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.
State of Florida v. Kenneth Watson
SC03-1965
THE NEXT CASE THIS MORNING
IS STATE OF FLORIDA VERSUS
WATSON. RACHEL MAY IT
PLEASE THE COURT KEN
NUNNALLY REPRESENT THE STATE
OF FLORIDA IN THIS APPEAL
WITH THE COURT'S LEAVE I
WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE SORRY
YOUR HONOR HAVING TROUBLE
GETTING THIS ONE ADJUSTED IS
IT A NEW ONE.
YES, IT IS LONGER BUT WE
ARE TRYING TO WE HAVE SOME
AUDIO PROBLEMS, SO --
THANK YOU.
WITH THE COURT'S LEAVE I
WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE FIVE
MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.
THE ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT
IS MENTAL RETAR ADDITIONAL.
LET ME ASK YOU ON THAT.
YOU ARE NOT USED TO SITTING
ON THAT PARTICULAR COUNSEL
TABLE, AND ISN'T THIS CASE
THE APPLICATION OF FIRMLY
ROOTED LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT
WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS
GOOD FOR THE GANDER
SPECIFICALLY USUALLY THE
STATE IS UP HERE ARRANGING,
THERE WAS EVIDENCE ON BOTH
SIDES BUT THE REFEREE MADE
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION SS
AND YOU NEED TO DEFER TO THE
REFEREE'S CONCLUSION ON
THOSE ISSUES WHEN THERE'S
DISPUTEDED EVIDENCE.
AND NOW WE ARE ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE STABLE DOESN'T
SAME PRINCIPLE APPLY HERE.
YES, SIR THE SAME
PRINCIPLE APPLIES.
BUT THE RESULT IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, IS
DIFFERENT, BECAUSE THERE IS
NO COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
TRIAL COURT'S FINDING WITH
RESPECT TO TWO OF THE THREE
REQUIRED CRITERIA FOR
DIAGNOSISMENTSAL
RETARDTATION.
BEFORE WE GET TO
COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE CLAIM, IS MR.
MR. WATSON IS STILL ON DEATH
ROW?
I MEAN IN A -- CELL IN DEATH
ROW.
OR HAS BEEN MOVED TO ANOTHER
PART OF THE PRISONS SYSTEM?
I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER
TO THAT.
I THINK HE IS STILL ON DEATH
ROW BUT I'M NOT SURE.
I GUESS WHAT I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHEN THE
COURT FIRST EXPRESSED ITS
CONCERN AS TO WHETHER THE
SCENE WAS VACATED WHY DIDN'T
THE STATE IMMEDIATELY TELLS
NOW THIS SENTENCE HAD BEEN
STAYED,EDS SZS 50IS SZ,EDS
SZS 50IS SZ
SOMETHING THAT CAN MEET THE
PRESENT ASSESSMENT
REQUIREMENT, IS BEING VALID.
YOU KNOW.
-- THIS IS LET'S TRY TO GET
TO AGAIN THE QUESTION WHERE
THERE IS TOEFD SUPPORT THE
JUDGE'S FINDING ON ADAPTIVE
FUNCTIONING, PRITCHARD YOUR
EXPERT CORRECT.
YES, MA'AM ALL RIGHT HE
ADMINISTERED THE SCALE OF
INDEPENDENT BEHAVIOR REVISED
HIS DEFENDANT AND TO SERGEANT
YOUNG, THE DEFENDANT'S SCORE
61 SERGEANT YOUNG'S SCORE 80
ACCORDING TO DR. PRITCHARD
BOTH RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT
WITH MENTAL RETARDATION THE
RESULTS OBTAINED BY DR.
PRITCHARD FOR BOTH
INTELLIGENCE TEST ADAPTIVE
FUNCTIONS TEST I'M READING
FROM AS YOU KNOW THE COURT
CAN'S ORDER NOT FROM THE BRIEF
OF THE DEFENDANT, PLACED
DEFENDANT WITHIN THE MENTAL
REARE TOEDTATION RANGE AND
THEN HE THE JUDGE FURTHER SAYS
IT IS UNCLEAR WHY DR.
PRITCHARD WOULD ADMINISTER THE
TEST TO SERGEANT YOUNG IN VIEW
OF HIS POSITION WITH WHICH
THIS COURT AGREES A DEATH ROW
PRISON GUARD MAY NOT HAVE
ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF
INMATE'S TRUE ADAPTIVE
ABILITIES GIVEN UNLIKELY
STRUCTURED ENVIRONMENT OF
DEATH ROW WHY ISN'T
PRITCHARD'S OWN TESTIMONY ON
THE SECOND PRONG WHICH WAS
UNCONTRADICTED SHOWS THAT HE
ABSOLUTE
ABSOLUTELY FALLS WITHIN THE
STANDARD FOR DEFICITS IN
ADAPTIVE FUNCTIONING FOR
MENTAL RETAR ADDITIONAL.
I HAVE TWO RESPONSES TO
THAT ONE LEGAL ONE FACTUAL,
FIRST OF ALL, DR. PRITCHARD
DID NOT SAY THAT THIS SCALE OF
INDEPENDENT BEHAVIOR
ADMINISTERED TO SERGEANT YOUNG
WAS CONSISTENT WITH MENTAL RE
RETARD ADDITIONAL, SECONDLY ED
A MINISTERING.
SO THE JUDGE IS WRONG WHEN
SAYS -- SAID THAT, THE JUDGE
SAID ACCORDING TO PRITCHARD
BOTH RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT
WITH MENTAL RETAR ADDITIONAL
HE IS THE JUDGE HAS IN THIS
ORDER HAS MISSTATED DR.
PRICHTARD'S TESTIMONY?
HE HAS EITHER MISSTATED DR.
PRITCHARD'S TESTIMONY OR WAS
MISTAKEN AS TO WHAT DR.
PRITCHARD SAID DR. PRITCH AARD
DID NOT SAY SCORE OF 08 WAS
CONSISTENT WITH MENTAL RETAR
ADDITIONAL, SECONDLY INSOFAR
AS THE NOTION THAT USING A
PRISON GUARD, IS
INAPPROPRIATE, IN CONDUCT THE
PRESAINT DAPTIVE ASSESSMENT
THE ONLY THING THAT SAY THERE
IS MUCH DISCUSSION OF THAT IN
ATKINS VERSUS VIRGINIA I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT IF IT WAS
ACCEPTABLE OR REFERENCED IN
THERE, AND I WOULD POINT OUT,
THAT ATKINS, USED THE VERY
SAME DEFINITION OF MENTAL
RETAR ADDITIONAL THAT THIS
TRIAL JUDGE ATTEMPTED TO APPLY
AND APPLIED WRONGLY, I THINK
IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR TO
ZLAUG PRITCHARD DID ANYTHING
WHATSOEVER WRONG WHEN HE
FOLLOWED THE STANDARD OF HIS
PROFESSION AND FOLLOWED THE
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA DID THE
BEST HE COULD DO DO THAT.
