James M. Dailey v. State of Florida

SC05-1512 | SC06-576

THE FINAL CASE ON THE
CALENDAR THIS MORNING IS
DAILEY VERSUS THE STATE OF
FLORIDA.
READY TO PROCEED?
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
I AM DAVID IN MIDDLE REG GO
IN TAMPA ALSO WITH ME IS
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ WHO WAS THE
LEAD INVESTIGATOR SINCE 2001
IN THE CASE AND HAS A LOT OF
THE EVIDENCE WE ARE RELYING
ON, SO TODAY, WE ARE HERE TO
TALK ABOUT OBVIOUSLY THE
FACTS OF THE CASE.
THIS IS A FOREST.
THERE ARE A LOT OF TREES.
I NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE
FOREST SO TO SPEAK.
WE HAVE A LOT OF FACT, SOME
OF THEM ARE REFUTED OR
DISPUTED BY THE STATE AS
EITHER NOT BEING IN
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE COUNSEL
OR NOT BEING PRESERVED AND
SO I WANT TO RUN THROUGH
THIS QUICKLY AN SOME
ELEMENTS WILL BE CHALLENGED
OR ARE CHALLENGEABLE FROM
THE STATE.
>> WE HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT
OF TIME.
I WISH WOULD YOU GIVE US
SOME KIN OF A FOCUS HERE
BEFORE YOU REALIZE WE ARE
FAMILIAR EVERYTHING THAT YOU
HAVE PROVIDED TO US, BUT IF
YOU GIVE US SOME SORT OF A
FOCUS AS IF AS THE MANNER IN
WHICH YOU ARE GOING TO DRAW
THE ISSUE OR ISSUES, THAT
YOU ARE GOING TO ASK US TO
FOCUS ON.
PART OF MY FOCUS WOULD BE
THE USE OF MR. SKALNIK, THE
SNITCH, THE WAY THE EVIDENCE
WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL AN
WITH A WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
DISCOVERED OR WHAT WAS KNOWN
TO DEFENSE COUNSEL AT TRIAL
AN NOT USED AND HOW THAT
ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT
MR. DAILEY COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN AT THE SCENE OF THE
MURD IR AT THE TIME THE
VICTIM WAS KILLED AND THEN
ACCUMULATIVE PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT.
BEVERLY ANDREWS AT THE TIME
OF TRIAL TRIAL LATER MARRIED
THE DEFENSE COUNSEL AN LEFT
THE CASE AFTER THAT.
SAID IN HER DEPOSITION WHICH
WAS CONINCLUDE IN THE RECORD
FOR POST CONVICTION.
SHE WAS ASKED WOULD YOU CALL
MR. SKALNIK TO TESTIFY AFTER
19912348 SHE SAYS NO.
WOULD THAT BE BECAUSE YOU
COULD NOT PUT IN ON THE
STAND BELIEVING HE WOULD
GIVE TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY.
SHE SAYS YES.
>> WAS THAT THE PERTINENT
TIME PERIOD?
IS YOUR POSITION THEY KNEW
THESE ALL ALONG AND PUT ON
THE TESTIMONY, IS THAT --
THERE SEEM TO BE SOME
DISPUTE ABOUT THIS REALLY?
>> MR. SKALNIK AFTER THE END
OF THIS TRIAL, MR. DAILEY'S
TRIAL, HE ABSCONDED AND
ULTIMATELY BY HIS OWN
ADMISSION COMMITTED AN
OFFENSE IN TEXAS THAT WAS
ABOUT FIVE YEARS IN LENGTH
AS FAR AS PUNISHMENT SO
COULD SERVE THE TIME FOR THE
FLOOR CAN SENTENCES AS WELL
OUT IN TEXAS.
>> WE HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER
INMATES THAT OFFERED
TESTIMONY AGAINST YOUR
CLIENT.
>> THE TWO OTHER SNITCHS?
>> TWO OTHER INMATES?
>> YES.
>> MR. DEJESUS WAS HEARSAY
AN EXCLUDED FROM INSTRUCTION
FROM THE COURT AND
MR. LEITNER TESTIFIED TO
FACTS THAT WERE WIDELY
AVAILABLE IN THE NEWSPAPER
AND THE TV NEWS ABOUT THE
CASE, THE ONLY UNIQUE FACT
THAT HE TESTIFIED TO WAS
WHEN SOMEBODY ASKED
MR. DAILEY WHY DIDN'T YOU
KNOCK HER OUT?
WHY DID YOU HAVE TO KILL
HER?
REPORTEDLY MR. DAIEY SAID I
JUST LOTTS IT.
THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT BE
IN THE NEWS BUT IT IS
OBVIOUSLY -- OBVIOUS
FABRICATION, BUT EVERYTHING
ELSE THAT THAT WITNESS HAD
WAS READILY AVAILABLE AND
THEREFORE AS THE TESTIMONY
FROM THE DETECTIVE IN THIS
CASE IN THE POST CONVICTION
PHASE SHOW YOU LOOK TO WHAT
WAS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN IN DETERMINING
WHETHER, HOW MUCH WEIGHT,
HOW MUCH RELIABILITY YOU
WOULD BRACE ON IT TO GET A
WITNESS OF MR. SNITCH AND
OBVIOUSLY BOTH OF THESE MEN
WORKED IN THE PRISON LIBRARY
HAD ACCESS TO PLNTIVE MEDIA
AND WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
COME UP WITH A LOT OF
INFORMATION, IN FACT, THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS DETECTIVE
HALLIDAY WENT OVER TO THE
TRAIL IN DECEMBER BEFORE THE
TRIAL IN MAY OF THE NEXT
YEAR, WENT OVER IN DECEMBER
BECAUSE THE STATE NEEDED TO
FIND SNITCHS OR INFORMANTS.
>> WHAT PROOF AT THE
EVIDENCEARY HEARING OF THE
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES WOULD
ACCESS THE DEFENDANTS WOULD
HAVE ACTUALLY HAD OTHER THAN
THE ASSERTIONS, WHAT PROOF
WAS GIVEN AT THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING?
>> WELL, REPEATED.
THE LAST WITNESS WAS A JAIL
DEPUTY WHO TESTIFIED THAT
MEDIA WAS AVAILABLE TO TWO
INMATES IN THE JAIL, THAT
THE NEWSPAPER, THERE THE
JUDGE, I THINK 474 IN THE
POST CONVICTION TRANSCRIPT
494, AIM SR.RY, HE FINDS
EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO
TELEVISION AN NEWSPAPERS AN
TOLD CCRC COUNSEL TO MOVE
ALONG, SO I THINK HE WAS
ALREADY ACCEPTING THAT THERE
IS NO QUESTION THAT THE
SNITCH WITNESSES IN THIS
CASE WERE -- WHAT PROOF WAS
INTEREST OF WHAT THEY SAW?
>> THE GENERAL ACCESS TO THE
NEWS MEDIA.
>> WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE HAS
SELF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES IN
WHICH THE GENERAL FACTS OF
THE CASE OR DETAILED FACTS
ARE LAID OUT AND REFER TO
YOU TO THE EXHIBITS FOR THAT
URPS.
PURPOSE.
>> THE CODEFENDANT CALLED
THET EVIDENTIARY HEARING?
>> MR. PEARCY WAS CALLED.
HE EXERCISED HIS 5th
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REMAIN
SILENT.
>> THE CODEFENDANT WAS
CONVICTED OF FIRST-DEGREE
MURDER AND SENTENCED TO
LIFE?
>> CORRECT.
>> AND WAS THERE ANY FURTHER
EXPLORATION OF HIS REFUSAL
TO FIREFIGHTER, THAT IS --
TESTIFY, THAT HE HAD
ANYTHING TO LOSE?
