MAY I T PLEAS E T HE COU RT , TOD D D OS S O N B EHAL F OF M R. M EL TON. WE ARE HERE ON A DEA TH C AS E T HIS MORNING. THIS O RI GINA TE D OUT O F P ENSACOLA AND I T W AS MR. MEL TON WAS C ON VICT ED O F A H OMICIDE I NVOL VI NG A PAW N SHO P O WN ER T HE RE . T WO AGO V A - - A GG RAVA TO R S W ER E F OUND , A PRI OR VIO LE NT F EL ON Y W HICH WAS A H OM ICID E I N T HE B RIEF IS R EFERRED TO A S T AX I C AB MUR DE R T O D IS TI NGUI SH I T FROM THE PAW N S HO P CAS E. > > CH IE F J USTICE: HAD T HA T ACTUALLY HAD THAT MUR DE R ACT UALLY OCC URRE D BEF OR E THE M URDE R I N Q UE ST ION? > > Y ES , I T H AD .

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND HE WAS 1 7 AT T HE T IM E O F T HA T MUR DE R? > > T HA T I S COR RE CT. > > CHIEF J US TI CE: AND 1 8 A T T HE TIM E O F T HIS MUR DER? > > 1 AND 2 5 D AY S A T T HE T IM E O F T HI S M UR DER. AND T HE SIG NI FI CA NC E O F THE P RIOR MURDE R I S THA T T HE T RIAL C OURT HAD ASS IGNE D THI S G RE AT W EIGH T I N A RRIV IN G A T THE SEN TENC E O F D EA TH. WHAT THE T RANSPI RE D DURIN G T HE E VIDE NT IARY H EARI NG I S THE RE W ERE N UMER OU S I ND IVID UA LS THAT W ERE IN THE J AI L A T THE S AM E T IM E A S THESE TWO C ASES WER E P ENDI NG. M R. M ELTON H AD T WO COD EFENDA NTS I N E SS ENCE . BEN L EWIS THA T END ED U P B EI NG I N THE P AW N S HOP C AS E A ND TON Y H OUSTON T HAT W AS I N T HE T AX I C AB C AS E . W HA T T RA NSPI RE D WAS THA T A S IT I S REV EALE D T HROU GH T HE I NDIVIDUALS THA T W ERE I N T HE J AIL , M R. LEW IS W AS TAL KING A L OT A BO UT W HA T H AD H APPE NE D , A ND THESE IND IV IDUA LS , TH ER E W ERE SIX O F THE M , W ER E NOT P RODUCED IN T HE PEN AL TY P HA SE N OR W ER E T HE Y PRO DUCE D I N THE TAX I CAB C AS E.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WAS T HERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE K NEW OF THE IR E XIST ENCE ? > > I NDIR EC TL Y , Y ES .

CH IE F J USTICE: ARE Y OU B RINGIN G U P THE SE A RE L ET 'S C ALL THE M JAIL HOU SE S NITC HE S F OR L AC K O F A B ETTE R WOR D , B UT I N T HI S SIT UATI ON T HERE - - A RE Y OU BRI NGIN G THI S U P A S A N I NEFFEC TIVE A SS ISTANCE O F COUNSEL CLAIM FOR F AI LU RE O F THE D EFENSE ATT ORNEY T O D ISCOVE R THE SE I NDIV IDUA LS O R ARE YOU B RING IN G IT UP AS A B RA DY C LAIM ? B ASED O N THE F AI LURE O F T HE S TATE T O A DVIS E Y OU O F T HEIR E XISTEN CE O R ARE YOU BRI NG IN G IT UP AS A NEW LY D ISCO VE RE D EVI DE NCE C LAIM ? > > A LL T HR EE A ND I 'L L EXP LA IN W HY BEC AUSE I T IS N OT N EA TL Y , I T IS NOT A N EA TL Y PAC KA GED. M R. M EL TO N'S I S PRETTY UNI QU E CASE AND IN M Y D EALI NGS W ITH THESE CASES IN T HA T T HE RE I S B ECAUSE O F THE T WO C AS ES A LOT O F I T I S I NT ERTW IN ED W IT H EAC H OTHER. > > JUSTICE: A S YOU EXP LAIN THAT, THOUGH , W OU LD Y OU T EL L US HOW Y OU B RO UGHT I T U P? > > A BS OL UTEL Y. > > J USTI CE: A S A CLA IM I N T HE T RIAL COURT I N T HE P OST- CONVICTION C OURT , IN OTHER WORDS , H OW DID Y OU S ET OUT THA T C LAIM ?

T HE FIR ST S TE P I S THA T T HERE WAS A N O FF IC ER O 'NEA L . T HERE WAS A D EPOS ITIO N T HA T T OOK P LA CE WHE RE D EFEN SE COU NSEL C AME A CR OS S A ND W AS Q UEST IONING O FF IC ER O'N EA L . I T WAS D ISCO VE RE D T HA T O FF IC ER O 'NEA L H AD S OM E NOT ES . A ND S OM E O F T HESE N OTES W ER E TURNED OVER AT THE DEPOSIT ION. T HERE W AS Q UITE A DIS PU TE B ELOW A S TO WHET HE R OR NOT ONE P ARTICULA R SE T O F N OTES T HA T HAD T HE NAME O F DAV ID S UM LE R , W HETHER I T W AS TUR NE D OVE R O R N OT . TRIAL COUNS EL H AD I ND IC ATED W HEN T ES TIFY IN G WHO I S A CTUALLY NOW A C IR CUIT C OU RT J UDGE THAT HE H AD N' T S EEN I T UNTIL THE DAY B EF ORE THE E VIDENT IARY H EA RING . T HE O FFICER O 'NEA L S AI D H E D IDN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS T URNED OVER. HE JUST T HOUG HT THAT I T WAS TURNED OVER I N THE NOT ES THA T W ERE GIV EN A T T HE D EP OSIT ION. T HE S IG NI FICA NC E O F I T I S T HA T A PPAREN TLY O FFICER O 'N EA L H AD I NTERVIEWED A N IND IV IDUA L THA T H E HAD WRITT EN DOW N A S DAVID S UMMERL IN A ND O N H IS N OTES I T H AD THE N AME LEW IS A ND M ELTO N. H E HAD SCR AT CHED O UT T HE NAM E M ELTO N A ND P UT P AR TN ER . I F DEFEN SE C OUNS EL H AD REC EIVED T HA T , T HE Y S HO UL D H AVE W EN T A ND S POKE T O D AVID S UMLE R. IF IT WAS THE P RESS THE N I T I S A BRADY ISS UE B ECAU SE LATER O N WHA T WAS L EARN ED I S THA T LAW E NF ORCE MENT HAD W ENT BAC K A ND V ERIFIE D THAT I T W AS ACT UALL Y DAV ID S UM ME RLIN , DAV ID S UM LE R A ND N OT S UMME RLIN . > > J USTICE: W HAT D ID THE Y D EMONSTRA TE T HE T HE A EF D EVI DENT IARY HEARING? DID Y OU DEMON STRA TE THAT THE S TATE S UPPR ES SE D T HA T D OC UMEN T OR DID Y OU DEM ON STRA TE THA T D EFEN SE C OUNSEL HAD I T A ND DID NOT USE IT? W HICH O F THO SE I S T HE C ORRE CT S CENARI O?

I THINK THE MOR E C RE DIBL E V ERSION I S T HA T B ASED UPO N THE T RIAL D EFENSE COU NS EL SAY IN G HE HAD NEVER SEE N THAT A ND I T WAS N' T T UR NED OVER TO HIM W HENEVER T HE N OTES O F DET ECTI VE O 'NEA L .

JUS TI CE : SO THI S I S A B RADY C LAIM ? > > IN THA T I NS TANC E I T I S A B RADY CLA IM .