DR. PRICHTARD DID THE
QUESTION IS THE DEFENSE'S
EXPERTS, WHICH THE JUDGE
DETERMINED WERE CREDIBLE AS
WELL.
WELL.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
ISSUES, SURROUNDING THE
ASSESSMENTS CONDUCTED BY THE
DEFENSE EXPERTS, AND LET ME
START, PERHAPS, WITH THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT ONE, AND THAT
WOULD BE DR. KEEZ, MR. KEYS,
TESTIFIED THAT MR. WATSON
PRODUCED AN ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR
SCORE OF 2 # 3.
THAT IS 3 POINTS HIGHER THAN
THE ABSOLUTE LOWEST SCORE YOU
CAN POSSIBLY GET ON THE
VIOLENT.
-- AND THE POINT IS THAT DR.
KEYS IN ADDITION TO THE ERRORS
HE MADE IN ADMINISTERRING THAT
VINE LAND IS TESTIFYING THAT
IS CONSISTENT WITH MR.
MR. WATSON'S BEHAVIOR AND THAT
IS CONSISTENT, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN WITH THE BEHAVIOR OF
A NEWBORN --
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE ARC TO GO
THE JURY, IT IS GOOD WE ARE
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HOPE
WE ARE, JUST SOMETHING THAT IS
BOTHERING ME ABOUT WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING ABOUT THE ADAPTIVE
BEHAVIOR, BECAUSE ATKINS
REQUIRES THAT THE SAYS IF YOU
ARE MENTALLY RETARD EDED REDICE
CULPABILITY FOR THE CRIME,
ISN'T THE ASSESSMENT NOT
WHETHER WHAT THEY ARE DOING 20
YEARS LATER IN PRISON, BUT
TRYING TO EXTRAPOLATE BACK TO
-- AS TO WHETHER ADAPTIVE
BEHAVIOR AT THE TIME OF THE
CRIME WAS KEEPING WITH MENTMENT
REEL TAR ADDITIONAL, O
RETARDATION, COULD YOU EXPLAIN
THAT?
THAT IS PROBABLY AN ISSUE WE
ARE GOING TO CONFRONT AT SOME
POINT, IT IS FWHOOT AT COUPLE
IS DECIDED ATKINS WAS DECIDED
BASED UPON THE DEFINITION
CONTAINED WITHIN THE DSM,
WHICH REQUIRES PRESENT
DEFICITS AND DAIPTIVE
FUNCTIONING, NOW I DON'T KNOW
HOW OR WHY THAT ARGUMENT
DIDN'T GET DECIDED BUT IT HAS
NOT BEEN.
DOESN'T, LOGICALLY SINCE IT
IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO
MAKE SOMEONE INELIGIBLE FOR
THE DEATH SENTENCE, IF
PERCHANCE SOMEBODY GOT HIT
OVER A HEAD IN PRISON, AND WAS
NOW YOU KNOW, BRAIN DAMAGED OR
WHATEVER THAT IS NOT GOING TO
CHANGE -- YOU'VE GOT TO ASSESS
WHAT THEY WERE AT THE TIME OF
THE CRIME, DON'T UP?
.
WELL, NOT TO -- NOT I MEAN
NO DISRESPECT THE EXAMPLE THAT
YOU USED OF AN INJURY ACQUIRED
IN PRISON DOESN'T WORK THAT IS
NOT MENTAL RETARDATION THAT
WOULD BE DEMENTIA.
RIGHT THE CONTENT OF MENTAL
RETARDATION IS ACTUALLY THAT
IT IS A PERMANENT STATE WHICH
IS DEVELOPED PRIOR TO THE AGE
OF 18.
AND THE MATTER OF ADAPTIVE
BEHAVIOR IS SOME EVIDENCE, OF
THE CONDITION --
NOT EXACTLY, JUSTICE, THE
NOTION OF INTELLIGENCE AND
ICHLTSQ SCORE, IF YOU WILL --
IQ SCORE TO SOME DEGREE
ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT THAT HAS
BEEN CREATED BY THE POWERS OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL POURS THAT BE.
THE DSMAND THE PROFESSION, IF
YOU WILL, IS VERY CLEAR IN
STATING THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
IS DIAGNOSED PROPERLY UNDER
THESE CRITERIA BEING MENTALLY
RETARDED, AT THE AGE OF 20,
JUST FOR EXAMPLE, MAY OVER THE
COURSE OF TIME ACQUIRE
SUFFICIENT ADAPTIVE SKILLS
THAT WHEN HE IS 30 A DIAGNOSIS
OF MENTAL RETARDATION IS NOT
PROPER.
BEFORE WE GET 250 FAR DOWN
THAT ROAD THAT IS NOT AN --
TOO FAR DOWN THAT ROAD THAT IS
NOT ISSUE HERE PRECISELY THE
ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THERE IS
SUST EVIDENCE IN THIS --
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS
RECORD TO SUPPORT WHAT A --
FOUND.
CONTRACT IS CORRECT.
RETARD SNOOIGS THE EXAMPLE
I GAVE NOT REALLY WHAT THAT
ISSUE HERE, THE SECOND
COMPONENT PART THAT WE ARE
DEALING WITH OR CONCERNED WITH
WITH THE DIAGNOSIS FORMENT
REEL TARREDATION IS PRE-18
ONSET THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT
WE HAVE OF MR. WATSON'S PRE-18
INTELLECTAL FUNCTIONING IS A
SCHOOL TEST THAT WAS GIVEN WEP
HE WAS MUCH LIKE 12 YEARS OLD
PRODUCED IQ SCORE ABOVE THE
RANGE MENTAL RETARDATION WITH
COMMENTS BY THE EXAMINER THAT
HE SEEMED TO BE FUNCTIONING AT
A HIGHER LEVEL THAN HIS SCORE
INDICATED, THAT HE DID NOT PUT
FORTH GOOD EFFORT, AND THAT
THE SUBTESTS ON THAT TEST THAT
INDICATE INNATE INTELLIGENCE
INDICATE AVERAGE SCORE THE
TESTS HE DID POORLY ON WERE
THE ONES THE WERE ACQUIRED
KNOWLEDGE THAT ONE GETS BY
GOING TO SCHOOL, AND IS
UNDISPUTED MR. WATSON WASN'T
GOING TO SCHOOL.
WASN'T THERE SOME QUESTION
ABOUT CREDENTIALS OF THE
PERSON WHO ADMINISTERED THAT
PARTICULAR TEST?
NONE THAT WERE PROVEN,
OTHER DLAN KEYS UNWILLINGNESS
TO ACCEPT THE TEST, BECAUSE HE
DIDN'T LIKE THE RESULTS.