>> HE HAD A PENDING DNA
MOTION THAT AT THE TIME OF
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING AN
TESTIFIED THAT HE WOULD
CONTINUE TO EXERCISE HIS 5th
FINAL RIGHT AS LONG AS HE
HAD THE PENDING DNA MOTION
WITH SOME HOPE OF EX ON
RACIAL.
>> HE DID NOT FIREFIGHTER
AND EXONERATE YOUR CLIENT?
>> HE IN A DEPOSITION BEFORE
HE DECIDED TO EXERCISE THIS
RIGHT TO SILENCE IN A
DEPOSITION IN THIS CASE, IN
THE POST-CONVICTION PHASE,
HE TESTIFIED THAT EVENTUALLY
CONFESSED TO THE CRIME, HE
DIDN'T SAY, KILLED THE GIRL.
HE SAID I LEFT THE HOUSE
WITH THE GIRL AND WITH SHAW
OFF AT THE PHONE BOOK WHERE
MR. SHAW AS PROVEN BY THE
PHONE RECORDS MR. SHAW MADE
CALLS TO GIRLFRIEND AND
TRIED TO CALL HIS WIFE BACK
IN KANSAS.
MR. SHAW TESTIFIED IN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT HE
TOLD MR. PEARCY, THE
COEFFICIENT DEFERKTS AND
SHAW TO GO ON WITHOUT HIM.
MR. PEARCY THEN IN HIS
STATEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED
AS A STATEMENT AGAINST HIM
SAID THAT HE CAME, HE CAME
BACK TO THE HOUSE, WERE YOU
ALONE, OR WAS THE GIRL WITH
YOU?
HE SAID NO.
HE CAME AND GOT MR. DAILEY
AND ACCORDING TO EVIDENCE
FROM MR. DAILEYEN OH, THEY
WENT OUT AND PLAYED WITH
FRIZ BUY OR WHAT JEFF, HE
ENDED UP GETTING THE PANTS
WET ON THE WATER AS THEY
WERE PLAYING ON THE BEACH AS
HE RETRIEVED IT.
MR. PEARCY AND DAILEY
RETURNED TO THE HOUSE AS
WITNESSED BY GAYLE BAILEY AN
MR. SHAW, WHO I BELIEVED
MR. SHAW TESTIFIED HE WAS
ASLEEP ON THE COACH AS A
VISITOR TO THE HOUSE.
[LOW AUDIO]
IT APPEARED AT THE ORIGINAL
TRIAL, THERE WAS EVIDENCE AT
THE TRIAL --.
[LOW AUDIO]
I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
[LOW AUDIO]
TO WHAT SHAW SAID AT THE
EVIDENCEARY HEARING AND THE
TRIAL, IT LOOKS LIKE BOTH
DIMES --.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> I BELIEVE MR. SHAW
TESTIFIED IN THE POST-
CONSTRUCTION HEARING THAT HE
NEVER TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW
MR. PEARCY COME BACK AND GET
MR. DAILEY ALONE AND WITHOUT
THE GIRL.
GAYLE BAILEY TESTIFIED THAT
THEY HAD BEEN OUT PARTYING,
GAYLE BAILEY, MR. PEARCY, O
ZA SHAWED A HAN SLEEPING ON
THE COUCH.
>>.
[LOW AUDIO]
HE SAW THE CODEFENDANT.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> I WILL HAVE TO AGREE TO
WHATEVER THE RECORD SAYS
WHAT THE RECORD SAYS.
>> IT IS A PRETTY CRITICAL
FACT.
>> BUT WHETHER HE SAW THEM
TOGETHER ALONE, I JUST CAN'T
--
>> HE WAS DROPPED OFF.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> I JUST CAN'T RECALL.
IF YOU SAY IT IS TRUE.
I WILL STAND ON THE RECORD.
I WILL AGREE WITH THE
RECORD.
>>.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> I WILL ASSUME HE SAID
THAT, BUT WE ALSO HAVE AT
THE TRIAL, GAYLE BAILEY'S
TESTIMONY THAT WHEN SHE --
THEY ALL WENT BACK TO THE
HOUSE, BEFORE MIDNIGHT, JUST
BEFORE, SHE WENT DO THE
BATHROOM.
SHE CAME OUT SHORTLY
THEREAFTER, SHE SAID THEY
WERE ALL GONE,.
>> WHY DID YOU PRESENT
SHAW'S TESTIMONY AT THE
EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON POST
CONVICTION?
WHY DID WE?
>> NO, WHY DID YOU?
>> BECAUSE SHAW HAD ADDITION
AAL EVIDENCE THAT ABOUT
MR. PEARCY COMING HOME
WITHOUT THE GIRL AND
MR. DAILEY.
>> PREPARE FOR US, IF YOU
WILL, SHAW'S TESTIMONY AT
THE ORIGINAL TRIAL, AND HIS
TESTIMONY AT THE POST-CONVICTION
HEARING, AND POINT OUT, FOR
US, IF YOU WILL, WHAT THE
DIFFERENCES WERE, IF ANY.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
PRIMARY DIFFERENCE WAS THAT
THE ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AT
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS
THAT HE HAD ALSO WITNESSED
PEARCY COMING BACK ALONE
WITHOUT THE GIRL AND GETTING
MR. DAILEY AND MR. SHAW SAID
AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING,
HE HAD MENTIONED THAT.
HE COULDN'T RECALL WHETHER
IT WAS TO THE STATE OR TO
THE DEFENSE, BUT HE HAD
MENTIONED THAT BEFORE THE
TRIAL, THAT NOBODY HAD EVER
ASKED FOR IT AT TRIAL AND
THE WAY THE QUESTIONING HAD
GEN AT TRIAL, THERE WAS NOT
AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT
THAT AND THEN AFTER THE
TRIAL HE REALIZED THE
IMPORTANCE OF THAT
PARTICULAR FACT AND WAS ABLE
TO THEN PROVIDE THAT
INFORMATION.
>> THAT INFORMATION PRODUCE
ON A RETRIAL?
>> THAT INFORMATION IN
CONJUNCTION THE OTHER FACTS,
GAYLE BAILEY TESTIFIED
AMBIGUOUSLY AT THE TRIAL
SUGGESTING THAT HE HAD LEFT.
HE SHE SAYS THEY WERE NOT
THERE WHEN I CAME BACK OUT.
SHE SAID OZA SHAW WAS STILL
ON THE COUCH AND BUY ALL OF
THE OTHER TESTIMONY.
>> SHE SAW PEARCY AND DAILEY
RETURN TO THE HOUSE
TOGETHER?
>> THEY RETURNED MUCH LATER
IN THE NIGHT AND WE HAVE
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC FROM SOME
ONE OTHER THAN OZA SHAW AT
TRIAL THAT PEARCY AND DAILYE
RETURNED TO THE HOUSE
TOGETHER LATE AT NIGHT.
>> YES.
>> BUT THE FACTS AT TRIAL
FAILED TO SHOW THAT
MR. DAILEY CAME ONLY TO BE
WITH MR. PEARCE AFTER THE
INITIAL DEPARTURE BY
MR. PEARCY WITH THE GIRL AN
OZA SHAW, THAT WAS NOT CLEAR
AT ALL.
THE STATE, IN FACT, TOOK
ADVANTAGE OF THE AMBIGUITY
THERE AND ARGUED BASICALLY
THAT MR. DAI LE Y,
MR. PEARCY, OZA SHAW AND THE
GIRL HAD RAN OFF TOGETHER.
>>.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> THESE PEOPLE LIVE
SOMEWHAT ALTERNATIVE
LIFESTYLE.
>>.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> I CAN NOT SPECULATE.
I KNOW WHAT MY CLIENT SAID.
