSAY , BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T BEING ADMITTED TO THE TRUT H. IS THAT --

CORRECT, YOUR HONOR .

CHIEF JUST ICE: AND I GUESS MY , MA YBE I T AL MOST G O ES TO THE SECOND PART OF IT. IF YOU HAD THIS POW ERFUL EVIDENCE THAT CAME IN T HAT SAID THAT HE HAD A MOTIVE , AND THIS O THER PART OF THE STATEMENT THAT YOU WANTED T O GET IN WOULD NOT BE IN THERE TO, FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER, AND HOW COULD THAT BE , HOW COULD THAT B E HAR MFUL ERROR, EVEN IF THERE WERE CERTAIN PARTS OF IT THAT MAYBE SHOULD HAVE COM E IN UNDER ONE THEORY OR ANOT HER?

IT , AS YOU INDICATE , OUR ARGUMENT IS T HREE FOLD ESSENTIALLY. ONE , IT WAS NOT HEAR SAY. TWO, IF IT WAS HEARSAY, THE ENTIRE STATEMENT WAS A STATEMENT AG AINST PE NAL INTERESTS AND THE E NTIRE STATEMENT SHOULD COME IN , AND , THREE , EVEN IF IT DIDN'T F ITWITHIN THE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY, IT SHOULD COME IN UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT USUA LLY A DEFENDANT IS TRYING TO A DMITSOMETHING FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER, BE CAUSE THE TRUTH OFTHE MATTER WOULD BE THAT THIS MAN WAS THE PERPETRATER OF THE CRIME.

PRECISELY .

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO YOUR FIRST ISSUE BEING THAT IT WASN'T HEARSAY, FIRST OF ALL , SO LE T'S JUST ASSU ME, EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT S URE THAT WAS EVEN PROPERLY PRESE RVED, H OW, IF IT CAME IN AND THE JUDGE SAID THAT THIS IS NOT BEING ADMITTED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER, HOW COULD THE FA ILURE TO ADMI T IT , BE HAR MFUL ERROR?

THE FAILURE TO ADMIT IT WAS HARMFUL , BECAUSE THE EN TIRE STATEMENT , THESE MATT ERS SHOWED THAT PRATT K NEW THE METHOD AND MANNER OF THE KILLING , WHEN THAT INFORMATION HAD NOT BEEN RELEAS ED TO THE PUBLIC.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THEN I T WOULD BE , IF IT WAS FOR THAT REASON, THEN IT WOULD BE ADMITED FOR THE TRUTH --

I KNOW. BECAUSE HE SAID SOMEBO DY E LSE STABBED THEM, SO , OF COUR SE, THE DEFENSE WASN'T AGR EEING THAT SOMEBODY ELSE STABBEDTHEM. THEY WERE SA YING THAT PRATT STABBED THEM, AND HE , ONLY THE AUTHORITIES AND ONLY THE ACTUAL KILLER WOULD KNOW HOWTHE VICTIMS WERE TR EATED , THE MANNER OF THE KILLING , T HAT THEY WERE STABBED.

WAS IT WHAT HE SAID OR WHAT SOMEBODY HAD SAID TO HIM IN HIS STATEMENT. WAS HE REFER RING TO HIS KNOWLEDGE , OR WAS HE REL YING WHAT DEBBIE HAD SAID TO HIM -- RELAYING WHAT DEBBIE HAD SAID TO HIM?

I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT, HE KN EW.

CA N YOU CITE ME WHAT P AGE OF THE INTERVIEW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I APOLOGIZE. HE WAS SAYING THAT SOME PER SON NAMED DEB BIE , WHO WE ONLY HAVE A FIRST NAME FOR , INDICATEDTHAT HE WAS TOLD THIS BY HER, THAT THEY HAD BEEN STABBED. AND THAT IS PAGE 19 1.

SO HOW DOES THAT H EL P YOUR CASE AT ALL? IF ALL HE IS DOING IS RELAY IN G SOMEBODY ELSE'S INFORMATION TO HIM?

IT IS INFORM ATION THAT WASN'T AVAILABLE TO THE PUBL IC, THE FACT THAT HE SAID IT WAS FROM DEBB IE. A GAIN, WE ARE NOT OF FERING THAT AS PROOF OF THE MATTER BUT JUST FACT THAT HE KNEW THIS. WHETHER DEBBIE EVER EX ISTED , WE DON'T KNOW.

SO IF ANY THING , IT WOULD TEND TO PROVE THAT DEBBIE COMMITTED THE M URDER NOT THATHE DID.

THE FACT THAT HE KNEW THERE HAD BEEN A STABBING . HE ATTRIBUTED TO SOM EBODY ELSE . WHETHER THAT IS TRU E OR NOT W E DON'T KNOW, BUT THE FACT T HAT HE KNEW THAT INFORMATION WHEN THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT K NOWNTO THE PU BLIC , ONLY TO T HEAUTHORITIES AND ONLY TO THE KILLER, IS HI GHLY RELEVANT AS SOMETHING --

BUT THAT HA S TO INFER THAT DEBBIE DIDN'T TELL HIM THAT OR THAT DEBBIE, SOME HOW , WAS THE ONE THAT KNEW THAT. I MEAN , YOU CAN'T GET A WAY FROM THOSE INFERE NCES , CAN YOU?

YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH THE FACT THAT PRATT WAS THE ONE WHO TOLD AUTHORITIES THAT HE KNEW, FROM SOMEHOW , THAT THESE PEOPLE HAD BEEN STABBED.

WELL, IF, I N FACT , YOU SAY JOE " X" TOLD ME THAT THE C ARRAN THE RED LI GHT , NOW , DOESN'T THAT , RE ALLY, I M EAN,WHAT YOU ARE DEAL ING WITH IS SORT OF HEARSAY ON HEARSAY , BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE DEPE NDING UPON IS WHETHER JOE I S RELIABLE OR NOT .