WAS THERE SOME OTHER
EVIDENCE, DIDN'T SOME OF THE
OTHER EXPERTS TALK ABOUT
THINGS THAT LIKE HIM BEING
PLACED IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
PROGRAM, HIS LOW FUNCTIONING,
DURING THAT TIME?
AND OTHER THINGS THAT HAPPENED
SQUINT TO THE -- SUBSEQUENT TO
THE TIME THAT 11 YEAR OLD TEST
WAS GIVEN?
YES, MA'AM THEY TALKED
ABOUT SPECIAL EDUCATION
PLACEMENT, ALL OF THEM SAID
EXCEPT FOR DR. PRITCHARD THAT
THAT WAS BECAUSE HE WASMENTLY
RETARDED DR. PITCHARD WAS THE
ONLY ONE BOTHERED TO FIND OUT
WHAT IT REALLYIMENT -- MEANT
THE FACT TURNED OUT TO BE HE
WAS IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
BECAUSE HE COULDN'T READ NOT
BECAUSE HE WAS MENTALLY
RETARDED.
AND --
I KNOW YOU ARE INTO
REBUTTAL BUT THERIS ANOTHER
ISSUE THAT CONCERNED ME THAT I
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
SPOKE ON, BEFORE YOU SAT
COUNTY -- DOWN, THAT IS ISSUE
OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IN JURY SELECTION AS
TO JUROR VENTOTHE TRIAL COURT
ORDER DOESN'T REALLY EXPLAIN
MANY REASONS FOR THAT WE
APPARENTLY WOULD HAVE REVERSED
ON THAT ISSUE WHERE IT NOT FOR
THE FAILURE TO OBJECT ON THAT
PARTICULAR CLAIM.
JUSTICE CANTERO I BELIEVE
THE TRIAL COURT INTENDED TO
DECIDE THAT ISSUE BASED ON THE
PROCEDURAL BAR THAT IT HAD
BEEN RAISED LITIGATED ON
DIRECT APPEAL.
THE --
WHOLE POINT ON DIRECT
APPEAL WAS THAT WE AFFIRM
BECAUSE THE OBJECTION AT TRIAL
WAS NOT ON THE CORRECT BASIS
WAS NOT ON THE SAME BASIS AS
IT WAS ON APPEAL, AND SO I
DON'T SEE THAT AS A PROCEDURAL
BAR WHEN YOU ARE ALLEGING
INEFFECTIVE OF COUNSEL FOR
FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE
CORRECT MAKE THE CORRECT
OBJECTION.
OBJECTION.
I THINK IN THE BOTTOM LINE
FINAL ANALYSIS WHAT WE HAVE IS
NO SO CALLED BAD JURY SALT ON
JURY HE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL
CHALLENGE HE GOT ASKEDFORATION
ASKEDFORATIONAL PREEMPTORY GOT
THE ADDITIONAL PREEMPTORY I
DON'T THINK UNDER THESE FACTS
CAN SHOW PREJUDICE --
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE
CASE THAT WILL BE ARGUED NEXT
MONTH WILL ACTUALLY DETERMINE
ERM WHETHER PREJUDICE MUST BE
AT A BIAS EDED JURY SAT ORL
WHETHER A DIFFERENT RESULT IEN
PALE, THAT IS THE ISSUE, IN
CARATELLI.
LIKE THEY DISPOSED OF THIS
ONE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER --
ALSO BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN,
WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF
THE MITIGATING EVIDENCE THAT
WAS PRESENTED AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING VERSUS
WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE
PENALTY PHASE OF THIS TRIAL,
BECAUSE OF COURSE THE ARGUMENT
IS BEING MADE THAT COUNSEL WAS
INEFFECTIVE, BECAUSE COUNSEL
DID NOT THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE
AND PRESENT, THIS MITIGATION,
THAT IS NOW BEEN PRESENTED AT
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
WELL.
EXCUSE ME, AT TRIAL.
THERE WAS NO MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND IN THIS
CASE?
I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
AT TRIAL, THE DEFENSE PUT ON
THE TESTIMONY OF DR. WHO HE
ALSO TESTIFIED AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THE DR.
TESTIFIED IN HIS PIN THIS
DEFENDANT IS NOTMENTLY RETARD
RETARDED THE DR. FURTHER
TESTIFIED AT EVIDENTIARY
HEARING THAT HIS PIN HAD NOT
-- OPINION HAD NOT CHANGED
DIDN'T THE DOCTOR ALSO MAKE
STATEMENT TO THE DEFENSE
COUNSEL TO THE EFFECT HE
NEEDED TO HAVE FURTHER
ASSESSMENT DONE OF THIS
PARTICULAR DEFT?
HE DID AND AFTER BEING --
AWARE OF FURTHER ASSESSMENTS
DONE IN POSTCONVICTION CONTEXT
STILL DID NOT CHANGE HIS
OPINION.
DR. TOOMER -- STILL DIDN'T
CHANGE HIS OPINION EVEN THOUGH
HE WAS AWARE OF ALL OF THAT.
AT THE TIME HE TESTIFIED AT
EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDING WHICH
REWITH RESPECT TO THE TRIAL
COUNSEL WAS WELL AWARE THAT
THIS DEFENDANT HAD A DRUG
PROBLEM HE FELT LIKE THE
MENTAL STATUS DEFENSE WAS THE
BEST ONE TO USE HE PUT THAT IN
FRONTS OF A JURY HE DID NOT
PUT IN FRONT OF JURY EVIDENCE
OF MR. WATSON'S DRUG ABUSE
BECAUSE HE DIDN'T THINK IT
WOULD HELP IN KON TENTH OF THE
CRIME HE PUT THAT ON IN FRONT
OF THE JUDGE, SO WHAT WE HAVE
HERE IS BASICALLY, AT THE
MOST, CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE AND
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT IS
SERM NOT THE STANDARD HE
CANNOT STAEB DEFICIENT
PERFORMANCE OR PREJUDICE WITH
RESPECT TO INEFFECTIVENESS
COMPONENT OF THE PENALTY PHASE
CLAIM I WILL RESERVE REMAINING
30 SECONDS, UNLESS THERE ARE
FURTHER QUESTIONS SEE HOW MUCH
I CAN SAY IN THAT LENGTHS OF
TIME.
WE WILL GIVE YOU
OPPORTUNITY ALSO TO FINISH
YOUR ANSWER TO JUSTICE
CONVINCE'S QUESTION WITH
REGARD TO WHAT WAS IN THE
RECORD I THINK YOU DIDN'T GET
THE FULL ANSWER TO HER.
SORRY.
ARE YOU SATISFIED SHE HAD
ASKED CAN ABOUT THE RECORDS
AND ABOUT THE WHAT WAS IN THE
RECORDS THOSE KINDS OF THINGS
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A
CHANCE TO FINISH YOUR ANSWER
TO HER.
I'M NOT SURE --
IT CONCERNS ME BECAUSE
THERE WAS NO MITIGATION FOUND,
AND IN THIS CASE.