JUSTICE: THE WAY IT SEEMS TO BE PRE SE NTED , T HO UG H , I S T HAT IT I S INE FFEC TI VE CLA IM S O I 'M S TI LL HAV IN G S OM E D IFFICU LTY IN T HE WAY THA T YOU ARE , I UND ERST OO D B Y Y OU R B RIEF T HA T Y OU W ER E ASS ER TING T HAT COU NS EL W AS I NE FFEC TI VE A ND NOT D ISCO VERI NG T HESE W ITNESS ES I N T HE T ESTI MONY . > > T HE T RIAL C OU RT H AD D EN IE D T HE B RADY C LAIM SAY IN G THA T D EFENSE C OUNS EL H AD T HIS. A SSUM IN G DEF EN SE C OU NSEL HAD THIS, IT I S INE FF EC TIVE A SSISTANC E B EC AUSE D EFEN SE COUNSEL ADMITTED THA T H E SHOULD HAVE WENT A ND I NTERVI EWED T HESE W IT NE SS ES WHEN HE W AS O N T HE S TAND T ESTI FYIN G A ND T HA T THA T S HOULD H AV E PRO MP TED HIM T O D O T HAT. THE SIGNIFICANCE I S T HA T D AV ID S UMLER S AI D THA T HE H EA RD B EN LEW IS T EL L H IM T HA T T ON Y H OUST ON AND BEN L EW IS S HO T T HE T AXI C AB DRI VE R AND THA T M R. MEL TON W ASN'T PRE SENT . > > JUSTI CE : B UT S HO ULDN 'T YOU R A RGUMEN T R EA LLY BE T HAT T HE T RIAL C OU RT E RRED BEC AUSE T HERE I S N O S UB STAN TIAL E VIDENCE T O SUP PORT T HE TRI AL J UDGE'S D ET ER MINA TI ON THA T D EFENSE C OUNSEL HAD IT? A S OPP OS ED T O TRY IN G T HA T W E ASSUM ED T HAT THE DEF EN SE A TTORNE Y HAD I T , A ND DID N' T U SE I T . > > THE W AY THE T RIAL C OURT BAS ED I T WAS B EC AUSE O F THE NOT ES THA T WERE TUR NE D O VE R AT T HE DEP OSIT IO N THA T TRI AL DEF ENSE C OU NSEL HAD I T. I T WAS NEVER S PE CI FICALL Y E ST ABLISHED. THAT'S WHY WE ARG UE D I T A LTERNATIVELY AND W E ARE KIN D O F PUT I N A N A WK WARD P OSIT IO N . > > J USTICE : S OM E O F T HESE W ITNE SSES T ESTIFIED , DID THE Y?

A BS OLUT EL Y. > > J USTICE: D ID SOME OF THE M TESTIFY THAT THEY WOULD NOT H AVE COO PERA TE D ? > > THE RE WAS ONE I ND IV IDUA L THAT SAID H E W AS N'T SUR E WHETHER HE WOU LD O R H E W OULDN' T BECAUSE HE HAD H IS OWN P ROBL EM S AT THE TIM E. A S DID M R. SUM LE R W HICH T HE N G AVE THESE O THER N AM ES T O W HERE I T KIN D O F S TART ED T HE S NOWBAL L E FF ECT WHERE O NCE Y OU GET TO M R. S UMLE R H E STA RT S NAM ING OFF O TH ER P EOPL E T HA T BEN L EW IS H AD T AL KE D T O WHI CH W AS P AU L SIN K FIEL D , BYR D , ALF ONSO M cCOREY AND M R. HAR RI S A ND THE S IGNI FI CANCE I S THA T R EP EA TEDLY L EW IS SAY S H E I S I NVOLVE D IN T HE T AX I C AB MURDE R. M R. M EL TON IS NOT. T HIS I S I MPOR TA NT BEC AUSE OF THE GREAT WEIGH T THAT THE T RIAL C OURT ASS IG NE D TO T HI S A GGRA VATOR A ND WE K NO W FRO M THE RECEN T C AS E O F RON PI LL A V ERSUS B EARD I N FRO NT O F THE U .S. SUPREME COURT W HE RE THE Y S AID T HA T W E M AY R EA SO NABL Y ASS UME T HA T I T C OU LD G IV E WAY T O A V IOLE NT FEL ON Y A GG RAVA TO R W HERE THE Y M ISSE D THE O PPORTUNITY T O ARG UE THA T T HE C IRCUMSTANCES O F T HE PRI OR C ONVI CTION W ER E LES S D AMAG IN G.

J USTI CE : W ASN' T W AS N' T T HI S A LL RAISE D I N THE 3.8 50 M OT IO N T HAT WAS F ILED ABO UT T HA T TAX I C AB MUR DER AND THAT C ONVI CT IO N WAS A FFIR ME D , W ASN'T I T?

T HE CON VI CTION WAS ABS OLUTELY A FFIR MED BUT T HERE IS A D IFFE RE NCE I N T HA T THI S GOES TO THE WEIGH T. N OT WHETH ER MR. MEL TO N WAS G UILTY OF A F ELON Y MUR DE R , B UT T O T HE WEI GH T AND T O HIS C ULPABI LITY AND THE W EI GH T T O BE A SS IG NE D T O T HI S PRIOR V IOLENT FELON Y. THOSE ARE TWO DIF FE RENT T HI NG S AND I T HINK T HAT T HE R ONPE LL A CAS E RECOG NIZES T HAT. > > CHIE F JUSTICE: THE W EI GHT WOULD GO T O W HA T YOU REA LL Y W OULD INT RO DUCE WOULD B E S OM E KIND OF A L IN GE RING D OUBT , IS T HAT WHA T YOU ARE SAY IN G THA T A GAIN J UST T RYING T O FOL LO W I T THROUGH T HAT AT THI S TRI AL D EFENSE COU NSEL S HOULD H AV E PUT ON THESE, S HOUL D H AV E DIS CO VERED AND P UT O N T HESE J AI L HO US E C EL L M ATES WHO A T L EA ST ONE O F T HE M H AD S AI D H E PRO BABLY WOULDN'T HAVE T ESTIFIED IF H E HAD BEE N A SK ED TO G IV E A D IF FE RENT VER SI ON O F T HE PRI OR M URDE R ? I S TH AT RIGHT?

I N E SS ENCE , YE S , BEC AUSE I N THE P RI OR C AS E THA T HAD COM E O UT W HERE MR. H OUST ON A ND M R. LEWIS MADE I T O UT AS I F M R. MEL TON S HO T T HE T AXI CAB D RIVE R IN A V ER Y COL D- BLOO DE D MANNER. WEL L , D EF ENSE COU NSEL I N THE P ENALTY PHA SE O N T HE PAW N S HO P C ASE A CTUA LL Y INT RO DUCE D T HE COPY OF T HE J UR Y V ERDI CT WHE RE T HE Y HAD S CRAT CH ED O UT P REMEDI TATED M URDE R A ND C IRCL ED FEL ON Y M UR DE R. K IN D O F INDIC AT IN G T HA T T HE Y D IDN'T R EA LL Y BEL IEVE T HE E NTIR E TES TIMONY A S T O M R. LEWIS AND M R. H OU STON . T HIS W OU LD HAV E C ORRO BO RATE D THA T AND GIV EN A T REME NDOU S LY M ORE WEI GH T A ND M ORE V ALUE T O THA T. > > CHIE F JUSTICE: WHAT DID THE T RIAL COU RT S AY ABOUT THE C REDIBI LITY OF T HE J AI L HOUS E INF ORMANT?

THE T RIAL C OURT DIS CO UN TE D T HEIR CRE DI BILITY B ASED O N THE F ACT A ND T HE NUM BE R O F THE IR F ELON Y C ON VICT IO NS. E ACH O NE WAS A DMIT TE D LY C ONVICT ED FELON. T HE IRONY I S THA T U SUAL LY I 'M I N T HE R EV ERSE P OS IT IO N O F S AYIN G T HA T S OM EO NE D OE SN 'T N ECESSA RILY HAVE THE C REDIBILITY I N A J AILH OU SE S NI TCH THE M OR E TRA DI TI ON AL J AI L HOUS E S NI TC H TYP E O F S ITUATION . S O T O B EL IEVE THA T THE RE A RE S IX I NDIV ID UA LS I N DIF FE RENT PARTS OF THE JAI L I N DIF FERE NT P ARTS OF THE STA TE AT T HI S P OINT IN T IM E THERE W OULD H AV E TO BE A T RE ME ND OU S CON SP IR AC Y TO BE A BLE T O G ET T HESE PEO PL E TO A LL S AY THA T MR. LEW IS T OL D T HEM - -. > > J US TICE: THESE ARE THE SAM E I NDIV IDUA LS ARE THEY N OT THAT AT LEAST SOME O F T HE M S AI D T HAT L EWIS S AI D T HA T H E I S T HE O NE THA T COM MITTED THE P AW N SHO P MURDE R , R IG HT ? > > NO , NOT AS T O THE PAW N S HOP. AS TO THE T AX I C AB . T HEY DID I NDIC AT E THE RE W AS A S TR UG GL E A ND T HA T THEY WERE ALL - - ONE O F THE M I NDICAT ED THAT THE RE W AS A STR UGGLE AND THA T MR. MEL TO N , M R. LEW IS AND T HE PAW N SHO P O WNER WERE IN A S TR UGGL E AND T HE G UN WEN T OFF A ND H E G OT S HOT. > > J USTICE: SO NONE O F T HE M TESTIFIED THAT L EWIS TOO K RES PONSIBILITY F OR T HAT? > > FOR T HE P AW N S HO P MUR DE R , N O . > > JUS TI CE: BUT THE Y D ID H AVE A STR UG GL E , HOW EVER , THAT' S T HEIR TES TIMONY CONCERNING HOW THE P AW N S HO P M URDER TOO K P LACE R EA LL Y I S I N CONFL IC T , I SN'T I T , W IT H H OW MR. MEL TO N S AI D THE D EATH OF T HE P AW N SHO P OWN ER T OOK P LACE , I SN'T I T? > > T O A DEG RE E , BUT N OT I N G ENERAL. I N GEN ER AL , M R. MELTO N W AS S AYING THAT T HERE W AS A S TRUG GLE. HE CONCEDE D T HE RE W AS A STR UG GLE AND HE C ON CEDE D THAT THE G UN W EN T OFF D URIN G THE S TRUG GL E AND SHO T M R. C AR TER IN THE H EAD.

