>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT'S

AGENDA IS MCKENZIE VERSUS STATE.

>> MR. QUARLES LET'S HEAR ABOUT

THE DEFENDANT WHO HELPED

HIMSELF. >> PLEASE THE COURT,

I'M CHRIS QUARLES FROM DAYTONA

BEACH AND I REPRESENT NORMAN

BLAKE MCKENZIE, EXHIBIT A OF THE

RULE ARGUMENT THAT PRECEDED US.

HE KILLED TWO MEN IN

ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, FOR --

TO STEAL THEIR CAR AND PROPERTY.

AND HE WAS UPSET WITH HIS COURT

APPOINTED LAWYERS INITIALLY

BECAUSE THEY WAIVED ANY TRIAL

WITHOUT --

>> TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A

DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE WHO,

READING THE PRESENTENCE

INVESTIGATION WAS ACTUALLY

EMPLOYED FULL-TIME AS -- IN AN

ARCHITECTURAL FIRM MAKING

$63,000 A YEAR.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A -- IN THIS

CASE A -- TO BE CLEAR -- A

SEVERELY MENTALLY ILL DEFENDANT

-- WE HAVE A DEFENDANT WHO

APPARENTLY HAD A SEVERE DRUG

ADDICTION.

>> CORRECT.

AND FOR WHATEVER REASON AND I'M

STILL NOT SURE WHAT THAT REASON,

HE WAS IN A HURRY.

HE WAS IN A HURRY TO GET THE

TRIAL OVER WITH AND EVEN AT THE

END OF THE -- WHEN HE WAS FOUND

GUILTY, AFTER HE REPRESENTED

HIMSELF, PRO SE AT THE STAND BY

COUNSEL, HE THEN REQUESTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PENALTY PHASE

AND WHEN HE FOUND OUT THERE

WOULD BE A DELAY --

>> WE REQUIRE COUNSEL ON APPEAL

BUT IS HE NOW NOT IN SUCH A

HURRY?

>> NO, HE'S NOT IN A HURRY.

NO.

NO.

>> EASY TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN.

>> YES, IT IS AND I DON'T THINK

HE -- I MEAN, HE'S NOT YOUR

TYPICAL VOLUNTEER, I HAVE HAD

CASES WHERE THEY PLEAD GUILTY

AND ASK FOR DEATH AND WANT DEATH

AND HE, TO THE BEST OF HIS

ABILITY, WHICH WASN'T VERY GOOD,

TRIED TO FIGHT THE CHARGES AT

LEAST, ESPECIALLY --

>> BEFORE --

>> THE PENALTY PHASE.

>> BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS POINT

AND GOT TO THE POINT WHERE A

SPEEDY TRIAL WAS WAIVED AND HE

WAS UPSET WITH HIS LAWYERS FORCE

DOING THAT.

WAS THERE ANY BASIS OR ANY KIND

OF MENTAL HEALTH EXAMINATION OF

HIM.

>> THERE WAS ONE MENTION IN THE

RECORD OF THAT BEING AN ISSUE,

AND HE IMMEDIATELY PIPED UP AND

SAID, I GOT TWO, TWO COMPETENCY

REPORTS THAT WERE DONE, SEE,

THIS WAS AFTER HE LEFT ST.

AUGUSTINE SHE WENT ON A CRIME

SPREE AND ROBBED ACROSS NORTH

CENTRAL FLORIDA AND HE --

>> GEORGIA.

>> I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS

GEORGIA, BUT THESE ARE THE ONLY

TWO PEOPLE HE KILLED BUT...

>> DOESN'T HE HAVE A PENDING

MURDER CASE IN GEORGIA.

>> NOT THAT I RECALL, I MAY BE

WRONG.

>> THAT MAY BE AND WE PROBABLY

ARE JUMPING AHEAD AND THOSE

PRIOR VIOLENT FELONIES, HE WAS

IN PRISON IN THE '80s AND THE

ONES THE JUDGE RELIES ON, ALL

OCCURRED AFTER THESE MURDERS.

>> YES.

YES.