SO NOW WE HAVE HERE, ON THE
PENALTY -- ON THE PENALTY
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, EVIDENCE
THAT IS PUT ON, AND SO THAT IS
OF REAL CONCERN TO ME, WHAT
WAS PRESENTED AT THE PENALTY
PHASE OTHER THAN DR. TOO MANY
SNOOER DR. TOOMER AND HIS MOM
HIS MOM AND SISTER, MAYBE
BROTHER TESTIFIED AT HEARING
BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE, THAT
ULTIMATE SENTENCING HEARING
THE TRIAL COUNSEL DELIBERATELY
DID NOT PUT THEM BEFORE THE
JURY BECAUSE OF THE DRUG ABUSE
HISTORY.
.
.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT MY
NAME RACHEL DAY I REPRESENT
MR. WHAT A SPINALE CROSS
APLANET ON THIS CASE WITH ME
AT COUNSEL TABLE COCOUNSEL --
ROOENS ECKERT.
THAT IS STRANGE POSITION
FOR ME THE LOW.
MAKE THE MOST OF IT.
.
MAKE THE MOST OF IT.
I'M ENJOYING IT YOUR
HORNOR, THE LOWER COURT DID
FIND BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THAT MR. WATSON IS
MENTALLY RETARDED.
--
-- ARGUMENT THAT THE
DEFENSE REPRENTED NO EVIDENCE
OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR?
I WOULD ADDRESS THAT IN
THREE I WAS YOUR HONOR FIRST
OF ALL, THE LOWER COURT DID
REFER SPECIFICALLY AT THE
BEGINNING OF HIS ORDER TO THE
RATIONALE IN ATKINS WHICH
TALKS ABOUT HOW MENTALLY
RETARDED PEOPLE ARE LEFT CULL
-- LESS CULPABLE THAN PEOPLE
OF NORMAL INTELLIGENCE AT
BEGINNING OF THE LOWER COURT
ORDER.
I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS
SPECIFICALLY MR. NUNNALLY'S
STATEMENT THAT DEFENSE
PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE ON ADAPT
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR WHICH IS ONE
OF THE PRONGS THAT WE HAVE TO
DETERMINE FOR THERE TO BE
MENTAL RETARDATION.
THE DEFEND PRESENTED GREAT
DEAL OF EVIDENCE ON DAIPTIVE
BEHAVIOR YOUR HONOR FIRST OF
ALL DR. KEYS AND DR. PLAN DINE
BOTH ADMINISTERED INSTRUMENTS
TO FAMILY MEMBERS OF MR.
WATSON TO DETERMINE HOW FAR HE
FUNCTIONED NOT IN HIGHLY
STRUCTURED PRISON ENVIRONMENT
BUT IN THE REAL WORLD BEFORE
HE WAS CHARGED WITH THIS
PARTICULAR CRIME.
AND WE ALSO PUT ON TESTIMONY
LATE -- LAY TESTIMONY OF
SEVERAL FAMILY MEMBERS TO THE
LOWER SKOURT -- COURT SOME OF
THEM WERE PEOPLE THAT I THINK
THEY WERE ALL PEOPLE ACTUALLY
THAT DR. KEYS HAD SPOKEN TO.
WELL YOU COULD PAINT A
PICTURE, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE
THE DOCTOR THAT FOUND THESE
TESTS, THAT PUT HIM IN THREE
YEAR OLD LEVEL FOR SOMETHING,
THESE RIDICULOUS SEEMS TO ME,
ALMOST LIKE THAT HE WOULD HAVE
TO BEE LIKE A BABY TYPE OF
THING.
WHAT WAS AT THE TIME YOU KNOW,
AT THE TIME OF THIS CRIME, HE
WAS LIVING AT HOME?
WAS HE DID HE HOLD A JOB?
DID HE -- DO HIS OWN SHOPPING?
WAS THERE THAT KIND OF
TESTIMONY, AND COULD YOU
EXPLAIN IN LAYPERSON'S TERMS
WHAT HIS LEVEL OF FUNCTIONING
WAS AS TESTIFIED TO AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
THERE WASN'T A GREAT DEAL
OF TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER HE
WOULD GO SHOPPING HE DID HAVE
ONE OR TWO JOBS HE LOST THEM
HE WORKED AS DRAWING DEALER HE
WASN'T A VERY GOOD DRUG DEALER
BECAUSE HE COULDN'T MAKE
CHANGE.
HE WAS PUT OWING INCOMPETENT
HE SURVIVED VERY MUCH BECAUSE
OF THE ASSISTANCE OF HIS
FAMILY MEMBERS.
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR
JUSTICE PARIENTE LA IN THE
RECORD SHOWS FACTUALLY THOSE
WERE JUST CONCLUSIONS THAT HE
DIDN'T FUNCTION VERY WELL,
WHAT IS EVIDENCE AS BEST CAN
YOU RELATE.
BEST, THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF
WHICH WERE INTO EVIDENCE THE
VINELAND ADMINISTERRED BY DR.
KEYS AND DR. PLAN DINO
SUGGESTED THAT HE WAS SOMEBODY
WHO COULDN'T MAKE SIMPLE MEALS
FOR HIMSELF HAD DIFFICULTY HE
COULDN'T OPERATE A CHECKING
ACCOUNT, HE COULDN'T --
DID HE HAVE WAS HE --
NO.
IF A DRUG DEALER.
YOU DON'T GET --
YOU KNOW, I GUESS AND THIS
CASE SINCE THE JUDGE FOUND
THIS YOU KNOW, WE MAY SUSTAIN
THAT, BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE
TO COME UP WITH IT,BUT I GET
CONCERNED WHEN YOU'VE GOT A
EXPERT THAT IS GOING TO SAY
THAT SOMEBODY GOT SCORES OF
COMMUNICATION AT 3 YEARS,
SOCIALIZATION FOUR YEARS,
DETAILY LIVING FIVE YEARS, AND
THEN YOU DON'T HAVE THAT THE
LATEST WHO WHAT WAS GOING ON
IN THIS PERSON'S LIFE AT THE
TIME?
WAS HE YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE
WAS HE WHAT KIND OF JOB?
DID HE HAVE -- WAS HE -- WHAT
TYPE OF JOBS DEHOLD WHEN HE
HELD A JOB?
WERE THEY MENIAL JOBS.
PRETTY MENIAL YOUR HON
SNOOR WHAT WAS EVIDENCE THAT
HE COULDN'T EVEN MAKE CHANGE?
EXPLAIN WHAT WAS THAT
TESTIMONY.
ONE OF THE DOCTORS I
BELIEVE DR. GOLDBERG ASKED HIM
TO MAKE CHANGE WHEN DOING HIS
EVALUATION, HE COULDN'T DO IT.
BECAUSE -- MAN CAN'T EVEN TELL
THE TIME.
ON AN ANALOG CLOCK.