>>> LOTS OF EVIDENCE,
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE LINKING
ETH OF THESE TO THE
CODEFENDANT --.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> AND IT WAS INCRIMINATING
AT TRIAL BECAUSE THAT THIS
IS WAY THE STATE WAS ABLE TO
ARGUE THE FACTS, BUT WITHOUT
THE CRITICAL EVIDENCE FROM
MR. SHAW, THAT MR. DAILEY
HAD BEEN IN HIS BEDROOM WHEN
MR. PEARCY CAME BACK, THAT
THEY HAD COME BACK, ALL OF
THEM CAME BACK TO THE HOUSE,
MR. PEARCY, THE GIRL,
MR. SHAW WENT OUT, MR. SHAW
GETS THE PHONE, SAYS SHELLEY
AN PEARCY, YOU GO ON WITHOUT
ME, A SUBSTANTIAL TIME
LATER, BUT MR. SHAW SHOWN ON
THE PHONE RECORD, SPENT 23
MINUTES, AT LEAST, ON THE
TELEPHONE, SO SOMETIME AFTER
THAT, HE WALKS BACK TO THE
HOUR, AN WAS AFTER HIS
RETURN TO THE HOUSE, SOME
TIME LATER, WHEN MR. PEARCY
RETURNS ALONE, WITHOUT THE
GIRL, AND GETS MR. DAI LE Y,
THE TWO OF THEM LEAVE, THEN,
MUCH LATER RETURN WITH
MR. DAILEY.
>> DID YOUR CLIENT TVM AT
THE POST CONVICTION HEARING?
YES, HE DID.
THE TESTIMONY WAS THEY WENT
OUT AND PLAYED WITH FRIZ
BUY.
I DMONT WHAT HAPPENED.
OBVIOUSLY, IT LOOKS
SUSPICIOUS.
MAYBE HE HAD SOME AFTER THE
FACT INVOLVEMENT, BUT THE
TESTIMONY, AND THERE IS NO
TESTIMONY CONTRARY WAS AN
INNOCENT FRIZ BUY EPISODE.
THE CRITICAL FACT IS, HE
WASN'T THERE WHEN THE MURDER
OCCURRED.
AUM OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS
THAT.
>>.
[LOW AUDIO]
SHAW EVEN AT THE TIME OF THE
TRIAL PLACE THE CODEFENDANT
ALONE WITH VERY VICTIM --
>> I BELIEVE HE DID.
FROM THE RECORD ON APPEAL AT
999 WHEN YOU STATED THE GIRL
LEFT THE HOUSE, WHERE WAS
DAILEY.
I DIDN'T SEE HIM.
NO.
>> THE ORIGINAL TRIAL?
>> YES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
[LOW AUDIO]
BY THE CODEFENDANT AND THE
VICTIM?
THEN I WOULD ARGUE THAT WAS
EX CULL TORY EVIDENCE BUT
THE JURY ALSO HEARD, GAYLE
BAILEY TESTIFIED THAT IT
LOOKED LIKE MR. DAILEY LEFT
THE HOUSE WITH THEM.
>>.
[LOW AUDIO]
THAT WAS IN THE FOLLOW YOU
UP AT THE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING.
[LOW AUDIO]
[LOW AUDIO]
>> WHEN WE PREPARE NOW WE
ARE VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE
PROCEDURAL DEFAULT ARGUMENTS
THE STATE MAKES AND FOR
THOSE PURPOSES, WE TEND TO
OVER INCLUSIVE SOMETIMES.
>>.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> I THINK THE TOTALITY OF
THE FACTS THAT WERE ARGUED
SHOW --
>>.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> GAYLE BAILEY TESTIFIED AT
THE HEARING AN I CAN'T
RECALL THE DETAILS ENOUGH TO
KNOW HOW TO COMPARE
SIDE-BY-SIDE, I KNOW THAT
GAY LE BAILEY ETESTIMONY AND
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRIAL
AND THE HEARING SHOW SHE DID
NOT KNOW WHERE MR. DAILEY
WAS WHEN SHE CAME OUT OF THE
BATHROOM.
>>.
[LOW AUDIO]
ALL OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE
REALLY POINTS TO A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION --.
[LOW AUDIO]
IF YOU DON'T PAINT A CLEAR
PICTURE OF THAT, HOW DO YOU
EXPECT US --.
[LOW AUDIO]
>> I WOULD SAY THE PICK TURN
THE BRIEF, AND I PERSONALLY
AM AT THE END OF THE LINE OF
A NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS, I
APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING ALL
OF THE FACTS AT MY FINGER
TIPS, I READ EVERYTHING AN I
AM 566.
>> SHAW TESTIFY THAT HE TOLD
THE DEFENSE LAWYERS ABOUT
HIS ADDITIONAL OBSERVATION
IN TERMS OF YOUR CLIENT
STILL BEING AT HOME?
>> HE TESTIFIED.
>> I TOLD THE LAWYERS ALL OF
THAT?
>> HE TESTIFIED HE TOLD
SOMEBODY THAT.
HE COULD NOT RECALL WHO HE
TOLD IT TO.
HE DID SAY, HE TOLD SOMEBODY
THAT BEFORE THE GENERAL
TRIAL.
>> SOMEBODY?
I MEAN, SOMEBODY RECALL?
>> DID HE TELL HIS MOTHER?
>> NO.
HE SAID --
>> SOMEBODY ON THE
PROSECUTION SIDE.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, THE IDEA
THAT YOU WOULD THEN TAKE
THAT AND TURN IT INTO AN
INEFFECTIVE ASISTANCE OF
COUNSEL CLAIM IS OBVIOUSLY
--
>> IF THERE WAS SUCH
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
TESTIMONY THAT WAS AVAILABLE
TO THE DEFENSE LAWYER AND
THEY DIDN'T USE IT, THEN
THAT WOULD, THEN, YOU KNOW,
YOU A PEAR TO BE AT LEAST
RELEVANT ISSUE, BUT HE JUST
SAID HE TOLD SOMEBODY, BUT
HE DIDN'T KNOW WHO.
HE SAID HE TOLD EITHER
DEFENSE COUNSEL OR THE STATE
COUNSEL.
>> HE TOLD SOMEBODY, ONE OF
THE PARTIES TO THE
PROSECUTION.
HE COOPERATE RECALL WHICH
SIDE IT WAS HE TOLD THAT TO.
>> YOU ARE WELL OVER
REBUTTAL.
PLEASE TOUCH ON WHATEVER YOU
WANT TO TOUCH ON SO BE SURE,
YOU KNOW, THAT YOU HAVE
COVERED WHAT YOU WANT TO
COVER WITH US.
>> THE PROSECUTORIAL
MISCONDUCT, THE ERRORS THAT
WERE FOUND IN THE ORIGINAL
OPINION IN COMBINATION WITH
THE ADDITIONAL ONES THAT IN
EFFECT OF THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL OTHERWISE,
ADDRESSED, ALL OF THEM NOW
ADD UP, WE WOULD URGE TO
REVERSIBLE ERROR ON THAT AND
THE SKALNIK THING, WE DIDN'T
GET A CHANCE TO ADDRESS
THAT, MR. SKALNIK IS COME LT
LYNN CREDIBLE.
THE STATE ATTORNEY WHO
HANDLED THE CASE SAYS HE IS
UNKREBLD NOW.
HE CAN'T BE USED AFTER 1998,
YET THE TRIAL COURT IN THE
POST-CONVICTION MOTION FINDS
MR. SKALNIK'S RERECAN
TATIONS OF THE RECAN TATIONS
TO BE CREDIBLE AND WE HAVE
THE STATE SAYING HE IS NOT
KREBLD ANY MORE, THE JUDGE
SAYING, WELL, I BELIEVE HIM
THIS TIME.
THANK YOU.
>>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
MY NAME IS KATHERINE BLANCO
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE.
>> TALK RIGHT TO IT?
>> THAT IS OKAY?