NO. WELL, WE ARE , AGAIN, NOT G OINGTO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED, AND THAT WOULD BE THE RELIABILITY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THAT IS USUALLY, THOU GH, AN ARG UMENT THE STATE LIKES TO M A KE.

I UNDERSTAND , YOUR HONOR. UH-HUH.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE REALLY USING IT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER , AND I THINK --

THE FACT THAT HE TRIED TO ESTABLISH AN ALIB I FOR T HETIME OF THE KILL INGS. OF COURSE IT WASN'T OFFERE D TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED, THAT HE HA D AN ALIBI FOR THE TIME OF THE KILLIN GS , BUT IT WAS OF FERED TO SHOW THAT HE KNEW THE TIME FR AME OF THE KILLINGS , WHEN , A GAIN , THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT KNOWNTO THE PUBLIC, ONLY KNOW N TO THE MEDI CAL EXAM INER, T HEAUTHORITIES AND TO THE A CTUAL KILLER, SO, AGAIN, WE SUBMIT IT IS NOT HEARSAY . IT WAS NOT USED TO PROVE T HETRUTH OF THE MATTER ASS ERTED BUT WAS PROVED , OFFE RED T O PROVE THAT HE HAD, THAT HE MADE THESE STATEMENTS, J UST THAT HE MADE THESE STATEMENTS.

WHY, WHEN YOU CONSIDER T HEFACT THAT THE REAL IMP ORTANT PORTIONS OF HIS STATEMENT THAT CAME IN ARE , REALLY, WHAT THE DEFENSE NE EDED T O MAKE THEIR ARGUMENT, THAT THIS MAN WAS PROBABLY IMPLICATED SOMEHOW IN THIS MURDER, THEN WHY ISN'T THE FACT THAT THE OTHER PORTION OF THE STATEMENT WHIC H, REALLY, ENDS UP BEING SOMEHOW OF DO UBLE HEARSAY HERE , WHY ISN'T THAT HARM LESS , THE FACT THAT THOSE PORTIONS OF THE STATEMENT DID NOT COME IN, WHEN THE REAL RELEVANT PORTIONS SE EM TO HAVE COME IN TO EVIDENCE .

WE WOULD SUBMIT , AS THE ATTORNEYS DID BELOW , THAT THE ENTIRE STATEMENT SHOULD BE ADMITTED, THE ENT IRE , WHET HER IT WAS NOT HEARSAY OR WHETHER IT WAS UNDER THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTERESTS, IT --

LET'S ASSUM E THAT IT REALLY IS HEARSAY.

OKAY.

AND THE FACT THAT THIS DEFENDANT REPE ATS SOME INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO HIM. HOW WAS THAT AGAINST HIS PENAL INTERESTS?

THE FACT THAT HE KNEW FROM SOME SOURCE , H OW HE KNEW WE DISPUTE, BUT HE KNEW THE TIME OF THE KILLING. HE KNEW THE MANNER OF THE KILLING. IT TENDED TO EX POSE HIM TO GREATER LIABILITY AND TE NDED TO EXCULPATE THE DEFEND ANT. IT DOESN'T HAVE T O NECESSARILY EXCULPATE. IT IS EN OUGH IF IT TE NDS T O EXCULPATE .

HOW DOES IT GO TO THE TIME FACTOR?

PA RDON ME?

THE STATEMENT THAT WAS EXCLUDED, HOW DOES THAT G O TO THE TIME FACTOR?

THE TIME FACTOR W ASIMPORTANT.HE SAID , WELL, I WAS WITH MY GIRLFRIEND, NIC OLE , DURING THIS TIME FRAME , WHEN THE TIM E FRAME OF THE KILLINGS HAD NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC .

DIDN'T SHE , ALSO , VERIFY THAT AT SOME PO INT , SAY THAT, YES, SHE WAS WITH HIM?

AT TRIAL SHE SAID, NO , I WASN'T WITH HIM THAT NI GHT. AND THEN ON F URTHER EXAMINATION, BY DEFENSE COUNSEL , SHE ADMITTED, WELL , I MAY HAVE TOLD THE POLIC E THATI WAS WITH HIM THAT NIGHT , AND IF I TOLD THE POLICE THAT, THEN THAT IS TRUE. I WAS WITH HIM . IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE ADMISSIBILITY EXTEND TO THE ENTIRE STATEMENT , TO SHOW THE CONTEXT, TO SHOW THE SUBJ ECT MATTER --

HOW DOES THIS GO TO CONTEXT?I MEAN, YOU HAVE THIS WHOLE , VIRTUALLY THE EN TIRE STATEMENT IN. THIS IS VERY , VERY LI MITED , ALMOS T ONE SENTENCE THAT HAS BEEN PU LLED OUT.