IN JUVENILE COURT JUVENILE
FACILITY.
ADEQUACY IN JUFSHL NILE
FACILITY YES YOUR HONOR.
THAT DEFINITION TALKING
ABOUT.
A PERSON WOULD YOU OFTEN SEE
INSTITUTIONLIZED.
AS DESCRIBED AS SO -- THAT IS
INDICATED AT IN ALL THE
JUVENILE PLACEMENTS HISTORY OF
THE JUVENILE.
THE JUVENILE PLACEMENTS THE
RECORDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO
US, WE TRIED VERY HARD TO GET
THEM, AND WE WERE NOT
SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THEM.
SO THERE SL -- REALLY ISN'T
EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR OTHER THAT
WAY.
MOST-FAVORED NATION
JUVENILE PROGRAMS, MD
PROGRAMS --
WE JUST DON'T KNOW YOUR HON
OOR.
DON'T KNOW WITH THE WHAT
TYPE OF PROGRAM WHAT LEVEL
WHAT PROGRAM IMENT WAS?
NO, WE TRIED TO GET THE
RECORDS WE WERE NOT
SUCCESSFUL.
SUCCESSFUL.
AGAIN WOULD YOU COME BACK
AGAIN, PLEASE TRY ANSWER TO
YOU KEEP SAYING MENIAL WHAT
WERE JOBS WHAT DID HE COULD
WHAT HAPPENED IN SCHOOL THOSE
ARE QUESTIONS THE FACTUAL
INFORMATION WHAT DOES THE
RECORD SHOW NOT JUST RESULTS
OF THE TEST, THAT IS THE
QUESTION I THINK THAT IS
PROCPOUNDED IN -- NEEDS
BYDRESSED, SFLEES OKAY AS FAR
AS -- SCHOOL IS CONCERNED HE
WAS IN SPECIAL KAEGSZ.
EDUCATION.
NOW, AGAIN THE RECORDS ARE
LESS THAN PERFECT AND NOT VERY
LEDGE I WILL HE WAS IN SPECIAL
EDUCATION, THERE IS EVER HE
HAD VERY LOW IQ AT AGE 11.
HE WAS HE DID PLAY HE DID
RECORD NOT STELLAR DR. KEYES
TESTIFIED HIS ATTENDANCE
RECORD WAS NOT STELLAR WHICH,
AND THAT IS VERY, VERY
CONSISTENT WITH PEOPLE WITH
MENTAL RETARDATION.
DID HE FINISH EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM FOR SPECIAL DIPLOMA OR
ANYTHING?
IT IS NOT CLEAR I DON'T
BELIEVE.
SO.
WHAT IS CLEAR THAT -- DID
HE GET A JOB SOMEPLACE WHAT
WAS THE JOB?
HE OE-- TOLD I BELIEVE DR.
BLANDINOH, HE HAD WORKED THE
INDICATIONS -- REPORT TO GO
DR. BLANDINO REALLY A ALL WE
HAVE.
NO OTHER RECORD OF ANY
KIND.
NO YOU CAN'T GIVE US ANY
MORE OF A WORD PICTURE OF THIS
PERSON'S LIFE, HOW OLD WAS HE
AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION
OF THIS CRIME?
.
IN HIS 20s.
.
PARDON.
HE WAS IN HIS 30 #'S I
DON'T RECALL.
20 #'S THAT IS 10-YEAR
SPAN, YOU KNOW WAS 20E?
WAS HE 29?
THINK ABOUT IT.
ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IN
YOU ARE SERM MORE FAMILIAR
WITH THIS REGARD THAN I AM.
YOU KNOW BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR
REPRESENTING THIS PERSON.
AND YOU CAN'T PAINT ANY MORE
OF A WORD PICTURE OF WHO HE
WAS, YOU KNOW, HE WAS BORN IN
WHATEVER YEAR, AND HIS PARENTS
WERE WHATEVER HE HE WENT TO
SCHOOL TILL AGE SO AND SO
DIDN'T ATTEND, AND HE DROPPED
OUT OF SCHOOL, AND NEVER
WORKED AFTER THAT, OR, WAS IN
THE MILITARY --
HE CERTAINLY WAS NPT
MILITARY --
YOU ARE GIVING US A -- A
LITTLE -- I'M HAVING I THINK
WE ARE ALL HAVING DIFFICULTY
WITH YOU NOT BEING ABLE TO
TELL US ABOUT THIS PERSON WHEN
YOU ARE UP HERE DEFENDING HIM,
ESPECIALLY WITH FINDING OF
MENTAL RETARDATION, WHO IS
THIS GUY.
THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO DID
NOT HAVE A STEADY WORK HISTORY
I THINK THAT IS FAIRLY CLEAR,
IF HE HAD BEEN WE WOULD HAVE
HAD RECORDS OF IT WE TRIED
VERY HARD HAVE WE DIDN'T GET
ANYTHING AT BEAST -- AT BEST
HE WAS DAY LABORER PAID IN
CASH IF HE DID ANYTHING LIKE
THAT MOST OF THE TIME GOT IN
WITH WRONG CROWD WAS DRUG
DEALER NOT VERY GOOD DRUG
DEALER COULDN'T MAKE CHANGE.
WE HAVE BEEN TRIALING TO
GET YJD -- UNDERSTOODING OF
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR NOT SURE WE
GOT THAT PICTURE EXCEPT FOR
NUMBERS THAT EXPERTS TALKED
ABOUT.
AND NOT TELLING TIME OR MAKE
CHANGE, HOW ARE THE O'ER THE
THIRD POINT I WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE GET IT TO WHICH
MR. NUNNALLY TALKS ABOUT IS
THE ONSET PRIOR TO AGE 18.
NOW
NOW, PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT AND I
WILL GIVE YOU APPARENTLY I'M
LOOKING AT PSYCHIATRIST
DUDLEY'S SUMMARY OF IT.
HE GREW UP IN EXTREME POVERTY
NEGLECT PHYSICAL ABUSE WHICH
COME -- COMPOUNDED HIS
COGNITIVE DIFFICULTIES HE WAS
IF YOU ARING DIMINISHED BY
HEAVY USE OF MARIJUANA AS A
TEENAGER.
TELL US ABOUT ONSET BEFORE 18.
.
DR. KEYS MADE THE POINT
VERY CLEARLY IN HIS TESTIMONY,
BOTH ON DIRECT EXAMINATION AND
ON EXAMINATION BY THE LOWER
COURT CALLED HIM BACK AS A
COURT WITNESS TO ARGUE --
ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS, THAT --
MR. WATSON WAS HE HAD SHOWED
MARKED DEFICIENCIES IN
ADAPTIVE FUNCTIONING BEFORE
THE AGE OF 18.
