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.
Christopher Jones v. State of Florida
SC04-2231
>> THE NEXT CASE FOR
JANUARY 9th IS JONES VERSUS
THE STATE OF FLORIDA.,,
>>> MAY IS PLEASE THE COURT.
RUSSELL AKINS ON BEHALF OF
CHRISTOPHER JONES IN FT.
PIERCE FLORIDA, YOUR HONOR,
THIS CASE INVOLVES THE FIRST-
DEGREE MURDER AND ROBBERY
CASE OUT OF OKEECHOBEE,
FLORIDA, IN WHICH A VERDICT
OF GUILTY WAS HANDED DOWN AS
TWO TWO COUNTS AS WELL AS
POSITION OF THE DEATH
PENALTY AND THIS APPEAL
FOLLOWED THROUGH FROM THE
AUTOMATIC APPEAL
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.
THERE ARE EVENTUALLY FOUR
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
TODAY WHICH HAS BEEN BRIEFED
WHILE THEY ARE FOUR SEPARATE
ISSUES I WOULD SUGGEST ISSUE
TWO AND THREE SOMEWHAT MERGE
IN THAT ISSUE INVOLVES THE
AGGRAVATOR ISSUE--
>>> -- TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, THEY
WERE DISCUSSED AND AT SIDE
BAR PRIOR TO PURSUANT TO
CONTEMPORANEOUS OBJECTION, IT
APPEARS FROM THE RECORD TO
HAVE BEEN AN AGREEMENT TO
ALLOW A GENERAL STATEMENT
INTO THE TRIAL PROCEEDING,
AND THAT AGREEMENT OR
OBJECTION OR RESOLUTION OF
THE OBJECTION I THINK WAS
NOT -- IN MY POSITION WAS NOT
FOLLOWED AND THE TRIAL --
>> WHAT I WANT TO GET TO,
BECAUSE THAT IS STATE OF
MIND WHATEVER ---
THE DEFENDANT IS IN THE
VEHICLE.
NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
AND EDMONDS TESTIFIES THAT
AFTER ALL OF THE
CONVERSATION THAT WAS GOING
ON, JONES SAID I -- I HOPE
THE MAN GOT MONEY BECAUSE I
HOPE WE ARE NOT GOING ON A
BLANK TRIP AND WE HAVE CASES
THAT TALK ABOUT YOU KNOW
WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE IN THE
PRESENCE OF ONE ANOTHER, AND
THINGS ARE SAID THAT HIM
SAYING THAT WHICH IS CLEARLY
COMES INTO EVERY DAY I DON'T
KNOW HOW ANYTHING ELSE
PARTICULARLY MATTERS SO I
DON'T KNOW WHEN I'M IS IT
HARMLESS?
IS IT AN ADMISSION WHICH COMES
OUT AS AN ADMISSION BECAUSE
OF THE TO GIVE THE CONTEXT
IN WHICH HE WOULD HAVE SAID
I HOPE THE MAN GOT MONEY
BECAUSE I'M I HOPE WE ARE
NOT GOING ON A BLANK TRIP,
THAT, BY THAT STATEMENT YOU
ALREADY KNOW THAT HE KNOWS
HE IS GOING THERE TO AT THE
VERY LEAST ROB THIS MAN.
>> YES.
>> WHERE IS EITHER THE ERROR
OF THE TRIAL COURT OR IF
THERE IS ANY ERROR, WHERE IS
THE HARM IN WHAT ELSE GOT
ADMITTED?
>> WELL I WOULD SUGGEST THAT
THE -- THE ERROR THAT IN
THIS THAT IS HARMFUL IS
BECAUSE IF YOU ALLOW THESE
STATEMENTS -- ESSENTIALLY WHAT
YOU HAD -- IN TRIAL LEVEL IS
YOU HAD TWO WITNESSES THAT
WERE PARTICIPANTS FOR
ACTUALLY AT THE SCENE WHICH
WERE ROZIER AND THE
DEFENDANT JONES.
BY ALLOWING ROZIER TO
INCORPORATE STATEMENTS MADE
BY TWO ADDITIONAL
COCONSPIRATORS OR
CODEFENDANTS IN THIS
PROCEEDING, YOU ALLOW NOW A
CREDIBILITY FINDING BASED ON
THREE WITNESSES VERSUS THE
TWO PARTICIPANTS THAT
ACTUALLY TESTIFIED.
>> SUPPORT THE DEFENDANT'S
RECORDED STATEMENT GET
ADMITTED INTO EVERY DAY,
ALSO.
>> YES, IT DID.
>> AND IS NOT THE SUBSTANCE
OF HIS RECORDED STATEMENT
ESSENTIAL UP TO THE POINT
ABOUT WHO DID THE SHOOTING
AND THAT KIND OF THING, THE
SAME AS ROZIER'S
TESTIMONY AS FAR AS --
ESSENTIALLY THE DISCUSSION
OF THE PLAN, OF AN
AGREEMENT, SCHEME.
>> -- GO AND ROB.
>> LARGO --
>> YOU GET TO THE DIVERGENT
POINTS AT THE TRUTH.
>> BUT THAT IS NOT --
INSOFAR AS THE STATEMENTS
WERE MADE BY THE OTHER
PEOPLE, IT IS REALLY THE
SAME WHAT IS ROZIER HAD TO
SAY THAT THE FOUR OF THEM
AND THE DEFENDANT'S OWN
WORDS, IN THE RECORDED
STATEMENT WERE AGREEING TO
COMMIT THIS ROBBERY.
IS THAT NOT CORRECT?
>> SO WOULD YOU NOT AGREE
THAT THE SAME THING CAME IN
IN HIS RECORDED STATEMENT AS
WE SAY UP TO THE POINT ABOUT
WHO DID THE SHOOTING, AND
THAT STUFF, PART OF IT BUT
AS FAR AS AS THE DISCUSSION
TO COMMIT A ROBBERY, IT IS
THE SAME IS IT NOT?
>> THE DEFENDANT IS
DESCRIBING THE SAME
DISCUSSION THAT ROZIER
DESCRIBES WOULD YOU AGREE
WITH THAT.
>> YES.
>> SO THERE COULDN'T BE ANY
HARM COULD THERE INSOFAR AS
ROZIER REPEATING WHAT THE
DEFENDANT SAID IN HIS
STATEMENT UP TO THE POINT AS
FAR WHOSE DID THE SHOOTING
COULD THERE
>> IS YOUR -- YOUR QUESTION
GO TO HIS CUSTODIAL
STATEMENT?
>> RIGHT THE RECORDED
STATEMENT THAT WAS AD MYTHED
HIS STATEMENT.
>> AGAIN, THE ONLY THE BIG
DIFFERENCE I WOULD SUGGEST
WAS THAT IS ANY TIME YOU
HAVE A CUSTODIAL
INTERROGATION YOU GET A
SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTION TO
THAT CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION
SO YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL
FACT OF CREDIBILITY WEIGHING
THAT GOES ON, WITH THE
INHERENT UNRELIABILITY OF
CUSTODIAL STATEMENTS.
>> MY OTHER QUESTION IS WHY
IS NOT THIS THE CLASSIC
COCONSPIRATOR -- EXCEPTION
TO THE HEARSAY RULE?
THAT IS, PROBABLY THE MOST
EXPLICIT CHARACTERIZATION
ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IS
IN YOUR CLIENT'S RECORDED
STATEMENT, AND THAT IS WHEN
HE SAYS WE ALL SAT THERE,
AND FIGURE HOW THEED WE WERE
GOING TO DO IT WE WERE GOING
TO COMMIT THE ROBBERY.
AND SO IS NOT THIS CLEARLY
YOU KNOW BY THE EVIDENCE
FROM HIS RECORDED STATEMENT
AND THE EVIDENCE FROM ROSIER
REALLY ESTABLISH THERE WAS A
SIMPLE CONSPIRACY THE
COCONSPIRATOR'S EXCEPTION SO
LONG AS THE STATEMENTS ARE
MADE, FURTHERANCE OF THE
CONSPIRACY AGREED UPON WHY
WOULDN'T THAT EXCEPTION ALSO
APPLY HERE?
>> IN OTHER WORDS I'M
TROUBLED BECAUSE THE SAME
THING APPEARS IN YOUR
CLIENT'S STATEMENT, THE
REALLY, SEEMS TO BE VERY
LITTLE DISPUTE BETWEEN
EVERYBODY IN THIS CASE THAT
THIS GROUP WAS GOING THERE
YOU KNOW, TO COMMIT A
ROBBERY.