THERE WAS QUITE A BIT PULLED OUT, YOUR HONOR. THERE WERE VERY FEW PORTIONS ADMITTED. THE ONLY PORTIONS THAT WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE THREATS THAT HAD BEEN MADE AND THE BACK R E NT, BUT AS T O H ISKNOWLEDGE OF THE MANNER OF KILLINGS, HIS KNOW LEDGE OF THE TIME OF THE KILLINGS , THOSE DIDN'T COME OUT , AND THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPO RTANT F ORDEFENSE COUNSEL TO ARGU E TO THE JURY , LOO K AT THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF THIS. THE POLICE WERE INTERE STED IN THIS PERSON. THEY GOT HIM TO COU P WITH AN ALIBI FOR THIS TIME FRAME -- TO COME UP WITH AN ALIBI FOR THIS TIME FRAME, WHEN THE POLICE DIDN'T TELL HIM THE TIME FRAME FOR THE KILLING. THE FACT THAT THIS IS WHERE DENY PR IVETT WOULD HAVE BEEN URINATING, AND THAT IS W HEREHE WAS KILLED , SOMETH ING THAT ALSO WOULD HAVE BEEN UNKNOW N TO THE G E NERAL PUBLI C. AS JUSTICE WE LLS SAID IN HIS CONCURRING OP INION WITH BRO OKS , ACKNOWLEDGING THE STATEMENT THAT INDIVIDUALLY , THEMSELVES, ARE INDIVIDUALLY IN CRIMINALTORY SHOULD BE ADMISSIBLE. IT SUGGESTS THAT. THAT FL ORIDA T A KES A MORE REASONABLE, BROADER AROACH. THE WHOLE STATEMENT IS ADMISSIBLE, BECAUSE IT G IVES THE WHOLE CONTEXT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHIC H IT WAS GI VEN. WE SUBMIT THAT THE ENTIRE STATEMENT, ALL OF THE CONTEXT THERE IN AND ALL OF THE STATEMENTS, THE GIVE AND TA KE, THE EXCHANGE WITH THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO WERE TRYING T O FIND A SUSP ECT I N THE CA SE, I S IMPORTANT FOR THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO BE ABLE TO A RGUETO THE JURY, LOOK , THIS G UY , PRATT, HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE KILLINGS WHEN THEY OCCURRED, HOW THEY OCCURR ED, THAT WAS UNKNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.

WH EN WAS THE STATEMENT MADE , IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE MURDERS?

IT WAS MADE RELAT IVELY SHORTLY AFTER THE MURDERS , YOUR HONOR.

MEANING D AYS, HO URS?

I BELIEVE IT WAS DA YS.

IT WAS THE NEXT DAY. ACTUALLY IT W AS ON JULY THE 23thd , 10:30 A.M. THAT IS WHAT THE STATEMENT S AYS, CORRECT?

CORRECT .

THE DEFENSE AT TRIA L WAS THAT IT WAS PRATT?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO WERE THE POLICE QUESTIONED DURING THE TRIAL AS TO WHY PRATT WAS EXCLUDED AS A SUSPECT?

THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW HE WAS INTERVIEWED AND STUFF , BUT THEN THEY JUST KIND O F DROP PED HIM AS A SUSP ECT AND IT WAS NEVER INDI CATED WHY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AGAIN, AS WE WERE ASKING EARLIER , THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO PHYS ICAL EVIDENCE THAT POI NTED T O PRATT AS THE PERPETRATOR , WHEREASTHERE WAS SIGNIF ICANT PHYSI CAL EVIDENCE, WAS THERE NOT , THAT POINTED TO REYNOLDS. IT WASN'T SOME THING JUST ARBITRARY THAT THE POLICE DID.

THAT EVIDENCE WAS DEVELOPED OVER A FIVE-Y EAR PER IOD, BEFORE THE CASE ULTIMATELY WENT TO TRIAL , AND THE - -

CHIEF JUSTICE: CHIEF WELL , WHENEVER IT WAS DEVELOPED , ANSWER, AS WE EXPL ORED EA RLIER , THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT PRATT, WHO MUST BE BEEN AN EARLY SUSPECT FOR THE POLICE, WAS LI NKED TO THE CRIME SCENE .

AGAIN, THEY DID NOT SUBMIT ANY OF PRATT OR NICOLE'S OR THE OTHER , COMBS , THEY DID NOT SUBMIT ANY OF THEIR BLOOD SAMPLES, ANY OF THEIR HAIR SAMPLES , ANY OF THEIR PALM , FOOTPRINT SA MPLES FOR COMPARISON. THE ONLY THING THEY DID WITH MR. PRATT WAS THEY WEREN'T TO -- WENT TO HIS HOUSE AND LOOKED AR OUND AND DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING THERE.

WERE THERE ANY MARKINGS ON HIM? ANY CL AW , SCRATCH MARKS?

IT D OES NOT AEAR T HAT THERE WERE.THE DEFENDANT'S SCRATCH MARKS HE EXPLAINED IS HAVING STUMBLED HAVING COME DOWN H ISSTEPS EARLY IN THE MORNING , TAKING HIS DO G FOR A WA LK. THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CORROBORATED HIS STATEMENT, THAT THERE HAD BEEN A BU RR. THERE WAS A NOT CH ON THE SCREEN DOOR FRAME.

I THOUGHT THE ME DICAL EXAMINER SAID THAT WAS INCONSISTENT. AM I INCO RRECT IN THAT RECOLLECTION?

I AM SORR Y. INCONSISTENT?

INCONS ISTENT WITH H ISDESCRIPTION OF HOW HE W ASINJURED?

HE SPECUL ATED THAT HIS HAND WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEE N A CERTAIN WAY , UPSIDE DOWN RATHER THAN LIKE THIS, FOR IT TO HAVE OCCURRED. THAT WAS PURE SPECULATION AND OUTSIDE OF HIS SCOPE OF EXPERTISE , I BE LIEVE , YOURHONOR. THERE WAS PHYSICAL EVIDENCETHAT THERE WAS, IN FACT, A NOTCH IN THE SCR EEN DOOR. THERE WAS A BURR FOUND IN THE BUSHES BE SIDE THE ST EPS LEADING OUT OF THE TRAI LER THAT WAS CON SISTENT WITH THAT , DESPITE THE SPECULATION OF THE MEDICAL EX AMINER .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT WAS THE ARGUMENT, SPECIFICALLY THE TRIAL COUNSEL TRIED TO GET IN THE ENTIRE STATEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?

CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: DID THEY TRY TO GET THE EN TIRE STATEMENT IN AS BEING NOT HEARSAY, OR A S AN ADMISSION AGAINST INTER ESTS ? WHAT WAS THE ARGU MENT MADE TO THE TRIAL COURT?