AS WELL AS THE CONTEMPORANEOUS

MURDER, THERE WERE TWO VICTIMS

HERE AND HE PLED TO -- THAT'S

WHY HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE

LAWYERS IN ST. AUGUSTINE TO

CONFER ABOUT THE SPEEDY TRIAL,

HE WAS IN GAINESVILLE AND HE

SAYS THEY COULD HAVE CALLED, I

DIDN'T WANT MY SPEEDY TRIAL

RIGHTS WAIVED AND WHEN HE LEFT,

AND HIS FIRST APPEARANCE, HE

INDICATED HE DID NOT WANT THE --

WANTED THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AND

WAS GOING TO TRY TO HIRE PRIVATE

COUNSEL AND IN HIS ABSENCE THE

PD WAS APPOINTED ANY WAY AND

THAT IS WHERE THEY WAIVED

SPEEDY.

AND THAT IS WHERE THEY GOT OFF

ON THE LONG FOOT.

HE NEVER TRUSTED THEM AGAIN.

>> ON YOUR ISSUES, THAT YOU HAVE

RAISED, IS THERE ONE ISSUE THAT

YOU THINK REALLY IS THE -- I

MEAN, SEEMS TO ME MOST

JUDICIOUSLY TO WAIVE, AND NOT

WITHOUT MERIT, NOT YOUR FAULT,

HE WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL,

WHAT ISSUES ARE YOU GOING TO

ADDRESS, AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER

THERE IS... [INAUDIBLE].

>> A COUPLE AND I HAVE HAD MUCH

BETTER CASES AND MUCH BETTER

ISSUES AND THERE ARE PROBLEMS

WITH ALL OF THESE ISSUES, BUT

THE COME I LIKE ARE THE JUDGE

STEPPING IN, IN JURY SELECTION,

AND EXCUSING JUROR SCHULTZ FOR

CAUSE.

JUROR SCHULTZ --

>> AND THE STATE ALREADY --

HASN'T THE STATE ALREADY RAISED

THE ISSUE ABOUT THAT?

>> THE STATE SAID THAT -- JUST

TO PUT IT INTO CONTEXT, JUROR

SCHULTZ HAD HAD A CHILD WHO HAD

BEEN KILLED, ADULT CHILD WHO HAD

BEEN KILLED IN THE 8 MONTHS OR

SO BEFORE THE TRIAL AND AS THE

VICTIM OF A CRIME.

AND THAT WAS ILLICIT IN VOIR

DIRE.

AND MR. MCKENZIE ASKED HER ABOUT

THAT, WOULD THAT BE A PROBLEM,

NO, I COULD CONSIDER BOTH LIFE

AND DEATH IN THIS PARTICULAR

CASE, IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM.

THE STATE THEN WHEN IT CAME TIME

TO EXERCISE CAUSE CHALLENGES,

THE STATE ATTORNEY SAID, WE'RE

CONCERNED ABOUT MRS. SCHULTZ,

AND THE JUDGE INTERRUPTED THE

PROSECUTOR AT THAT POINT AND

SAID, YEAH, SHE HAD A VICTIM --

CHILD VICTIM OF A CRIME, I'M

GOING TO GO AHEAD AN EXCUSE HER

FOR CAUSE.

>> BUT THERE WAS NO OBJECTION.

>> NO OBJECTION TO THAT.

>> AND NO MOTION FOR DIS

QUALIFICATION OF THE JUDGE AND

IT WAS LET GO -- IF THIS WERE

THE WIFE OF THE CHIEF OF PLEATS,

I COULD SEE YOU MAKING THAT

ARGUMENT -- POLICE, I COULD SEE

YOU MAKING THAT ARGUMENT BUT I

CANNOT IMAGINE THE DEFENDANT

WANTING THE JUROR ON AND I CAN'T

IMAGINE THIS JUDGE WOULD ALLOW

THAT TO OCCUR, PARTICULARLY WHEN

THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL NOT

REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND TO AT

LEAST HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD

AND THE ISSUE IS DO YOU HAVE A

PROPERLY QUALIFIED JURY AND I

CAN THE NOT THINK OF ANY

COMMON-MINDED CITIZEN OF

FLORIDA, THAT WOULD THINK THE

PARENT OF A CHILD, A CHILD WHO

HAD JUST BEEN MURDERED, I MEAN,

JUST A SHORT TIME AGO, THIS IS

NOT WAY IN THE PAST, SOMEHOW

OUGHT TO SIT ON A MURDER CASE.