THE REAL DISPUTE IN THE
INDICATION IS CENTERING OVER
YOU KNOW THE DEATH THAT
OCCURRED HERE SO -- I'M
LOOKING AT THE ONE HAND WHY
IT WOULDN'T BE HARMLESS,
EVEN IF IT WASN'T, BECAUSE
THE DEFENDANT'S RECORDED
STATEMENT IS THERE.
AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND,
WHY IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
ADMISSIBLE ANYWAY UNDER A
COCONSPIRATOR'S EXCEPTION.
>> WELL, I MEAN I WOULD
SUGGEST AGAIN FIRST WHY IT
WOULDN'T BE HARMLESS IS
BECAUSE YOU ARE ALLOWING
UNCONFRONTED STATEMENTS TO
COME IN TO ENHANCE THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE
TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANT SO I
WOULD SUGGEST AT THAT POINT
THAT IS ONE HARMFUL ERROR IN
THE SITUATION.
AFTER THE -- COCONSPIRATOR
STATEMENT, IT WASN'T
POSITIVE AS A COCONSPIRATOR
STATEMENT --
>> YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED
CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER, AND
I WOULD THINK THAT --
DOESN'T IT LOOK A LOT LIKE
IT?
>> IT MAY MEET THE EXCEPTION
FOR COCONSPIRATOR.
>> WELL THAT IS EXACTLY THE
SITUATION WE HAD IN JERMAINE
FOSTER.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND WHERE THOSE PEOPLE
GOT TOGETHER, AND IN HAINES
CITY AND DECIDED TO COMMIT A
ROBBERY, AND WE SPECIFICALLY
HELD THAT THOSE WERE AN
EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY.
RULE, UNDER THE
COCONSPIRATOR, I MEAN I
DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE
REALLY BETWEEN THIS CASE AND
YOUR FOSTER -- CASE --
>> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR
ARGUMENT ON THE EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING THE ARREST --
>> THANK YOU, CLEARLY, THE
LAW THAT HAS BEEN SO IT IN
THIS COURT THAT THE ARREST
AGGRAVAOR WHEN APPLIED TO A
NONLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
THE COURT IN APPLYING THAT
AGGRAVATED TEST THAT IT HAS
TO LAY DOWN, IS IT THE SOLE
OR DOMINANT REASON FOR THE
COMMITTING OF THE MURDER.
>> -- IS TO ELIMINATE THE --
THE WITNESS.
THE COURT AND HAS ALLOWED
NOT ONLY CASES WHERE THE
PERSON KNEW THE DEFENDANT,
YET STILL DID NOT APPLY THE
AGGRAVATOR, BECAUSE THEY
WERE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
INVOLVED OR MIGHT HAVE BEEN
ACTION ON THE PART OF THE
VICTIM, AND ONE CASE THE ON
THIS CASE THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND THERE WAS NO OTHER
MOTIVE OTHER THAN WITNESS.
>> HE THAT IS CORRECT I
WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE
COURT, MISAPPLIED THE FACTS
THAT ARE IN THE RECORD IN
ITS FINDING.
THE COURT IN ITS FINDINGS
WHEN APPLYING THE AGGRAVAOR
SAID THAT THEY ALL WENT UP
TO THE TRAILER, USING THE
WORD "THEY" SPECIFICALLY
MEANING ALL FOUR PARTICIPANTS.
MISS CUFF IT IS CLEAR FROM THE
RECORD WAS THE INDIVIDUAL
WENT UP TO THE TRAILER
INITIALLY, AND PARTICIPATED
IN THIS RECONNAISSANCE
MISSION SO TO SPEAK SHE THEN
COMES BACK TO THE CAR WHERE
THE OTHER THREE ARE STEALING
THE CAR, SHE I THINK IT IS
CLEAR WHY ALL PURPOSES OF
THE RECORD SHE STAYS IN THE
CAR AT WHILE SENT BACK UP A
SECOND TIME TO ASK IF HE WAS
-- TO -- SHE COMES BACK,
THEY THEN THE THREE OTHER
PARTICIPANTS GO UP TWO MALE
INDIVIDUALS, ROZIER AND MY
CLIENT MR. JONES IN FRONT,
EXCUSE ME -- TWO MALE
INDIVIDUALS, IN FRONT WITH
MISS ROZIER FOLLOWING GO UP
TO THE DOOR, THE RECORD
SUGGESTION THAT THEY
PURCHASED OR WERE ABOUT TO
PURCHASE SOME BEER WHEN
MR. JONES KICKS IN THE DOOR,
THERE IS AN INSTANCE WHERE
THERE IS PISTOL WHIPPING,
AFTER THE PISTOL WHIPPING
THEY BEGIN TO TAKE THINGS
THEY TAKE THE WALLET, THE
OTHER MALE CO-DEFENDANT
TAKES THE WALLET FROM VICTIM
MR. MINGES.
>> THE OTHER MALE DEFENDANT
WAS FROM THE AREA THE TRAIL
COURT FOUND HE WAS FROM THE
AREA SO THE VICTIM MAY HAVE
KNOWN HIM AS WELL AS MISS
CUFF --
>> I THINK THE RECORD IS
CLEAR THEY KNEW MISS --
COOK, MR. ROZIER WHO IS THE
OTHER DEFENDANT, THERE IS
THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT HE
WAS FROM THE AREA, THE
PROBLEM IN APPLYING THE
AGGRAVATOR IS CERTAINLY THE
COURT CAN USE CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE, HOWEVER THE
PROBLEM LIES WHEN YOU TAKE
THE INFERENCE THAT HAVE TO BE
STACKED UPON EMPHASIS TO GET
TO THIS CONCLUSION COOK IS
THE ONE ALLEGEDLY KNOWN
SPECIFICALLY TO THE VICTIM
THROUGH FIRE TRANSACTIONS
WHERE SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO
HAVE BEEN GIVEN A RIDE SO
FORTH.
SHE GUESS UP TO THE TRAILER,
GOES UP ON RECONNAISSANCE
MISSION MAY HAVE GONE UP THE
SECOND TIME, THEN SHE IS
BACK AT THE CAR, THE RECORD,
I WOULD SUGGEST, IS NOT
EXACTLY CLEAR AS TO HOW MUCH
TIME PASSES BETWEEN HER SECOND
RETURN TO THE CAR AND THE OTHER
INDIVIDUALS GOING UP TO THE
TRAILER.
BUT THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT
PRESENT IN THE TRAILER ONE
WOULD HAVE TO INFER AT THAT
POINT THAT THE VICTIM WOULD
DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT SHE
WAS WITH THE GROUP.
SECONDLY, THEN, YOU'VE GOT
TO INFER THEN --
>> SHE GOES BACK AND TELL US
THEM HE SAYS DOESN'T --
TELLS HIM HE DOESN'T LIKE
THE BLACK -- SOME TO THE
DOOR --
>> HE ACTUALLY DOES, SO BUT
--
>> RIGHT.
>> -- THAT THE POINT YOU
STILL GOT TO MAKE THE
INFERENCE THAT HE THE VICTIM
THEN WOULD KNOW THAT SHE WAS
RELATED TO THE INDIVIDUALS,
WOULD YOU HAVE TO THEN INFER
ONCE SHE IS IN POLICE
CUSTODY THEN THAT SHE IS
GOING TO COOPERATE AND IT IS
A PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT IS
GOING THROUGH THE MIND OF
THE SHOOTER.
IS HE GOING THROUGH ALL
THESE PERMUTATIONS AT THE
TIME HE ACTUALLY SHOOTS?
I THINK THE RECORD IS
INDICATIVE THE FACT THAT HE
DOESN'T HAVE THAT STATE OF
MIND.
>> WELL WHEN DID THE ACTUAL
SHOOTING TAKE PLACE?
I THOUGHT THAT AT LEAST ONE
OF THE SHOTS WAS FIRED
DURING THE COURSE OF THE
STRUGGLE THAT WAS GOING ON
HERE, AND SO HELP ME WITH
WHEN DID THE ACTUAL SHOOTING
OF THE VICTIM TAKE PLACE.
>> DURING A PISTOL WHIPPING
AN ERRANT SHOT GOES OFF.
>> THAT IS.
>> HE CLEARLY DOESN'T STRIKE
ANY ONE, IT GOES SOMEWHERE
IN THE TRAILER WE ARE NOT
SURE WHERE.
