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.
Thomas Bevel v. State of Florida
SC05-2213
>>> ALL RISE.
THE NEXT CASE ON OUR CALENDAR
THIS MORNING IS BEVEL VERSUS
THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
GOOD MORNING, JEFF MORROW
FOR THE APELLANT, MR.^BEVEL.
IN THIS CASE, THIS IS DIRECT
APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT.
FOR MR.^BEVEL, WHO WAS
CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
SENTENCED TO DEATH AND
CONVICTED OF A LIFE
IMPRISONMENT RUN CONSECUTIVE TO
THE DEATH PENALTIES.
MR.^MORROW, BEFORE YOU GET
STARTED, I FIND FIRST OF ALL
THAT THE BRIEF THAT YOU HAVE
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APELLANT
IS -- WOULD BE CHARITABLE IN
SAYING IT IS A WEAK BRIEF.
OF COURSE THE STATE -- IN AN
ADVERSARY PROCESS HERE HAS
RESPONDED TO IT AGGRESSIVELY.
BUT ON TOP OF THE FILING OF
THAT BRIEF, YOU ALSO HAVE FILED
A REQUEST NOT TO EVEN COME HERE
AND ARGUE ON BEHALF OF YOUR
CLIENT AND THIS MOST SERIOUS OF
CASES THAT THIS COURT
CONSIDERS.
AND I'M LOOKING FOR SOME, SOME
EXPLANATION HERE OF YOUR
CONDUCT.
THE WAIVER --
WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS A
REALLY GENUINE ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF SOMEONE THAT HAS BEEN
SENTENCED TO DEATH.
YOU ARE FAMILIAR I'M SURE WITH
THE ANDERS PROCESS.
YES, SIR.
AND YOUR BRIEF IN MY FIRST
EVALUATION, YOU KNOW, COMES
CLOSE TO BEING AN ANDERS BRIEF.
THAT IS, THAT THE ARGUMENTS
THAT ARE PUT FORWARD AS THE
STATE RESPONDS HAVE SOME
OBVIOUS FLAWS IN THEM.
YOU HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO FILE
AN ANDERS BRIEF BUT THEN YOU
FILED A WAIVER OF ORAL
ARGUMENT.
I'M VERY CONCERNED AND -- IN A
DEATH PENALTY CASE THAT THE
ADVOCATE -- SUPPOSED ADVOCATE
FOR THE APELLANT WOULD TAKE
THESE ACTIONS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHAT IS
GOING ON.
YES, SIR.
I ADMIT THAT THE FACTS -- WE
CONCEDE THE FACTS ARE CLEAR AT
THE TRIAL BELOW OF WHAT
HAPPENED AND WHAT WAS PROVEN TO
THE JURY AND YES, MY BRIEF IS
CLOSE TODAY ANDERS BRIEF BUT I
HAVE CHOSE NOT TO FILE AN
ANDERS BRIEF.
AND YES, MY CLIENT AND I HAVE
HAD DISCUSSIONS ON OUR STRATEGY
TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENTS, WHICH
I'M NOT ALLOWED TO GO INTO, OUR
CONVERSATIONS, BUT THERE ARE
STRATEGY ARGUMENTS ON WAIVER OF
ORAL ARGUMENTS BUT IN THIS CASE
--
HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
YOU HAVE SAID, YES, THE BRIEF
IS CLOSE TO AN ANDERS BRIEF.
YES, SIR.
IN YOUR FILING AND THAT
THERE ARE STRATEGY REASONS FOR
WAIVING ORAL ARGUMENT.
I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH 2 PLUS
2 EQUALLING 4 UNDER THAT
ANALYSIS.
ARE YOU TELLING US HERE THAT
REALLY YOUR CLIENT WANTS TO
ABANDON AN APPEAL AND ANY
ADVOCACY AND THAT THAT JUST
HASN'T ACTUALLY HAPPENED YET.
NO, SIR, HE'S NOT ABANDONING
HIS RIGHT TO -- FOR ADVOCACY ON
HIS APPEAL.
NO, SIR.
AND THE -- ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I RAISED IN THE BRIEF WAS
THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE GOT THE
FINDINGS FROM THE STATE AND
WHERE IT SAYS THE STATE HAS
PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT THESE ELEMENT OF THE
CRIME, THE COURT STRUCK THROUGH
THAT WITH A PEN AND SAID THE
COURT FINDS THESE ELEMENTS.
AND, THEREFORE, WE ARGUE DID
NOT INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATE THE
FACTUAL FINDINGS.
AND DECIDE ON ITS OWN WHETHER
OR NOT A DEATH PENALTY SHOULD
BE GIVEN.
NOW YOU ARE GETTING INTO
YOUR POINT ON APPEAL, ISSUE 4,
WHETHER THEY -- MAYBE 4, 4 OR
5, ON WHETHER THERE WAS AN
INDEPENDENT WEIGHING, IS THAT
CORRECT.
YES, YOUR HONOR.
BUT THERE IS ALSO ON THAT
POINT AND IN THE, I'M NOT SURE
IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE
JUSTICE'S QUESTION DIRECTLY BUT
LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF
SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS, ON THAT
ISSUE WHETHER THIS JUDGE
ENGAGED IN A THOUGHTFUL
WEIGHING WOULD YOU AGREE THAT
THE WHOLE ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR
VIOLENT FELONY IS THAT THERE
ARE PORTIONS OF THE SENTENCING
ORDER THAT ARE CLEARLY THE
JUDGE'S OWN?
YES,.
ALL RIGHT.
AND SO WE HAVE NEVER SAID THAT
THE JUDGE IS NOT ALLOWED TO USE
PORTIONS OF A PROPOSED ORDER TO
INCORPORATE THOSE PORTIONS INTO
A SENTENCING ORDER.
AND TRIAL COUNSEL, YOU WERE NOT
TRIAL COUNSEL.
NO, I WAS NOT.
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
OBJECT TO THOSE PRIOR TO THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DEATH
SENTENCE.