I BELIEVE THEY TRIED TO ADMIT THE ENTIRE STATEMENT. THEY DID SPECIFICALLY STATE TO THE COURT THEY WEREN'T OFFERING IT FOR THE TR UTH OF THE MATTER , SIR, THEY WEREN'T VOUCHING FOR THE TRUTH OF WHAT PRATT WAS SA YING, THAT HE DIDN'T DO IT , OF CO URSE , BUT THEN THEY DID TALK ABOUT HEARSAY BEING A STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTERESTS .

CHIEF JUSTICE: I THOU GHT THE ONLY PORTION OF PRATT'S STATEMENT THAT REYNOLDS ASSERTED WAS NOT HEARSAY WAS A STATEMENT THAT PR IVETT , HIMSELF, STABBED R OBIN AND CHRISTINA.

YES .

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO THE ARGUMENT , SO THAT WAS THE O NLY PORTION. SO WHAT WAS THE ARGUMENT AS TO THE RE ST?

THE ENTIRE STATEMENT WAS A STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTERESTS AND SHOULD COME IN UNDER THAT EXCEPTION NOT JUST LIMITED PORTI ON.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT DID THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINE AS TO THE PORTIONS YOU ARE NOW SAYING SHOULD HAVE BEEN --

THE TRIAL COURT DETERM INED THEY WERE NOT STATEMENTS AGAINST PENAL INTERESTS. THEY DID NOT INCOME EIGHT -- INCULPATE PRATT OR EXCULPATE THE DEFENDANT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO HOW DO W E NOW, BASED ON THAT , ALY A DISCRETION STANDARD O R ALY DE NOVO , LO OKING AT THEM , BECAUSE WHAT IS THE POSI TION, THE STANDARD?

THE CASE LAW I S , I BELIEVE , DISCRETION FOR ADMISSIBILITY OR NONADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, BUT WE SUBMIT THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISP UT E AND THEN THE QUE STION OF LA W SHOULD BE DETERMINED ON A DE NOVO REVI EW TO THE TRIAL JU DG E , DID HE FOLLOW THE CORRECT LAW? HE SAID ONLY THE INDI VIDUAL INCRIMINATING STA TEMENTS WITHIN THE ENTIRE STA TEMENTWOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AS A STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTERESTS.WE SUBMIT - -

CHIEF JUSTICE: CH IEF RATHER THAN, NOW , THE DOUBLE HEARSAY , THAT IN OTHER WORDS IF HE IS RELATING WHAT SOMEONE ELSE TOLD HIM, THEN YOU HAVE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT NOT BEING AN ADMISSION AGAINST INTERESTS .

AGAIN, THE MAN NER OF KILL ING , WE SUBMIT , WAS NOT HEARSAY , NOT OFFERED TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER , SIR , THAT PARTICULAR ONE .

YOU HAVE D E VOTED AL MOST ALL OF YOUR TIME TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WA NTED TO TALK ON THE --

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY TRIED TO GET IN THE ENTIRE STATEMENT , AND IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE JUDGE SAID , NO , THE ENTIRE STATEMENT ISN'T COMING IN ON PAGE 23 62 OF THE RECORD. THE DEFENSE ATTORN EY SAYS, N OW, IF THE COURT SAYS "NO" TO THE HOLD, THEN W E WILL TALK ABOUT OTHER POSITION S.IT WAS A FALL-BACK ATTEMPT AND NOT AN EFFORT TO GET IN THE STATEMENT.WE SUBMIT THE DEATH PENALTY WAS NOT WARRANTED HERE AND IT WAS ERROR TO IMP OSE . AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, OF COURSE, MUST BE PRO VEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY COMPETENT SUBSTINKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. -- SUBSTA NTIAL EVIDENCE. HERE THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE CASE LAW L ED TO AN ARREST AND THE CASE LAW, WHEN IT LE ADS TO A DEFENDANT, M UST BE V ERY STRONG AND SUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE, WHICH IS TOTA LLY LACKING H ERE.

WHAT DOES THE STATUS OF THE DIRECT TESTIMONY CAME FROM A CELLMATE THAT HE TO LD THE CELLMATE HE WAS NOT GO ING TO LEAVE ANY WITNESSES BE HIND , HECOULD NOT , AND THAT HE HAD REGRET ABOUT THE CHILD, AND THAT IS THE NATURE OF THAT .

YES. THAT IS THE ENTIRE B ASIS FOR THIS FINDING. AND THAT WAS TOTALLY IMPEACHED BY A DISINT ERESTED THIRD P ARTYWHO IS , A LSO , AN INMATE IN THE SAME INSTITUTION , WHERE THIS JAILHOUSE SNITCH WAS TESTIFYING THAT DAY IN COURT AND CAME BACK TO HIS JAIL CELL AND TOLD HIS CE LLMATE , YOU KNOW, HE NEVER TOLD ME THAT. I JUST MADE IT UP BECAUSE ITHINK THE G UY IS A SIT . SO -- A SH IT , SO I WAN TED TO GET HIM --

LE T'S ASSUME YOU WOULD B E CORRECT ON THAT , SO T HAT WOULD, THEN , LEAVE THE HAC AND ALSO LEAVE THE PRIOR VIO LENT FELONY.

CORRECT. CORRECT , YOUR HONOR.

AND THOSE TWO WOULD NOT , THEN, AS YOUR ARGUMENT , WOULD NOT SUORT.

YES .