IT IS THAT THE POINT THAT
ROZIER GRABS THE WALLET GOES
OUT APPARENTLY SEE IF ANY
LIGHTS HAVE COME ON IN THE
AREA.
GOES BACK, AND WE GOT TO GET
OUT OF HERE TYPE OF
SITUATION.
THEN HE LEAVES THE TRAILER
ROZIER LEAVES THE TRAILER
EDMONDS THEN IS DIRECTED BY
MR. JONES TO GRAB A TOOLBOX,
AND A FIREARM THAT IS ON THE
DOOR AND I THINK THAT ONE
THING THAT IS VERY
INDICATIVE OF MR. JONES'
STATE OF MIND IS AT THE TIME
ACCORDING TO EXCUSE ME
ACCORDING TO MISS EDMONDS,HE
SAYS WHEN HE SAYS THAT ABOUT
THE GUN, IS TAKE THE GUN SO
HE CAN'T ARM HYMNS AND --
HIM SELF AND IT IS QUOTED IN
THE RECORD THAT THEY COULD
ALL GET OUT OKAY.
SO CLEARLY AT THIS POINT,
WHEN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT
EXITING FROM THE COMPLETED
ROBBERY, CLEARLY AT THAT
POINT THAT THOSE STATEMENTS
AND THEN THOSE BEING A SHUS
ARE INDICATIVE OF STATE OF
MIND THAT HE WAS NOT INTEND
TO GO ELIMINATE THE WITNESS.
BECAUSE HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT
BEING ABLE TO THE WITNESS
BEING ABLE TO ARM HIM SELF
AFTER THEY TRIED TO MAKE
THEIR ESCAPE.
>> WHAT ABOUT AT THE
NORMALLY IN THE CASES WHERE
WE FIND THE SOLE OR DOMINANT
MOTIVE, THERE IS EVERY DAY
-- HEAD OF THE AT THE TIME
THE SHOOTING TAKES PLACE
THAT THE VICTIM IS ALREADY
BEEN DISABLED.
-- WASN'T THAT FINDING MADE
HERE?
AND THAT TO ME I REALIZE IT
IS A VERY CRITICAL ISSUE,
BECAUSE AS YOU SAID THE TWO
WERE CONNECTED I THINK TO --
REST FALLS YOU HAVE A VERY
DIFFERENT CASE THAT IS VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR YOUR
CLIENT.
BUT WHAT ABOUT AGAIN IN THE
CASES WHERE YOU KNOW,
BECAUSE AS OPPOSED TO THIS
BEING A ROBBERY GONE BAD SO
TO SPEAK WHERE THE GUN GOES
OFF, THERE IS A STRUGGLE, IN
THIS CASE, IS NOT HE
DISABLED THEN YOUR CLIENT?
GOES BACK, IN AND SHOOTS
ABKILLS HIM AT THAT TIME?
>> MA'AM I DON'T BELIEVE THE
RECORD IS I DON'T BELIEVE
THIS IS ANY AFFIRMATIVE
EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ACTUALLY
UNCONSCIOUS.
>> NOT UNCONSCIOUS JUST NOT
IN A POSITION TO DO
ANYTHING.
>> RIGHT.
IN FACT.
>> IN OTHER WORDS WHAT OTHER
MOTIVATION WE GO BACK TO
THIS.
THAT THE O'ER THE ROBBERY,
HAS TAKEN PLACE.
>> UH-HUH.
>> SUCCESSFULLY SO TO
SPEAK THEY ARE
FREE TO LEAVE.
WHAT REASON TO COME BACK
TO KILL HIM.
>> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
THAT HE ACTUALLY CAME BACK
TO KILL HIM.
HE THE ACCORDING TO MISS
EDMONDS, SHE MAKES HER
STATEMENT THE TRAILER, WITH
THE -- FIREARM, AND SHE HAS
I DON'T THINK SEE SHE WAS
SUPPOSED TO GRAB TOOLBOX
DIDN'T GRABBED HAMMER
DROPPED IT MAKING HER ESCAPE
SHE SAYS AS SHE IS RUNNING
AWAY SHE HEARS THE POP OF
THE GUN BUT AS SHE LEFT THE
-- I BELIEVE THE GUN WAS
STILL POINTED AT THE VICTIM
BY MR. JONES.
AND SHE IS RUNNING, SHE IS
NOT FACING THE TRAILER AND
NOT SEEING WHAT IS GOING ON
SHE HEARS A GUNSHOT, AND
TURNS AROUND.
SO SHE DOESN'T ACTUALLY SEE
WHAT HAPPENED THAT THE
POINT I BELIEVE THE ONLY
EVIDENCE AS TO CERTAINLY IT
IS CLEAR HE IS NOT
INCAPACITATED BY RESTRAINT
OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT I
DON'T BELIEVE IS THERE ANY
EVIDENCE THAT HE
IS UNCONSCIOUS?
THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE
REALLY ON POINT ON THAT IS
DR. DIGS'S TESTIMONY, AND
DR. DIGS' TESTIMONY WAS THAT
THE HEAD INJURIES COULD HAVE
INCAPACITATED THE DEFENDANT
HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR
WHETHER INCAPACITATED MEANS
THAT HE WAS STUNNED.
>> DOESN'T THE TRIAL COURT
-- DOES THIS IS WHERE THE
TRIAL COURT MAKES FINDINGS
OF FACT CLEARLY DOUBT WANT
THIS TRIAL COURT
SPECULATING.
>> CORRECT.
>> THE TRIAL COURT HEARD ALL
THE EVIDENCE MAKES CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT, THAT AT
THAT TIME -- AT THE TIME
THAT THEY LEFT, THAT THE
ROBBERY ENDED, THE OTHER
CODEFENDANTS -- AS EVIDENCE,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE
DEFENDANT RESISTED ATTEMPT
TO DO RESIST, AT THAT POINT,
HE SHOOTS THE VICTIM IN THE
HEART AT POINT-BLANK RANGE
WITH A FIREARM.
NOW THAT IS A FINDING OF
FACT.
IS THAT NOT -- DON'T YOU
HAVE TO OVERCOME IN TERMS OF
OUR STANDARD OF REVIEW THAT
THERE IS NO COMPETENT
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THAT FACT, WHICH IS
A PRETTY IMPORTANT FACT IN
THE AVOID ARREST AGGRAVAOR
BEING FOUND OR NOT FOUND.
>> NO I THINK THAT IS
CORRECT BUT I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT THERE -- THAT IS -- I
TOOK ISSUE WITH THE FINDINGS
OF FACT, AS JUDGE VAUGHN
LAID THEM OUT.
SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU TO THE
FACT THAT THERE ARE MANY
AREAS IN HIS FINDINGS OF
FACT THAT DON'T --
>> I -- THERE MIGHT BE SOME
OTHER THINGS ABOUT WHEN HE
KNEW THE WHETHER HE KNEW THE
PHONE WAS THERE WHATEVER BUT
THIS ONE VICTIM ESSENTIALLY
INCAPACITATED WOULD YOU
AGREE THAT IN THE CASES
WHERE WE EITHER FIND IT OR
DON'T THAT THAT ISSUE IS A
PRETTY BIG ONE, THAT IS IN A
AT THE POINT IN THE SHOOTING
OCCURRED -- OCCURS THE
VICTIM IS INCAPACITATED NOT
UNCONSCIOUS INCAPACITATED.
>> RADIO THE --
>> SO THAT FOR THERE IS NO
-- AT THE END THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THERE WAS VICTIM
RESIST ORDER ATTEMPT TO DO
RESIST AS THE OTHERS LEFT
THE DEFENDANT SHOT THE
VICTIM IN THE HEART AT
POINT-BLANK REASON WITH HIS
FIREARM.
HE HAS NO OTHER MOTIVE, TO
KILL HIM AT THAT POINT.
THE ROBBERY HAS BEEN
COMPLETED.
WHY ISN'T THE FINDING THAT
THE SOLE OR DOMINANT MOTIVE
FOR THE SHOOTING WAS NOT TO
AFFECT THE ROBBERY BECAUSE
THE ROBBIELY HAS BEEN
EFFECTED BUT TO ELIMINATE
HIM AS A WITNESS?
WELL.
>> I'M AGAIN I'M -- BECAUSE
YOU KNOW THIS IS, IT IS A
BIG ISSUE, SO I DON'T TAKE
IT LIGHTLY.