J USTICE: BUT MR. LEW IS WAS N OT I NVOL VE D I N THE STR UGGL E WHEREAS THE OTH ER J AIL HOUSE INF ORMA NT I NDICAT E T HA T A LL THR EE O F T HEM WER E I NV OLVED I N T HE S TRUG GLE ? > > NO , M Y REC OLLE CTIO N I S T HA T H E H AD S AI D MR. L EWIS C AME O VE R WHE NEVE R THE S TRUG GLE S TARTED B ECAUSE HE HAD SAID MR. LEW IS P UN CHED M R. CAR TER IN THE H EA D A C OUPL E O F T IM ES AND H E W AS BLE ED ING FRO M H IS EYE S. > > CHIEF J USTICE: I J US T WANT TO ASK YOU I F Y OU I NTEND , S IN CE YOU C AN 'T A DDRE SS IT ON R EB UT TA L , T O A DDRESS THE INE FFEC TI VE A SSISTANCE O F C OUNS EL C LAIM D URING T HE P ENAL TY PHA SE O R ANY OF Y OU R O TH ER P ENAL TY P HASE A RGUMEN TS ? > > Y ES , I D O. A ND I T A CTUA LL Y D OVE TA IL S I N B UT I MIG HT M AK E ONE POI NT A S T O THE SIG NIFI CANC E O F MR. L EWIS' T ES TI MONY REGARDING T HE PAW N S HO P . A ND A CTUA LL Y W HA T H AD COM E OUT W AS T HI S I S O N Q UEST IO NING FROM THE S TA TE . IT S AY S AT T HIS P OINT D ID M R. CARTER M AKE ANY R ESISTANCE , D ON E ANY TH IN G A T A LL T O THW AR T YOU A LL O R H INDE R YOU O R D ID H E C OOPERATE F UL LY ?

HE C OOPE RA TE D. > > W HA T W AS H E S AYIN G? HE W ASN' T S AY IN G N OT HING . Q UESTION : W AS T HERE - - D ID Y OU S EE A F IG HT O R A S CU FFLE O R ANY TH IN G BETWEEN M R. MELTON AND M R. C AR TER? N O, SIR . D ID M R. CAR TE R D O ANY TH IN G YOU SAW OR SAY A NY THIN G A GGRESSIV E O R I N A F IGHT IN G MAN NER? N O, SIR. T HIS I S I N C OM PLET E C ON TRAS T TO W HA T T HE SE I NDIV ID UA LS H AD SAI D REG AR DI NG MR. L EW IS ADM ITTING THAT T HERE WAS A S CUFFLE AND T HA T I T H AD WEN T O N. T HE WAY M R. L EW IS POR TRAY ED I T W AS MOR E O F A C OL D- BLOO DED ACT AND H E W AS OFF T RYING TO OPE N THE SID E DOOR. HE HEARD A C OU PL E O F G UNSHOT S AND S AW M R. CAR TE R O N HIS KNE ES . T HAT'S A F AC TUAL SCE NA RI O A S T O WH ET HER OR NOT THIS IS A D EATH CASE. AS TO THE P EN ALTY PHA SE , I T W AS CLE AR T HA T D R. G IL GU N W AS ONL Y H IR ED O NE W EE K B EFORE T HI S CAS E BEG AN . T HAT H E DI D N OT S PE AK TO ANY F RIENDS . H E DI D N OT S PEAK T O ANY R ELATIV ES. HE BASICALLY H E WAS G IV EN T HE P OLIC E R EPOR TS A ND THE D EPOS IT IONS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I T SEEMSTHAT THE TRIAL J UD GE A LM OS T C ONCEDE D THA T I T L OOKE D L IK E IN THI S C AS E A W EE K B EF OR E THE RE W AS N O E XP LA NATI ON FOR I T , BUT W HA T HE T HE N W EN T O N T O S AY I S B ASIC ALLY T HERE WAS N O P REJU DICE , S O W OULD Y OU ADDRE SS THE P RE JUDI CE PRO NG?

THA T'S E XACT LY T HE W AY THAT I R EAD I T I S THA T H E C ON CEDE D THA T THE RE W AS. > > CHIEF J USTICE: NOT C ON CEDED BUT S AI D L ET 'S A SS UM E THAT?

AS TO THE PRE JUDI CE , WHE N Y OU LOOK A T D R. D EE'S T ES TIMONY , H E C OM ES T O THE C ONCL USION B AS ED O N ALL O F THE I NFORMATION THAT IS P ROVIDED TO HIM THA T M R. MEL TON W HO HAD A V ER Y , I S UBMI T HAD A V ERY U NI QU E B ACKGROUND. T HIS IS NOT THE S TA ND AR D TYPE OF M ITIG AT IO N C AS E T HA T T HIS COU RT HAN DLES T HA T G OE S T HROUGH HOR RE NDOU S INS TA NCES OF A BU SE . IT CAM E U P THA T M R. M ELTO N WAS ACTUALL Y V ER Y OVE RPRO TECTED A ND V ER Y I MMAT UR E . D R. DEE'S T ESTI MONY S AY S HE WAS STRIKINGLY I MM ATUR E A ND SHE LTER ED AND H E FAL LS I N B EC AUSE OF T HE WAY THE C IRCUMS TANC ES WHERE HE IS T RYING TO ASS ERT I NDEPENDE NCE AND H E L EA VE S H OME F ALLS I N WIT H M ORE S TREE T- WISE S OPHI ST IC ATED C RIMINA L TYPES T HAT H E V IEWED A S M OR E SOP HI ST ICAT ED T HAN H IMSELF AND HE W AS S UBJECT T O MAN IP ULAT IO N O N T HAT. T HAT G OES B AC K A ND P LA YS I NTO A L OT O F W HA T W E A RE SEE ING WIT H THESE W ITNE SS ES C OMING FORWARD S HOWI NG H OW MR. L EWIS I S PLA YING THE S YSTEM TEL LING T HEM I'M D OING WHAT I 'VE G OT T O D O. > > CH IEF J USTICE: HOW OLD W AS M R. LEW IS ? > > MY R ECOL LECT ION I S H E I S 2 0 , 2 1 Y EARS O LD . > > CHIE F JUSTICE: YOU SEE , I GUESS WHAT I WAS TRYIN G T O F IGUR E OUT SOM ETIM ES SOM EO NE S AYS THI S I S W HA T I T L OOKE D L IK E THE N A ND T HI S I S W HAT IT LOO KS L IK E NOW . H OPE SOMETHI NG S TICK S. W AS IT DEV EL OP ED I N T HI S CAS E , T HE D EFEN DA NT I S 1 8 A ND T HE J UDGE F INDS T HA T NOT T O B E M IT IGAT IN G A T A LL A T T HE TRIAL . D ID Y OU T RY T O A RGUE T HA T W HAT S HO UL D H AV E B EE N A DVANCE D W AS THA T A GE W AS T O B E A S IG NI FICA NT MIT IG ATIN G F ACTO R AND T HAT T HE D EF ENSE C OUNSEL W AS I NE FFEC TIVE I N F AILING T O R EA LL Y P UT T HI S T OGET HER T O SHOW T HA T H E WAS R EA LL Y H AD A M EN TAL M ATUR IT Y OF A 1 4- YEAR -OLD ? W AS THA T Y OU R A RG UMEN T ? > > I D IDN' T DEV ELOP THI S A T THE E VIDE NT IARY HEA RING S TAGE . T HAT WASN' T P UT F ORWA RD A S F ORCE FUL.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU WERE NOT T HE TRIAL COUNSEL? > > I PIC KE D T HI S C AS E UP A FTER I T WAS C ON CLUD ED A T THE E VIDE NT IARY H EA RING STAGE. WE D ID SOM EWHA T A RG UE T HA T IN O UR S TATE H ABEA S A S TO WHET HER OR NOT ROPER V ERSU S S IMMONS A PPLI ES .