IN L IGHT OF THE SUBSTA NTIAL NONSTATUTORY MITIGA TING CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, EVE N THOUGH REYNOLDS DIDN'T WANT TO PUT ANY OF THE FAMILY THROUGH THE PENALTY PHASE OF THE TRIAL AND ATTEMP TED TO WAIVE IT AND DIDN'T WISH TO PR ESENT ANY MITIGATING TESTIMONY , WE SUBMIT THAT THE PSI AND THE SPENCER HEARING DID PRE SENT SUBSTANTIAL MITI GATING CIRCUMSTANCES. THE TRIAL JUDGE , IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE IN DISCUSSING WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO WAIVE THE SENT ENCING JURY, SPECIF ICALLY MENTIONED , QUOTE, I GO STRI CTLY BY STATUTORY MITIGATING FACT ORS , AND SO THAT IS THE WA Y IT IS . FOUND AT R -3499 OF THE -- RECORD. WE SUBMIT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID LO CKET AND DID NOT GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO THAT --

WAS THAT BY WAY OF MITIGATION?

HE WAS TALKING AB OUT WHAT SHE SHOULD ARGUE TO THE JURY AS OOSED TO JUST ARGUING TO HIM. ONE OF THE ISSUES D ISCUSSED WAS RE SIDUAL DOUBT.

WAS THAT NOT WITH RE GARD TO DISCU SSION, THERE IS SOME ISSUE OF WAIV ING THE ENTIRE JURY PROCESS. IT WAS IN THAT CONTEXT, WAS IT NOT?

CORRECT BUT THE JUDGE MADE THE B OLD STATEMENT, I GO STRICTLY BY STATUTORY MITIGATING FACTORS , WHICH WE DON'T FE EL THIS COURT CAN AND SHOULD IG NORE. IT IS PARTICULARLY TE LLING .

DO N'T WE HAVE, THEN, A N ORDER WHERE THE JUDGE COMES IN AND RECOGNIZES THE REQUIREMENTS OF MOHAMMED AND STATES I CANNOT GIVE GREAT WEIGHT TO THIS BECAUS E OF THE CASE LAW?

WE SUBMIT HE PAID LIPSERVICE TO THOSE BUT HIS REAL RATIONAL WAS FO UND IN THIS -- RATIONALE WAS FOUND IN THIS STATEMENT. HE FOUND THE NONMIT IGATING STATUTORY THAT WAS PRES ENTED. HOWEVER , WIT HOUT ANY EXPLANATION IN VIOL ATION OF THIS COURT'S RULINGS IN CAMPBELL, DIDN'T EXPL AIN WHY HE GAVE CE RTAIN WEIGHT T O THE NONSTATUTORY MITIGATION , WHY HE GAVE LITTLE WEIGHT TO IT. HE ME RELY LISTS THEM AND SAYS I GIVE IT LITTLE WEI GHT, GIVING US NO GUID ANCE .

WAS IT SAID I N NUMEROUS CASES THAT THE WEIGH T, THAT W E ARE NOT GOING TO LOOK BEHIND THE WEIGHT THAT A TRIAL JUDGEGIVES IN MITIGATING. WE SIMPLY LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THE MITIGATING WAS REALLY ESTABLISHED BY THE GR EATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE , ONCE THAT IS DETERMINED , THE WEIGHT THAT IS GIVEN TO THAT MITIGATOR IS, REALLY , UP TO THE TRIAL JUDGE.

THAT IS CORRECT , IF THE TRIAL JUDGE UNDER TA KES THE CORRECT PROCEDURES HERE , AND ANALYZES THESE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND SAYS W HYTHEY WERE ONLY GIVEN LITTLE WEIGHT. HERE HE DIDN'T DO THAT. HE MERELY LISTED THEM. WE CONTEND THAT NOT ONLY THE AVOIDANCE OF ARREST , STATUTORY AGGRAVATORS SHOULD GO. ALSO HEIN OUS ATROCIOUS AND CRUEL SHOULD BE THROWN OUT , BECAUSE THE MEDICAL EX AMINER TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE RENDERED UNCONS CIOUS RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

HOW ABOUT, IS THAT A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION OF THE, FOR THE MOTHER , THE DEATH OF THE MOTHER HERE? AS I GO THROUG H AND I READ THIS, IT SEEM S AS THO UGH THERE WAS A PRE TTY BRUTAL , THE RE WAS A BEATING.

SHE WAS STAB BED AND SHE WAS HIT O VER THE HEAD WITH --

MAY I FINISH MY QUESTION.

I AM SO RRY .

THAT THERE WERE DEFENSIVE STAB WOUNDS AND MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS. THAT IS MY RECOLL ECTION. W HERE IS THAT WRONG?

THE MEDICAL EXA MINER COULD NOT TESTIFY TO THE SE QUENCE OF EVENTS AND SAID SHE WOULD HAVE LOST CONSCIOUSNESS UPON BEING OVER THE HEAD WITH THE CONCRETE BLOCK. THERE WERE SOME DEFENSIVE WOUNDS SHE HAD. SHE HAD SOME DEFENSIVE WOUNDS. CHRISTINA THERE WERE NO DEFENSIVE WOUNDS. THERE WAS ONLY ONE CONT USION TO HER HAND WH ICH C OULDPOSSIBLY BE CHARACTERIZED AS A TYPE OF DEFENSIVE WOUND. HER DEATH WAS CAUSED BY A SINGLE STAB WOUND.

LE T'S GO B ACK TO RO BIN THOUGH. THERE WAS SOME THING THAT THE MEDICAL EXAM INER TESTIFIED TO WHICH WE OFTEN DO NOT SEE IN THESE CASES, TESTIFIED THAT ROBIN HAD MUL TIPLE SUPERFICIAL WOUNDS THAT WERE CONSIS TENT WITH TO RMENT WOUNDS , NOT INTENDED TO CAUSE SERIOUSINJURY BUT TO CAUSE AGGRAVATION AND SCARE THE VICTIM. THAT IS PRETTY SIGNIFIC ANT.