BUT I'M STRUGGLING WITH NOT
UNDERSTANDING HOW UNDER
THESE SETS OF FACTS IT IS
NOT SIMILAR TO OUR CASES
WHERE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE
AVOID A REST AGGRAVAOR TO
STAND.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST IN THIS
CASE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO
TESTIMONY AS TO THE ACTUAL
EVENT RIGHT BEFORE THE
SHOOTING, THAT WE JUST DON'T
KNOW AT THAT POINT WHETHER
HE WAS INCAPACITATED
WHETHER HE HAD BEGUN TO STIR
AND IT IS CLEAR THAT WE
DON'T KNOW -- THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS
UNCONSCIOUS WE DON'T KNOW
BASED ON THE FACT THAT HE
HAD STRUGGLED AT THE
BEGINNING WHETHER OR NOT AT
THIS POINT WHEN THERE IS AND
THEN AGAIN THIS IS
ANOTHER --
>> HE HAS NO GUN.
THEY HAVE THREE OTHERS AT
LEAST HAVE LEFT, OR TWO
OTHERS WHATEVER IT WAS.
AND THE ROBBERY HAS BEEN
COMPLETED.
YOU AGREE THAT THE EVIDENCE
SHOWS THOSE THINGS.
>> NO GUN --
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> NO MEANS REALLY DOING ANY
HARM TO THE DEFENDANT.
>> NEW ROBBERY HAS BEEN
COMPLETED, EVERYONE ELSE HAS
LEFT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THERE AGAIN IS A POINT
THAT IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT
WE ARE -- WERE INCORRECT
BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY TALKED
ABOUT BEING OUTNUMBERED FOUR
TO ONE, IN FACT MATTER IS BY
THAT POINT THERE WAS NO OUT
NUMBER ING IT WAS NEVER FOUR
TO ONE IT WAS THREE TO ONE
TO BEGIN WITH AT THIS POINT
WHEN THREE TO ONE, THE
VICTIM RESISTED AT THE
ONSET.
THERE IS NO TESTIMONY AS TO
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THE
INSTANCES BEFORE THE GUN WAS
FIRED.
>> HERE WE KNOWEN AT LEAST
CIRCUMSTANTIALLY, YOU
TYPICALLY HAVE GUNPOWDER
RESIDUE WAS THERE ANY
INDICATION OF ANY GUNPOWDER
RESIDUE ON HIS HANDS?
OR ON THE VICTIM'S HANDS OR
JUST RESIDUE RELATED TO THE
CLOSE IMPACT.
>> THE ONLY RESIDUE IN THE
RECORD, IS THE TATTOOING
THAT WAS TESTIFIED TO FROM
THE CLOSE RANGE SHOT ON HIS
HEAD.
>> SO WE HAVE SO THAT IS
ENOUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE THERE THAT SAYS HE
WAS HELPLESS AND THERE WAS A
SHOT STRAIGHT TO THE CHEST.
AND NO INDICATION OF ANY
INJURIES ON THE DEFENDANT,
NO OF A STRUGGLE, OR
ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT.
AND IN FACT, WHEN THE LADY
LEFT SHE SAID SHE HEARD THE
VICTIM SAY OH, MY GOD OR
SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT;
RIGHT?
>> THERE -- CORRECT, SHE --
SHE REACTED WITH MY GOD, AND
THEN TURNED AROUND.
>> SHE SAID.
>> HE WHAT I'M SAYING SORRY
EXCUSE ME WHAT I'M SAYING,
SHE I'M TALKING ABOUT MISS
EDMONDS, THE -- CODEFENDANT.
CLEARLY SHE STATED SHE WAS
RUNNING AWAY SHE SAID MY GOD
THEN TURNED AROUND.
>> WHAT WAS THE INTERVAL
BETWEEN THE TIME THAT SHE
TURNED AROUND AND THE
SHOOTING?
SHE TURNED AROUND AFTER THE
SHOOTING, YOU CAN ONLY --
INFER THAT IT WAS REACTION
TO HEARING THE SOUND, I
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
RECORD TO MAKE IT EXACTLY
CLEAR.
>> SHE GAVE NO INDICATION OF
THERE BEING ANY STRUGGLE OR
ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT
THAT.
>> THE ONLY OTHER THING I
WOULD SUGGEST IS THERE WERE
CLEARLY THERE WERE --
MARKINGS ON THE FLOOR, NOW,
WHETHER -- WHETHER OR NOT
THE RECORD IS NOT CLEAR AS
TO WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WERE
BEFORE OR AFTER.
BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE
WERE NO EYEWITNESSES OTHER
THAN ONLY PERSON THAT THAN
THE PERSON THAT PULLED THE
TRIGGER THERE IS NO
TESTIMONY FROM HIM AS TO --
BECAUSE HIS VERSION OF FACTS
AT TRIAL -- WASN'T EVEN --
>> MISS EDMONDS TESTIFIED UP
TO BASICALLY THE MOMENT OF
THE SHOOTING.
>> CERTAINLY, CORRECT.
>> AND, AGAIN, I THINK IT IS
VERY IMPORTANT, THAT AT THE
TIME THAT MISS EDMONDS
TALKED ABOUT THIS TAKING THE
RIFLE, OUT OF THE TRAILER,
THAT IN CONJUNCTION WITH
INSTRUCTION TO TAKE THE
RIFLE IS GIVEN THIS SHE
ATTRIBUTES THIS STATEMENT TO
MR. JONES, AND THAT
STATEMENT BEING THAT SO WE
CAN GET OUT OF HERE, OKAY.
SO, YOU KNOW AND THEN WITHIN
SECONDS, SHE IS RUNNING OUT
OF THE TRAILER, SHE HEARS
THE GUNSHOT OH, MY GOD AND
TURNS AROUND SO THE
STATEMENT THAT HE MAKES FOR
HER TO TAKE THE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE GUN
CLEARLY ALSO AN INDICATION
THAT AT THAT MOMENT HE IS
PLANNING TO TRY TO GET SOME
TYPE OF A QUICK ESCAPE,
WHERE THE PERSON CAN'T ARM
HIM SELF TRACK HIM DOWN.
>> WELL INTO YOUR REBUTTAL
IF YOU WANT TO RESERVE HIMSELF EXCUSE ME
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT LISA
-- WITH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE.
>> YOU MIGHT WANT TO PULL
THE MICROPHONE UP A LITTLE
BIT THERE THERE YOU GO.
>> LISA WITH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND
FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
I WILL FOCUS ON THE AVOID A
REST AGGRAVATORS IS A
SUSPECT THAT IS WHAT IS
GOING TO BE CONCERNING THE
COURT.
>> LET'S JUST ON THIS FIRST
POINT, THE STATE, SEEMS THAT
THIS CONSPIRACY
COCONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS,
WOULD BE A GOODS ALTERNATIVE
BASIS!!$$!!!!!!!!
BASIS.
THERE IS YOU WEREN'T
OBVIOUSLY -- TRAIL COUNSEL
BUT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THAT
WAS EVER ARGUED EITHER THERE
OR OBJECT APPEAL.
-- OR ON APPEAL AS A AN
OFFICER OF THE COURT CAN YOU
TELL US IF YOU SEE A REASON
WHY THE COCONSPIRATORS
EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY
RULE SHOULD NOT APPLY I MEAN
WAS THERE SUFFICIENT
INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE OF A
CONSPIRACY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CONSPIRACY?
>> I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD
APPLY.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS NO
ONE RAISED IT IN THE TRIAL
COURT.
I WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO
WROTE THE BRIEF YOUR --
>> SITTING HERE NOW -- FOR
JUSTICES REALLY WERE PRETTY
START TO COME UP WITH THAT.
>> EXACTLY.
>> -- LET ME ADDRESS THAT
THERE WAS NO PREDICATE LAID
IN FEDERAL COURT THEY CALL
IT A JAMES PROCEEDINGS BUT
THERE HAS TO BE PREDICATE
LAID FOR IN THE INTRODUCTION
OF COR SPIT TORE STATEMENTS
THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY
SAYS THERE HAS TO BE AN
INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE
JURY, THAT IN ORDER TO
CONSIDER THE STATEMENT, THEY
HAVE TO FIND THE ELEMENTS OF
CONSPIRACY EVEN THOUGH
CONSPIRACY DOES NOT HAVE TO
BE CHARGED.
BUT IN THIS CASE THERE, WAS
NOT NEETER ANY PREDICATE
LAID FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF
COSPIRITOR STATEMENTS AS
SUCH, AND THERE WAS NO
INSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THE
COURT TO THE JURY TO ALLOW
THEM TO CONSIDER THOSE
STATEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY
THE STATUTE.