>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
>> COULD YOU START OUT BY
HELPING US PLEASE IN SOME
KIND OF ORDER THAT MAKES
SOME SENSE, IF POSSIBLE,
OKAY?
THE TRIAL TESTIMONY, OF
MR. SHAW, AND HIS POST-
CONVICTION TESTIMONY, AND
THEN GIVING US THE
BACKGROUND OF WHO IS
MR. SHAW, YOU KNOW, IS THIS
JUST A PERSON STANDING ON
THE STREET CORNER, YOU KNOW?
A CITIZEN WITNESSING
SOMETHING?
BUT GIVE US THIS COMPARE ARE
ATIVE ANALYSIS OF WHAT WOULD
APPEAR TO BE CRITICAL
TESTIMONY ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS
WHILE ALL OF THIS WAS GOING
ON AND THEN APPARENTLY,
THOUGH LEFT OUT IF YOU
ACCEPT MR. SHAW, YOU KNOW,
CURRENT TESTIMONY, SO I AM
FILLING IN TOO MANY OF THE
BLANKS MYSELF, BUT WOULD YOU
GIVE US AN ACCOUNT OF
MR. SHAW'S EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AT ANY TIME IN
THESE SPREADINGS?
>> CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.
> WHO IS MR. SHAW, FIRST OF
ALL?
>> MR. SHAW, OZA SHAW IS A
FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANT AN
CODEFENDANT FROM KANSAS.
HE HAD ARAID OF FROM KANSAS
WITH THEM JUST A FEW DAYS
EARLIER AND WAS STAYING AT
THE RESIDENCE THAT WAS
RENTED BY PEARCY AT THIS
HOME IN SEMINOLE, FLORIDA,
YOU HAVE PEARCY WHO IS
LIVING WITH THE LIVE-IN
GIRLFRIEND GAYLE BAILEY AND
YOU HAVE JAMES BAILEY AND
DWAINE SHAW AND OZA SHAW WHO
IS SLEEPING IN THE COUCH,
SEW SPEND THAENS TIRE DAY
WITH BOTH BAILEY AN PEARCY,
UM, THEY WENT TO THE BEACH
THAT DAY, THERE WAS HEAVY
DRINKING GOING ON, HE WAS
WITH THEM WHEN THEY PICKED
UP THE THREE TEENAGE GIRL,
THE VICTIM IN THE CASE WAS
14 YEARS OLD, SHE HAD A TWIN
SISTER AND ANOTHER
GIRLFRIEND WAS ALONG WITH
THEM.
SO HE WAS WITH THEM
THROUGHOUT THE DAY DRINKING
HEAVILY, QUITE FRANKLY, AT
SOME POINT AND TIME, HE
PASSED OUT ON THE COUCH, HE
ADMITS THAT HE DIDN'T WANT
TO OUT WITH THEM THAT
EVENING WHERE THE CONTINUED
TO DRINK AND SMOKE MARIJUANA
AND GO OUT FOR FURTHER
PARTYING, SO IN HIS TRIAL
TESTIMONY, HE SAYS THAT, YOU
KNOW, HE, IN FACT, PASS OUT
ON THE COUCH, THERE IS,
INDEED, A REFERENCE IN THE
TRIAL RECORD AS JUSTICE
PARIENTE ASKED ABOUT WHERE
OZA SHAW AND VOLUME 9 OF THE
TRIAL RECORD CONFIRMS THAT
AT ONE POINT PEARCY WAS
LEAVING WITH SHELLEY, SHE
ULS THE 14-YEAR-OLD VICTIM,.
SHELLEY AND IT WAS NOT
MENTIONEDP AT TRIAL.
IN 1987.
NEARLY 20 YEARS AFTERWARDS, HE
TESTIFIED THAT THE EVIDENCIARY
HEARING THAT SUDDENLY HIS
MEMORY HAS BEEN JOGGED, AND
NOW HE REMEMBERS THAT THERE
WAS A TIME THAT FIRST HE CAME
BACK ALONE.
NEVER ASKED.
>> THERE WERE FOUR OTHER TIMES
WHEN HE WAS GIVING STATEMENTS
BOTH UNDER OATH AND NOT UNDER
OATH.
>> STATEMENT.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS
STATEMENT UNDER OELT I BELIEVE
THAT WAS AN INTERVIEW, YOUR
HONOR BUT TWO OTHER PRETRIAL
DEPOSITIONS OFTENING HIS TRIAL
TESTIMONY THEN HE COMES IN
POSTCONVICTION TESTIFIES I
JUST REMEMBERED THERE WAS AN
INCIDENT, PEARCY CAME BACK
ALONE BUT IN FACT THE DEFENSE
ARGUED THAT THERE WAS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PEARCY, TO BE
WITH THE VICTIM ALONE, DURING
THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS, AS
DEMONSTRATED BY OZA SHAW WITH
RESPECT TO THE GAYLE BAILEY
CLAIM, GAIL BAILEY AFFIRMATIVE
SHE TESTIMONY AFTER SHE
TESTIFIED THIS IS A BENCH
CONFERENCE, AFTER SHE
TESTIFIED SHE CONTACTED DEF
COUNCIL ABOUT HER TESTIMONY,
TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WAS
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN $$
SHAW'S, AND, THEY -- DO NOT
THE -- THE DEFENSE COUNSEL
PUTS IT ON THE RECORD DOESN'T
CALL BAILEY BACK AS WITNESS
BUT ICHL PIECHEES HER
TESTIMONY THAT SHAW NEVER LEFT
THE RESIDENCE THAT NIGHT IN
FACT, BAILEY DID AT MYTH IN
HER TESTIMONY THAT SHAW HAD
GONE TO THE TO USE THE PHONE,
AT ONE POINT AND TIME.
WHEN ASKED WHEN THEY RETURNED,
GAYLE WAS ASKED SHE SAID SHAW
WAS AT THE HOUSE WHETHER THEY
RENDER FROM DISCO A BILL
BELIEVED SHAW JUST GOT BACK
FROM USE DMEEG PAY PHONE YOUR
HONOR THAT IS VOLUME 8 PAGE
970, AND # 53 OF THE TRIAL
RECORD.
SO -- 953.
>> -- HE SAID THAT -- THAT --
SHELLEY LEFT THE -- BAILEY AND
HER -- [INAUDIBLE]
TWO MEN HEARD THAT -- SELF O
HOURS LATER, AND --.
>> THAT IS --
>> -- LEFT IN THE CAR, BAILEY
AND PEARCY, WHERE AT TRIAL IS
THAT STATEMENT?
>> IT COMES FROM GAIL BAILEY
WHEN THEY RETURNED.
>> -- SAID SHE -- SOMETHING,
TO SHE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SEE AT
-- TRIAL THE DEFENDANT --
CO-DEFENDANT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CO-DEFENDANT -- VICTIM -- THAT
SHAW -- [INAUDIBLE]
TO SHOW THAT.
AND UNCONTRADICTED THAT IN
FACT -- THAT -- IT WAS ONLY
THE VICTIM, AND THE --
DEFENDANTS THAT HAD TAKEN SHAW!!$$!!!!!!
SHAW --
>> WHAT -- DISPELS THAT YOUR
HONOR SHE IS ALSO ASKED AT
TRIAL WERE THEY ALWAYS
TOGETHER.
BAILEY AND PEARCY WITH SHELLEY
THERE ARE TWO PHONE CALLS THAT
SHOW UP ON THE PHONE RECORDS,
ONE AT 10:16 KANSAS TIME ONE
AT 12:16 KANSAS TIME AT MITTED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
MITTEDLY EVERYONE HAD BEEN
DRINKING HALFLY WAS CONFUSED
ABOUT THE TIMES SAW MAKES TWO
PHONE CALLS TWO HOURS APART
YOUR HONOR, NOW SIGNIFICANTLY
IN FERSY -- FIRST TWO --
PEARCY STATEMENTS TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT OF COURSE A PART
OF THE -- COURT EXHIBIT IN
THIS CASE AND PEARCY'S
STATEMENT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
ADMITS THAT HE WENT BACK TO
THE HOUSE, AND PICKED UP
DAILEY THAT THE POINT IN TIME
AND THE THREE OF THEM LEFT
TOGETHER.