THAT'S CORRECT AND THERE WAS
NO OBJECTION BUT THERE IS THE
HAND-WRITTEN NOTE THAT THE
COURT FINDS STRIKES OUT THE
STATE HAS PROVEN THESE ELEMENTS
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
BUT YOU AGREE AGAIN THAT
THERE IS NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS
PARTS OF SENTENCING ORDERS FROM
BEING TAKEN FROM ONE SIDE OR
THE OTHER.
THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT IS WHAT THE CASE LAW
HOLDS.
AND WE HAVE HERE CERTAINLY
WHOLE PARTS THAT ARE THE
JUDGE'S, CORRECT.
YES.
WHAT IS YOUR STRONGEST CASE
THAT THIS WOULD REQUIRE A
REMAND FOR A NEW SENTENCING
HEARING BEFORE --
EXACTLY WHAT THE RECORD
SAYS.
THE RECORD IS NOT THAT -- WITH
THOSE HAND {WRUN} NOTES, FROM
THE TRIAL JUDGE, SHOWS US THAT
FROM THE RECORD THAT THE RECORD
IS NOT CLEAN, THAT THE JUDGE
INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATED THE
EVIDENCE, AND GAVE THE DEATH
PENALTY.
WHAT --
THAT IS OUR STRONGEST
ARGUMENT.
WHAT IS YOUR STRONGEST CASE.
CASE THAT WE HAVE DECIDED.
LEGAL CASE.
WELL, THE CASE I'VE CITED IN
MY BRIEF.
WELL, ONE IN YOUR BRIEF --
WE'LL LOOK ALL RIGHT BRIEF.
MY OTHER CONCERN ABOUT THIS
CASE AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR
ABOUT IT, THERE IS APPARENTLY A
FINDING OR A TESTIMONY THAT
THIS DEFENDANT HAS A 65 IQ.
YES.
I RAISED THAT ISSUE AS WELL.
HOWEVER YOU HAVE RAISED IT
AND THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING
UNDERSTAND.
YOU DON'T RAISE IT -- ON PAGE
30 OF YOUR BRIEF, YOU MENTION
ADKINS, ONE OF THE -- BUT
YOU'RE NOT ARGUING ADKINS, NOT
ARGUING IT IS AN ATKINS CASE.
I'M ARGUING FROM THE RECORD
BELOW AND I'M ARGUING BY
ANALOGY ATKINS AND THAT'S ALL
WE HAVE, IS THE RECORD BELOW.
THE RECORD BELOW DOESN'T
ESTABLISH BY DR.^HARRY KROPP
TWO OF THE THREE FACTORS FOR
MENTAL RETARDATION.
THAT'S CORRECT.
SO YOU CANNOT IN GOOD FAITH
ARGUE ATKINS, IS THAT CORRECT.
IT DOESN'T SQUARELY FIT WITH
IT --
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
HERE IS THAT WE EXPECTED EVERY
PART OF THE DEATH PENALTY CASE
FOR THERE TO BE AN ADVERSARIAL
TESTING INCLUDING -- AND WE
HAVE SEEN DEATH PEN THAT CASES
ON DIRECT A-- PENALTY CASES ON
DIRECT APPEAL WHERE THE PERSON
CONFESSES AND AGAIN I'M
CONCERNED WHETHER PART OF THE
STRATEGY WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT IS
TO KIND OF GIVE UP ON DIRECT
APPEAL AND THROW THIS INTO
POSTCONVICTION ON INEFFICIENT
-- INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
TRIAL COUNSEL AND APPELLATE
COUNSEL.
I WOULD STATE THAT WAS NOT
THE FACT AND NOT EVEN DISCUSSED
AND CAN STATE THAT WITHOUT
VIOLATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE AND CAN FILE AN
AFFIDAVIT WITH THAT.
BUT YOU ARE SAYING YOU
CANNOT IN GOOD FAITH BECAUSE OF
WHAT IS BELOW ARGUE MENTAL
RETARDATION.
I CAN POINT TO IT.
BECAUSE OF THE RECORD BELOW.
AND BY ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY SAY
THAT THIS MAN WAS A 65 IQ AND
ATKINS WAS A 59.
VERY CLOSE.
IN TERMS OF APPOINT, PERCENTILE
POINT AND RAISE THAT AS AN
ISSUE.
BUT THERE WAS NO ARGUMENT
MADE BELOW THIS PERSON COULD
NOT BE SENTENCED TO DEATH
BECAUSE OF -- HE WAS MENTALLY
RETARDED.
CLEARLY THAT IS CORRECT.
I'M STUCK WITH THE RECORD
BELOW, AND I KEEP SAYING THAT.
THAT ARGUMENT WAS NOT MADE
BELOW.
NO, YOUR HONOR, I'M STUCK
WITH THE RECORD BELOW AND WHAT
THE RECORD SAYS IS MR.^BEVEL
CAME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
NIGHT, WAS STAYING IN THE SAME
HOUSE WITH THE VICTIMS, KNEW
THE VICTIMS, GOT UP IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WITH AN
AK-47, AND SHOT
MR.^SPRINGFIELD, CALLED HIM
UNCLE FIRST AND KNOCKED ON THE
DOOR, SHOT FELICIA SMITH, WHO
SURVIVED, AND WAS ULTIMATELY
ABLE TO CALL THE 911 AND THE
POLICE, AND THEN, LARRY --
A LITTLE -- YOU KNOW, IT
SEEMS A LITTLE STRANGE TO ME,
THIS WHOLE CASE, SIMPLY
BECAUSE, WAS IT YOUR CLIENT AND
THE VICTIM -- WASN'T YOUR
CLIENT AND THE VICTIM GOOD
FRIENDS?
DID THEY HAVE ANY KIND OF
UNCLE-NEPHEW RELATIONSHIP.
HE CALLED HIM "UNC" BUT
THERE IS NOT A BLOOD RELATION.