THERE WAS TESTIMONY TO THAT. WE SUBMIT THAT IS PURE SPECULATION.HERE IS WHAT THE MEDICAL EXPERT TESTIFIED TO. HE SAID THE WOUNDS WERE EITHER BY THE DISTANCE OF THE KNIFE AND ATTACKER FR OM THE VICT IM OR TO POS SIBLY , POSSIBLY, AND HE SAID POSSIBLY T WICE , OR TO POSSIBLY, POSSIBLY SC ARE THE VICTIM. WE SUBMIT T HAT IS PURE SPECULATION, IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL , COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT HAS TO B E PRESENT IN ORDER TO FIND THE CIRCUMSTANCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

HOW MA NY OF THOSE WERE THERE?

PAR DO N ME?

HOW MANY OF T HOSE W ERE THERE?

THERE WAS ONLY ONE , I BELIEVE , TO HER HAN D OR HER ARM.

THE TORMENT?

TORMENT WOUNDS. HE TALKED ABOUT OTHER DEFENSIVE WOUNDS, OTHER BLOWS THAT WERE RENDERED.

WHY IS IT NOT CONS ISTENT WITH OUR CASE L AW THAT, WHEN YOU HAVE A MULTIPLE STABBING AND YOU HAVE THIS KIND O F SCENE , YOU HAVE TWO PEOP LE THAT ARE WITHIN JUST FE ET OF EACH OTHER , FRANCIS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THAT WOULD -- FRIENDS, FOR EXAMPLE , T HAT THAT WOULD NOT -- FRA NCES , FOR EXAMPLE , THAT THAT WOULD N OTCITE, AT LEAST WITH RE GARD T O THE MOTHER.

WE SAID TWO DEATHS I N C LOSE PROXIMITY TO THE OTHE R, DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT HEINOUS , ATRO CIOUS AND CRU EL. AGAIN THE MEDICAL EXAMINER TESTIFIED THEY WOULD HAVE LOST UNCONSCIOUS NESS RELATI VELY QUICKLY, EITHER FROM THE STAB WOUND OR FROM BEING HI T ON THE HEAD HEAD WITH A CONC RETE BLOCK, IN THE CASE OF ROBI N. WE SUBMIT THERE IS NOT COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE TO SUORT THIS. THIS COURT NEVER ISSUED A RULING THAT THE IT STABBING WAS HAC -- THAT THE STABBING WAS NOT HAC , AND WE SUBMIT IT IS NOT.

WE HAVE IN MANY CASES SAID THAT STAB WOUNDS SU ORT HAC. HAVE WE NOT SAID THAT IN M ANY CASES?

YES , YOU HAVE , YOUR HONOR , BUT IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT A PER SE R ULE AND WE SUBMIT THAT THEY LOST CONS CIOUSNESS VERY QUICKLY. WE SUBMIT THERE SHOULD BE ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR A NEW TRIAL OR FOR THE IMPOSITION O F A LIFE SE NTENCE. THANK Y OU.

CHIEF JUSTIC E: MS. DA VIS.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS BARB ARA DAV IS. I REPRESENT THE STATE OF FLORIDA , ADDRESSING ISSUE ONE, THE STATEMENT OF JUSTIN PRATT.THIS COURT ORD ERED B OTH THE REDACTED STATEMENT AND THE FULL STATEMENT, SO THAT HAS ITS OWN LITTLE RECORD , AND THE NUMBERS THAT ARE QU OTED ARE FROM THAT SEPARATE RECORD . THE JUDGE, WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME UP , HE WENT THROUGH PAGE BY PAGE, AND FIRS T OF ALL , L ETME MAKE IT C LEAR THAT THE STATE IS NOT CONC EDING THAT HE WAS UNAVAILABLE OR THAT THEY FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCED URES OR THAT ANY OF THIS SHOULD HAVE COME IN. BUT THE JUDGE FOUND HIM UNAVAILABLE , WENT THROUGH THE STATEMENT WITH DEFENSE COU NSEL AND THE ST ATE , PAGE BY PAGE, AND THEY IRONED OUT EXA CTLY WHAT SHOULD COME IN . NOW, THE PARTS THAT CAME IN, THE JUDGE RU LED , WERE RELEVANT, AND THEY COULD BE SE LF INCRIMINATING, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES . THE PARTS THAT DEFENSE COUN SEL IS COMPLAINING ABOUT AND THE PARTS THAT YOU CAN EX CISE F ROM THE RECORD, BE CAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL ACTUALLY SAID I DON'T NEED PAGES 9-THROUGH-11. I DON'T NEED PAGES 18-TO-34. SO THERE ARE BASI CALLY THREE FACTS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BEFO RE WE GET TO THAT , DO YOU AGREE THAT THE DEFENSE LAWYER , AS WAS FIRST REPRESENTED HERE , FIRST TRIED TO GET THE WH OLE STATEMENT IN, AND THEN ONLY AFTER THE JU DGE SAID I AM NOT GOING TO ADMIT THE WHOLE STATEMENT , WENT, THEN, TO WHAT PARTS.

YES. YES. THE THING IS THIS IS ALL HEARSAY, AND IT IS NOT RELEVANT . SO IN ITS ENTI RETY , THERE IS, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WHO DOES COCAINE IN THE COMMUNITY. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW PRATT GETS TO WORK AND BACK ON A BICY CLE BEC AUSE HE DOESN'THAVE A DR IVERS LICE NSE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE, BUT THE COURT VERY CAREFULLY WENT THROUGH T HEPARTS THAT COULD BE INCRIMINATING, THAT GAVE THEM THE BENE FIT OF THE DO UBT , SO THERE IS THE THREE FAC TS THAT THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

LET ME A SK YOU THE WORD "STATEMENT" IN THE RULE, IN 90.804-2-C. IT SAYS A STATEMENT WHICH WAS FAR CONTRARY TO PECUNIARY INTERESTS , ET C ETERA . THERE ARE V ARIOUS DEAF N ATIONS -- DEFINI TIONS OF STATEMENT T COULD BE A SENTENCE OR I T COULD BE A S TATEMENT TO POLICE WHICH IS SE VERAL PAGES LONG , SO I THINK ONE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE IS IF Y OUINTRODUCE A STATEMENT , YOU INTRODUCE THE ENTIRE THING. YOU CAN'T PARSE IT OUT. ANOTHER CASE IS YOU TAKE I T SENTENCE BY SENTENCE. HAVE WE EVER INTERP RETED T HAT WORD IN THE RULE?