I JUST -- IT SORT OF DEFIES ALL

LOGIC TO ME.

>> WELL, MAYBE -- FOR WHATEVER

REASON HE APPARENTLY LIKED HER,

AS A JUROR, AND SHE ANSWERED THE

RIGHT WAY, AND --

>> THEREFORE HE HAD AN

OBLIGATION TO OBJECT TO THE

CHALLENGE AND AS JUSTICE LEWIS

SAYS UNDER ANY SCENARIO, IF A

CAUSE CHALLENGE HAD BEEN RAISED

TO THIS JUROR, AND ANY JUDGE IN

THIS STATE HAD DENIED IT, AND

ASSUMING THE OTHER PREREQUISITES

WERE MET IT WOULD BE REVERSIBLE

ERROR.

>> WHY DIDN'T THE JUDGE LET THE

PROSECUTOR MAKE THE CAUSE

CHALLENGE HERSELF.

>> BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THE

PROSECUTOR MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY

SAID THAT IS A FAVORABLE JUROR

TO ME.

>> INDEED, INDEED.

>> BUT, THIS -- THE JUDGE HAS A

-- AN OBLIGATION TO ENSURE A

FAIR TRIAL.

AND AS JUSTICE LEWIS SAID, EVEN

WITH THE DEFENDANT WHO IS NOT

REPRESENTING HIMSELF, THAT IF

THERE ARE -- IF EVERY JUROR

SAID, WELL, I KNOW THE STATE'S

WITNESSES, THEY ARE MY BUDDIES,

DRINKING BUDDIES, I THINK THAT

THE COURT WOULD HAVE SOME

INDEPENDENT OBLIGATION THERE.

ARE YOU SAYING THEY WOULDN'T?

TO SEE THAT JURORS THAT SIT ARE

FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.

>> I THINK THAT IS UP TO THE

PARTIES, I MEAN, THE JUDGE --

>> I MEAN, LOOK AT IT FROM THE

OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN.

LET'S SAY THE COURT ALLOWED THE

LADY TO SIT ON THE JURY.

AND HE WAS CONVICTED AND

SENTENCED TO DEATH.

YOUR ARGUMENT HERE WOULD HAVE

BEEN, THE PROSECUTOR IS AN

ADVOCATE, WE CANNOT RELY ON HIM

MAKE THE CHALLENGE, AND THIS GUY

IS PRO SE AND THE COURT SHOULD

HAVE STEPPED IN, IN THE NAME OF

JUSTICE AND KEPT THE LADY OUT.

BECAUSE, HER DAUGHTER WAS

MURDERED.

SEE --

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT YOU WOULD

HAVE BEEN MAKING, YOU HAVE TO

RESPECT.

>> WITH DUE RESPECT I DON'T

THINK I WOULD HAVE MADE THAT

ARGUMENT.

I THINK WHAT DIFFERENTIATES THIS

IS THE JUDGE STEPPING AWAY FROM

THE IMPARTIAL ROLE THAT SHE IS

SUPPOSED TO HAVE.

>> REALLY, ALL HE DID,

RESPECTFULLY IT SEEMS TO ME, IS

THAT HE INTERRUPTED IN MID

SENTENCE AND SAID THIS IS SO

CLEAR, IT WAS, AS I UNDERSTAND

THE RECORD, WHILE THE ASSISTANT

STATE ATTORNEY WAS SAYING, YOU

KNOW, THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH

MS. SCHULTZ AND ALL OF A SUDDEN

THE JUDGE SAYS, YES, I KNOW.

>> WE'RE CONCERNED WITH

MS. SCHULTZ.

>> AND EVEN THE STATE WAS

CONCERNED THAT THIS PERSON SERVE

ON THE JURY AND REALLY, ALL THAT

THE JUDGE DID WAS SORT OF

SHORT-CIRCUIT THAT DISCUSSION.

AND DIDN'T REALLY INJECT, UNTIL,

UNTIL THE STATE SAID THERE IS A

PROBLEM WITH THIS JUROR, IS THAT

A FAIR STATEMENT.

>> THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT BUT

I THINK THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE

LET IT PLAY OUT AND FIND OUT

WHAT THE PROSECUTOR WAS GOING TO

SAY, AND I THINK, I KNOW A LOT

OF DEFENSE LAWYERS LIKE WOMEN ON

THEIR JURIES, AND THIS WAS A

WOMAN.

AND WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE WAS

A MINORITY.

WE DON'T KNOW IF THE PROSECUTOR

HAD TRIED -- SAID SELL, IN AN

ABUNDANCE OF CAVERN I WILL NOT

CHALLENGE HER FOR CAUSE, SHE

SAID SHE CAN BE FAIR AND SHE

SAID THE RIGHT ANSWERS ON

CONSIDERING THAT AND I WILL

EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY AND THEN

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO A KNEE

SLAP, OH, THE FIRST WOMAN THE

STATE EXCUSE AND MAYBE IT WAS A

MINORITY.

WHO KNOWS HOW IT WOULD HAVE

PLAYED OUT AND THAT WAS SHORT

CIRCUITED BY THE JUDGE, AND

TAKING IT UPON HERSELF, TO GRANT

A CAUSE -- I MEAN, TO EXCUSE HER

FOR CAUSE WITHOUT EVEN A CAUSE

CHALLENGE BEING MADE BY EITHER

SIDE.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> BECAUSE THERE ARE CASES,

THERE ARE NONE WHERE THE JUDGE

DEPARTS FROM THEIR IMPARTIAL

ROLE AT JURY SELECTION, PERHAPS

THAT I COULD FIND THAT RESULTS

-- CALLED IT FUNDAMENTAL ERROR

BUT I THINK ANY TIME THE JUDGE

IS LESS THAN NEUTRAL, I THINK

THAT THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL ERROR,

AND I THINK THE MAGISTRATE, THE

-- IS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, AND

IS LOOKED UPON BY THE JURY,

THERE IS ALL THAT GOOD LANGUAGE

IN ALL OF THOSE CASES ABOUT HOW

IMPORTANT A ROLE THE JUDGE

PLAYS.

AND WHEN THE JUDGE TAKES SIDES,

THAT IS --

>> IN THIS CONTEXT IF THERE IS

ANY INFERENCE THAT THE JUDGE WAS

LESS THAN NEUTRAL, THE JUDGE

WOULD SEEM LESS THAN NEUTRAL TO

PROTECT THE DEFENDANT.

I MEAN, THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE

THE OVERWHELMING INFERENCE, IN

THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND NOW I

UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

AND MAYBE YOU WANT IT ON THERE

BUT HE COULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING

IF THAT WAS THE CASE AND I JUST

-- IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS THE

DISCUSSION THAT IS SOMEWHAT

DETACHED FROM THE REAL... WHAT

HAPPENED.

>> THERE AGAIN, WE DON'T -- ON

THE COLD RECORD, MAYBE, BUT

THERE AGAIN, MIGHT HAVE BEEN A

MINORITY.

CLEARLY WAS A WOMAN.

>> I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO

SHOW A COURSE OF CONDUCT, BY THE

JUDGE, DURING THE TRIAL, CLEARLY

SHOWED THAT THEY WERE -- THAT

THE JUDGE WAS ADDITION HELPING

THE PROSECUTOR AND --

ADDITIONALLY HELPING THE

PROSECUTOR AND THAT IS WHERE

THERE ARE CASES AND TO ME,

AGAIN, IF THERE IS ANY

INFERENCE, THE OTHER JUSTICES

HAVE SAID, IS THAT THE JUDGE

WOULD HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT

THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS TO HAVE

THIS KIND OF JUROR --

>> COUPLE THAT WITH MY OTHER

DECENT POINT I THINK WHICH WAS

STAND BY AS APPOINTED DURING...

AND THE JAR IS NOT IN THE

COURTROOM, AND THE JUDGE

CHASTISES STAND BY COUNSEL FOR

HELPING MR. MCKENZIE DURING THE

CHARGE CONFERENCES AND --

>> WHERE IN THE RECORD -- I

MEAN, I THINK YOU ARE -- YOUR

CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT IS NOT

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE

RECORD, SEEM TO BE -- SEEMS TO

BE INCORRECT.