THEY WERE GOOD FRIENDS.
YES.
AND WHAT WAS -- AND MR.^--
THE VICTIM WAS ACTUALLY THE ONE
WHO GAVE HIM THE AK-47, RIGHT.
RIGHT.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENED -- WHAT
DID THE RECORD DEMONSTRATE
HAPPENED TO CAUSE HIM TO THEN
LATER TAKE THE SAME GUN AND
SHOOT HIM?
YEAH, THE RECORD IS NOT --
DOESN'T TELL US EVERYTHING.
IT JUST SAYS IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE NIGHT, HE COMES INTO THE
ROOM AND SHOOTS
MR.^SPRINGFIELD, AND NESH YEAH
SUBMIT.
-- FELICIA SMITH.
THERE IS A LOT THAT HAPPENED
BETWEEN THE BEGINNING OF THE
EVENING AND THE END OF THE
EVENING.
I MEAN, THERE IS -- THERE IS A
WHOLE LONG HISTORY OF WHETHER
THEY GO OUT AND DRINKING AND
THERE IS -- WAS THERE ANY
ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT AT THE
TIME OF THIS SHOOTING THAT THE
DEFENDANT WAS UNDER EXTREME
MENTAL DURESS?
IN INEBRIATED, HAD SOME KIND OF
A -- A MENTAL BREAK DOWN THAT
CAUSED THIS SHOOTING.
NO, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS NO
RECORD EVIDENCE OF A STATUTORY
MITIGATOR.
THERE IS EVIDENCE OF THE
DRINKING, THOUGH OF GIN, RIGHT.
RIGHT.
BUT THAT IS NOT STATTER TO
EVIDENCE.
BUT I THINK -- STATUTORY
EVIDENCE.
I THINK THAT WAS THE TRUST OF
THE QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE
SETTLE IN WHICH THIS -- SETTING
IN WHICH THIS STARTED OFF AS NOT
AN ADVERSARIAL EVENING AND THEN
IT GREW INTO SOMETHING, AND WHAT
WERE THE INGREDIENTS THAT CAUSED
IT GO GROW -- TO GROW INTO, WHAT
WAS THE EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT
HAPPENED WITH THIS DEFENDANT
DURING THE COURSE OF THE EACHING
EVENING?
YEAH, THE RECORD'S SPARSE,
THERE WAS SUGGESTION OF
DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO,
BUT THERE'S NOTHING --
WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE AS TO
THE DRINKING ALCOHOL?
I RECALL FROM THE EVIDENCE
JUST THAT THERE WAS DRINKING,
BOTH INDIVIDUALS WERE DRINKING.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE QUANTITY OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WELL, WOULD YOU, THE FEMALE
VICTIM --
FELICIA SMITH.
RIGHT.
DIDN'T SHE FIRST SAY --
YES.
SOMEONE ELSE BROKE INTO THE
HOUSE AND DID THE SHOOTING?
THAT WAS WHAT YOUR CLIENT
ORIGINALLY SAID ALSO.
THAT'S CORRECT.
SO HOW WAS THIS ALL LATER
REFUTED?
WELL, I MEAN, SHE FIRST SAID
THAT TWO MASKED MEN CAME IN AND
DID THIS TO HER.
AND THEN LATER SHE STATED SHE
SAID THAT BECAUSE SHE WAS AFRAID
OF HIM AND FEARFUL.
AND SO FROM THERE THE POLICE
TALK TODAY DUMAS -- TALKED TO
DUMAS, BEVEL'S GIRLFRIEND, WHO
WAS IN THE SECOND BEDROOM WITH
MR. BEVEL.
AND DUMAS STARTED TO SAY THE
SAME THING AND SAID, NO,
MR. BEVEL DID SHOOT
MR. STRINGFIELD.
BUT THERE IS, AGAIN, I THINK
THE RECORD HAS MORE EVIDENCE OF
WHAT WAS GOING ON AND THE
DRINKING.
AND YOU HAVE APPARENTLY A MUCH,
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO
SAID THIS, BUT BEVEL DROVE
STRINGFIELD'S CAR TO A BP
STATION TO MEET HIS GIRLFRIEND,
DUMAS, TOOK HER TO A BAR WHERE
THEY PURCHASED ANOTHER BOTTLE OF
GIN AND BROUGHT HER BACK TO THE
HOUSE.
THEY THEN, AT THAT POINT THEY
CAME BACK AND EACH HAD A GUN IN
THEIR POSSESSION.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I THINK
JUSTICE QUINCE IS TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND ABILITY HOW THIS --
ABOUT HOW THIS EVENING
PROGRESSED.
THERE WAS, THE STATE PRESENTED
THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE, THIS
DIDN'T JUST COME OUT OF NOWHERE,
CORRECT?
THAT THERE WAS A NIGHT OF
DRINKING --
THERE WAS A NIGHT OF
DRINKING, AND THAT'S CORRECT.
STATED THAT HE ASKED ABOUT
LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD INFLUENCE
YOUR VERDICT, IS THAT TRUE, AND
HIS RESPONSE WAS, WELL, I WORK
WITH THE THEM FOR SO LONG THAT I
FAVOR THEM BECAUSE I'VE WORKED
AROUND LAW ENFORCEMENT SO LONG.
ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT HE HAS
NOT STATED BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOW DOUBT -- I MEAN, WE COULDN'T
SEE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
THAT HE WOULD NOT FAVOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
WASN'T HE REHABILITATED
LATER?
HE WAS, BUT HE DID MAKE THAT
STATEMENT.
WELL, THERE'S TWO PROBLEMS
WITH YOUR ISSUE, ONE IS THAT THE
COUNCIL DID NOT IDENTIFY AN
OBJECTIONABLE JUROR WHO SAT
BECAUSE THIS JUROR WAS STRUCK,
CORRECT?
RIGHT, HE WAS STRUCK.
SO THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH
PRESERVATION.
RIGHT.
CORRECT?
YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
RIGHT.