>> THAT IS TRUE.
IT WAS MY READING OF THE
RECORD, THAT THE --
PROSECUTOR IN THE TRIAL
COURT SINCE HE DID NOT
CHARGE THEM WITH CONSPIRACY
AS A FOURTH CHARGE DID NOT
TRY AND BRING THIS IN ON THE
COCONSPIRATOR CHARGES.
BUT WAS DOING IT UNDER THE
STATE OF MIND EXCEPTION,
BASED ON THE OPENING
STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEY WHO SAID THAT
MR. JONES DID NOT KNOW WHAT
WAS GOING ON AND SO JUST A
-- ALONG FOR THE RIDE
ESSENTIAL, AND --
ESSENTIALLY IF THE COURT
LOOKS AT THE RECORD THE
PROSECUTOR SPECIFICALLY
CITES THE OPENING STATEMENT
BY THE DEFENSE, AS TO WHY
THEY NEED TO BRING IN THIS
EVERY DAY, TO COUNTER --
BOTH THE OPENING STATEMENT
AND MR. JONES' LATER
TESTIMONY.
SAYING HE HAD NO IDEA WHAT
WAS GOING ON.
HE WAS JUST SITTING IN THE
CAR.
AND SO THEREFORE TIE BROUGHT
IT IN UNDER THE STATE OF
MIND EXCEPTION.
AND THE STATE INTENDS --
CONTENDS IT IS STILL A VALID
STATE OF MIND EXCEPTION
GIVEN THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE.
>> WHAT OF YOU IS HIS OWN
STATEMENT WHICH INDICATES HE
HEARD EVERYTHING, AND
KNOWLEDGED IT --
ACKNOWLEDGED IT SO THAT IS
SORT OF A FRIENDLY QUESTION
IT SEEMS ONCE YOU HAVE WHAT
HE SAYS, HE LAYS IT OUT MORE
THAN ANY OF THE OTHER
STATEMENTS THAT CAME IN.
.
>> THE STATEMENTS MISOWED
MOPDZ TESTIFIED TO FOR
ROZIER WHO WAS JONES' COUSIN
AND COOK, THEY WERE
BASICALLY MORE GENERAL
STATEMENTS, I WENT THROUGH
THE RECORD, AND LOOKED FOR
SPECIFIC STATEMENTS, AND SHE
ONLY TESTIFIED ABOUT GENERAL
STATEMENTS, FROM THOSE TWO
PEOPLE.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MISS
COOK SAYING THAT SHE KNEW
THE VICTIM AND THE VICK TILL
OWED HER A HUNDRED DOLLARS,
BESIDES THAT THE MOST
SPECIFIC STATEMENT REGARDING
A PLAN TO ROB AND GET MONDAY
WAS JONES' COMMENT ABOUT HE
HOPE SO THE VICTIM HAS MONEY
SO HE IS NOT GOING ON A
BLANK TRIP.
.
>> WITH THE AVOID AREST
AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR I THINK IT IS
VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE COURT
TO LOOK AT THE TIME LINE OF
THIS, THEY GO THESE FOUR
INDIVIDUALS GO OVER TO
MR. DOMINGUEZ' HOME.
ROZIER SENDS IS MR. COOK UP
TO DO MINING$$US'S HOUSE TO
BUY BEER SHE BUYS BEER
COALESCE BACK BANDLY BEFORE
SHE EVEN GETS BACK IN THE
CAR THEY SAY GO BACK AND SEE
IF HE WILL SELL TO BLACKS.
SHE THEN GOES BACK, TO THE
CAR, GETS IN THE CAR AND
SAYS HE IS NOT GOING SELL TO
BLACKS BUT HE SAYS THEY ARE
ALL -- SMIDGES HE AT THAT
POINT IN TIME JONES SAYS
WELL LET'S DO IT.
AND THEY GET OUT OF THE CAR.
THAT IS IN MS EDMONDS'
TESTIMONY SO THERE IS NOT A
SIGNIFICANT BREAK IN TIME IT
IS ALMOST IMMEDIATE ACTION.
FROM THE TIME MISS COOK LEFT
MR. DOMINGUEZ' HOME THE
SECOND TIME, TO THE POINT
WHERE THESE THREE
INDIVIDUALS WENT UP TO HIS
DOOR, WAS A MATTER OF
SECONDS.
BECAUSE THEY PARKED RIGHT
OUTSIDE THE TRAILER HOME.
AS SOON AS THEY GOT TO THE
TRAILER HOME, MR. DOMINGUEZ
TRIED TO SALE BEER MR. !!$$!!!!!!
MR. JONES, WILL NOT LET HIM
CLOSE THE DOOR, SHOVES HIS
FOOT INTO THE DOOR TO KEEP
HIM FROM SHUTTING IT.
AND STARTS BEATING HIM ON
THE HEAD WITH THE BUTT OF
THE GUN THE CORONER
TESTIFIED THAT MR. DOM IN
UNITED STATES HAD -- DOM IN!!$$!!
INNUSE HAD SEVEN SEPARATE
WINDS ALL WHICH PIERCED THE
SKAM WENT DOWN TO THE BONE
WE ARE TAKING SEVERELY
BEATEN!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
BEATEN, HE WAS SO SEVERELY
BEAT!!$$!!!!!!
BEATEN, THAT HE FELL
IMMEDIATELY TO HIS KNEES,
AND THEN SAT ON THE FLOOR
WITH HIS KNEES TO HIS SIDE.
HE COULD NOT EVEN STAND UP
BECAUSE HIS LEGS WERE NOT
UNDER HIM.
>> WHAT ABOUT STATE OF CON
SHUSNESS HIS CONSCIOUSNESS
AT THAT TIME?
>> AT THAT TIME, MS EDMONDS
TESTIFIED THAT DURING THE
INITIAL BHEETO BEATING THERE
WAS A STRUGGLE, NOW --
LOOKING AT THE FOR ENS BIC
TESTIMONY BY DR. DIGS AS
WELL AS THE CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATOR, THE ONLY THE
OTHER MARKS BESIDES THE HEAD
WOUND ON MR. DOMINGUEZ ARE
THREE MINOR DEFENSIVE WOUNDS
ON THE LEFT THE LEFT FOREARM
THE LEFT WRIST.
>> SHE ASKED ABOUT HIS
CONSCIOUSNESS LEVEL, WOULD
YOU RESPOND TO THAT.
>> YES, MS EDMONDS THEN
TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS
CONSCIOUS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CONSCIOUS, BUT HE WOULD --
WAS NOT SPEAKING HE WAS
SITTING ON THE FLOOR LOOKING
AT MR. JONES, LOOKING SAD.
HE DID NOT MOVE HE JUST SAT
THERE.
LOOKED, AND LOOKED AT
MR. JONES, LOOKING SAD.
WHEN MR. JONES HAD THE GUN
POINTED AT HIS HEART.
>> WHAT WAS THE WHEFD
MR. DOMINGUEZ NEW MR. JONES
OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD LEAD
MR. JONES TO SAY IF I DON'T
KILL HIM HE IS GOING TO
POINT ME OUT?
WELL, THE ONLY THERE IS NO
DIRECT EVERY DAY THAT MR. !!$$!!!!!!
MR. DOMINGUEZ NEW MR. JONES
PERSONALLY, THERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT MR. DO MINING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
MININGUS WAS VERY GOOD
FRIENDS WITH MISS COOK, WHO
IS VERY -- FAIRLY -- LINKED
AGAIN I REFER BACK TO THE
TIME LINE OF THERE BEING
JUST A FEW SECONDS BETWEEN
HER SECOND TRIP THERE, AND
THEN THESE PEOPLE GOING IN
THERE.
MR. JONES ACKNOWLEDGED IN
HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE HAD
GROWN UP IN OKEECHOBEE, BUT
THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE
SAYING THAT MR. DOMINGUEZ
RECOGNIZED MR. JONES OR
MR. ROZIER FROM THE
NEIGHBORHOOD ALTHOUGH BOTH
JONES AND ROZIER GREW UP
WENT TO SCHOOL IN THAT TOWN,
AND MR. JONES WAS STAR
FOOTBALL PLAYER.
>> YOUR OPPONENT -- GO.
>> YOUR, OPPONENT SAID HE
WAS GOING TO SXROUS PORTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
PORTIONALITY HE DIDN'T QUITE
GET THERE.