CHIEF JUSTICE: I'M NOT SAYING ROPER V ERSU S SIM MO NS . SO YOU ARE SAY IN G THE CLA IM R EALLY WASN' T D EVEL OPED W HICH S EE MS T O B E W HA T W OU LD BE A L EG ITIM AT E C LA IM THA T THI S WAS A N IMM ATUR E 1 8-YE AR -OLD THA T THE T RI AL C OUNSEL W AS I NEFF EC TIVE , BUT Y OU DID N' T , Y OU C ONCE DE T HA T W ASN'T DEV ELOP ED ?

THAT WAS N' T DEV ELOP ED E XA CTLY LIK E THAT. I A M Q UOTING FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DR. D EE A ND T HA T H E WAS S TRIK IN G LY I MM ATUR E A ND S HELT ERED , AND WHE N YOU C OUPL E THA T WIT H SOM E OF W HAT W AS S UP PR ESSE D W HICH W AS T HE S TATE HAD MAD E I T O UT AS I F T HE Y SUB PO ENAE D M R. LEWIS . M R. L EWIS CAM E FOR WA RD I N !!!! I NV OLUNTARY WHE NEVE R I N P OST-CO NVICTION M R. J ENKI NS WAS PUT UP.

CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW YOU 'R E T HROW IN G GOING BACK TO T HE B RADY CLAIM ABOUT A D EA L , R IGHT? > > B AC K TO THE BRA DY C LAIM - -.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I MEAN THEONLY REASON I ASK I S BEC AUSE Y OU ARE S KIPP IN G A ROUND HER E AND IT MAKES I T V ER Y D IFFICU LT FOR THE C OURT TO FOL LOW W HICH ARG UM EN T A ND W HI CH CLAIM YOU ARE RAI SI NG . IF YOU J US T T HROW THA T B AC K O UT.

THE ONLY REA SO N I A M DOING THAT IS T O SHO W HOW T HESE W OR K T OG ETHE R T O SHO W T HAT M R. M ELTO N W AS , A ND E NDS U P I N A C OHES IV E T HEOR Y T HA T MR. TER RELL , HIS T RI AL D EFENSE C OU NS EL C OULD ADVANCE ALTHOUGH I H AD M Y TIM E C OVERED UP AND I REALIZE I AM I NT O M Y R EBUTTAL S O I 'L L SAV E THE R EST O F M Y T IME. THA NK Y OU . > > MAY I T P LE AS E T HE C OURT . C HARMAINE M ILLS AP S R EPRESE NTING THE S TATE. I WOULD LIKE TO S TART A T THE E ND W IT H YOUR H ONOR 'S QUESTION. I CAN PRE TT Y M UCH T EL L YOU WHY THEY DID N OT M AK E A R OPER -LIKE CLAIM I N POS T-CO NVICTION. Y OU WOULD N OT GET ANY WHER E W ITH A N INE FF EC TIVE A SSIS TA NCE OF COUNSEL. THAT WAS ONE OF T RIAL C OUNSEL'S M AI N T HE ORIE S. I F YOU LOO K A T T HE S ENTE NCING ORDER Y OU WILL S EE T RIAL COU NS EL N OT O NL Y A RGUED THA T E XTEN SIVE LY A T THE SPENCER H EARI NG BUT H E WRO TE A SEN TENC IN G M EM R AN UM AND THA T W AS - - M EM R AN D U M. T HAT W AS HIS B IG A RG UM EN T T HAT THE DEF ENDA NT W AS O NL Y A FEW D AY S OVE R 1 8 W HE N THI S P AW N S HO P M URDER W AS C OM MITTED AND HE W AS 1 7. IT WAS A R OPER -LIK E CLA IM B EFORE R OP ER . COU NSEL D ID T HAT. HE D ID THA T A T T HE S PE NCER HEARING.HE DID THA T I N H IS SEN TENCING MEM OR ANDU M. Y OU WIL L S EE T HE J UD GE'S S EN TE NC ING ORDER O NE OF THE FIR ST BIG T HING S H E C ONSIDERS B UT REJ EC TS .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHA T I 'M - - THA T W AS N OT T HEN R AI SE D ON APP EA L? > > NO , THA T W AS N OT R AI SE D O N APPEAL. I'M TEL LING YOU W HY C OU NSEL N EVER D ID T HAT. HE WOULD NEVER W IN O N THA T . > > CHIE F J USTICE: SO WHA T YOU ARE SAYING I S THA T THE T HRUST OF THE MIT IGAT IO N I N T HI S C AS E WAS T O R EALL Y E MPHA SIZE THE AGE O F T HE DEFENDANT ONLY BEING 1 8 A ND T HAT H E HAD EMO TION AL I MMAT UR ITY. THAT THE TRI AL COU RT N OT O NLY G AV E I T , R EJEC TE D I T , G AVE I T N O WEI GH T. I T W AS N EV ER B ROUG HT U P A S A N I SS UE ON APP EA L , MAJ OR T HR UST O F THE M ITIG AT IO N C ASE ?

N O , I MEA N I T WAS N' T A PPEALE D. I T W AS N' T A PPEA LE D AS F AR A S T HAT GOE S. I M EA N , AS F AR A S H ER E BUT T HAT' S WHY T HE Y D ID N' T D O I T , B UT T HAT' S N OT B EING R AI SE D H ERE A S A N INE FFEC TI VE A SSIS TANCE OF C OU NS EL C LAIM.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I'M TRYING TO GET A PICTURE. W E HAV E A N O BLIG ATIO N AND W E W ILL S TICK TO THE ISS UES I N P OST- CONVICTION BUT IT J US T S TRUCK ME WHE N I L OO KE D A T T HI S D EFEN DA NT'S H IS TORY AND YOU READ THE S ENTENC ING ORD ER THA T THERE A RE A RE M ANY THINGS THAT A RE U NEXP LAINED, Y OU KNOW, YOU GO F RO M O NE E XT EN T WHE RE Y OU H AV E A D EFEN DA NT W HO I S S UPPO SE D LY HAS T HI S STR IC T R ELIGIOUS UPB RING IN G A ND T HAT THAT' S W HY H E DEF ENDA NT H OME AND THE N ON THE O THER HAN D H E I S L IV IN G WIT H A N A BUSIVE S TE PFAT HER W HO I S S O ABU SI VE T HAT H E B REAK S H IS M OTHE R' S A RM AND THA T S OMEH OW THA T A LL D OE SN'T F IT TOGETHER TO ME. > > L ET M E S EE IF I C AN M AK E I T F IT . S HE B ECOM ES R EL IG IO US L ATER . IT I S VER Y CLE AR F RO M T HE M OTHER'S TES TIMONY A T THE P ENAL TY PHA SE THA T S HE B ECOMES M OR E R ELIG IO US A S T HIS GOES O N .

CH IE F J US TICE: W HAT IS THE AGE THAT H E I S E XPOS ED T O THI S ONG OING DOM ESTI C V IOLENCE? > > BELIE VE I T O R N OT S HE WAS N OT V ERY GOO D A T TEL LI NG U S E XACTLY WHE N SHE W AS M ARRI ED A ND WHE N SHE W AS D IV OR CED BUT BAS IC ALLY S HE SAY S THA T B ASICALLY H E W AS A BO UT FOU R OR SIX W HE N THE Y STA RT ED R ELATIONS HIP WITH T HE S TE PF AT HER W HO I S A BUSI VE T OWARDS H IS M OTHE R. T HAT'S W HA T THE TES TI MONY W AS . A ND T HE N T HE Y G ET D IV ORCE D . I T DOE SN 'T E VE N SOU ND L IK E H E WAS --. > > CH IEF J USTICE: W AS H E THERE WHEN THE MOTHER' S ARM W AS BROKEN?

ACCORDING TO THE T ESTIMONY --.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WAS THAT B RO UG HT U P - - THA T WAS B ROUGHT U P B Y T RI AL C OU NSEL A ND PRESE NTED T O T HE J UR Y I NITI ALLY?

IN THE PENALTY PHA SE. I 'M GETTI NG ALL OF THI S F RO M THE PENALTY P HA SE . > > CH IE F JUSTICE: IT W AS BROUGHT UP IN THE PENALTY PHASE OF THE FIRST T RIAL ?