PREEMPTORY WAS USED ON HIM.
AND NO OBJECTIONABLE JUROR
WAS IDENTIFIED.
RIGHT.
BEYOND THAT, AND I'M A BIG
ONE OF SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING
AND THEN SOMEBODY CROSS
EXAMINES.
BUT IN THIS CASE IT'S KIND OF
LIKE HE SAYS THIS ONE STATEMENT
WHICH INFLUENCES, BUT THEN HE
GOES ON AND UNEQUIVOCALLY WITH
NO PROMPTING SAYS, NO, NO, I
WOULDN'T FAVOR ONE OR THE OTHER.
AND EVEN WITH DEFENSE LAWYERS
QUESTIONING HIM THE NEXT DAY, HE
SEEMED VERY STRAIGHT UP, NO,
THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM.
SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE THAT ONE
STATEMENT MAYBE WAS, EITHER HE
MIGHT HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD IT OR
SOMETHING.
DON'T YOU SEE IN THE CONTEXT, NO
ONE EVER REALLY FOLLOWS UP TO
TRY TO PROD HIM TO SAY, WELL,
EVEN THOUGH YOU SAID YOU MIGHT
BE INFLUENCED, COULDN'T YOU BE
FAIR?
IT'S REALLY NOT ONE OF THESE
REHABILITATIVE SITUATIONS.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
WELL, THERE WAS, THE STATE
DID USE SOME REHABILITATION WITH
THE JUDGE, BUT WE WOULD ARGUE IT
WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE.
THE OTHER ARGUMENTS WE RELY ON
ARE BRIEF, UNLESS THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
RONALD LATHAN FOR THE STATE OF
FLORIDA.
MR. LATHAN, COULD YOU PICK UP
THE EVENTS THAT SHOW THE EVENING
A LITTLE FURTHER?
OTHER THAN THE PARENT SOUND AND
THE CLIP BEING FED INTO THE
WEAPON, THIS DOES SEEM TO BE AN
UNEXPLAINED SITUATION.
THAT'S THE WAY THAT
SUPERFICIALLY COMES OUT.
WELL, I CAN START FROM THE
STREET FAIR EARLIER THAT DAY.
WELL, JUST TAKE IT TOGETHER.
HOW DOES IT FIT WITH EVERYTHING
THAT'S GOING ON?
WELL, IT'S A BIT ODD IN THE
SENSE THAT THERE'S NO SENSE THAT
THERE WAS ANY OBJECTIVE
ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THE TWO
THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION THAT
ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED WERE
DRINKING ALCOHOL, BUT THERE'S NO
SUGGESTION THAT ANYBODY WAS
DRUNK.
WE HAVE MS. DUMAS, AND SHE
TESTIFIES THAT THAT EVENING SHE
HAD BEEN AT A NIGHTCLUB EARLIER
IN THE EVENING, SHE HAD DRANK
SOME ALCOHOL AND USED SOME
MARIJUANA, BUT THERE'S NO
SUGGESTION THAT MR. BEVEL,
STRINGFIELD WERE SO INTOXICATED.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE, YOU'RE
ASKING, I THINK JUSTICE QUINCE
WAS ASKING AS WELL WHAT CAUSED
THIS?
MR. BEVEL SEEMED TO SUGGEST, AND
THERE WAS, THAT THERE WAS SOME
FRICTION BETWEEN HIM AND
MR. STRINGFIELD, BUT THIS WAS
SAID IN THE STRING OF MULTIPLE
CONFESSIONS HE PROVIDED.
HE FIRST SAID THAT MASK
INDIVIDUALS HAD COMMITTED THIS
CRIME, AND HE AND MS. DUMAS LEFT
PRIOR TO THESE INDIVIDUALS
COMING TO THE HOUSE, THEN HE
MADE THE ARGUMENT HE WAS
KIDNAPPED.
LAW ENFORCEMENT CONFRONTS HIM
WITH THE FACT THAT DUMAS SAID HE
WAS INVOLVED IN THE CRIME. --
SMITH ALSO IMPLICATED HIM IN THE
CRIME, AND THEN HE MAKES THIS
ARGUMENT THAT BEVEL AND HE HAD
SOME FRICTION THAT EVENING, THEY
WERE FIGHTING, HE SAW
STRINGFIELD REACHING FOR A
FIREARM AND THAT'S WHY HE ENDED
UP SHOOTING HIM.
THE POLICE RECORD WOULD SUGGEST
THAT MS. DUMAS SAID ONE OF THE
REASONS THEY WERE FIGHTING WAS
BECAUSE MR. BEVEL HAD COMMITTED
A CRIME SOMETIME EARLIER.
I BELIEVE MR. BEVEL HADN'T
GOTTEN HIS CUT OF WHATEVER THE
PROCEEDS FROM THE CRIME WERE.
BUT THIS IS JUST IN THE POLICE
RECORD.
THIS WAS NOT THE PREDOMINANT
FOCUS OF THE TRIAL.
THE MOTIVATION OF THE CRIME
WASN'T REALLY DISCUSSED ALL THAT
MUCH.
WHAT WE JUST HAVE IS THERE WAS
SOME DRINKING, NOBODY
SUGGESTIONED THAT ANYBODY WAS
DRUNK, NOBODY --
WAS MS. DUMAS EVER ASKED?
THEY WERE IN BED TOGETHER IN THE
BEDROOM, AND HE GETS UP AND --
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS
STRINGFIELD AND SMITH ARE IN THE
BEDROOM TOGETHER, AND IN THE
OTHER BEDROOM BEVEL AND HIS
GIRLFRIEND DUMAS.
AS THE RECORD INDICATES,
MRS. SMITH SAYS I'M
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS AK-47
UNDER THE BED K YOU PLEASE GET
RID OF IT, SO STRINGFIELD WALKS
ACROSS THE HALL AND SAYS SHE'S
UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE FIREARM
IN THE ROOM.