BUT LET ME -- ASK YOU, HOW,
IS THIS CASE NOT SIMILAR TO
TERRI IN THAT TERRI THEY THE
TRIAL COURT DID NOT FIND
AVOID ARREST, IT WAS ANOTHER
AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR IN TERRI, IN THAT
THERE WAS A CONTEMPORARY
SHOOTING IN TERRI, AND IN
TERRI THE VICTIM WAS VERY
SIMILAR TO THIS DEFENDANT IN
THAT THE DEFENDANT THE
SECOND VICTIM WAS ON HER
KNEE!!$$!!!!!!
KNEES.
WHEN TERRI SHOT HIM.
AND -- AND THIS COURT TERRI
WAS TWO # ONE YEARS OLD.
-- 21 YEARS OLD THIS
DEFENDANT WAS 21 YEARS OLD,
TERRI THERE WAS NO
SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION, IN
THIS CASE, THERE'S NO
SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION.
HOW ARE THESE CASES
DIFFERENT IN THE SETTING OF
THE ROBBERY.
>> FIRST OF ALL, THE STATE
DOES NOT CONCEDE THAT FACT
THAT THE AVOID ARREST
AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR SHOULD BE
DISMISSED WE BELIEVE THAT
TRIAL COURT.
>> -- EXCEPTING YOU'VE GOT
TWO AGGRAVATORS.
>> BECAUSES THE TOTALITY OF
THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN
THIS CASE ARE SUCH THAT THEY
CLEAR OUTWEIGH THE VERY
MINIMAL MITIGATION, THAT WAS
PUT ON, YOU HAVE A ROBBERY
WHERE A MAN FOR NO REASON
WAS SEVERELY BEATEN, AND
BEATEN TO THE POINT WHERE HE
WAS ON THE FLOOR UNMOVING,
NOT EVEN SPEAKING.
AND THEN YOU HAVE MR. JONES
WHO AT CERTAIN POINT DURING
THE SCENARIO, ASSUMES THE
ROLE OF A RINGLEADER, BY
STANDING THERE HOLDING THE
VICTIM, AT BAY, ON THE
GROUND, AND ORDERING MS
EDMONDS TO TAKE.
>> HE WHAT WERE THE FACTS OF
TERRI DO YOU RECALL?
>> YES, I DO.
>> BUT THE CRUCIAL FACT THAT
I BELIEVE THAT DIFFICULT OF
AITSDZ -- DIFFERENTIATES TER
FRIDAY THIS PARTICULAR CASE
THAT IS THE WITNESS IN TERRI
DID NOT SEE THE ACTUAL
KILLING AND DIDN'T KNOW WHAT
WAS GOING ON.
SO THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A
STRUGGLE OR SOMETHING, AND
IT IS MY POSITION, THAT IS
NOT THE SITUATION HERE.
AND THE REASON BEING, IS
WHEN MS EDMONDS LEAVES THE
HOME OF MR. DOM IN UNITED
STATES SHE DOES -- DOMINGUEZ
SHE GOES DIRECTLY BY JONES
STILL HOLDING THE GUN TO
MR. DOMINGUEZ MR. DOMINGUEZ
STILL ON THE FLOOR NOT
MOVING NOT SAYING ANYTHING
SHE GOES OUT THE DOOR AND
DOWN JUST TWO OR THREE STEPS
THIS IS HER TESTIMONY I
BELIEVE IT IS ON 586 TO 588.
DOES -- GUESS DOWN TWO TO
TLEEP STEPZ SHE -- THREE
STEPS HEARS THE SECOND SHOT
TURNS AROUND WHEN SHE HEARS
THAT SECOND SHOT AND SHE
CEASE MR. DOMINGUEZ IN THE
SAME POSITION SITTING ON THE
GROUND, WITH A GUNSHOT WOUND
TO HIS HEART.
IT IS MR. DOMINGUEZ WHO SAYS!!$$!!!!!!
SAYSOI OH, GOD. "
AND SLOWLY TILTS OVER TO THE
RIGHT, AND COLLAPSES ON THE
FLOOR.
>> A PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT
HERE YOU TALK ABOUT THE
SEVERITY OF THE BEATING, AND
YOU KNOW FOR NO REASON, THEY
YOU KNOW, BEAT THIS MAN
SEVERELY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SEVERELY, ARE YOU ARGUING
THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SOME HEINOUS ATROSCHIOUS AND
CRUEL HERE AND DID THE STATE
MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT THIS
MURDER WAS HEINOUS ATROCIOUS
AND CRUEL.
>> THE STATE DID NOT SEEK
THEING A VAITDOR HIGH ONUS
ATROCIOUS AND CRUEL HOWEVER
DURING THE -- THE TRIAL
COURT PROCEEDINGS, THE COURT
THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE DID
NOTE THAT BEATING AND THE
SEVERITY OF THIS SITUATION.
AND DECIDING ON THE DEATH
PENALTY.
>> ISN'T THAT I I MEAN I GUS
THE PROBLEM WHEN WE LOOK AT
THIS ISSUE DO WE COUNT
AGGRAVATORS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AGGRAVATORS, VERSUS
MITIGATORS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MITIGATORS?
THAT WE SAY WE DON'T WE ARE
NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERING
-- UNCHARGED OR UNFOUND
AGGRAVATORS SO IN RESPONSE
TO JUSTICE WELLES' QUESTIONS
WHY THIS IS AS IS SIMILAR
FROM TERRY -- DISSIMILAR
FROM TERRY YOU GO INTO
CIRCUMSTANCES ABOUT BEATINGS
THAT REALLY AREN'T PART OF
THIS RECORD I WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE YOU GO BACK FOR A
MOMENT ON THE AVOID A REST
AGGRAVATORS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AGGRAVATORS, BECAUSE DOES
THE STATE AGREE THAT IF THE
AVOID ARREST AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR IS
STRUCK, THAT THIS IS A
DIFFICULT CASE TO UPHOLD THE
DEATH PENALTY?
>> OH, OF COURSE THE STATE
DOESN'T CONCEDE THAT.
HAVING JUST ONE AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR
DOES MAKE IT -- PERHAPS MORE
PROBLEMATIC THAN HAVING --
>> LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT IF
YOU WOULD, THAT I THINK THEN
YOU HAVE REALLY A DIFFICULT
JOB TO UPHOLD IT.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK
TO AN ANSWER YOU GAVE, TO
JUSTICE CANTERO, MANY TIMES
WE SAY THEY KNEW THE PERSON
40 DOES THE SHOOTING.
-- PERSON WHO DOES THE
SHOOTING DON'T WE HAVE TO
HEAR ALMOST AGAIN, ENGAGE IN
A LOT OF THE SPECULATION
THAT WELL MR. DOMINGUEZ
PROBABLY MADE THE CONNECT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
CONNECTION, BETWEEN MISS
COOK, AND TWHAEN FOLLOWED,
THAT -- AND THEN WHAT
FOLLOWED THAT JONES EVEN
THOUGH EVERYONE ELSE WAS
LEAVING MUST HAVE HAD IT IN
HIS HAVE MIND AT THE TIME
NOT THAT HE CAN IDENTIFY ME
PROBABLY WOULD IDENTIFY COOK
COULD FINGER ME SEEMS A LOT
OF THE HOOPS TO BE GOING
THROUGH.
IN ORDER -- BECAUSE --
BECAUSE KNOWING THE -- BEING
ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE
PERPETRATOR IS ONE OF THE
EARMARKS OF AVOID ARREST SO
LET'S GOING BACK TO THAT, DO
WE HAVE TO GO REALLY THROUGH
THAT TO MAKE THAT FINDING,
THAT WELL HE MUST HAVE HAD
IN HIS MIND WHEN HE DID THE
SHOOTING THAT HE COULD --
THAT THE DEFENDANT THE
VICTIM WOULD BE ABLE TO
IDENTIFY COOK WHO THEN WOULD
HAVE FINGERED THE DEFENDANT?
>>.
>> I THINK THE COURT NEEDS
TO USE THAT FACT.
BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY FACT
THERE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN MR. JONES'
TESTIMONY, HIMSELF, HE
TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW A
LIGHT GO ON IN THE $$
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE AFTER THE
FIRST SHOT.