I THINK IN THE CASE OF BROOKS , THIS COURT STATED THAT THE SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS COULD COME IN. I MEAN, E ACH S E CTION OF T HIS IS A STATEMENT. THEY GO THROUGH MANY, MANY SUBJECTS. I MEAN, IF THE POLICE OF FICER SAID, OK AY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TOOK A FIVE -MINUTE BRE AK AND STARTED OVER, WOULD THAT SEPARATE THEM AS STATEMENTS ? THERE ARE SEV ERAL --

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A STATEMENT AGAINST INTERE STS. DON'T YOU HAVE TO, A NDSOMEBODY IS MAKING A HALF- HOUR STATEMENT TO THE POLICE , D ON'TYOU HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING IN CONTEXT WITHIN OTHER SENT ENCES BEFORE AND AFTER, TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS ACT UALLY WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF THE PERSON?

IF YOU DID , THEN NO NE OF THIS WOULD COME I N , BECAUSE WHETHER YOU PUT IT INTO CONTEXT, NONE OF THIS IS A STATEMENT AGAINST INTERESTS. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THE DEFENSE G OT A WINDFALL ON THIS. THE JUDGE LeLETT E THEM PUT SECTIONS OF THIS -- THE JUDGE LET THEM PUT SECTIONS OF THIS IN. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CONT EXT , THEY AS KED JUSTIN PRAT T, PAGE 186 OF OUR RECORD, WHAT WERE YOU DOING TUESDAY? I WAS WORKING . WHAT ABOUT IN THE EVENING? AND THEY GO AND K EEP ASKING HIM, OKAY , ON THAT PAGE 186-TO-187, A FTER MIDNIGHT , SO THEY LEAD HIM INTO THE T IME. HE IS NOT SUDDENLY KNO WING , OH, I HAVE GOT TO MAKE AN ALIBI BET WEEN MIDNIG HT AND 7:00 A. M.. NICOLE DID LEAVE HIS APARTMENTAT 7:00 A.M. , AND AT TRI AL THERE WAS A NEIGHBOR WHO SAW HER LEAVE AT 7:00 A.M. , A NDTHAT IS JUST TR UTH. THAT IS WHAT HAENED. HE WASN'T CON TRIFING AN AL IB I LIKE THEY SAY - - CON TRIFINGAN ALIBI , LIKE THEY SAY .

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE LEWIS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE STATEMENT, THE REAL C RUX OF THE INFORMATION CAME -- THE REAL CRUX OF THE STATEMENT CAME FROM THE NOTES, CAME FROM THE INFORMATION, THAT IS THE CONTEXT , AND THEN THE R EST OF IT IS ELA BORATION, IT NOT?

THAT WAS NOT AGAINST HIS INTERESTS. IT WAS ALLEN COM BS WHO MADE THE THREAT AFTER THE WHO ARE SHOE GAME MONT HS BEFORE AND ALLEN COMBS WHO D ROVE BY THE HOUSE BRANDISHING THE G UNS , IN HIS OWN WORDS , AND JUSTIN MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE BACKSEAT AT THE WHO ARE SHOE GAME . THERE WERE -- IN THE HORSESHOE GAME. THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE IN THE CAR WHEN HE DROV E BY THE TRAILER. IT COULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIN COMBS , SO WE DON'T KNOW. THE PART THAT WAS AGAINST HIS INTERESTS OR POSSIBLY AGAINSTHIS INT RESTS WAS THAT HE PUT A NOTE ON THE TR AILER ABOUT A WEEK OUT, THAT SAID I NEED MY MONEY BACK AND IF YOU DON'T , WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO WAR WITH CONVENTIONAL WEA PONS . THEY WERE FRIEN DS. DEBBIE TOLD THIS, AND HE SAID WHEN JUSTIN STABBED RO BIN AND CHRISTINA, IT WAS DA NNY THAT STABBED PR IVETT NOT PRATT . DEB KAY AND TOLD HIM THAT PRIVETT HAD STABBED ROBIN AND CHRISTINA. HE WAS IN TEARS , ALL OF THEM WERE IN THE BAR SO BBING , A NDBY THE WAY , GLORIA --

HELP ME PUT THAT IN CONTEXT, WHEN THE JUDGE IS RULING O N THIS AND GOING THROUGH THIS STATEMENT, BECAUSE IN PRATT 'S STATEMENT, HE TALKS ABOUT DEBBIE PATINA , WHO I S NICOLE'S FRIEND? AARENTLY THEY ARE FRIE NDS , AND PRATT SAYS THAT HE HAD GONE TO HARRY'S BAR , TIN LIZZIE 'S , DEBBIE'S GEORGES, AND THEN HE WAS UP SET AND ON THE PHONE AND HE CAME IN. THERE WAS A WHOLE SERIES OF B ARS THAT HE WENT TO AND THE STATEMENT BY DEBBIE. WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE IS PRESENTING THIS, WAS THERE EVER ANY FOLLOW-U P, TO SEE AS TO THE CREDIBILIT Y OF THOSE STATEMENTS , i. e. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE HE WENT TO THE BARS , NO EVIDENCE DEBBIE EVER SAID THIS? OR WAS THERE?