WE ASSUME SOME TIME PASSED
BECAUSE THE RECORD INDICATES
THAT STRINGFIELD AND SMITH MADE
LOVE THAT EVENING.
SO THEY WERE LYING DOWN, ALL OF
A SUDDEN THEY GET THE KNOCK ON
THE DOOR, HEY, OPEN UP, AND HE
PROCEEDS TO --
BUT DID DUE PASS TESTIFY TO
BEVEL BEING IRRITATED, UPSET?
NOT AT ALL.
NOT ON THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL.
LIKE I SAID, WE DO HAVE A LITTLE
BIT, WE HAVE ONE SENTENCE IN THE
POLICE REPORT INDICATING THAT IN
INTERVIEWS WITH DUMAS SHE SAID
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME
UNDERLYING FRICTION BECAUSE OF
SOME MONEY OWED, BUT AGAIN, THAT
WASN'T EVEN REALLY PURSUED TOO
MUCH, AND DEFINITELY DURING THE
TRIAL --
WHAT DOES THE STATE, THE
STATE DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
THAT IN THEIR QUESTIONING OF
HER?
NO.
NO, THAT WASN'T DISCUSSED AT
ALL.
THERE WAS, AGAIN, THE TRIAL WAS
SUCH THAT THERE WAS NOTHING
DISCUSSED ABOUT, WELL, WHY DID
HE DO THIS?
THIS SORT OF SEEMED TO BE AN ACT
THAT I DON'T WANT TO SAY
SOMEWHAT IMPULSIVE, BUT I THINK
THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO SAY THIS
WAS A CRIME THAT WAS, AGAIN, THE
RECORD INDICATES THAT MR. BEVEL
HAS HAD A PROBLEM WITH VIOLENCE
HIS ENTIRE LIFE FROM FIRST GRADE
THEY HAVE ACADEMIC RECORDS THAT
HE'S BEEN PRONE TO VIOLENCE.
HE'S GOTTEN INTO CONFLICTS WHEN
HE WAS A YOUNGSTER, WHEN HE WAS
A STUDENT, WHEN HE WAS IN
JUVENILE JUSTICE.
NOW WE'RE REALLY GOING TO
MITIGATION.
DID IT COME OUT FAR HAD HE
HIMSELF BEEN A VICTIM OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR WAS HE
EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
WELL, WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE
THAT HE HAD A TROUBLED
CHILDHOOD.
HIS MOTHER DIED WHEN HE WAS 12
YEARS OLD, HIS FATHER HAD DIED
WHEN HE WAS YOUNG AS WELL.
WE SEEM TO HAVE, THERE WAS SOME
SUGGESTION THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN
EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC -- HE MIGHT
HAVE WITNESSED DOMESTIC ABUSE AT
HOME, BUT AGAIN, THAT WASN'T
NECESSARILY PROVEN.
THERE WAS EVIDENCE HE WAS
KICKED AS A CHILD, I MEAN, SO
THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
RIGHT, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING
LIKE WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CASES
WHERE WE HAVE CHILDREN GROW UP
IN ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THIS WAS AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS RAISE INSIDE
ATURE CHURCH-GOING FAMILY, PANEL
MENES WHO WERE INVOLVED IN
CHURCH AND TRIED TO FILL THE
GAP.
WHAT WAS TISSUE WITH SCHOOL?
YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE SITTING
HERE AND WE REALIZE AT LEAST AT
THIS STAGE MENTAL RETARDATION
WAS NOT PROVEN.
HE HAD A 65IQ ALTHOUGH WE HAVE
LETTERS THAT HE WROTE TO HIS
GIRLFRIEND SHOWS HE'S CAPABLE OF
PUTTING TOGETHER A LETTER.
WHAT CAME OUT OF THE TRIAL ABOUT
HIS SCHOOL PERFORMANCE WHETHER
HE WAS TESTED, WHETHER HE WAS
FOUND TO BE MENTALLY RETARDED IN
SCHOOL, WHETHER HE WAS LEARNING
DISABLED, HOW FAR DID HE GO IN
SCHOOL?
WE HAVE DR. REEVE -- AND WE
HAVE DR. REEVE TESTIFIED
PRETRIAL.
AND HE TESTIFIED AS AN
INDEPENDENT WITNESS OR FOR THE
STATE?
FOR THE STATE.
AND THAT WAS BECAUSE TRIAL
COUNSEL HAD ATTACKED THE
VOLUNTARINESS --
RIGHT, AND THERE WAS ALSO
SOME DISCUSSION AS WHETHER
MENTAL RETARDATION WAS AN ISSUE.
HE HAD EVALUATED HIS ACADEMIC
RECORDS SINCE HE WAS A YOUTH.
HE DID HAVE BAD GRADES, HE WAS A
SOLID, AVERAGE STUDENT, AND WE
HAVE EARLY ON IN HIS ACADEMIC
CAREER.
THEN AS HE GETS OLDER WE BEGIN
TO SEE A LOT OF Ds AND Fs,
POOR GRADES.
WHAT DR. REEVE FOUND WAS THAT IT
WASN'T AN INSTANCE WHERE HE HAD
INTELLECTUAL DEFICITS, THERE'S
NO SUGGESTION HE NEEDED SPECIAL
EDUCATION.
HIS REAL PROBLEM WAS THAT HE WAS
A BEHAVIORAL PROBLEM.
WAS THERE ANY, THERE WAS SOME
INDICATION OF FETAL ALCOHOL OR
USE OF ALCOHOL BY THE MOTHER.
THERE WAS EVIDENCE --
WAS THERE ANY NEUROLOGICAL
TESTING DONE FOR ANY ORGANIC
BRAIN DAMAGE?
THERE WAS NO FINDING, I HAVE
TO MAKE SURE I CHECK THE RECORD
AGAIN BUT I'M ALMOST POSITIVE,
WELL, I KNOW FOR A FACT THERE
WAS NO ORGANIC BRAIN DAMAGE, BUT
I KNOW THERE WAS A NUMBER OF
TESTS --
WELL, HE'S A PSYCHIATRIST,
NOT A NEUROROLL LIST.