MS EDMONDS ALSO TESTIFIED
THAT TO THE FACT THAT
ROZIER, JONES' COUSIN RAN
OUT BELIEVE -- OF THE MOBILE
HOME TO SEE ABOUT THIS LIGHT
THAT TURNED ON CAME BACK
INTO THE HEAD SATISFIED LIST
GO LET'S GO LET'S GO WE GOT
TO GET OUT OF HERE, SO JONES
KNEW THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAD
HEARD THAT FIRST SHOT, THE
LIGHTS OF THE NEIGHBORS HAD
GONE ON, ROZIER SAID WE GOT
TO GET OUT OF HERE, YOU SEE.
>> TO ME THAT IS NOT --
THERE CAN'T BE A ROBBERY
WHERE SOMEBODY IF YOU --
THAT UNLESS YOU SAY ANY TIME
THERE IS A ROBBERY THEY
KILLED THE VICTIM THERE MUST
BE TO AVOID ARREST IF THE
ROBBERY IS ALREADY
COMPLETED -- PEOPLE.
>> FIFRL THIS WASN'T A
THOUGHT OUT MUCH OF A
THOUGHTOUT CRIME.
THE TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT LOGIC WAS OF EVERYTHING
IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT, BUT
TO SAY THAT THAT THERE IS A
FEAR OF GETTING CAUGHT THAT
THAT IS WHY THE MURDER
OCCURRED IT SEEMS LIKE YOU
COULD SAY THAT IN ANY WITH A
CRIME EXISTS, ROBBERY,
BLURRINGRY WHATEVER THEN
THERE IS A SHOOTING, WE HAVE
NEVER, JUST SAID THAT IS
ALONE ENOUGH, TO FIND AVOID
ARREST THINKS ONE OF THOSE
REALLY DIFFICULT AGGRAVATORS
TO FIND IT IS NOT LIKE YOUR
HHC, OR PRIOR VIOLENT FELONY
IT IS A MUCH MORE SELECTIVE
AGGRAVATOR.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> I THINK WE WANT TO WE
WITH ALL THIS TAKING CARE
NOT TO SORT OF MAKE JUMPS TO
SAY WELL, THEY MUST HAVE HAD
IT IN THEIR MIND, THAT THEY
DIDN'T WANT TO GETTING
CAUGHT THAT IS WHY THEY DID
THE SHOOTING.
>> BUT, THIS COURT HAS TO BE
AWARE OF THE TRIAL COURT
MADE A FINDING THAT THERE
WAS NO OTHER REASON FOR THE
SHOOTING.
AND THIS CASE IS SIMILAR
EXACTLY TO THE ROUTELY CASE!!$$!!!!!!
CASIVE WHERE THE DEFENDANT
DID FOR THE KNOW THE VICTIM
DIRECTLY HIMSELF, BUT VICTIM
KNEW THE CO-DEFENDANT JUST
BRIEFLY.
AND YET BASED ON THE
TOTALITY OF THE FACTS IN
THAT CASE THIS COURT UPHELD
THE AVOID A-- ARREST
AGGRAVATOR IT IS THE
TOTALITY OF THE FACTS IN
THIS CASE THE VICTIM ON THE
GROUND, NOT RESISTING, WITH
A GUN TO THE HEART, IT IS A
SINGLE SHOT.
IT IS NOT LIKE THERE WAS A
STRUGGLE AND THE SHOT WENT
ANYWHERE ELSE AND NICKED HIM
IT WAS A SINGLE SHOT TO THE
HEART SHOWING THAT BOTH THE
GUN AND THE VICTIM HAD NOT
MOVED.
THE ONLY REASON TO DO THAT
SHOT WAS TO COMPLIL
DOMINGUEZ.
>> IT WAS PART OF I MEAN IT
WAS PART OF A ROBBERY;
RIGHT?
.
>> YES, BUT IT.
>> I I MEAN, THE PECUNIARY
GAIN AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR COULD APPLY
IT.
>> WILL APPLY ANYWAY, IT IS
THE JURY.
>> --
>> YOU SAY THERE IS NO OTHER
REASON, I MEAN THE PECUNIARY
GAIN WAS A REASON FOR COULD
YOU SAY THAT IS REASON FOR
THE MURDER.
>> NO.
I DON'T THINK THE
ADMINISTERED OCCURRED TO DO
THE ROBBERY -- I DON'T THINK
MURDER OCCURRED TO DO
ROBBERY THE MURDER OCCURRED
DURING ROBBERY.
>> THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS A
LOT OF THE TIMES, IS THERE
IS A ROBBERY A MURDER OCCURS
DURING A ROBBERY DOESN'T
MEAN THAT YOU ALWAYS FIND
AVOID ARREST AGGRAVATORS
JUST BECAUSE A MURDER
OCCURRED DURING A ROBBERY.
>> THAT IS TRUE BUT IN OTHER
CASES FOR EXAMPLE IF THE
VICTIM IS STRUGGLING OR
TALKING BACK TO THE PERSON,
THERE IS -- AN INDICATION
THAT STRUGGLE MAY BE GOING
ON!!$$!!
ON, OR THAT THE DEFENDANT
WAS FREAKING OUT AND IT WAS
AN INSTINCTUAL ACTION.
>> WASN'T ORIGINALLY THE
AVOID ARREST AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR
REALLY INTEND TO DO APPLY
WHERE YOU SHOOT A POLICEMAN
OR SOMEBODY, WHO IS ABOUT TO
ARREST YOU YOU ARE TRYING TO
AVOID ARREST.
AND TO EXPAND IT TO CERTAIN
ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY BE
APPROPRIATE BUT THEN TO
EXPAND IT TO ALL AREAS JUST
BECAUSE YOU ARE MURDERING
THE VICTIM WHO COULD MAYBE
POINT YOU OUT SEEMS TO
EXPAND TO IT VIRTUALLY ANY
CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> WELL, IT WOULD IF -- THIS
COURT APPLIED TO IT ANY SORT
OF ROBBERY AS JUSTICE --
JUSTICE PARENTRY SAID ANY
ROBBERY GONE BAD THAT IS NOT
THE SKWAIGS THERE IS CLEAR
PRECEDENT BY THIS COURT.
>> HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH --
A CASE SUCH AS THIS AVOID
ARREST AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR APPLIES,
FROM ANOTHER ROBBERY, WHERE
THE AVOID ARREST AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR
SHOULD NOT APPLY?
WHAT'S THE -- DISTINCTION.
>> WHEN OR IN THE THERE WAS
RESISTANCE BY THE VICTIM,
WHETHER OR NOT THE VICTIM
WAS INCAPACITATED OR ROUND
-- OR WOUNDED GRIEVOUSLY
WOUNDED PREVIOUSLY BY THE
DEFENDANT, SO AS TO -- HE
COULD OFFER NO RESISTANCE.
WHEN OR NOT THE METHOD OF
THE KILLING WAS SUCH THAT IT
INDICATED A CLEAR DESIRE TO
QUICKLY ELIMINATE A WITNESS
FOR EXAMPLE IN OTHER CASES,
WHEN THE MURDER SLIPPED --
SLIT THE THROAT OF HIS IS
BOUND VICTIM, THIS COURT
FOUND THE AVOID ARREST
AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR SO INDICATIONS OF
STRUGGLE WHEN OR NOT THE
DEFENDANT CAN BE CONNECTED,
UP, WITH THE CRIME, THROUGH
HIMSELF, KNOWING THE VICTIM,
OR THROUGH THE CO-DEFENDANTS
KNOWING THE VICTIM.
AND THOSE OTHER AREAS THOSE
ARE THE DOCK TRIBAL
HALLMARKS OF THE AVOID
ARREST AGGRAVATOR.
>> THANK YOU.
>>!!$$!!
>>.
>> AND IN TERMS OF THE
PROPORTIONALITY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PROPORTIONALITY.
THE STATE CAN INTENDS THAT
BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT
EVEN IF THE COURT GETS RID
OF THE AVOID ARREST
AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR WHICH WE HOPE YOU
DON'T DO, THERE IS STILL
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY IN
THIS CASE.
AND STATE ASKS THE COURT TO
AFFIRM BOTH THE GUILTY AND
THE -- GUILT AND THE PENALTY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
PENALTY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> REBUTTAL?
>> YES, YOU DO?
YES, SIR.
.
>> ALMOST SIX MINUTES.
>> THANKS.
>> I ASK YOUR THE STATE HOW
THE STATE WOULD DISTINGUISH
FOR PO -- PROPORTIONALITY
PURPOSES TERRI LET ME ASK
YOU HOW WOULD YOU
DISTINGUISH FOR
PROPORTIONALITY PURPOSES
SLIMY!!$$!!!!!!!!