WE DIDN'T HAVE A DIAGNOSIS OF
MENTAL RETARDATION BEFORE AGE
OF 18 BUT WE DR. KEYS FELT AND
HE TESTIFIED THE JUDGE FOUND
HIM CREDIBLE THAT IF HE WAS
ABLE TO SHOW THAT MR. WATSON
HAD DEMONSTRATED ADAPTIVE
DEFICITS, BEFORE HE WAS AGE
18, THAT WOULD ALLOW DR. KEYS
TO MAKE RETRODIAGNOSIS MENTAL
RETARDATION.
WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE OF
WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THIS
PERSON'S LIFE BEFORE AGE 18?
HE COULDN'T COOK HE
COULDN'T DO SIMPLE HOUSEHOLD
TASKS, HE WAS ACADEMICALLY
APPALLING THE YOUNGER KIDS
WOULD HELP HIM WITH HOMEWORK.
NOW IT IS STARTING TO BE A
PICK -- WORD PICTURE
PARTICULAR THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
TRYING JUST LIKE IF YOU WERE
ON THE OTHER TRYING TO THAT
SAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOUND,
YOU DO BEST JOB AS ADVOCATE TO
SAY, HOW MANY THERE WERE THIS
MANY CHILDREN, ALL THE OLDER
-- YOUNGER CHILDREN HELPING
HIM DO HIS HOMEWORK.
OTHER CHILDREN HELPING HIM
DO HOMEWORK ABSOLUTELY THEY
DON'T KNOW THAT I'M JUST
ASKING SO TELL US THAT.
TESTIMONY TO THAT EFFECT
BOTH FROM LAY QUITES INNES AND
FROM THEE AND FROM THE EXMOERTS
ADMINISTERED TESTS TO THEM
THERE WAS ALSO I MEAN THE
INCIDENT THAT ONE OF THE
BROTHERS DESCRIBED WHERE
MR. WATSON IS SOMEWHAT DARKER
SKINNED THAN BROTHERS AND
SISTERS THEY WOULD TEASE HIM
ABOUT IT CALL HIM OREO HE
THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD GO AND
-- PUT HIMSELF IN BELIEF IN
ORDER TO MAKE SKIN WHITER SO
HE WOULDN'T GET TEASED THERE
IS SEST FROM EVERY SINGLE
SIBLING HE WAS TEASED BECAUSE
HE WAS SO STUPID BECAUSE DON'T
-- COULDN'T DO HOMEWORK REALLY
DIDN'T HAVE ACADEMICS THAT
EVEN YOUNGER SIBLINGS HAD.
THEY IT IS VERY, VERY CLEAR
FROM THE TESTIMONY FROM THE
LAY TESTIMONY AS WELL AS FROM
THE EXPERTS --
WHAT DID HIS MOTHER SAY.
MOTHER DID NOT TESTIFY AT
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING SHE
WAS SPOKEN TO BY THE EXPERTS,
AND SHEE WAS KIND OF VAGUE IN
HER MEMORY TO BE PERFECT WILL
HONEST IN FACT DR. KEYS DID
NOT SCORE HER -- VINELAND
INSTRUMENT SHE REALLY COULDN'T
REMEMBER A WHOLE LOT SHE IS
PRETTY O OLD AT HIS POINT THE
EVIDENCE FROM THE SIBLINGS
MUCHES MORE USEFUL THEY WERE
THERE THEY WAY ROUND HIM A LOT
MORE.
TESTIMONY OF COURSE WAS
THAT THE MOTHER WAS IN SOME
KIND OF A DEPRESSIVE STATE,
SHE WOULD BE ISOLATED FROM THE
CHILDREN A LOT OF THE TIME, I
THINK ONE OF THE -- TESTIFIED
SHE WOULD TAKE HERSELF OFF
INTO ANOTHER ROOM AND -- EIGHT
LAUNDRY BLEACH, LAUNLDRY
STARCH DRINK COCA-COLA
BASICALLY OLDER KIDS RAISED
THE YOUNGER KIDS SO THE
CHILDREN WERE -- REPORT BESIDE
HIS BEHAVIOR BEFORE AGE 18, --
THAN WAS THE MOTH SNOOER DID
DEFENDANT HAVE PRIOR CRIMINAL
HISTORY.
YES.
WHAT WAS IT?
THERE WAS A SEXUAL ASSAULT
IN GEORGIA, UNDER THERE WAS
ANOTHER ONE ANOTHER -- A
ROBBERY.
SO SHOTGUN --
SORRY.
CARJACKING SOMETHING TO DO
WITH A SHOTGUN?
I DON'T RECALL THE SHOTGUN
YOUR HONOR.
BUT CERTAINLY WAS NOT AN ANGEL
BEFORE THIS CRIME.
.
WELL I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE
CRIMINAL 4I69 MORE IN RELATION
TO EVIDENCE OF MENTAL
RETARDATION.
WELL, I THINK YOU KNOW, THE
FACT THAT HE HAD A CRIMINAL
HISTORY IS NOT DISPOSITIVE
EITHER WAY, AS DR. BLANLDINO
ADDRESSED THOROUGHLY DR. KEYS
ADDRESSED, PEOPLE WITH MILD
MENTAL RETARDATION WHAT
MR. WATSON HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED
WITH ARE PEOPLE WHO GET INTO
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
FREQUENTLY, YOU KNOW, THE
CRIMES HE COMMITTED WERE NOT
ROCKET SIGNS CRIMES.
IF -- SCIENCE CRIMES IF INDEED
HE DID COMMIT THEM.
MR. WATSON THE FACT THAN HEING
HAD MALL ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR
DOES NOT PRECLUDE DIAGNOSIS
MENTAL RETARDATION I THINK THE
RECORD SHOES VERY CLEARLY THAT
IS THE CASE.
LET ME ASK THE QUESTION
FROM ANOTHER SENSE CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE, HE WAS
EXAMINED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY DR.
-- [INAUDIBLE]
WERE THERE TWO THE DR. MUTTER,
COM
COMPETENCY EVALUATION THERE
WERE THREE DOCTORS, THREE
PSYCHIATRISTS, WHO DID A
COMPETENCY EVALUATION HE WAS
FOUND TO BE COMPETENT.
WHEN THEY FOUND HIM SAID HE
WAS FUNCTIONING -- FUNCTIONAL
-- BUT STREET WISE I DON'T
THINK THEY QUITE A USE HAD TO
TERM IN FACT ONE OF THE
DOCTORS DID SUGGEST
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING
NEEDED TO BE DONE THEY
SUGGESTED THAT HE WAS VERY LOW
INTELLECTAL FUNCTIONING BUT
THE COMPETENCY EVALUATION
PARTICULAR -- DR. POINTS OUT
CAN YOU BE COMPETENT AND YOU
CAN BE MENTALLY RETARDED ONE
DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE OTHER BUT
AS FAR AS DR. TOOMER IS
CONCERNED, HE SAID THAT HE AT
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THAT
HE HAD RECOMMENDED THAT
MR. WATSON BE EVALUATED BOTH
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICALLY, AND FOR
MENTAL RETARDATION.