WASING THERE ANYTHING HE COULD
RELY ON TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT THERE WAS ORGANIC PROBLEMS?
AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY
SOMETHING THAT'S NOT 100%, BUT I
DO KNOW THAT -- AND I'M NOT
TRYING TO EVADE YOUR QUESTION,
YOU KNOW, BUT I -- YOUR OHIOAN,
I KNOW THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT
CAN APPRECIATE --
I'M TALKING ABOUT IMPULSE
CONTROL PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR AS A
RESULT OF FETAL ALCOHOL
SYNDROME.
RIGHT.
THERE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY
ORGANIC BRAIN DAMAGE.
CROP SAID HAD HE BEEN A CHILD
TODAY HE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE
BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH ADD AND
ADHD, BUT THERE WAS NO
SUGGESTION --
LET ME GO BACK TO MY
QUESTION.
OKAY, SO THE SCHOOL RECORDS SHOW
HE STARTED TO GET Ds AND Fs
BUT NEVER PLACED IN SPECIAL
EDUCATION.
WHAT'S THE FARTHEST HE WENT IN
SCHOOL?
HE SAYS, HE TELLS DR. CROP
THAT THE FAR -- FARTHEST HE WENT
WAS THE 11TH GRADE.
IN THE CASE OF DR. CROP, THAT IS
11TH GRADE.
BUT THE RECORDS ONLY GO
THROUGH NINTH GRADE?
SCHOOL RECORDS.
OH, NO, NO, I MEAN, HE DROPS
OUT.
APPARENTLY HE DROPS OUT OF
SCHOOL IN 11TH GRADE.
HE SAYS HE'S ALWAYS HATED
SCHOOL, HE TELLS CROP THIS.
BUT NO I.K. TESTING?
I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO
SUGGEST HE WAS IN NEED OF
SPECIAL EDUCATION.
THEY HAVE NO FINDINGS, NEITHER
DOCTOR FOUND THAT.
CROP MAY HAVE BEEN SAID THERE
WAS POTENTIAL -- HE MAY HAVE TRY
TODAY IMPLY THERE WERE SOME
PROBLEMS THERE, BUT THERE WERE
NO FINDINGS IN THE RECORD AT ALL
WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION.
LET ME TELL YOU WHERE I'M
GOING.
YOU COULD VIRTUALLY SIT DOWN,
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN
ANY POINT MADE IN THE BRIEF OR
IN ORAL ARGUMENT THAT THE STATE
HAS TO BE CONCERNED WITH NOW.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HEARING AT
LEAST FOR ME AND MAYBE A COUPLE
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT IS
YOU'VE IDENTIFIED SOMEBODY
THAT'S HAD POOR IMPULSE CONTROL
SINCE HE WAS A YOUNG CHILD.
HE COMMITS, AND AGAIN, YOU'VE
GOT TWO MURDERS AND WE HAVEN'T
MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THE
MURDERS IS OF A 13-YEAR-OLD,
DEFENSELESS AND ONLY DONE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING ARREST.
SO PROBABLY EVERY WHICH WHEY --
COULD HAVE BEEN A TRIPLE
HOMICIDE, YOUR HONOR.
RIGHT, AND YOU'VE GOT THE
PRIOR VIOLENT FELONY FROM THE
YEAR BEFORE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SEE WHETHER
IN THIS RECORD IT ESTABLISHES
THAT THIS IS A PERSON THAT IS,
YOU KNOW, HAS HAD A HISTORY OF
MENTAL IMPULSE CONTROL WHETHER
HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED AS
MENTALLY RETARDED BY SOMEHOW
TRIAL COUNSEL, THIS HAS JUST
BEEN MISSED BECAUSE THE
PRESENTATIONS TO THIS COURT
DOESN'T REALLY GIVE US MUCH OF A
PICTURE OF THIS DEFENDANT TO
TAKE SOMEBODY WHO WOULD, YOU
KNOW, AND AGAIN, MANY OF OUR
MURDERS ARE SENSELESS THAT WE
SEE UP HERE, BUT THIS ONE SEEMS
EVEN BEYOND AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW,
THE THREE MURDERS OR TWO MURDERS
AND ATTEMPTED MURDER.
SO WE WERE JUST TRYING TO SEE IF
ANYTHING IN THE RECORD MIGHT NO
HAVE JUSTIFIED IT BUT AT LEAST
EXPLAINED SOME OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO HOW THIS
HAPPENED.
RIGHT.
YOUR HONOR, I WENT OVER MY NOTES
LAST NIGHT AND AGAIN THIS
MORNING JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE
WAS NOTHING I'D MISSED, SO, I'M
SORRY.
WENT OVER MY NOTES OF THE
TESTIMONY OF BOTH DOCTORS AND
WHAT WE GET FROM BOTH IS THAT
THERE IS NO MENTAL, OVERARCHING
MENTAL PROBLEM THAT SORT OF
PROPELLED THIS ACTION BEYOND THE
FACT THAT WE DO HAVE THE
ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER,
AND WE DO HAVE, PERHAPS, SOME
PROBLEMS WITH ADD, ADHD.
BUT NOTHING WITH REGARDS TO SOME
TYPE OF ORGANIC BRAIN DAMAGE
THAT'S SUCH THAT COMPELLED THESE
CRIMES.
THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS,
YOUR HONOR --
I DON'T WANT TO BEAT A BUSH
ON THIS, BUT DID CROP AT LEAST
DO SOME INITIAL TESTING TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE
WERE SIGNS OF POTENTIAL FRONTAL
LOBE PROBLEMS?
YES.
ACTUALLY, IF I COULD --
YES, GO AHEAD.
DR. CROP'S FINDINGS, THERE
WAS SOME -- HE ENGAGED IN A
VARIETY OF QUESTIONING.