SLIMY, SLIMY HAPPENED THE
CASE THAT HAPPENED DOWN THIS
BRADENTON WAS IN THE
HARDWARE STORE, AND SLINY,
WAS -- PART OF A -- OF A
ROBBERY.
>> I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE I'M
NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE
SPECIFIC FACTS OF.
>> HE LET'S GO TO THE FACT,
IF AVOID ARREST STATION --
STAYS, YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH
IN THE WAY OF MITIGATION
HERE DO YOU?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO CONCEDE
THAT, YES, IT IS NOT CLEAR
ACTUALLY WHEN OR NOT THE
STATUTORY MITIGATE$$!!!!OR OF NO
SIGNIFICANT CRIMINAL HISTORY
WAS FOUND OR NOT.
THERE IS AN INDICATION JUDGE
VAUGHAN DID NOT FIND IT BUT
THEN THERE IS AN INDICATION
THAT HE GAVE IT VERY LITTLE
WEIGHT.
AND THEN THERE WERE SEVERAL
NONSTATUTORY MITIGATORS THAT
WERE ALL GIVEN LITTLE OR
SOME WEIGHT SO, I GUESS,
YOUR GENERAL STATEMENT WOULD
BE CORRECT.
>> HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE, THERE ARE
SEVERAL CASES THAT MIRROR
THIS CASE, IN FACT.
>> -- I GUESS TO ME ONE OF
THE DISTINGUISHING FACTORS
IS THAT IF THE GUN HAD GONE
OFF, AND HE WAS KILLED
DURING THAT STRUGGLE, TO GET
THE MONEY, IT SEEMS THAT IT
WOULD FALL INTO OUR CASES
SAYING THAT IT IS PLOT TO
PORTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
PORTIONATE.
THE FACT YOU AGREE THAT IT
IS A AT VERY -- VERY LEAST
THE EVIDENCE DOES SHOE WAS
INCAPACITATE TO DO TOME SOME
EXTENT AT THE TIME SINGLE
GUNSHOT THE OTHERS HAD LEFT
EVEN THOUGH THE HAC,
AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR IS NOT FOUND IS
NOT THAT CIRCUMSTANCE
SOMEHOW, THE DISTINGUISHING,
BETWEEN SOMEBODY, WHO IS
DOING A TERRIBLE ACT A
FELONY OF A ROBBERY, BUT IT
IS FINISHED, THE ROBBERY IS
FINISHED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FINISHED.
AND THEN A SHOOT OING CURSE,
THAT WE THEN, THAT IS THE
THING THAT KIND OF ELEVATES
IT INTO ANOTHER CLASS OF
MURDER TO WHICH THE DEATH
PENALTY IS APPROPRIATELY
APPLIED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
APPLIED.
>> BUT FOR THE FACT THAT WE
HAVE TO ENGAGE IN
SPECULATION AS TO ACTUALLY
WHAT HAPPENED IN THOSE
MOMENTS WHEN THE ONLY PEOPLE
IN THE ROOM ARE THE VICTIM.
>> THE KEY REALLY IS WHETHER
THIS TRIAL $$COURT'S FINDINGS
ARE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IF THE
TRIAL $$COURT'S FINDINGS ARE
AVOID ARREST AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR
STANDS, THEN THIS DOES PUT
THIS INTO A CASE IN WHICH
THE DEATH PENALTY PRICE
PORTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
PORTIONATE.
>> IT -- IT DOES GIVE YOU
MORE AN INDICATION THAT THE
AGGRAVATE$$!!!!OR WAS PROPERLY
FOUND,AND AGAIN, THIS MAY BE
A CASE WHERE THE COURT MAY
CONSIDER BECAUSE OF THE
THERE ARE SOME OVERT ERRORS
IN THE $$COURT'S FACTUAL
RECITATIONS BASED ON THE
FINDINGS OF THE --
AGGRAVATOR, OF AVOID ARREST
AND THIS MAY BE A SITUATION
WHERE THIS COURT WANTS TO
SEND THE ORDER BACK FOR
CLARIFICATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CLARIFICATION, TO THE TRIAL
COURT, BECAUSE IT REALLY
ISN'T CLEAR WHEN YOU READ
THAT ORDER WHEN HE WHEN HE
STARTS TALKING BE WHEN JUDGE
STARTS TALKING ABOUT NUMBER
OF PEOPLE HE WAS OUTNUMBERED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OUTNUMBERED, CLEARLY, THAT
THE RECORD DOESN'T SUPPORT
THAT.
BECAUSE IT IS A TIME -- DOES
-- GUN GOES OFF I THINK
EVERY VERSION OF EVENTS
WE'VE GOT IN THE RECORD
SUGGESTION THAT IT IS A
ONE-ON-ONE SITUATION.
AND SO THERE ARE SOME ISSUES
-- THERE, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS
TO THE CONVERSATIONS THAT
WAS HAD EVEN ESTABLISHING
THE KNOWLEDGE OF MISS COOK
IT AT ONE POINT COOK HAS
CONVERSATIONS WITH RZIER
OUTSIDE THE CAR, THOSE ARE
NOT CLEAR, AT ALL.
AS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF MISS
COOK HOW MUCH MR. JONES KNEW
OTHER THAN THAT THE RECORD
DOES TALK ABOUT THE FACT
THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL THE
VICTIM MAY HAVE REFUSED TO
GIVE HER A RIDE AFTER HE HAD
PAID SOME MONEY.
THAT SORT OF HAS BEEN
EXPANDED TO BE THEY KNEW HIM
WELL.
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME
INDICATION THAT MONEY WAS
LOANED BUT THOSE
CONVERSATIONS THERE WERE TWO
DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS THAT
SHE HAD.
ONE IN ROZIERs PRESENCE, AND
THEN ONE IN PRESENCE OF ALL
FOUR, WHERE RZIER COMES BACK
TO THE CAR SAYS I THINK I
KNOW WHERE WE CAN GET MONEY
SO CLEARLY, A CONVERSATION
THAT HAPPENS BETWEEN ROZIER
AND COOK THAT IS NOT PART OF
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TWO
PEOPLE IN THE CAR ONE OF
WHICH PLK JONES.
SO I THINK THAT, AGAIN, CUTS
AGAINST THE KNOWLEDGE THAT
HE HAD AND THE LEVEL OF
KNOWLEDGE THAT HE MIGHT HAVE
HAD AS TO THE KNOWLEDGE I
KNOW WE ARE SAYING THINGS
OVER AND OVER, AS TO THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE VICTIM TO
COOK.
WHICH, AGAIN, CUTS AGAINST
THE AVOID ARREST AGGRAVATOR,
AND AGAIN I STRONGLY SUGGEST
THAT THE MOST TELLING PIECE
OF EVIDENCE IS MR. JONES'
CON TELL ME TRAIN --
CONTEMPORANEOUS STATEMENT TO
MISS EDMUNDS WHEN HE IS
TELLING HER TO GET THE GUN
SO WE CAN GET AWAY, OKAY.
CLEARLY, SOMEONE THAT IS
INTEND TO GO ELIMINATE A
WITNESS TO AVOID ARREST IS
NOT WORRIED ABOUT GETTING
AWAY OKAY, AND MAKING SURE
THAT THE VICTIM THAT YOU ARE
INTEND TO GO LEAVE BEHIND IS
GOING TO ARM HIMSELF TO HARM
YOU.
AND SO I THINK THAT THOSE
ARE -- CIRCUMSTANTIAL
FACTORS THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO
LOOK AT THAT HAPPENED ALMOST
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TO THE
SHOOTING THAT SORT OF GIVE A
GLIMPSE INTO THE STATE OF
MIND, OF BELIEVE JONES.
YOU HAVE GOT AN ACCIDENTAL
GUN DISCHARGE.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
INCIDENT.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED
BETWEEN MR. JONES AND THAT
VICTIM, IN THOSE MOMENTS,
THAT NO ONE WAS LOOKING.
DO YOU HAVE A GUNSHOT WOUND
TO THE CHEST BUT YOU HAVE
ONLY ONE SINGLE WOUND.
YOU HAVE --
>> WITH THAT YOU HAVE WITH
OUR HELP EXHAUSTED YOUR TIME
THANK YOU FOR THE
PRESENTATION BOTH OF YOU WE
WILL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT THE COURT WILL
STAND IN RECESS.
>> PLEASE RISE.