HIS EXAMINATION WAS VERY MUCH
A PRELIMINARY LOOK-SEE KIND OF
VALUATION IT WAS NOT A FULL
MENTAL RETARDATION WORK UP.
WE YOU ARE ALSO HERE ON
APPEAL WHERE YOU ARE HERE ON
THE APPEAL OF THE SUMMARY
DENIAL OF THE GUILT PHASE
ISSUE.
SURE.
THE ISSUE WHAT MORE COR OR
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN
GUILTY FACE -- GUILT PHASE
DEVELOPING MENTAL STATUS
DIMINISH ED
DIMINISHED CAPACITY ONLY ISN'T
A DEFENSE SO WHAT EVIDENCE
WOULD YOU PUT ON TO SHOW THAT
IF ANY THAT THE DEFENSE
COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN THE
GUILT PHASE.
I THINK AS FAR AS THE GUILT
PHASE MENTAL HEALTH ASPECT WAS
CONCERNED I THINK WE WERE
CONCERNED MORE ABOUT
DEVELOPING A POSSIBLE KIND OF
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION SORT OF
ISSUE, I MEAN HE IS MENTALLY
RETARDED.
IS THAT -- THAT HE THEY
DIDN'T PURSUE MENTAL VOLUNTARY
INTOXICATION.
NOT SO MANY WORDS BUT THE
FACTS WERE.
THE FACTS WERE --
YOU HAD COMBINATION OF
MENTAL RETARDATION HIS BRAIN
DAMAGE, AND MANY INTOXICATION.
-- THE HUFF HEARING THAT
YOU WOULD PUT ON EVIDENCE
ABOUT THOSE THAT THOSE ISSUES
TO SHOW --
YES, HE DID.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ALSO
THE JURY SELECTION ISSUE SINCE
THIS WAS -- WAS AN ISSUE THIS
COURT ORIGINALLY DID GRANT NEW
TRIAL FOR MR. WATSON ON.
AND THEN ON REHEARING, ON
REHEARING MOTION BY THE STATE
REVERSED THE GRANT OF A NEW
TRIAL.
THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT
MR. WATSON REQUESTED IN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON TO
DETERMINE THE TRIAL COUNSEL'S
STRATEGY, EVIDENTIARY HEARING
WAS NEVER GRANT OFFED I THINK
WE MADE THE POINT THAT IT
WOULD BEE VERY, VERY SIMPLE TO
CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
ON TRIAL COUNSEL'S -- NOT
PRESERVING BOTH OBJECTIONS TO
OBJECTIONABLE JUROR THE LOWER
COURT WAS VERY EXPLICIT
DENYING US THAT EVIDENTIARY
HEARING.
WHAT IF THE TRIAL COUNSEL
SAYS IT WASN'T STRATEGY I JUST
OE-- VOIR DIRE WENT ON TWO DAYS,
AND I JUST FORGOT THAT WAS
SOMETHING HE SAID.
IS THAT PER SE SUFFICIENT
PMGZ?
MR. WATSON WOULD ARGUE THAT
IT IS.
BUT WE HAVE A EVER HELD
ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT IS
SOMEONE IS NOT FUNCTIONING FOR
PURPOSES OF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE THEY JUST
SIMPLY MISSED AN ARGUMENT IN
VOIR DIRE.
I THINK THE CASE LAW THAT
WE REFERRED TO NOT BRIEF
SUGGESTED THAT COUNSEL HAS A
DUTY TO PREHE SPREERRVE ALL
POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS TO
OBJECTIONABLE JURY.
THEY MAY HAVE THAT DOES
FAILURE TO DO CAN THAT MAKE
THEM ABSOLUTELY AS MATTER OF
LAW DEFICIENT.
I THINK DEPENDING ON
CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU HAVE TO
TAKE IT ON CASE-BY-CASE BASIS,
MR. WATSON WOULD ARGUE IN THIS
CASE IT DOES.
DO YOU AGREE THAT IT
CARATELLI -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR
WITH THAT CASE.
PROBABLY NOT AS FAMILIAR AS
THIS COURT IS
WE ARE NOT THAT FAMILIAR
YET BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE
ARGUED NEXT MONTH BUT THE
ISSUE IS WHETHER A BIASED
JUROR HAS TO BE SAT NOD FOR
THEIR TO BE PREJUDICE OR JUST
DIFFERENT OUTCOME ON APPEAL
DID YOU EITHER DO YOU THINK
YOU COULD SHOW THAT A BIASED
JUROR WAS SAT OR -- HE WOULD
CARATELLI REALLY DISPOSE OF
THIS IF WE DECIDE THAT IT IS
NOT A QUESTION OF --
I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER
THAT QUESTION AT THIS POINT
YOUR HONOR I REALLY DON'T KNOW
CARATELLI WELL ENOUGH.
WHAT'S YOUR ASSERTION OF
PREJUDICE IN THIS CASE.
MY ASSERTION OF PREJUDICE
IS THAT FOR TRIAL DOWNS
DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE THIS
COURT WOULD HAVE GRANTED NEW
TRIAL.
YOUR ASSERTION IS NOT A
BIAS
BIASED JUROR SAT IN THIS CASE.
MY ASSERTION THAT IS
OBJECTIONABLE JUROR SAT IN
THIS CASE.
BUT NOT A BIASED JUROR
SOMEBODY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE
LIKED TO CHALLENGE IF YOU HAD
MORE PER EMRIES.
YES WE HAVE NOT -- THE
JURORS DON'T KNOW HOW BIASED
THEY WERE WE DIDN'T -- DIDN'T
GET EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON IT
I DON'T KNOW WAET WHAT
ASSERTION WOULD BE FIRST STAGE
WOULD BE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
AS FAR AS THE MATTER
RETARDATION I WOULD LIKE TO
ADDRESS MENTAL RETARDATION
POINT, I TKHINK THIS COURT
ASKED ABOUT RULE 3.2 # 0 # 3 I
THINK I WANTED TO MAKE THE
POINT THAT BOTH THE STATES AND
MYSELF ARE IN RARE POSITION
AGREEING RULE 3.203 ABOUT AS
NT VEHICLE FOR THIS SIMPLY
BECAUSE WENT AHEAD BEFORE RULE
3.2 # 03 WAS PROMULGATED.
WHAT FINDINGS OF LORCOURT
SURSUBSTANTIALLY NEY CORDANCE
WITH 3.2 # 03, AND OE-- THE --
THAT THE DEFINITION OF MENTAL
RETARDATION THAT WAS APPLIED
THE DSM, DEFINITION WAS
SECURELY WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAMES THAT WITHIN 3.2 # 03.