>> -- THAT -- THAT THAT DID
NOT COME INTO EVIDENCE AT
TRIAL.
>> BUT --
>> -- RIGHT.
>> WHAT.
>> THE WHERE THE -- THAT
SHOWED UP IN FRONT OF BAILEY
-- COME FROM --
>> IT COMES FROM GAIL BAILEY,
O GAIL BASICALLY.
>> BASICALLY SHE DOESN'T --
SEE, THEN, SHE WAKES UP, AND
SHE I THINK HES NO ONE IS
THERE.
SNOOM YOUR HONOR SHE IS
POINT-BLANK ASKED WERE THEY
TOGETHER DID THEY LEAVE
TOGETHER DID THEY COME
TOGETHER DID THEY LEAVE
TOGETHER DID THEY COME
TOGETHER THEY CAME BACK ONE
POINT IN TIME THEY LEFT
TOGETHER THEY CAME BACK
TOGETHER.
SO SHE IS ASKED TO CLARIFY
THAT, AND IT IS UNDERSTAND
BELIEVE THAT ANY OF US WOULD
BE CONFUSED, BY THE WAY THAT
-- TESTIMONY WAS DEVELOPING.
>> AT THAT POINT, THAT --
COMES BACK, ALONE, THAT PAILLY
-- WITNESSED -- VICTIM COMES
BACK AND --
>> SHE IS IN THE CAR, HIS
TESTIMONY CERTAINLY IS THAT
HIS -- LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERFECTSY STATEMENT TO
LANGUAGE THEREIN ADMITTEDLY
DID NOT COME UT OF BAILEY NOW
THAT SHELLEY WAS IN THE CAR
WHEN HE CAME BACK AND THE LIFT
-- LEFT TOGETHER CAME BACK
TOGETHER THEY LEFT TOGETHER
THEY CAME BACK TOGETHER.
>> -- YOU KNOW -- WAS -- BUT,
IT SEEMS -- -- [INAUDIBLE]
WHAT IS THE DEFENDANT --
PERPETRATED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PERPETRATED, BATTERY, AND --
>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS
EVIDENCE OF COURSE, THE DEFEND
HAS ATTEMPTED TO RESURRECT A
INSUFRY OF THE EVIDENCE, THIS
COURT DID FIND ON DIRECT
APPEAL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF
THE $$DEFENDANT'S GUILTY.
-- GUILT, SEPARATE SUFFICIENCY
EVIDENCE CLAIM WAS NOT RAISED
ON DIRECT APPEAL THAT HAS TO
DO WITH THE THIS $$COURT'S
COMMENTARY WITH REGARD TO THE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF GUILT,
I BELIEVE, WAS -- WITH RESPECT
TO THE AGGRAVATING FACTOR OF
THE ATTEMPTED SEXUAL BATTERY.
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
>> YES YOUR HONOR.
>> ON PAGE 46 AND 47 OF THE
TRIAL $$COURT'S ORDER, HE SAYS
AT TRIAL, MISS BAILEY
TESTIFIED TO THE APPEARANCE OF
MR. BAILEY AND JACK PEARCY
WHAT THEY RETURNED HOME IN
THEIR EARLY HOURS OF MAY 16,
1985 DURING THE FOLLOWING THEN
ON PAGE 47, IT -- FROM THE
TRIAL TRANSCRITICALLY THE
DESCRIPTION OF BOTH OF THESE
TWO GENTLEMEN.
WHEN THEY RUSHED.
>> SO THERE WAS THE DIRECT
TESTIMONY, FROM HER, THAT BOTH
OF THEM RETURNED AND THAT
PARTICULARLY MR. DAILEYED THAT
-- ET CETERA.
>> THAT WAS NOT ONLY FROM
GAYLE BAILEY BUT ALSO FROM OZA
SHAW.
>> BOTH OF THEM.
>> MISS BAILEY DID TESTIFY TO
THAT.
>> TESTIFIED THAT WHEN THEY
RUSHED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
RUSHED, IN THE EARLY MORNING
HOURS, THAT THE INDIVIDUAL,
THAT CAME IN WITH THE PANTS
WET BELOW THE WAIST WAS THE
DEFENDANT JAMES DAILY NOT
WEARING A SHIRT, JACK PEARCY
WAS STILL DRESSED THE SAME WAY
HE WAS DRESSED EARLIER.
AND IF I MAY RETURN TO $$
JUSTICE'S PARENTE QUESTION
WITH REGARD TO ESSENTIALLY
RECAP OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
PRESENTED.
>> STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE THAT -- CASE THAT
STEMS FOUR TO FIVE --
FORTIFIED WITH THE STRAIGHT
STATEMENTS, AND TWO OF THESE
STATEMENTS TWO OF THE INMATE
ONCE -- WITNESSES REMAIN
UNASSAILED IN POSTCONVICTION.
>> WHAT IT IS THE -- FORTIFIED
BY THE -- BY THE -- INMATE --
>> YOU HAVE THREE, YOU KNOW,
YOUR HONOR GOOD EVIDENCE CAN
COME FROM SOMETIMES UNSAVORY
WITNESSES.
>> -- STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL --
FORTIFIED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FORTIFIED -- WITH THE STRONG
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
>> YES YOUR HONOR, ON THE DAY
OF THE MURDER THE DAY
PRECEDING THE MURDER YOU HAVE
THE DEFENDANTS AS THE PARTIES
THAT ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THE
VICTIM.
THEY ARE IDENTIFIED BY THAT!!$$!!!!!!
THAT DURING THAT ENTIRE DAY.
BOTH BY THE VICTIM'S SISTER,
BY THE VICTIM'S COMPANION BY
OZA SHAW, BY GAIL BAILEY THAT
NIGHT THERE IS ALSO TESTIMONY
THAT -- JAMES BAILEY WAS THE
ONE THAT WAS MAKING OVERTURES
TOWARDS THE VICTIM THAT SHE RE!!$$!!
REBEFORE YOUED INDEED IF THIS $$
COURT'S OPINION YOU DISCUSS
THAT FACTOR.
NOW, THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT
WHEN THEY GO OUT, OF COURSE IT
IS A -- LATE INTO THE
EVENING -- EARLY MORNING, WHAT
THEY WHEN THEY LEAVE GAYLE
BAILEY IS THE ONE THAT PLACES
THE THREE OF THEM LEAVING
WITHOUT HER SHE IS NONE TOO
HAPPEN ABOUT THAT SHE ADMITS
THAT SHE IS VERY ANGRY ABOUT
THAT.
AND THEN IN THE MORNING, THE
INDIVIDUAL, THAT HAS RETURNED,
WHO RETURNED WEALTH OF COURSE
HE HASN'T BEEN -- PEARCY AS
TOS STORY NOW NEARLY 20 YEARS
THAT LATER WAS THE VERSION
THAT HE WANTED TO OFFER AT
TRIAL -- TOLD HIM WOULD NOT BE
WELL RECEIVED -- INDEED HE IS
THE ONLY ONE THAT COMES BACK
TO THE HOUSE, IN THAT TYPE OF
CONDITION.
AND THIS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT
BEING BECAUSE THIS VICTIM WAS
NOT ONLY STABBED NOT ONLY
STRANGLED BUT IN ORDER TO
FINALLY KILL HER SHE WAS HER
BODWAS SUBMERGED HER HEAD HAD
TO BE ASK YOU ABOUT MEJED
UNDER WATER TOTAL 48 STAB
WOUNDS 31 ACTUALLY STAB WOUNDS
17 RICKING WOUNDS OR -- VERY
DEEP GASHES IN BACK -- A
WHITTLE -- A LITTLE THING.