YES , M ELTO N' S FAT HE R R EFERS T O C OM IN G OVE R T O S EE H IM. H IS BIO LO GICA L F ATHE R. N OT THE MAN W HO B ROKE THE A RM. T HE M AN WHO B REAK S THE ARM I S NAM ED B OOKE R. H E IS A S TEPF AT HE R . M ELTO N 'S F ATHE R COM ES O VE R A ND S EE S THE BRO KE N ARM AND FRO M HIS T ES TIMO NY I T I S V ERY CLE AR THA T H E T HINK S T HAT T HE S TEPF ATHE R HAD B ROKE N M EL TON' S M OTHE R' S A RM , H IS --. > > CHIE F JUSTICE: A ND A T T HE E VIDENT IA RY HEARING WHO TESTIFIES T O T HI S DOM ESTI C V IOLENCE?

THERE WER E S EV ERAL P EO PLE WHO T ES TI FI ED A GA IN , BUT T HAT T HERE W AS D OMES TI C V IOLENC E W AS ALR EA DY E STABLISH ED R EA LL Y . I WOULD A LS O LIKE T O A DD RESS HIS CLAIMS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE B IOLO GICAL F ATHE R? > > NO , T HE B IOLO GI CA L FAT HE R IS N EV ER R EA LLY PAR T O F M EL TO N' S L IF E. WHE N MEL TO N I S B OR N, THE F ATHE R J OINS THE A RM Y A ND I S I N T HE A RM Y WHI LE H E I S T HERE . HE H AS A BAD B AC K ACHE. H E EXPLA IN S ALL O F THI S A ND H AS A S ERIE S O F O PE RATI ON S , S OUND S LIK E Y EARS D EALING WITH HIS BACK. S O AND H E T ES TIFI ES H E W AS NOT INV OLVE D I N MEL TO N' S CHI LDHO OD .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHO T ES TIFIED TO T HE DOM ESTI C V IOLENC E A T THE O RIGI NA L PENALTY PHASE?

W EL L , M EL TON' S B IO LO GICA L F ATHE R T ESTI FI ED O NE TIM E. > > CHIEF J USTICE: I W AS J US T A SKING Y OU I S AI D S O O NL Y T HE BIOLO GICA L FAT HE R THA T WAS N'T T HE RE I S T HE ONL Y T ESTI MONY I N THE O RIGI NA L P ENAL TY P HASE S O N OW W HO T ESTIFIED AT T HE E VIDE NT IARY H EARING O N T HE O N GOIN G A TMOSPH ERE OF D OM ESTI C V IOLE NC E IN T HI S H OUSE HO LD ? > > THEY CAL LE D S EV ER AL W ITNESSES FROM T HE FAMILY, THE AUNTS F OR I NSTA NC E WHO H AD N OT TES TIFI ED A T THE O RIGI NA L PEN ALTY PHASE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND WHAT WERE THE R EASO NS G IVEN WHY T HEY W EREN 'T C ALLE D A T THE O RIGINA L P ENAL TY P HASE ? > > I D ON'T REM EM BE R T HE T RIAL COU RT A RGUI NG A BO UT T HAT. I DON 'T REM EMBE R A F IN DI NG ABOUT THAT. T HAT'S NOT WHA T THE Y REA LL Y , H IS FOCUS ON A PPEA L I S T HE E XACT SAM E T HREE C LAIM S F OR N EWLY D IS COVERED E VI DENC E A ND A G IGLI O C LAIM O N T HE E XACT S AM E T HING W E A RGUE D IN T HE F IR ST DCA . > > JUS TI CE : WEL L , T HE Y H AV E YOU O N W HY THI NG S H AVEN 'T DEV ELOPED O R W HA TEVER , THE RE W AS A N ISS UE A BOUT T HE S HORTNE SS OF T HE T IM E B EFOR E TRIAL THAT THE M ENTA L HEA LT H E XPER T W AS R ETAI NE D . I S TH AT COR RECT? AND THE DEF ENSE LAW YER TES TIFIED THAT ORD IN ARIL Y H E W OU LD NEVER B E C AU GH T S O S HORT I N T ER MS O F DOI NG T HAT. H ELP M E , I 'M C ON CERN ED T HE T RIAL J UDGE ALL UD ED T O T HE F ACT THA T T HE DEF EN SE L AWYE R W AS IN A STA TE O F O VERL OA D . A T THI S TIM E. A ND H E S EE ME D T O A TT RI BU TE H IM N OT DOI NG MOR E O R B EING M ORE T HORO UG H FOR I NSTA NC E , H IRING THE M EN TA L H EA LT H E XPER T EAR LIER AND G ET TING M ORE INF OR MATION T O H IM T O B EING I N T HI S O VE RL OA D , AND SO C OULD Y OU GIV E M E S OM E W HAT W AS THE E VI DE NC E ABO UT T HIS O VE R LOAD A FFEC TING THE A BILITY O F THE D EFEN SE LAW YER T O A CT UALL Y P RO PERL Y PREPARE IN THIS C ASE? > > OKAY. W EL L, LET M E E ST ABLI SH S OM E F ACTS . D R. G ILGUN W HO DID T ES TIFY AT THE PENAL TY P HA SE W AS H IRED ACC OR DI NG TO H IS OWN T ESTIMONY JAN UA RY 2 8 , 199 2. T HE P EN ALTY PHA SE W AS F EBRUAR Y 5 , 199 2. > > JUS TI CE : S O I T W AS A WEE K?

ABO UT E IG HT DAY S , S EVEN D AYS T HA T T HE D EFEN SE M ENTA L HEA LTH E XP ER T H AS T O E VALU AT E T HE DEF EN DANT BUT HE, IN FACT , DOE S IT. H E N EVER T ESTI FIES T HA T H E I S, A ND H E T ES TIFI ED H E GOT THE SCHOOL REC OR DS AND H E N EVER TES TI FIED T HA T --. > > J USTICE : H OW M AN Y O TH ER C APITAL CAS ES W AS T HE D EF ENSE L AWYER T RYING T O B ALANCE AT THE S AM E TIM E H E W AS P RE PARI NG F OR THE PEN AL TY PHASE I N T HI S CAS E? > > T HERE W AS TES TIMO NY THA T BECA USE H E W AS A B OA RD C ERTIFI ED T RI AL L AWYE R H E K EPT R EC OR DS O N THE N UMBE R O F F EL ONIE S A ND I T L OO KS L IKE F IVE O R S IX A ND Y ES , H E A DMIT TE D HE W AS VER Y B US Y. > > JUSTI CE : HE WAS A P UBLI C D EFENDER; IS THAT CORRECT?

HE A DM ITTE D H E W AS V ER Y B USY. HE HAD CO- CO UNSE L IN T HI S CASE AND HE HAD C O-CO UNSE L IN T HE S AYLO R M URDE R T RIAL . H E DEF EN DE D HIM B OT H I N T HE PAW N S HO P MURDE R A ND IN T HE SAY LOR T AX I C AB M URDE R AND HE HAD CO-COUN SE L.

JUSTICE: DID H E H AV E A N I NVES TI GATOR WORK ON T HI S CASE? OFTEN WE SEE THAT ONE ATTORNEY WILL MAYBE W OR K O N O NE P ORTI ON O F T HE C AS E A ND A NO THER A TT ORNEY W ILL W OR K ON THE PENAL TY P HA SE A ND T HE I NVESTI GATOR I S O UT F INDI NG W ITNESSES , I NT ER VIEW IN G WITNESSES FOR THE A TTOR NEYS . S O W HA T WAS DIS CU SSED A T THE E VI DE NT IARY H EARI NG A BOUT W HAT EAC H C OUNS EL'S ROL E W AS AND W HA T , I F A NY , I NVES TI GA TORS THEY HAD ? > > THEY DI D NOT C AL L SAM H ILL , CO- CO UNSE L. T HEY DI D NOT C AL L. T HEY C ALLE D JUD GE , N OW J UDGE T ERRELL B UT T HE Y DI D NOT C ALL CO- CO UN SE L SO I C AN'T TELL YOU TES TIMONY BUT I CAN T ELL YO U S OM E OF T HE STU FF I C OULD SEE FROM T HE D IR EC T APPEAL RECORDS THAT C O- COUNSEL DID.