I ALSO MAKE THE POINT TO THIS
CASE THIS CASE IS UNIQUE.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, AS
FAR AS I'M AWARE IT IS THE
ONLY CASE IN WHICH THERE WAS A
FINDING OF MENTAL RETARDATION,
BETWEEN THE PROMULGATION OF
ATKINS IN JUNE 2 # 002, AND,
PROMULGATION BY THIS COURT
RULE 3.2 # 0 # 3 # IN OCTOBER
2 # 004 WHERE LOWER COURT
FOUND MENTAL RETARDATION, AND
THEY APPEALED IT, ON THE
INSTANCE MENTAL RETARDATION
HAS BEEN FOUND THE STATE HAS
NOT APPEALED IT EITHER BECAUSE
THEY CONCEDED MENTAL
RETARDATION, OR BECAUSE THEY
HAVEN'T APPEALED IT.
BUT --
BY THE WAY, JUST ONE THING
THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
GET AT, YOU AGREED THAT THERE
IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY BAR HERE
THAT THE SENTENCE WAS NEVER
VACATED IT WAS STAYED WASN'T
IT?
NO, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT
ACTUALLY.
THAT IS PRETTY IMPORTANT
ISSUE.
YES.
-- AS IN THE BRIEF, DOUBLE
JEOPARDY ATTACHED NOT AT THE
POINT OF FORMAL RESENTENCING
BUT AT THE POINT OF THE
FINDING OF -- WHICH IS WHAT
HAPPENED DAY THE JUDGE ENTERED
HIS ORDER FROM BENCH OCTOBER
2003, THAT IS THE FIRST
POSITION, THE FURTHERMORE, IF
THE JUDGE IF THE COURT DID
INTEND TO STAY THE
PROCEEDINGS, THE STATE HAD NO
EFFECT AND WE CITED CASE LAW
TO THAT EVERYONE I WAS WAR THE
JUDGE WAS GOING PRONOUNCE HIS
ORDER FROM THE BENCH AND THE
STATE COULD HAVE COME, IN AND
ASKED FOR HIM NOT TO ANNOUNCE
SENTENCE LIFE IF HE DID SO HIS
ORDER SAYS PRONOUNCING A LIFE
SENTENCE IT IS VERY CLEAR HIS
INTENT WAS TO DO THAT SO WE
DON'T AGREE WITH THE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY IS NOTSH HERE AT ALL.
WASN'T THERE SOME
INDICATION, IN ON THE IN THE
RECORD, THAT THE JUDGE REALLY
INTENDED TO BRING THE
DEFENDANT TO COURT IN ORDER TO
REALLY RESENTENCE HIM TO LIFE,
EVEN THOUGH HE HAD SAID ON THE
RECORD THAT HE WAS GOING TO
VACATE THE DEATH SENTENCE AND
SENTENCED THEM TO LIFE WASN'T
THERE SOME INDICATION HE
ACTUALLY WAS GOING TO BRING
HIM BEFORE THE COURT AND DO
THAT, AND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN
DONE HAS IT.
YES, THAT SERM WAS
INTENTION TO DO THAT.
BUT THE ORDER VERY CLEARLY
SAYS.
SO HE STATED AND THAT WAS
NEVER DONE.
THE RESENTENCING WAS NEVER
DONE.
THAT'S CORRECT.
WITH MR. WATSON PRESENT.
MR. WATSON DID WAIVE HIS
PRESENCE I SAY WILL THAT AT
THAT HEARING.
THAT -- WITH OF OUR
SAFETIAMS OF YOU EXHAUSTED ALL
YOUR TIME MR. NUNNALLY TWO
MINUTES IF THERE IS SOMETHING
YOU NEED TO ADDRESS C C
CONCISELY.
PARTICULAR I CAN SAY I
DON'T NEED TWO MINUTES IN THE
RECORD IN THIS CASE VERY MUCH
CONFUSED PERHAPS THE COURT
SHOULD CONSIDER ISSUING AN
OPINION GIVEN THE TRIAL COURT
FURTHER GUIDANCE SFREERLATION
OF THEMENT REALLY TARREDATION
CLAIMS ACCEPTED THIS BACK SO
WE CAN BRING THIS CASE TO THIS
COURT WITH ADEQUATE RECORD
THAT IS PHILLY DEVELOPS THE
APPROPRIATE LEGAL -- AND
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD FORRING
DID NO I KNOWS MENTAL
RETARDATION.
WHAT DO WE HAD NEED IN THIS
RECORD WE HAVE -- WE HAD FIVE
OR SIX MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS
HERE, IN THIS RECORD, WE HAVE
PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT HIS
BACKGROUND, AND HIS SCHOOL,
SCHOOLING AND THOSE KINDS OF
ISSUES, SO WHAT IS IT THAT IS
MISSING?
.
WHAT IS IT THAT'S MISSING
IS THE VALUATION.
PROPER DEFINITION OF MENTAL
RETARDATION.
THE -- CAUSE THIS CASE HAS
GOT.
ARE YOU SAYING ABOUT THE
TRIAL JUDGE, AS OPPOSED TO --
NO MA'AM, BY THE EXPERTS
I'M SAYING THE EXPERTS DIDN'T
EVALUATE THE STANDARD THAT
THEY SAID THEY WERE FOLLOWING
AND THAT THE TRIAL COURT SAID
HE WAS FOLLOWING.
THEY DIDN'T ANSWER THE
QUESTION THEY HAD TO ANSWER.
WHICH WAS?
WHETHER OR NOT OR -- THERE
ARE PRESENT DEFICITS IN
MR. WATSON'S ADAPTIVE
FUNCTIONING I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT THE REMEDY FOR THIS COURT
THAT WILL CLEAN THIS UP, AND
KEEP THE LAW IN THIS AREA FROM
GETTING CONFUSED IS TO
EXPLICITLY SAY THIS IS THE
STANDARD, NO KIDDING WE REALLY
MEAN IT, EXPERTS GO -- HE
VALUE -- TRIAL JUDGE -- SEND
BACK ORDER.
YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING
THE EXPERTS PROVIDED THIS RAW
CONCLUSIONS THERE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT FACTUAL EVER
DEPOSITIONRY BASIS SEEMS TO BE
WITH THE YOU ARE SAYING THEY
DON'T HAVE FACTS UPON WHICH TO
SUPPORT THEIR OPINION.
THAT IS CORRECT, WITH THE
CAVEAT THAT REASON THEY DON'T
HAVE THOSE FOX FACTS IS
BECAUSE THEY DID NOT TRY TO
FIND THEM.
THERE OR IN FURTHER QUESTIONS
I WOULD -- WILL ASK THE COURT
REMAND AS --
THANK YOU VERY MUCH WE
THANK YOU BOTH THE STATE AND
THEE COUNSEL FOR WATSON FOR
PROVIDING ARGUMENT IN THIS
PROCEDURE IMPORTANT CASE WE'LL
TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENTS
COURT WILL STAND IN RECESS
UNTIL 8:30 TOMORROW MORNING.
THE CLERK: PLEASE RISE.