>> IS THERE -- THE WATER THAT
WAS IN HER LUNGS WAS THE SAME
WATER THAT WAS ON BAILEY$$'S
PANTS OR WAS THERE THAT KIND
OF EVIDENCE BACK THERE SO IF
THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN --
BECAUSE THEY TOOK OFF, THESE
DEFENDANTS TOOK OFF THE NEXT
MORNING.
IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR THERE
IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS -- IN
IT WAS PHOTOGRAPH OF DAILEY AT
THE LOCATION WHERE HE WHERE
THE VICTIM'S BAND WAS FOUND,
BECAUSE YU PHOTO OF HIM
FINISHING AT THAT LOCATION
FAMILIAR WITH THAT LOCATION --
FISHING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
FISHING, SO INCIDENTALLY GAYLE
BAILEY HAD THAT PHOTOGRAPH,
AND SO WHEN PRESSORS
DISCUSSING TOTO AT TRIAL LOOK
AT BACKGROUND YOU CAN SEE
WHERE IT IS IT IS THE SAME
LITTLE LOVER$$'S LANE --
>> YOU DO RECALL WHETHER AT
THE TRIAL THE PROSECUTION,
ARGUED THAT GAYLE BAILEY SAW !!$$!!!!!!
SAW JIM DAILEY AND PEARCY
LEAVING WITH THE VICTIM?
>> -- THE -- GAYLE BAILEY
TESTIFIES WHEN SHE CAME OUT
THE THREE OF THEM WERE GONE
PEARCY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
PEARCY, DAILEY AND SHELLEY,
SHE WAS ASKED ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CROSS-EXAMINATION, DID YOU
LOOK IN $$DAILEY'S BEDROOM, NO I
DIDN'T.
SO THE DEFENSE AT THAT POINT
IN TIME IS TRYING TO MAKE
INROADS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
INROADS, TO UNDER CUT THAT
TESTIMONY, OF GALL BAILEY$$'S
BUT IN FACT THEY LEFT, THE
THREE OF THEM LEFT AT THAT
TIME AND TRYING TO CONNECT IT,
WITH THE PHONE.
THIS IS NOT A PARTICULARLY NEW
ARGUMENT THAT PEARCY'S ALONE
WOULD HAVE TRIED TO COMMIT THE
MURDER I I MEAN IS ARGUMENT
DEFENSE ARGUED AT TRIAL.
>> SHE TESTIFIED SO THAT SAID
SHAW WAS --
>> SHE MAINTAINED THAT SHAW
DID NOT LEAVE, AFTER EE SHE
DID HAVE TESTIMONY IN THERE I
THINK SHAW JUST GOT BACK FROM
MAKING A PHONE CALL.
AND SO SHE TESTIFIED AT TRIAL
SHAW WAS THERE ALL NIGHT WHEN
SHAW TESTIFIED HE SAID NO I
WASN'T THERE ALL NIGHT,
BECAUSE I LEFT GO MAKE A HE
MAKE A PHONE CALL WE NOW KNOW
THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE PHONE
CALLS SHAW MADE THAT NIGHT.
>> WHAT IS SHAW'S EXPLANATION
BIRTHS THE WAY, OF THESE TWOS
SAY IT -- EXPLANATION OF TWO
SEPARATE PHONE CALLS WHAT HE
WAS DOING WAS HE TAKEN TO THE
PHONE BOOTH TO MAKE FIRST CALL
THEN DID HE RETURN?
AND THEN DID HE GO OUT AGAIN
ON HIS OWN TO MAKE THE SECOND
CALL?
OR WHAT?
IN OTHER WORDS WHAT WAS SHAW'S
EXPLANATION.
>> QUITE HONESTLY JUSTICE IN
POSTCONVICTION IT HAS NOT
DEVELOPED SO MUCH WITH RESPECT
TO THE TWO PHONE CALLS THEY
JUST HAVE PHONE RECORDS, HE
SAID THAT HE WAS CALLING HIS
GIRLFRIEND AND HIS WIFE WITH
THE PHONE RECORDS ONLY -- ONLY
SHOW CALLS TO THE HOLIDAY INN,
WHERE BETTY WOULD HAVE WORKED,
HIS GIRLFRIEND AT THE TIME.
SHE ALSO SAID THAT SHE HEARD
WHEN SHE WAS ON THE PHONE SHE
HEARD HONKING IN THE
BACKGROUND SHE WAS TESTIFIED
THAT POSTCONVICTION HEARING,
AND -- AND IT WAS -- RELAYED
TO HER, BY SHAW, THAT THAT WAS
PEARCY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
PEARCY, YOU KNOW --
>> DID SHE HAVE A TWO-HOUR
DPAP BETWEEN.
>> YOU HAVE A TWO-HOUR GAP IN
THE PHONE RECORDS.
>> THERE IS REALIZE NO
EXPLANATION -- REALLY NO
EXPLANATION.
>> THERE IS NOT YOUR HONOR
JUST THOSE POSTCONVICTION
RECORDS EXCUSE ME, THE --
TELEPHONE RECORDS, AND -- HAD
ARGUED THAT THOSE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN USED TO I AM PIECH GAYLE
BAILEY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
BAILEY'S TRIAL TESTIMONY BUT
AT TRIAL, HER TESTIMONY WAS
IMPEACHED BY SHAW WHO SAYS NO
I WASN'T HOME THE WHOLE NIGHT
I LEFT TO MAKE PHONE CALLS.
>> --
>> -- GET MADE FROM THE SAME
TELEPHONE.
>> YES.
>> YES, IT WAS IT WAS PAY
PHONE YOUR HONOR.
>> SHAW'S TESTIMONY HE ONLY
MADE ONE PHONE CALL.
>> NO HE ACTUALLY SAID THAT HE
CALLED HIS WIFE AND HIS
GIRLFRIEND!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GIRLFRIEND.
SO HE --
>> BUT NOT AT SEPARATE TIMES
HE JUST SAID --
>> WHEN HE WENT TO THE PHONE
BOOTH -- HE WENT TO MAKE PHONE
CALLS TO BOTH BETTY AND ROSE,
IN ADDITION -- TO WHAT I
PREVIOUSLY SUMMARIZED YOUR
HONOR YOU ALSO HAVE THE THREE
SEPARATE INMATES, WHO HAVE
TESTIFIED, AND, AGAIN, GOOD
EVIDENCE CAN AS I -- PREVIOUS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PREVIOUSLY -- CAN COME FROM
UNSAVORY WITNESSES SOMETIMES,
MR. -- REMITTED THE TEST OF DE
JESUS WAS REJECTED AS PURE
HEARSAY I WOULD DISPUTE THAT
NOT ONLY DISPUTE THAT, IT IS
NOT MY RECOLLECTION THAT THAT
IS WHAT HAPPENED.
IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
AS TO LIGHT NER THERE IS A 5
MONTH GAP BETWEEN THE
TESTIMONY BETWEEN THE MEETINGS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MEETINGS, WITH BETWEEN LIGHT
NER -- AND DE JESUS AND PAUL
SKALNICK!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SKALNICK, NOW -- WITH RESPECT
TO LIGHT NER, LIGHT NER IS
WORKING AS A TRUSTEE WORKING
AS A LAW LIBRARIAN IN DECEMBER
DAILEY ASKED LIGHT NER IF HE
KNEW PEARCY COULD GET MESSAGES
TO HIM, SO OF YOU DAILEY
INITIATE$$!!!!ING THAT INQUIRY TO
LIGHT NER, THEY PASS WHAT IS A
REFERRED TO AS KITES, NOTES
FROM BETWEEN THE INMATES, AND
L!!$$
LEITNERA CONDUIT FOR THAT DIE
HIGH SAUCE A CONDUIT FOR THAT
THEY ALSO FOR THE COPIED THAT
AT TIME OF TRIAL ASKED WHY
THEY CAME FORWARD APPARENTLY
IT DREW SOME TYPE OF RESPONSE
FROM THE JURY WHEN ONE SAYS
HIS MORALS GOT TO HIM YOU SAY
WELL -- THERE IS A HIGHER --
HIERARCHY IN THE PRISON SFRJS
SOME TYPE OF -- REVULSION
AMONG EVEN HARDENED CRIMINALS
AS TO CRIMES OF THIS NATURE,
YOU HAVE LEITNER, WHO IS IN
FOR CONSPIRACY TO TRAFFIC IN
COCAINE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
COCAINE, YOU HAVE GOT THE SAME
SENTENCE THAT HE ENTERED A
FIVE-YEAR PLEA WHICH IS THE
SAME SENTENCED HIS CODEFLT WAS
GETTING HE HE TESTIFIED TO
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
DEFENDANT, IN THE LAW LIBRARY,
SPECIFICALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SPECIFICALLY, THAT HE WOULD
GIVE THE LETTERS BACK AND
FORTH, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
THAT DAILEY SAYS -- SAID TO
TELL PEARCY TO STAY OFF THE
THAT DAILY WOULD STAY OFF THE
STAND AND TELL PEARCY THAT IF
HE GETS A RETRIAL, AT A DAILEY
WILL TELL WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
THAT I'M THE ONE THAT DID IT,
BEING DAILEY.
YOU HAVE DE JESUS YOU ALSO
HAVE DEJESUS WHO ASKED DAILEY
IN LEITNER'S PRESENCE, WHY DID
YOU HAVE TO KILL HER, SHE WAS
ONLY 14.
AND DAILEY'S RESPONSE IS MAN I
JUST LOST IT.
DIE HIGH SAUCE SAID THAT HE
WAS THE FLAGGER CAME FORWARD
BECAUSE -- FATHER CAME FORWARD
BECAUSE HE DID NOT BELIEVE
THAT THAT WAS RIGHT FOR THIS
DEFENDANT TO BE LAUGHING AT
DEFENDANTS TO BE HAUFING AND
JOKING ABOUT -- SUCH A
HORRIFIC CRIME.
AGAINST A 14-YEAR-OLD YOUNG
GIRL.
>> -- DID THE COULD DEFT GET
-- JURY.
>> IT WAS JURY RECOMMENDATION
OF LIFE YOUR HONOR THE COULD
DEFT WAS TRIED FIRST.
AND IT WAS THE SAME TRIAL,
JUDGE, IN THE TRIAL, AND
DIRECT APPEAL EXCUSE ME, TRIAL
AND RESENTENCING, WE HAVE A
SUCCESSOR POSTCONVICTION
JUDGE, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
JUDGE, JUDGES PINOSA REPREYOU
SEE ED OVER POST CONVICTIONS I
SEE THE RED LIGHT FLASHING I
DON'T WANT TO AWARE OUT MY
WELCOME IF NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS I WOULD ASK THE
COURT TO AFFIRM THIS
COMPREHENS I NEED WELL
REASONED ORDER OF THE TRIAL
COURT.
>> YOU HAVE USED YOUR TIME BUT
I WOULD AFFORD YOU A COUPLE
MINUTES, TO ADDRESS THE
QUESTIONS THAT MAYBE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY NOW, JUSTICE
ANSTEAD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANSTEAD, JUSTICE -- INQUIRING
ABOUT THESE FACTS AND THE
CRITICAL FACTS IN THE CASE, TO
GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY, VERY
BRIEFLY TO ADDRESS THOSE,
OKAY.
>> MY -- UNDERSTANDING THE
THRUST OF JUSTICE PARENT$$E'S
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IT IS
NEW, IF IT IS NOT NEW THEN IT
WAS IN THE CASE ORIGINALLY AND
THIS COURT FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED
IN HOLDING THE THREE OF THEM
WENT OFF TOGETHER, THE
STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHERE
THIS COURT SAYS DAILEY, AND
PEARCY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
PEARCY, AND THE GIRL WENT OFF
ALONE TOGETHER.
AND IF IT WAS IN THE RECORD
ORIGINALLY THEN THAT IS A
MISSTATEMENT.
-- OF THE IF A, THAT WERE IN
THE RECORD THEN, I THINK THE
COURT, THOUGH, SUFFERED THE
SAME MISAPPREHENSION THAT THE
JURY DID IN THAT LOOKING AT
THE FATALITY OF THE TESTIMONY
THAT YOU ALL HAD TO LOOK AT IN
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRIAL, IT
LOOKED LIKE THEY ALL THREE
WENT OFF TOGETHER.
>> LET ME ASK YOU TWO
QUESTIONS AND THEN WE WILL
RELIEVE YOU, ONE IS YOU DO
AGREE WITH THE STATE THAT SHAW
HAD GIVE I THINK IT WAS FOUR
PREVIOUS STATEMENTS IN WHICH,
THIS ACCOUNT OF THE COMING
BACK, OR WHATEVER, WAS NOT
INCLUDED, THERE WERE
STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE, AND
THEN, A COUPLE OF DEPOSITIONS,
AND THE TRIAL TESTIMONY, AS
OUTLINED BY THE STATE.
YOU DO AGREE WITH THE $$STATE'S
ACCOUNT OF THAT.
>> I AGREE THE RECORD WAS
SILENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
SILENT, FROM MR. SHAW, UNTIL
THE POSTCONVICTION PHASE, AS
FAR AS THE ADDITIONAL RETURN.
>> AND COULD YOU SHED ANY
FURTHER LIGHT IN TERMS OF $$
SHAW'S EXPLANATION ABOUT THIS
GAP IN THE TELEPHONE CALLS
BEING MADE AND THAT IS THAT
THE PICTURE BEING APPEARING TO
BE THAT HE HAS TAKEN TO THE
TELEPHONE BOOTH AND THAT HE
MAKES A TELEPHONE CALL OR
CALLS!!$$!!!!!!!!
CALLS, ALL RIGHT BUT THEN THAT
HE GOES BACK TO THE HOUSE AND
GOES TO SLEEP ON THE COUCH,
CAN YOU ACCOUNT FOR THEIR
APPARENTLY IS A COUPLE HOUR
GAP, AND SO, THE SHAW -- DOES
SHAW SAY HE SAT ON PARK BENCH
OR SOMETHING AND THEN MADE
ANOTHER TELEPHONE CALL TWO
HOURS LATER?
IN OTHER WORDS, I'M ASKING
THAT, WHAT -- WHAT IS THE
EXPLANATION.
>> IF THERE IS ONE.
>> I THINK, YOU KNOW MY --
RECOLLECTION OF MY
UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THAT IT
WOULD BE EXPLAINED THEY THE
FACT SHAW WAS HOME ALONE WAKES
UP GOES AND CALLS, BEFORE THEY
RETURN BACK TO THE HOUSE, AND
I THINK THE TIMING ON.
>> IN OTHER WORDS THAT HE
AFTER HE MADE THE FIRST CALL,
AFTER BEING DROPPED OFF, THAT
HE WENT BACK TO THE HOUSE.
>> NO HE WAS NEVER DROPPED OFF
IN THE FIRST CALL THEY WERE
STILL AT PARTYING I SAY THAT
BOE A GOOD REASONABLE
EXPLANATION.
OF HOW SHAW CAN MAKE THAT
FIRST PHONE CALL.
>> WHAT HE WAS DROPPED OFF.
>> HE WAS DROPPED OFF IN THE
MIDNIGHT CALL THE TESTIMONY
ALL ADDS UP TO THAT.