WHAT ARE YOU --

>> WELL, AT PAGE -- VOLUME 7,

497 TO 98, THEY ARE IN THE

CHARGES CONFERENCE AND IT IS NOT

CLEAR, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE,

APPEARS A REASONABLE INFERENCE

THE APPELLANT LOOKED TO HIS

STAND BY COUNSEL WHEN THEY WERE

TALK ABOUT JURY INSTRUCTIONS,

AND HE SAYS, OKAY, I JUST HAVE

NO... AND THE COURT INTERRUPTS

AND SAYS, HE HAS TO ASK FOR YOUR

ASSISTANCE, HE'S NOT ENTITLED TO

DO REPRESENTATION, HE'S NOT

ENTITLED --

>> YOU ARE SORT OF GIVING AND IN

TOW NATION AND I THINK THE POINT

IS, THAT THERE WAS STAND BY

COUNSEL FOR THE JURY CHARGE, AND

THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE

-- AT THAT POINT, THE DEFENDANT

SAID, NO, I NEED A FEW MINUTES

TO TALK TO MY COUNSEL ABOUT THE

JURY INSTRUCTIONS, AND IT WASN'T

DONE IN FRONT OF THE JURY, SO

THERE CAN'T BE ANY -- INTO

CORRECT.

>> PREJUDICE IN THAT WAY, AND I

THINK IT IS AGAIN A DIFFICULT

SITUATION, A DEFENDANT IN CYSTS

ON SELF-REPRESENTATION AND

DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND BY

COUNSEL, BUT, THE JUDGE TO TRY

TO HELP ENSURE THE FAIRNESS

GIVES HIM STAND BY COUNSEL AND

STAND BY COUNSEL HAS A LIMB ROLE

AND I DON'T SEE THAT STATEMENT

AS BEING THE JUDGE DEPARTED FROM

HIS OR HER NEUTRAL STANCE IN THE

CASE, AND WHAT IS YOUR ISSUE ON

AS TO THAT COMMENT.

>> WELL, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE

AND I THINK IT IS A CLEAR

DEPARTURE AND CLEAR FROM THE

RECORD WHEN MR. MCKENZIE

BASICALLY BACKS DOWN, THAT HE

WAS INTIMIDATED AND THOUGHT HE

ANYTHINGrd THE JUDGE AND I THINK

THAT IS A FAIR READING OF THE

EXCHANGE.

HE STOPS WHATEVER HE WAS GOING

TO SAY.

>> THE COURT SAID -- STAND BY

COUNSEL, YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR IT.

HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THAT

REPRESENTATION, HE'S NOT

ENTITLED AND HE IS REPRESENTING

HIMSELF AND HE'S ASKED TO

REPRESENT HIMSELF AND HE HAS A

QUESTION FOR STAND BY COUNSEL

AND HE'LL ASK YOU A QUESTION

BUT, AS THE JUDGE SAID, THAT IS

NOT A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE

LAW, FARETTA DOES NOT PERMIT

DUAL REPRESENTATION.

>> MOST OF THE CASE LAW ON THAT

DEALS WITH THE DEFENDANT

OBJECTING TO STAND BY COUNSEL

GETTING INVOLVED.

IT'S NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

IT IS NOT WHERE THE JUDGE IS

CHASTISING OR KEEPING --

LESSENING THE INVOLVEMENT OF

STAND BY COUNSEL.

THAT THAT IS -- MOST OF THE CASE

LAW DERIVES FROM WAIT A MINUTE,

I DIDN'T GET MY TRUE RIGHTS OF

REPRESENTATION BECAUSE STAND BY

COUNSEL CAME IN HERE AND

REPRESENTED ME AND I DIDN'T WANT

IT.

>> LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT

SOMEHOW THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN

GREATER CONSULTATION AND I WOULD

THINK THAT THIS HAPPENED IN THE

PENALTY PHASE AND THE JUDGE MAY

HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT FRUSTRATED

BECAUSE MR. MCKENZIE FIRST SAYS,

YES, NOW I WANT COUNSEL BACK FOR

THE PENALTY PHASE AND THEN HE

DOES AN ABOUT-FACE, BUT, DON'T

YOU HAVE TO SHOW SOME KIND OF

EFFECT ON THE -- THAT THERE WAS

A PENALTY PHASE INSTRUCTIONS

THAT WERE IMPROPERLY GIVEN OR

SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN

REQUESTED, IF ONLY STAND BY

COUNSEL HAD BEEN ABLE TO BECOME

MORE INVOLVED, DON'T YOU HAVE TO

CONNECT IT UP WITH THE -- AS

JUSTICE CANADY SAID WITH THE

REALITY OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

WELL, I DON'T THINK SO WHERE YOU

ARE IN ESSENCE DENIED YOUR SIXTH

AMENDMENT RIGHT.

>> WHERE IS -- THAT IS THE ONLY

PLACE IN THE RECORD AND THAT IS

PRETTY SIGNIFICANT TO ME THAT

THAT SORT OF PROVES THE OPPOSITE

POINT, WHICH IS THAT THE JUDGE

DIDN'T INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT

OF SELF-REPRESENTATION, BUT,

ALSO ALLOWED THERE TO BE STAND

BY COUNSEL, AND GAVE

MR. MCKENZIE SOMETHING THAT THE

LAW WOULD NOT NECESSARILY

ENTITLE HIM TO.

>> I TOLD YOU, IT WASN'T THE

BEST ISSUE I EVER HAD UP HERE

BUT IT WAS ONE OF MY FAVORITE,

TOO, OUT OF THIS INITIAL BRIEF.

>> PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, AS

WE ASK THE QUESTIONS, IT IS NOT

TO SHOOT THE MESSENGER AND THE

SYSTEM WORKS BY FOLKS LIKE YOU

PRESENTING ARGUMENT, BUT WE HAVE

TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND

THESE QUESTIONS HAVE TO BE ASKED

AND WE HAVE TO PROBE THESE

THINGS AND I THINK YOU

UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT AND GETTING

BACK TO YOUR PRIOR ARGUMENT, I

MEAN, I THINK THIS COURT AND --

I, ESPECIALLY WOULD LOVE TO SEE

FARETTA LIMITED, IN SOME WAY

ESPECIALLY IN CAPITAL CASES AND

WE REQUIRE MINIMUM QUALIFIED

COUNSEL TO TRY THESE CASES --

>> SO WE UNDERSTAND, ALTHOUGH

THIS WAS AN INTERESTING SEGUE TO

YOUR CASE, YOU HAVE NOT RAISED

AS AN ISSUE ON APPEAL, THAT THE

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT

TO A FAIR TRIAL BY REPRESENTING

HIMSELF.

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> BECAUSE I AGREE, I THINK IT

WOULD BE FABULOUS IF WE COULD

LIMIT -- I THINK, PERSONALLY,

THAT IN DEATH CASES I AGREE WITH

YOU, I THINK THE U.S. SUPREME

COURT IS GOING TO PUT US INTO

THIS -- WITH GOOD INTENTION,

TRYING TO GET THE DEFENDANT MORE

RIGHTS, BUT, IT DOES RAISE THE

LIMITS AND YOU HAVE NOT RAISED

THE ISSUE HERE AND MR. MCKENZIE

WOULDN'T BE THE BEST EXAMPLE,

BECAUSE DOESN'T IT -- IT APPEARS

HE IS COMPETENT AND WAS A

COMPETENT INDIVIDUAL AS WE

STARTED OUT, NOT SOMEBODY WITH

SEVER MENTAL ILLNESS.

>> DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE.

>> GOOD -- YOU RAISED SOME ISSUE

INVOLVING THE FARETTA INQUIRY,

THAT TOOK PLACE HERE, WAS NOT

ADEQUATE.

>> YES, THE FARETTA INQUIRY, I

ARGUE WAS IN SUFFICIENT IN ONE

RESPECT, SHE ASKED HAVE YOU

REPRESENTED YOURSELF AT TRIAL

AND THERE WAS NO EXPLORATION OF

HIS FAMILIARITY WITH THE

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, WHETHER

HE HAD EVER BEEN TO TRIAL

BEFORE, WITH REPRESENTATION.

>> IS THAT A REQUIREMENT?

>> SOME OF THE CASES TALK ABOUT

THAT IS THE BETTER WAY TO DO IT,

YES.