JUSTICE: DID T HE Y ASK T HE ATT OR NE Y W HO D ID TES TI FY A T T HE EVI DE NT IA RY H EARI NG A BOUT H IS R ELAT IV E R OL E I N T HIS C AS E A ND THE O THER A TTOR NEY'S ROLE IN THE C AS E ? > > T HERE WAS N' T D IREC TL Y , B UT J UD GE T ERRE LL D ID , H E WAS L EA D C OU NS EL. HE W AS LEA D C OU NSEL A ND H E S EEMED T O HAVE HAD HIM M ORE. T HEY DIDN' T SEE M T O H AV E S PLIT IT UP. NOW , YOUR HONOR, WE'RE GETTING MORE D ETAI L S T HAN THERE WERE AT THE EVI DE NTIARY HEA RI NG BUT W HA T S EEMS R EADI NG BET WEEN T HE LINES HAPPENED IS H E W AS THE M OST E XPER IE NCED AND PAU L D ID A LOT MOR E F OR INS TANC E T HE MEM O T HA T I WAS REF ERRING T O , THE S ENTE NCIN G MEM ORAN DUM , C O- COUN SE L H AL L D ID T HA T A ND H E DID A LOT O F THE ARGUMEN T A T THE SPE NCER H EARI NG , AL L RIG HT ? S O H E DID H AV E C O- COUN SE L H ELPING HIM BUT T HEY DI D NOT C ALL S AM , C O-CO UNSE L H AL L I N S O I CAN NO T TEL L Y OU EXA CTLY H OW THE Y B ROKE IT U P. NOW , JUDGE T ERRE LL I S A VER Y E XPERIE NCED P D , AND S O P ROBA BLY WHAT H APPENED W AS HE W AS T AK IN G L EA D O N A L OT O F THI S A ND C O-CO UN SE L W AS - -.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS I S WHAT I'M CON CE RNED ABOUT , A ND IS T HAT THE ONL Y R EA SO N THA T H E W OU LDN' T HAV E P UR SU ED S OM E VER Y I MP OR TA NT A SPECTS , YOU HAV E A 1 7-YEAR -OLD, 1 8-YE AR -OLD , A N O LDER COD EF ENDA NT A ND SOM E P RETT Y STA RTLI NG A SPEC TS O F HIS G RO WING U P Y EA RS , A ND C LEAR LY , YOU KNOW , WHE TH ER IT IS A T ROUB LE D C HI LD HOOD T HAT H E W OULD N' T HAV E D EVELOPED THA T AND T HE O NL Y REA SON COULD B E N OT I N THI S C ASE NO T A STR AT EG IC R EA SO N BUT UNF OR TU NATE LY I'M TOO BUS Y REA SON.

WELL , BUT D OC TO R - -. > > CHIEF J USTICE: FOR T HE RE TO BE A S TRAT EG IC R EASO N THE Y W OULD H AVE T O H AV E I NVESTI GATED IT AND THE N REJ ECTED I T , AND , Y OU KNO W , T HAT' S V ER Y C OM PE LL IN G T ESTIMO NY A BO UT A SEV ERAL -YEAR HIS TORY O F D OMESTIC V IO LENC E D URIN G THE T IME THAT A CHI LD I S YOU NG A ND I S GRO WING UP. NOW , I T M AY N OT H AV E BEE N D EVELOPED AT THE E VIDE NTIA RY H EARING SO Y OU S AY , H EY , W HAT ARE Y OU A SK IN G A BOUT T HI S WHE N T HE Y D IDN'T A RG UE I T AND T HE E VIDE NT IA RY HEA RING , BUT I T C ON CERN S M E T HA T THA T WAS J US T D ROPP ED . > > OKAY . B UT BOT TOM L IN E W E HAV EN 'T G OT A NY P RE JUDI CE H ER E , E ITHER. D R. GILGUN TES TIFIED AT T HE P ENALTY PHASE THAT HE DID NOT H AVE ANY M AJOR M EN TAL I LLNESS ES , M EL TO N D ID N'T. DR. DEE AT T HE E VI DENT IA RY H EARI NG THE N S AY S T HA T A S WEL L. UNDERSTAND THERE IS N O SER IOUS M ENTA L M IT IGAT IO N H ERE . > > CH IEF J USTICE: DID THE Y DEVELOP AT THE EVIDENTIA RY HEARING THAT THE AGE MIT IGATOR S HO UL D H AV E B EE N G IV EN G RE AT W EIGHT O R T HA T W AS N OT DEV ELOP ED ?

NO , YOUR HON OR , I 'M T ELLING YOU B EC AUSE I RER EA D THE S EN TE NCIN G O RD ER LAS T NIGHT, AND SO I K NO W T HA T A GE W AS O NE O F T HEIR BIG THI NGS ALR EADY, B UT T HEY DI D NOT G O O N A N AGE , T HERE WAS N OT , C OUNS EL W AS INE FF EC TIVE F OR NOT PUS HI NG THE A GE M ORE. THAT'S NOT A CLA IM W E H AV E B EEN L ITIG AT ING. W HAT WE HAV E B EE N LIT IG ATIN G DOWN IN T HE F IRST DCA I S E VERY ONE O F H IS C LA IMS THA T HE STARTED WITH. T HE BRADY, T HE NEWLY D ISCOVE RED EVI DE NC E C LAIM AND I T HI NK T HOSE A RE P RECLUD ED FRO M T HI S C OU RT R EH EARING T HE EXA CT SAM E - - T HIS I S I F Y OU L OO K AT T HE O RAL ARGUMENT IN THE FIR ST D CA , T HE FIR ST DCA NOW D OE S W HA T T HI S C OURT D OE S AND THEY KEEP THEIR O RA L A RGUMENTS IN T HE A RCHI VE S. I CAN A LS O S UB MI T T O YOU M Y B RI EF IN THE F IRST DCA . T HIS I S E XACT LY W HA T W E A RGUED TH ERE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WAS T HERE A WRITTEN DEC ISIO N S AYIN G -- > > N O , N O. > > CHIE F JUS TICE : S O YOU WOU LD AGR EE THERE ARE T WO D IFFERENT CON SIDERATIONS, ONE IN T HE P RI OR FEL ON Y , W HETH ER ANY O F T HI S E STAB LISHES H IS INN OCEN CE VER SU S H ER E WHA T I S BEI NG A RGUED I S WHE THER T HI S W OU LD H AV E S HOWN I NSTE AD O F A C OLD- BLOODED P RI OR M UR DE R V ERY SIM ILAR T O T HI S P RESE NT O NE THA T THE RE W ER E OTH ER CIR CUMS TANCES, S O WOU LD Y OU A GREE T HA T T HERE I S A D IFFERENT I SSUE B EFOR E THI S COU RT ? I T S TI LL M AY B E T HA T THE RE I S N O GIG LI O , B RADY , N EW LY DIS COVERED EVI DENC E CLAIM BUT A DIFFERENT I NQUIRY? > > W EL L , N OW , THE FIR ST P AR T , NO, I T IS N OT A DIF FERE NT I NQUIRY . THE SECOND ONE I S. Y ES, I D O A GR EE H E GET S T O T AL K ABO UT , W HI CH W E DI D N OT MIT IGATE I N T HE FIR ST DCA . > > CH IEF JUS TICE: IN OTHERWORDS WE DON'T KNOW IF THE FIR ST DISTR IC T REJ EC TE D I T B ECAUSE O F PRO NG O NE , TWO O R T HREE O F B RADY O R GIG LIO?

T HA T DOE SN'T MAT TE R . THE Y R EJ ECTE D I T. T HIS CLA IM HAS B EE N D EN IE D BY THE FIRST DCA . > > CHIEF J USTICE: B UT P REJUDI CE H ER E H AS T O D O WITH THE WEIGHT G IVEN TO T HE P RIOR V IO LENT F EL ONY M ITIGATOR , A GGRA VATO R . T HERE I T H AS T O DO WIT H ACT UA L INN OCENCE.