I KNOW, I KNOW THAT DR. CROP DID
TRY TO ASSESS, AND HE TALKED
ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TESTS THAT
HE DID ADMINISTER, MMPI,
VARIETY, WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT,
AGAIN, I HOPE -- I GUESS WHAT
I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY IS I KNOW
THERE WAS TESTS -- I BELIEVE THE
RECORD BEARS OUT THAT HE DID
ATTEMPT TO INVESTIGATE THE
DEGREE TO WHICH THERE WAS ANY
TYPE OF NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS.
WAS HE HIRED FOR COMPETENCY
PURPOSES OR FOR MITIGATION
PURPOSES?
BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ISSUE OF
THE CONFESSION IN THIS CASE.
RIGHT.
HE TESTIFIED, I BELIEVE, WITH
REGARDS TO THE VOLUNTARY --
THERE WAS AN ISSUE PRETRIAL WITH
REGARDS TO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF
THE CONFESSION.
SCPEFS RUN OF THE --
HE WAS ONE OF THE EVALUATORS,
BUT THEY WANTED TO PRESEVEN HIS
LIVE TESTIMONY FOR THE
PENALTY-PHASE PROCEEDING.
WE HAVE HIS NOTES AND SOME OF
HIS EVALUATIONS PRETRIAL, BUT
THEN WE HAVE HIS ACTUAL
TESTIMONY DURING THE PENALTY
PHASE.
BUT DID HE DO MORE THAN JUST
THE EVALUATION FOR COMPETENCY?
YES.
NO, HE DID A VARIETY, APPARENTLY
HE DID A VARIETY OF TESTS.
HE SAID HE MET WITH HIM OVER
MULTIPLE HOURS.
THE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO HE
TESTIFIED PRETRIAL ALSO INVOLVED
SOME OF THE DISCUSSION OF
WHETHER OR NOT, WHAT WAS HIS IQ
AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
DR. CROP DID, IN FACT, SAY
THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS THE
MENTAL AGE OF SOMEONE WHO'S,
LET'S SAY 14 OR 15.
DOES THAT PLAY AT ALL INTO
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT
MEETS ANY KIND OF MENTAL
MITIGATING EVIDENCE?
WELL, THERE WAS A FINDING
MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT WITH
REGARDS TO THE SENTENCING ORDER,
AND THE TRIAL COURT TOOK INTO
CONSIDERATION BEVEL WROTE THESE
FIVE LETTERS THAT WE HAVE.
SO HE USES, HE EVALUATES THESE
LETTERS.
EVEN DR. CROP FOUND THESE
LETTERS TO BE PRETTY LITERATE.
BEVEL ACKNOWLEDGES USING THE
DICTIONARY WITH THESE LETTERS.
TRIAL COURT MADE THE FINDING
WHEREAS THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY
THE FIGHTING, THIS IS NOT A
PERSON WITH A 14 OR 15 MEANTAL
AGE, THIS IS A PERSON WHO HAS
CAPACITY TO DRAFT LETTERS.
HE'S LIVED ON HIS OWN SINCE 18,
HE'S NOT BEEN FINANCIALLY
DEPENDENT ON ANYBODY --
AND HOW OLD IS HE?
WHEN THE CRIME OCCURRED HE
WAS 22.
HE WAS BORN 6-22-81, SO I'M
ASSUMING HE'S 27.
THE RECORD SHOWS FOR WORK
HISTORY, THOSE KIND OF THINGS?
WE HAVE ED THAT HE DID --
EVIDENCE THAT HE DID
LANDSCAPING, HE DID AUTOMOTIVE
REPAIR.
HE TOOK A LOT OF PRIDE IN THE
FACT THAT HE WORKED ON CARS.
HE WAS VERY, VERY COMFORTABLE
AND VERY PROFICIENT, I GUESS N
CAR REPAIR.
WE ALSO, TO BE FAIR, THIS IS AN
INDIVIDUAL THAT LIVED A
LIFESTYLE THAT INVOLVED, HE
INDICATES THE FACT THAT THERE
WAS A CRIMINAL ELEMENT TO HIS
LIFESTYLE AS WELL, SO HE TALKS
ABOUT LIVING ON THE STREETS AND
STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO HE DID ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY AS WELL, BUT IN TERMS
OF THIS WAS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
BABY SAT, WORKED ON LANDSCAPING
CONSTRUCTION, CAR REPAIR, SO WE
DO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE RECORD
TO SHOW HE WAS ADAPTIVE
FUNCTIONING.
HE LIVED ON HIS OWN FOUR YEARS.
BUT I THOUGHT HE LIVED WITH
THE VICTIM?
THEY WERE ROOMMATES.
STRINGFIELD, HE CALLED
STRINGFIELD UNC, STRINGFIELD
CALLED HIM TOM TOM, BUT THERE'S
NO SUGGESTION THAT STRINGFIELD
WAS THE FINANCIAL BENEFACTOR FOR
BEVEL.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, I
THINK THEY WERE JUST TWO
INDIVIDUALS THAT LIVED TOGETHER
IN THIS RELATIVELY SMALL HOUSE
AND DID WHAT THEY DID AND THERE
WAS NO SUGGESTION --
HOW LONG HAD THEY LIVED
TOGETHER?
RECORD'S NOT -- I DON'T THINK
THAT WAS, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW
HOW LONG HE -- THERE'S NOTHING
TO SUGGEST THAT THEY LIVED
TOGETHER A LONG TIME BECAUSE,
REMEMBER, BEVEL HAD BEEN -- IN
THE PREVIOUS YEAR, BEVEL HAD
BEEN CONVICTED ATTEMPTED
ROBBERY.
THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROKEN UP
BY A TERM OF INCARCERATION.
HE HAD BEEN OUT OF PRISON
ONLY A FEW MONTHS, CORRECT?
THE IRONY WAS THAT HE WAS
CONVICTED ON MARCH 27, 2003, FOR
THE ATTEMPTED ROBBERY, AND HE
GAVE HIS CONFESSION
APPROXIMATELY, I BELIEVE HE GAVE
CONFESSION MARCH 28, I BELIEVE,
2004.