IT IS NOT IN THE STANDARD --

>> IS THAT A REQUIREMENT.

>> I BELIEVE THAT IT IS A

REQUIREMENT, THAT THE JUDGE

DETERMINE THE DEFENDANT'S

FAMILIARITY AND EXPERIENCE,

EXPERIENCE IN THE CRIMINAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM.

>> YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF

THOSE CASES, AND ONE OF THOSE

COLLOQUIES AND A LOT OF TIME WE

SEE THE COLLOQUIES AND THIS

DEFENDANT WILL SAY YES OR NO AND

MAKE NO FURTHER EXPLANATION IN

REGARDS TO THE QUESTIONS THE

COURT ASKS AND THIS IS A

DEFENDANT WHO, YOU KNOW, TALKS

ABOUT, I UNDERSTAND THE

RAMIFICATIONS, OF THESE KINDS OF

THINGS, AND I MEAN, HE IS NOT

JUST SAYING, YES, AND NO.

HE ACTUALLY ANSWERS THESE

QUESTIONS, WITH SOME

EXPLANATION, AND SOME TALKING

AND SO, TO ME THIS IS ONE OF THE

BETTER INQUIRIES, THAT WE HAVE

SEEN WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

THESE FARETTA KINDS OF CASES.

>> AND HE DOES THINGS LIKE NOT

EVEN TESTIFY, JUST TRIES TO JUST

INTRODUCES BANK RECORDS, TO SHOW

THAT --

>> THAT DOESN'T HAVE -- DOESN'T

REALLY ANSWER THIS QUESTION

ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE FARETTA

DISCUSSION WAS ADEQUATE.

INTO IT SHOWS THAT HE WASN'T

FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH COURT

PROCEDURES OR EXPERIENCED WITH

COURT PROCEDURE TO KNOW THE

PROPER --

>> DID THIS JUDGE LET THIS BANK

RECORDS IN.

>> LET THIS BANK RECORDS IN BUT

THEY HAD NO CONTEXT TO THE JURY,

BECAUSE --

>> AGAIN IF YOU WOULD SAY THIS

INQUIRY IN THE CAPITAL CASE

WOULD HAVE TO EXTEND TO, HAVE

YOU EVER REPRESENTED YOURSELF IN

A PENALTY PHASE THE PENALTY

PHASE IS SO UNIQUE THAT MOST

DEFENDANTS OR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

DO NOT HAVE... AND YOU KNOW

THERE IS NOT THAT PRESENT

REQUIREMENT THAT WE LIMIT

SELF-REPRESENTATION FOR THE GILL

PHASE.

>> MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE.

BUT --

>> IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE TO

HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS,

DON'T YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

YOU HAVE NOT -- OTHER THAN THAT

ONE ISSUE ABOUT THE -- THEY

SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED ON IT AND

NO CASE LAW THAT SAYS IT IS

REQUIRED, THERE IS NO OTHER

BASIS TO REVERSE THIS ON A --

FARETTA.

>> NO, POLICY, ICE JUST WANT TO

SUBMIT TO YOU THAT BECAUSE OF

CASES LIKE THIS, BECAUSE OF

VOLUNTEERS, PLEAS, PEOPLE ASKING

FOR THE DEATH PENALTY AND I'M

SEEING MORE AND MORE OF THEM IN

MY PRACTICE, OVER THE YEARS,

THIS -- THE WHOLE DEBT PENALTY

SENTENCING SCHEME IN FLORIDA IS

SKEWED, YOU DON'T GET A PROPER

WEIGHING OF THE AGGRAVATORS, YOU

DON'T GET A PROPER PRESENTATION

OF THE AGGRAVATORS OR THE

MITIGATION.

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE

SAYING, AND --

BUT DON'T WE HAVE TO COME BACK

TO THE FACTS, THAT IT IS HIS

CASE AND HE, AND HE HAS A RIGHT

THAT MAY BE TAKEN WAY IN SOME

EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.

BUT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE

THIS CASE DEALT WITH THE WAY HE

WANTS IT DEALT WITH.

IS HE TO REPRESENT HIMSELF.