H E DOES NOT G ET T O R ELITIGAT E THE VAL ID ITY O F T HE SAY LO R CON VI CT IO N T O T HE POINT I WAS N OT T HE RE. H E DOE SN 'T GET T O D O T HAT. T HAT'S ALREA DY B EEN DONE I N THE FIRST DCA . W HAT H E M AY D O H ER E I S LIMIT H IS C LAIM T O S INKF IE LD A ND FRE D H ARRI S B ECAU SE T HE Y S AI D , N OW , THE T RIAL COU RT R EJEC TE D IT AND FOU ND T HOSE TWO I NMAT ES INC REDI BL E B UT W HA T T HE Y S AID AND W HA T H E IS ALLOWED T O R AISE H ER E WAS T HAT THE RE W AS A M OR E INV OLVE D S TRUG GLE T HA T LEW IS W AS A LS O I NV OL VE D I N THE S TRUGGL E. HE M AY R AISE THO SE T WO I NMATES AND T HOSE TWO I NMATES O NLY S O LET M E TEL L YOU A BOUT THOSE T WO INM ATES . > > JUS TICE : B EF ORE YOU T ELL US ABOUT T HOSE T WO , T HOUG H , TELL US WHA T , I F A NY TH IN G , D EFENSE COUNS EL D ID T O D EFEND T HE W EIGH T O F T HE P RIOR VIO LE NT F EL ON Y A GGRAVA TOR? THAT IS D ID H E A TT AC K T HE WEI GHT O F THA T O R ARG UE THA T O R P RE SENT EVI DENCE T O TRY T O - - T EL L U S ABO UT T HAT. > > T HI S I S THE MOS T E XTEN SIVE A TTAC K O N A P RIOR V IOLENT F ELONY I 'VE S EE N A ND WHAT HE DID WAS HE TOO K H E INT RODUCE D T HE STA TE CAL LED T HE PRO SE CU TO R I N T HE S AY LO R T AX I CAB D RI VE R AND H E I NTRODUCE D D EF ENSE C OUNS EL D ID AS PAR T O F HIS C RO SS O F T HAT P ROSE CUTO R H E I NTRO DU CED T HE J URY' S VER DICT. H E A LSO A CTUA LL Y H E C AL LE D E SCAM BI A COU NTY C LE RK'S O FFICE AND ALS O I NT RODU CE D N UMEROU S DOCU MENTS HAVING TO DO WITH THE SAY LO R TRIAL . > > J US TICE : ISN 'T THIS T HE VERDICT THAT HAD THE P REME DI TATED O UT ? > > RIG HT , S CR ATCH ED THR OUGH A ND FEL ONY M URDER. HE ALSO INTRODUCE D THE J URY'S Q UEST IO NS , THE JUD GE WON DE RED W HETHER HE SHO UL D LET THAT IN , B UT G IVEN T HA T T HIS WA S A C AP IT AL C AS E THE JUR Y'S QUE ST IO N I N T HE S AYLOR T RIAL SEEMED T O I NDICAT E T HE Y ASKED DID YOU F IND THE G UN . IF W E AR E NOT S UR E , I 'M P AI R A PHR AS IN G H ERE. I F WE ARE N OT SUR E I T WAS M ELTON WHO H AD T HE G UN I S H E S TILL GUILT Y UND ER A P RINC IPLE, H E D ID N'T USE PRI NC IPLE, THAT' S W HERE T HE Y WERE GOING. S O H E DID A G REAT D EA L USI NG T HE D OC UMEN TS I N THE S AY LO R M URDE R T RIAL T O ATT AC K T HE WEI GHT , O KAY? T HE J URY' S V ER DI CT , THE J URY' S Q UESTION. HE CROSSED THE P ROSE CUTO R. T HIS W AS N OT NOR MA LL Y W HA T H AP PENS W HICH I S U NDER ST ANDABLE WHICH IS NOR MALL Y T HE PRO SE CUTO R I N T HE CAP ITAL CAS E SIM PL Y I NTRODU CES THE PRI OR V IOLE NT F ELONY C ON VI CTION A ND D EFENSE COU NSEL D OESN'T DO MUCH AT A LL AND MOVES O N T O H IS M IT IG ATIO N. T HAT'S N OT W HA T H APPENS HERE. H ER E , THI S C OUNS EL A TTAC KE D T HE W EI GH T A ND H E W AS G OING FOR THE W EI GH T AND GOI NG FOR THE FACT THAT HE WAS T RY IN G TO SAY T HAT MEL TO N W AS NOT T HE T RIGG ER MAN I N T HE SAY LO R C AS E . T HAT WAS A LL D ONE. T HI S W AS S ERIO US LY A TT AC KE D I N TERMS O F W EIGH T . W ITH ALL O F T HESE DOC UM ENTS AND W ITH M UL TI W IT NE SSES . N OW , G ET TING T O S IN KF IELD A ND F RE D LEW IS , W HA T H E I S ALL OWED TO D O H ERE I S T O S AY T HAT THE SE T WO INM ATES DIS AGREED WITH L EW IS A ND M ELTON' S T ES TIMONY A ND S AI D L EWIS WAS MOR E I NV OLVED. THAT IT W AS M ORE O F A T HREE -WAY S TRUG GLE A T THE T IME OF THE SHO OTIN G. T HE P ROBL EM W ITH THA T IS W HAT - - T HERE ARE N UMER OU S P ROBLEMS B UT LET M E S TA RT OUT W ITH SIN KFIE LD ADM ITTE D H E MOS T LIK EL Y WOULD NOT HAVE TOLD A NYBODY A BO UT HIS C ONVERSATION W ITH L EWIS , B ECAUSE H E H AD H IS O WN I SSUES T O WOR RY A BO UT . F RED H ARRI S S AI D T HA T S OMEONE F RO M T HE PD' S O FFIC E CAM E T O T AL K T O H IM I N 199 1 R IGHT ARO UN D T HI S T RIAL . THIS TRI AL IS I N '96 . SO T HE Y D ID T RY T O GET S OMEONE FROM THE PD' S O FF IC E DID T RY TO TAL K T O I NMAT E FRE D LEW IS A ND H E REF USED T O T ALK T O H IM . O KAY. THESE WITNESSES W ER E N OT A VAILABLE T O COU NS EL . WHAT IS MORE I S LET 'S SAY T HEY SOM EH OW B ECAM E AVAILABLE. THAT'S OBVIOUS LY NOT T HE S TAND AR D FOR INE FF EC TIVE A SSIS TANCE OF COUNSEL BUT I F THEY HAD BEC OM E A VAIL AB LE , THE Y WAN T TO ARGUE WIT H L EWIS AND M EL TON' S O WN T RI AL T ESTI MONY. THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE TOO K THE S TA ND A ND TOL D T HI S J URY WHAT H AP PE NE D . N O J URY I S G OING T O LIS TE N TO TWO I NMAT ES T HA T DIS AG RE E W ITH THE D EF EN DANT 'S O WN TES TI MONY ABOUT HOW H E S HO T T HE V ICTI M H ERE. HE SHOT T HE VIC TI M H ERE. T HAT W AS HIS O WN T ESTI MO NY . Y OU S IM PL Y CAN NO T I MPEA CH T HAT. M ELTON , NOW , T HE RE W AS A S TRUGGL E O RI GINA LL Y W HE N M EL TO N T RI ES T O G O FOR A R ING. L EWIS G RABS T HE V ICTI M , CAR TER'S H AN DS, T O KEE P H IM FRO M G OI NG FOR A G UN . T HE V IC TI M H AS A G UN . S O THERE WAS THA T S TRUG GL E , B UT MEL TO N HIMSE LF A DM IT TE D T HA T H E W AS I N T HE B AC K AND H E W AS A LO NE W IT H T HE VIC TI M W HEN H E C LAIM S T HE VIC TI M REA CH ED UP T O G RA B T HE G UN , A ND T HA T' S W HE N T HIS STR UGGL E BET WEEN THE TWO O F T HE M , AND T HI S I S M EL TON' S T RIAL T ES TIMO NY , AND T HE GUN W ENT OFF. NOW , THE STA TE 'S T HE OR Y WAS H E J US T P LAIN S HO T HIM , BUT A CCORDING T O B OTH T HE S TATE AND T HE D EF ENSE THI S WAS A S TRUG GL E B ET WEEN T HE T WO O F T HEM A ND T HA T GUN WEN T O FF W ITH J US T THE TWO O F THE M T HERE. LEW IS WAS TRY IN G T O G ET OUT T HE S ID E DOO R W HE N T HI S H APPENE D . O KAY? BOT H LEW IS A ND MEL TO N A GREE T HAT LEW IS WAS NOT INV OL VE D S O W HO C AR ES WHA T T WO I NMATES W HO H EARD H EARS AY S TATE MENTS SAID ? I MEAN , THAT' S J US T N OT G OING T O H EL P Y OU . S O T HE PRO BL EM H ER E I S T HA T IS C ONTR ARY T O T HE D EFEN DA NT'S OWN T ES TI MONY . A ND THIS COURT FOU ND THA T M ELTON W AS THE A CTUA L T RIGGER MAN O N T HE D IR EC T A PPEAL. YOU HAD NO TROUBLE WITH THA T F INDING AND M ELTO N W AS CAU GHT. M ELTO N IS L IT ER AL LY CAU GH T TWO STE PS OUT O F T HE F RONT D OOR. T HE POL IC E ARR IVE. H E I S C AU GH T W ITH T HE GUN ON H IM .