THIS DIDN'T COME IN , BECAUSE THE JUDGE TOLD THE DEFENSE, LOOK , IF YOU WANT THESE STATEMENTS FROM DEBBIE IN, YOU NEE D TO BRING DEBBIE IN, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID I AGREE, SO THIS PART , SEE , W HEN THEY WERE GOING THROUGH IT , DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID , NO , T HIS PART IS NOT RELEVANT AND T HIS PART IS N OT VERY WELL V ANITY , AND I AG REE WITH THE JUDGE -- IS NOT RELE VANT , AND I A GREEW ITH THE JUDGE NOW, THAT THIS IS DOUBLE HEARSAY , AND THAT IF ANYBODY TESTIFIES TO THIS , IT SHOULD BE DEBBIE . DEFENSE COUNSEL , I AGREE.

DID DEBBIE TESTIFY?

NO. NO.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO LET'S GO TO THE PART. WHICH PART OF THE STATEMENT, THEN, TO GET TO SORT OF THE CRUX OF THIS IS , THE PART THAT NOW DEFENSE IS NOW SAYING REALLY WOULD HAVE HELPED, BECAUSE IT WAS INFORMAT ION THAT ONLY SOME BODY THAT HAD SKMITED THE CRIME WOULD -- COMMITTED THE CRIME WOULD BE LIKELY TO K NOW.

THE STABBING PART , THAT DEBBIE HAD TOLD PRATT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: COUL D YOU DIRECT US IN THE RECORD EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE --

1 91 , W HERE DEBBIE CAME IN AND TOLD ME. AND , A LSO , IN THE RECORD , WHEN GLORIA Le C HANCE TESTIF IED , HER HUSBAND RICH ARD , AND I THINK THIS IS IN REYNOLD'S STATEMENT THAT, RICHARD HAD TOLD HIM THAT PRIVETT HAD STABBED ROBIN AND CH RISTINA , SO IT WAS KIN D OF WHEN THIS HAENED, AND THIS WAS ABOUT THIS INTERVIEW , WAS ABOUT 18 HOURS AFTER THE EVENT, SO IT WAS, YOU KNOW , ORIGINALLY EVERYBODY THOUGHT THAT THE FATHER HAD KI LLED THE CH ILD AND THE MOTHER, IS WHAT HAD HAENED . AND THEN AFTER THAT , I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY FOUND OUT WHAT THE TRUTH WAS. AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT KNOWING WHERE MR . PRIV ETT WOULD URINATE ON THE TREE, THAT IS PAGE 214 , AND THE POLICE LED HIM INTO THAT AND SAID DO YOU KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY GOES TO THE BATHROOM? YOU HAVE BEEN OUT THERE PLAYING WHO ARE SHOES. WELL, -- P LAYING HORSE SHO ES. WELL, THEY HAD NO PLUMBING I N THE HORSE NE CK , THE GO OSE NECK CAMPER, AND THEY SAID YOU GO INTO THE WOODS UN LESS THE KIDS ARE AROUND AND THEN YOU GO INTO ONE OF THE MO BILE HOPESTHEY WERE FINISHING. THAT IS PAGE 214 , AND THEN THEY WENT THROUGH AND ASKED HIM CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOU WOULD GO, A ND DO YOU KNOW HOW MR. PRIVETT URINATES AND T HEY GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING , WHICH IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHEN HE G AVE THE STATEMENT, DID HE KNOW THAT PRIVETT WAS DEA D?

I AM NOT S U RE. BECAUSE THE ONLY THING HE SAYSIN HERE , IS THAT WHAT HE KN EW WAS THAT PRIVET HAD KILLED ROBIN AND CHRISTINA.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND THAT W ASSOMETHING THAT YOU SAY WAS GENERALLY THOUGHT TO BE THE CASE IN THE COMM UNITY THE DAY AFTER?

YES, BECAUSE GL ORIA Le CHANCE TESTIFIED ABOUT RIC HARD TELLING THAT TO REY NOLDS , ANDI THINK THAT IS ACTUALLY IN REYNOLDS'S STATEMENT.

ON ACTUALLY THE SECOND PAGE OF THE INTERVIEW , ONE OF THE INTERVIEWERS IS SAYING OK AY, THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE HOMICIDE YESTERDAY OF DANNY PRIVETT , ROBIN AND CHRI STINA RAZOR.

SO AT THAT PO INT HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN, A T THAT POINT THAT MR. PRIVETT , AND THE ONLY THING HE SAID WAS , WELL , WHAT HE HAD HEARD WAS THAT MR . PRIVETT KILLED CHRIS TINA AND ROBIN .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY SAY ANYTHING THAT WOULD IN COME EIGHT HIM IN THE DEATH OF -- THAT WOULD INCULPATE HIM IN THE DEATH OF PRIVET, BECAUSE HE TALKS ABOUT PRIVET KILLING THE TWO INSI DE THE TRAILER.

YES. AND THE THE ORY OF DEFENSE WAS KIND OF THAT IT WAS ALLEN COMBS, N ICOLE EDWA RDS AND JUSTIN PRATT THAT DID THIS AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE TA KEN TWO PEOPLE TO DO ALL OF THIS, BECAUSE THERE WAS SO M UCH DAMAGE IN THE TRAILER AND ROBIN HAD FOR THE SO HARD TH ATIT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TWO PE OPLE , SO THEY WERE TRYI NG TO FO CUS IT ON THOSE THREE, AND COMBS HAD MADE THRE ATS , MAYBE W ITH OR MAYBE WITH OUT A G UN. THAT WAS NEVER CLE ARED UP AS TO THE DAY BEFORE , WHE TH ERTHERE WAS A GUN , WHEN HE DR OVE BY AND SAID HE WAS GOING TO SHOOT DANNY R AY . AND THEN THE OTHER PART OF THE DEFENSE