THAT IT WAS THE LATE NIGHT
CALL THAT BETTY ANDERSON THE
GIRLFRIEND!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GIRLFRIEND, TESTIFIED THAT
THAT WAS THE CALL WHEN SHE
HEARD THE HONKING IN THE
BACKGROUND THAT MR. SHAW
SAYING GOING WITHOUT ME.
JUDGE SAYS THE CIRCUMSTANCES
-- CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE WAS
WEAK WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED
MJOA, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
SHE DIDN'T DROWN FROM LYING
FACE GOWN FACE DOWN IN THE
WATER.
>> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT
PERTAINS TO I'M CONCERNED WHEN
YOU MADE THE STATEMENT
EARLIER, I'M JUST THE ATTORNEY
AT THE END OF THE LINE THERE
IS A PROBLEM WITH CCRC$$!!THAT WE
NEED TO DISCUSS.
>> NO YOUR HONOR I'M JUST --
YOU KNOW I READY IT ALL -- I
READ IT ALL CAN'T MEMORIZE IT
ALL.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
>> PLENTY OF TIME ON THIS.
>> -- YOU ARE APPELLATE LAWYER
DID NOT HANDLE THE TRIAL FALLS
INTO THAT CATEGORY RATHER THAN
THESE THINGS ARE JUST BEING
THROWN OH, OF THE TABLE ON --
NIGHT BEFORE SOMETHING TO WORK
ON.
>> NO, NO I'VE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS FOR MONTHS, MR. --
>> OKAY.
>> THAT IS THAT IS ALL I NEED
KNOW.
>> I ONLY WENT TO THE LAST
HEARING I WAS NOT I JOINED THE
FIRM SO TO SPEAK, RIGHT AT THE
END OF THE EVIDENCIARY
HEARING.
>> FINE, I AND THAT.
>> MR. PINGER LEFT I TOOK
OVER.
>> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WITH THAT YOU HAVE USED ALL
YOUR TIME THE COURT WILL STAND
IN RECESS UNTIL 9:00 TOMORROW
MORNING.
>> ALL RISE.
>> THE FOLLOWING IS A
PRESENTATION OF THE FLORIDA
STATE UNIVERSITY
COMMUNICATIONS GROUP.
77 77
>>> COMING UP ON "FSU
HEADLINES":
A PAIR OF ALUMNI TAKE CENTER
STAGE IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA.
A NOVEL CONCEPT HELPS FSU
SOLVE ITS CLASSROOM CRUNCH.
AND A HALF TON OF FUN
ARRIVES AT THE MARINE LAB.
STAY TUNED FOR THESE STORIES
AND MORE.
"FSU HEADLINES" STARTS NOW!
DENNIS: HELLO, EVERYBODY.
I'M DENNIS SCHNITTKER.
WELCOME TO "FSU HEADLINES.
"
THE NEW YEAR STARTED WITH A
BANG FOR FLORIDA STATE, AS
ALUMNUS CHARLIE CRIST WAS
SWORN IN AS THE 44TH
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OR
FLORIDA.
>> I WELL AND FAITHFULLY
PERFORM.
>> WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY
PERFORM.
>> THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE
OF GOVERNOR.
>> THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE
OF GOVERNOR ON WHICH I'M NOW
ABOUT TO ENTER.
>> ON WHICH I AM NOW ABOUT
TO ENTER.
>> SO HELP ME GOD.
DENNIS: THE 50-YEAR-OLD
CRIST BECOMES THE SECOND FSU
GRADUATE TO SERVE AS
GOVERNOR.
CRIST EARNED A BACHELORS
DEGREE IN GOVERNMENT FROM
FLORIDA STATE IN THE LATE
1970S, AND HAS RISEN THROUGH
THE POLITICAL RANKS OVER THE
YEARS, SERVING AS
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
AND MOST RECENTLY AS
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
NOW HE CONTINUES TO SERVE
THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA, IN
THE HIGHEST OFFICE POSSIBLE.
GOVERNOR CRIST: THIS IS THE
TIME TO PLOT NEW COURSES,
EMBRACE NEW POSSIBILITIES
AND EVEN RISK NEW SOLUTIONS.
WE FACE NO OBSTACLE GREATER
THAN OUR ABILITIES, NO
PROBLEM THAT CANNOT BE
SOLVED, OUR CHALLENGE IS TO
RECOGNIZE OUR COMMON FUTURE
AND OUR COMMON DESTINY.
DENNIS: A FLORIDA STATE
ALUMNUS NOW
OCCUPIES THE TOP POLITICAL
SPOT IN FLORIDA, HE'S NOT
ALONE AT THE TO.
ANOTHER FLORIDA STATE
GRADUATE IS SERVING AS
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
HEADLINES REPORTER JOHN
ROGERS HAS MORE ON THE PAIR
OF HISTORY-MAKING LEADERS
FROM FSU.
IS 77 77.
WE WAS BEFORE GRADUATING IN
FSU IN 197.
WHO KNEW THE STAR OF FLORIDA
STATE'S HOMECOMING PARADE
WOULD BE THE STAR OF
FLORIDA'S NUG RAL PARADE
NEARLY 30 YEARS LATER
GOVERNOR CRIST: I'VE BEEN
PRIVILEGED TO SERVE IN THIS
STATE CALLED FLORIDA.
SHE'S A BEAUTIFUL STATE, AND
I LOVE HER.
AND IT IS WITH A SERVANT'S
HEART THAT I'VE TAKEN THIS
OATH TODAY TO PROTECT AND
DEFEND HER.
>> ALSO TAKE THE OATH WAS
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR JEFF
KOTTKAMP BE A 1984 GRADUATE
OF FSU.
GOVERNOR KOTTKAMP: I WILL
WELL AND FAITHFULLY PERFORM.
JUDGE: THE DUTIES OF THE
OFFICE.
FSU.
OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
JOHN: THIS MARKS THE FIRST
TIME IN HISTORY THAT A PAIR
OF FSU ALUMNI HOLD THE
STATE'S TOP TWO OFFICES.
AND IT MARKS THE FIRST TIME
IN A LONG TIME THAT A
FLORIDA STATE ALUMNUS IS
SERVING AS GOVERNOR OF
FLORIDA.
>> YEAH, ITS BEEN TOO LONG.
JOHN: FORMER GOVERNOR REUBEN
ASKEW GRADUATED FROM FSU IN
1951.
HE LATER SERVED AS FLORIDA'S
GOVERNOR FROM 1971 TO 1979.
>> WE'RE PROUD OF HAVING FSU
GRADUATES BOTH OF GOVERNOR
AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
IT MAKES US FEEL LIKE THAT
OUR PROGRAM IS FAIRLY SUCK
SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE WE'VE
PRODUCED A SUCCESSFUL
POLITICAL FIGURES.
JOHN: LIKE FORMER FLORIDA
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE T.
K.
WETHERELL.
THE CURRENT FSU PRESIDENT
SEES CRIST AND KOTTKAMP'S
SUCCESS AS GREAT EXPOSURE
FOR THE UNIVERSITY.
WETHERELL: IT'S A FEATHER
IN YOUR CAP, AND IT'S A WAY
TO SHOWCASE YOUR UNIVERSITY.
TO HAVE THE GOVERNOR AND
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE
FASTEST GROWING STATE IN THE
NATION.
JOHN: THE EXECUTIVE OFFICES
HERE IN THE FLORIDA CAPITOL
ARE JUST A FEW BLOCKS AWAY
FROM THE FSU MAIN CAMPUS, A
FITTING BASE OF OPERATIONS
FOR A PAIR OF ALUMNI WITH
SUCH A SOLID UNDERSTANDING
OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM.
>> BOTH HE AND JEFF, ARE
VERY
SENSITIVE TO HIGHER
EDUCATION AND THEY WANT TO
SEE FLORIDA STATE DO WELL,
THEY WANT TO SEE THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM DO WELL.