J USTI CE : WAS H E CLE AR ABOUT THE TAXI CAB MUR DE R C ASE , B OT H T HE O RI GINA L C ONVICTIO N A ND THE D EN IA L O F P OST- CONVICTION R ELIE F H AV E B EE N AFF IR MED?

THE Y H AV E B EE N A FFIR ME D A ND H IS BRA DY , H IS NEWLY D ISCOVERE D E VIDENCE AND H IS I NEFFECTI VE NE SS R EG ARDI NG T HAT H AV E BEEN L IT IGAT ED . T HE SE ARE THE EXA CT S AM E CLA IMS. T HOSE ARE THE E XACT SAM E C LAIM S. WE DID A N ORA L A RG UMEN T O N D OWN IN THE F IRST D CA , OKA Y? N OW, I D O A GREE H E G ET S T O A TTAC K W HA T H AP PENS A T THE PEN AL TY P HASE , ALL R IGHT? BUT COUNS EL DID A V ER Y GOO D J OB AND T HE RE I S NO INE FFEC TI VE A SSISTANCE OF COUNSEL HERE. THANK YOU . > > CHIE F J USTI CE: THANK Y OUVERY MUCH. R EBUT TA L ?

I 'D L IK E T O A DDRE SS T HE P ENALTY PHA SE DEFEN SE E XPER T , T RIAL D EFEN SE C OUNS EL INDICATED I T WASN'T A S TRATEGIC D ECIS IO N WHA TSOE VE R TO F OREG O W HATEVE R W AS P RE SENTED D OWN AT THE EVIDENTIARY H EARING. H E CON CE DED THA T F ACT A ND A S W ELL THE RE H AV E B EE N A QUE ST ION REG ARDING THE AMOUNT OF TRIALS. HE HAD INDICATED T HA T I N T HAT CAL EN DA R Y EA R H E HAD D ONE M Y REC OLLECTION I S EIGHT TRIALS. FOUR OF THEM C AP ITAL . S EVEN W ER E J UR Y T RI AL S. O NE WAS A B ENCH T RIAL . THAT WOULD INC LU DE THE S AYLOR C AS E WIT H M R. M EL TON. > > JUSTI CE : WOULD YOU PLE AS E ADDRESS IN YOUR SHO RT TIM E T HE P REJU DI CE THA T YOU S EE FRO M T HE PEN AL TY P HA SE BEC AU SE THERE SEEMS T O B E A R EAL D IS PUTE W ITH REGARD T O T HAT I SSUE . > > A BSOL UT EL Y , B EC AUSE O PPOSIN G COUNSEL W AS COR RECT IN THA T AGE W AS A N I SS UE O RIGINALLY. B ACK I N T HE T RI AL COU RT . WHA T D R. D EE T ES TIFI ED T O I N P OST-CO NVICTION W OU LD HAV E COR ROBORA TED T HA T S UBST ANTIALLY IN T HA T H E C AM E TO T HE C ONCL US ION T HAT M R. MELTON WAS S TRIK INGL Y I MMATUR E F OR BEI NG 1 8 Y EARS O LD . > > JUSTI CE : DID T HE O THER HEALTH CARE PROVI DER , T HE O THER EXPERT H AVE T HA T V IEW THAT HE WAS MAN IP UL AT ED A LTHO UG H H E ONLY HAD A SHO RT TIM E TO D O I T? > > NOT AT T RIAL .

J USTI CE : DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HIS AGE A T TRIAL AT ALL? > > MY RECOL LE CTION IS H E D IDN'T GET P AS T T HE C HRON OL OGICAL A GE I SS UE A T T RIAL A S O PPOSED T O N OT O NL Y W AS H E CHR ON OL OGIC AL LY 1 8. H E WAS S TRIK IN GL Y I MMAT UR E F OR 1 8 B EC AUSE O F T HE W AY H IS W IF E H AD T REAT ED HIM . > > JUS TI CE: YOU H AV E NOT R AISE D I N Y OU R H AB EA S P ETITIO N I NEFF EC TIVE NE SS O F A PPEA L AT C OUNS EL F OR N OT A RG UING MORE T O T HIS C OURT ABOUT THE TRIAL C OU RT'S F AILURE T O T REAT THE A GE MIT IGAT OR ? > > N O. O NLY AS I T REL AT ES T O T HE I NEFFECTI VENESS B OT H B ELOW AND COULD H AV E C OM E OUT T HROUGH THE M EN TA L H EALT H EXPERT.

JUSTICE: SO IS Y OU R ARG UMENT H ER E R EALL Y THA T T RIAL COU NSEL W AS I NE FF ECTIVE FOR NOT F INDI NG D R. DEE'S OR T RI AL C OU NSEL W AS INE FFEC TI VE F OR NOT GET TING T HI S KIND O F INFORMATION OUT OF THEMEN TAL HEALTH EXPERT WHO , IN F ACT , TES TI FIED AT T HE P ENALTY PHASE? > > H E W AS INE FFEC TI VE F OR N OT P ROVI DING T HA T DOC TO R T HE I NFORMATION TO C OME T O T HAT CO NCLUSION. HE WAS INE FFEC TI VE FOR N OT B RINGING THAT D OCTO R I N. > > JUSTI CE : I T HOUG HT H E H AD P RO VI DED THE M EN TA L H EALT H EXP ERT WIT H C ERTA IN A MOUNT O F DOC UMEN TA TI ON . W HAT SHO UL D H E H AV E GIV EN HIM THAT HE D IDN'T GIV E H IM ? > > H E S HOUL D H AV E GIV EN H IM T HE S TATE ME NT S THA T FRO M T HE FAM ILY MEM BE RS THA T W E H AD . HE SHOUL D H AV E G IV EN HIM M R. MELTO N'S STA TE MENTS R EGAR DING THI S W HICH D R. GIL GUN S AI D HE DI D NOT HAVE. T HE INF ORMATI ON R EGARDING THE SAY LO R C AS E S HO UL D HAV E BEEN PROVI DED W HICH WAS N OT P ROVIDED. THIS DOCTOR , T HE RE I S N O I NDIC AT IO N THA T T RI AL D EFENSE C OU NSEL SPOKE T O T HIS D OCTO R A ND T HE Y B OT H H AD S AI D T HA T THE Y M ACON T EM P R AI N Y US NOT ES A ND T HERE WAS N O IND IC AT IO N THAT T HEY HAD DIS CU SSED TRI AL S TRATEG Y , W HA T T RIAL D EF EN SE C OUNSEL HAD D EVELOPED. THERE W AS NO INDICATIO N O F T HA T . THA T W AS VER Y S IM ILAR I N THE T ES TIMO NY FRO M D R. GIL GU N AND THE T ES TIMO NY F RO M TRI AL D EFEN SE C OU NSEL . > > JUS TICE : HEL P M E C LA RI FY W AS T HE T ES TIMONY THEY HAD NO F ACE- TO -FAC E D ISCU SS IO N OR NO DISCU SS IO N AT A LL ?

N O D IS CUSS IO N AT A LL WAS M Y U NDER STAN DI NG F RO M R EADING THE R EC ORD. T HERE W AS N O IND ICAT IO N O F A D IREC T C ONTACT, OTHER T HA N THE FACT O F H IR IN G H IM , SEN DING OUT T HE I NFOR MA TION. NO S TR ATEG Y W AS D IS CU SS ED , N O - - NOT HI NG LIK E THA T WAS C ONVE YE D THA T W E T IP IKA LL Y S EE A ND T HA T W E W OU LD EXPEC T T HROUGH THE A BA STA ND ARDS . > > CHIEF J USTICE: T HE STATEMENTS OF THE RELAT IV ES ABOUT THE D OMES TI C VIO LE NC E , ET CETERA, WOU LD THO SE , M R. TER RELL , J UD GE T ER RELL H AVE T HA T AND J US T DID N' T G IVE I T T O H IS E XP ER T O R WAS I T N EVER D EV ELOP ED ? > > M Y UND ERST AN DING W AS M R. M ELTO N TOLD THE E XP ERT ABOUT THE BROKEN A RM A ND - -. > > CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU MENTIONED THEY DIDN'T GIVE THE S TATEMENTS THAT YOU HAD . W ERE THEIR INV ES TI GATO RS STATEMENTS OF T HE REL ATIV ES T HAT THE J UDGE T ER RELL HAD AND DID N' T U SE ?

H E D IDN' T H AV E W HA T W E H AD . > > CHIE F JUSTICE: I T WAS NEV ER I NVES TI GA TED? > > O KAY. THANK YOU. WE WILL TAKE THI S CAS E U NDER A DV IS EMENT.