SO LESS THAN A YEAR LATER.
THE CRIME HAPPENED 11 MONTHS
LATER AND HE HAD ACTUALLY GIVEN
HIS CONFESSION ALMOST A YEAR TO
THE DAY AFTER HE WAS CONVICTED
OF THE PREVIOUS CRIME.
HE WAS OUT ON EARLY RELEASE
OR SOMETHING?
WE HAVE SOME SUGGESTION IN
THE RECORD THAT THERE WAS
DISCUSSED DURING THE PENALTY
PHASE.
OFTENTIMES WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT
HE ENTERED A PLEA AGREEMENT.
IT SEEMED TO BE THERE HAD TO BE
MUCH, THE CHARGES WERE GOING TO
BE MUCH HARSHER.
IT TURNS OUT THAT, BECAUSE I
GUESS, PROBLEMS WITH THE WITNESS
AND WHAT HAVE YOU IT WAS REDUCED
FROM ROBBERY.
THIS WAS ANOTHER POTENTIALLY
VIOLENT CRIME, HE BELIEVED HE
HAD BEEN ROBBED BY THIS
INDIVIDUAL, HE TOLD THE
INDIVIDUAL TO GET BUCK FAKED AND
POINT ADD FIREARM ON HIM.
SO THIS WAS SOMEBODY WHO LIVED
BY VIOLENCE HIS ENTIRE LIFE.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THIS WAS
REDUCED FROM AN ASSAULT AND
ROBBERY TO A LESSER CRIME.
LONG ANSWER TO A SHORT QUESTION,
HE WAS, THERE WAS SOME
SUGGESTION THAT HE GOT A LESSER
SENTENCE.
WELL, IT'S A PRETTY, I MEAN,
I GUESS WHAT CONCERNS, AGAIN,
ONE OTHER FACTOR THAT I DON'T
THINK HELP MRS. BEVEL --
MR. BEVEL, BUT HE USES THE GUN
FOR THIS ROBBERY, BUT UNDER, YOU
KNOW, AT THAT POINT THERE WOULD
BE 10, 20 LIFE, FOR THEM TO
PLEAD IT DOWN TO A YEAR SENTENCE
SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING RADICALLY
WAS WRONG WITH THAT CASE.
AGAIN THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME
SUGGESTION THAT THERE WAS
PROBLEM.
I DON'T THINK THE VICTIM WAS --
CRUGS DRUGS AND GUNS, AND I
THINK BEVEL THOUGHT THIS
INDIVIDUAL HAD ROBBED HIM.
SO BEVEL WAS A -- WAS HE A
DRUG DEALER?
DID THAT COME OUT IN THIS CASE?
WELL, HE DOES SAY THAT HE, HE
TELLS THE TERM HE USES TO CROP,
HE SAYS I WAS A DOPE BOY AND
IMPLIES THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY FOR, YOU KNOW,
HE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE WAS
INVOLVED WITH DRUGS AND
POTENTIALLY SELLING.
THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE THAT
SOME WITNESSES HAD SAID DURING A
DEPOSITION THAT THESE
INDIVIDUALS WERE DRUG DEALERS.
MEAN THAT STRINGFIELD WAS A
DRUG DEALER TOO?
I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE AT LEAST A
REASON, POSSIBLY, FOR THIS
CRIME, BUT ON THIS RECORD IT
DOESN'T REALLY COME OUT THAT
THIS WAS A DRUG-RELATED CRIME.
NO, NOT AT ALL.
THERE'S NOTHING TO EVEN SUGGEST
DUMAS' INVOLVEMENT OF MARIJUANA
USE EARLIER THAT EVENING,
THERE'S NO SUGGESTION THAT
ANYBODY WAS USING DRUGS THAT
EVENING.
I REALIZE IT WASN'T AN
AGGRAVATOR, BUT WAS HE ON
PROBATION AT THE TIME, OR WAS
THIS STRAIGHT ONE YEAR IN COUNTY
JAIL FOR ATTEMPTED ROBBERY?
I ASSUME HE WAS -- AGAIN,
THAT DIDN'T COME OUT.
THE ASSUMPTION WAS HE WAS ON
PROBATION, BUT --
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE
RECORD?
NO, THERE DOESN'T APPEAR
THERE WAS ANYTHING WITH REGARDS
TO PROBATION.
WELL, THE STATE WOULD ASK YOU TO
AFFIRM FINDING AGAINST
MR. BEVEL.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
REBUTTAL?
NO REBUTTAL, YOUR HONOR.
JUST A COUPLE -- IS THIS YOUR
FIRST APPEAL?
HAVE YOU HANDLED OTHER APPEALS,
SIR?
YES.
IS THIS YOUR FIRST CAPITAL
CASE?
NO, SIR.
I'M RELYING ON WHAT THE RECORD
SAYS, YOUR HONOR.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT,
JUST TRYING TO SEARCH.
THIS IS A VERY TROUBLING CASE
BECAUSE OF SO MANY ASPECTS.
AND THE COURT HAS AN OBLIGATION
IN ADMINISTERING THE LAW OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA AND TO ASK
PERTINENT QUESTIONS.
YES, SIR.
AND TO TRY TO GET TO A FAIR
APPLICATION OF THE LAW, AND
THAT'S ALL THAT WE'RE DOING.
SO, I MEAN, THERE ARE A LOT OF
HOLES, AND THISES, I MUST TELL
YOU IN THE SHORT TIME I'VE BEEN
HERE, THIS HAS THE LEAST AMOUNT
OF INFORMATION, I THINK, OF ANY
CASE I'VE EVER WORKED ON.
AND I THINK YOU HAVE HEARD THAT
FROM SOME OF THE OTHER
INDIVIDUALS.
WE'LL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT.
COURT WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL
9:00 TOMORROW MORNING.