>> HE DOES HAVE CERTAIN --

>> HE'S A PERSON, HE'S A PERSON,

HE'S A PERSON, AND IT SEEMS TO

ME, THAT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL

ABOUT SAYING, WELL, YOU ARE A

PERSON, BUT WE WILL TREAT YOU AS

NOT A PERSON, FOR SOME PURPOSES

HERE.

AND YOU ARE ON TRIAL FOR YOUR

LIFE, BUT YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN

AND SHUT UP, AND YOU WILL NOT --

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO

MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HOW THIS

COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WILL GO

FORWARD.

AND YOU CANNOT REALLY

PARTICIPATE IN A MEANINGFUL WAY,

IN THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO.

AND I -- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT,

MAYBE, THAT IS THE WISE POLICY

AND MAYBE THAT WOULD BE IN HIS

INTERESTS BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME

TO DO SOME -- SOME INJURY TO THE

RESPECT FOR THAT PERSON AS AN

INDIVIDUAL.

>> WELL, IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE

AND I -- YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH,

BUT, TO TAKE IN -- TAKEN TO

ANOTHER EXTREME YOU HAVE --

EXTREME YOU HAVE THE CAPITAL

DEFENDANTS WHO USE THE SYSTEM TO

COMMIT SUICIDE.

>> AND AGAIN WE ARE QUITE AWARE

OF THAT.

AND I THINK THE JUDGE WAS VERY

AWARE OF IT, BECAUSE, SHE

FOLLOWS MOHAMMED, SHE ORDERED A

PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND

WHAT WE HAVE HERE AND I HAVE

SEEN CASES WHERE WE KNOW THAT

MENTALLY ILL DEFENDANTS, WHO

SAY, NO, I DON'T WANT THE COURT

TO KNOW ABOUT MY MENTAL ILLNESS,

BECAUSE I WANT TO BE PUT TO

DEATH, THAT IS NOT ONE OF THESE

CASES AND SO THAT IS WHY,

ALTHOUGH I, YOU KNOW, I WOULD

HAVE LIKED, IN THE MOHAMMED

SERIES OF CASES TO GO IF YOUR, I

DON'T THINK THIS CASE IS A GOOD

ONE, BECAUSE, WHEN WE LOOK AT

WHAT HAPPENED HERE, HE CONFESSED

TO TWO HORRIBLE MURDERS, FOR

MONEY, AND WHERE YOU ARE NOT

CHALLENGING CCC AND PRIOR

VIOLENT FELONY AND THIS IS A --

UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT

THERE BEING SOME SUBSTANTIAL

STATUTORY MITIGATION, WHATEVER A

LAWYER COULD DO, IT WOULD NOT BE

MITIGATION, IN THIS CASE, THAT

COULD OUT WEIGH THE SUBSTANTIAL

AGGRAVATION FROM THE -- EVEN

LOOKING AT THAT PSI --

>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SAY

THAT FOR SURE.

>> BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU SAW A

LOT OF THESE CASES LATELY AND

I'M SAYING, NO, I HAVE SEEN

CASES WHERE SOMEONE IS DOING

SOMETHING AND YOU CAN TELL, THAT

THAT DEFENDANT IS A MENTALLY ILL

DEFENDANT AND THIS WAS A

CALCULATED MURDER, THIS WAS A

PERSON THAT WAS -- CAME THERE TO

MURDER THESE TWO DEFENDANTS.

INNOCENT VICTIMS FOR MONEY.

-- INNOCENT VICTIMS FOR MONEY

AND WENT ON AS YOU SAID, A SPREE

OF ROBBING AND LUCKILY NOT

MURDERING ANYBODY ELSE.

>> ALL OF THE JURY DIDN'T --

NEVER LEARNED OF HIS REAL

COCAINE ADDICTION, THEY STILL

GOT TWO VOTES ON EACH FOR LIFE.

AND IF THE CASE HAD BEEN

PROPERLY MITIGATED AND THE

CHALLENGE, THE ACTS HAD BEEN

PROPERLY CHALLENGED, PERHAPS, WE

MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT RESULT.

THIS IS REALLY JUST A FARCE AND

A SHAM.

>> YOU ARE WELL INTO YOUR

REBUTTAL.

BUT I THINK WE HAD A QUESTION

DOWN HERE.

>> ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IN SPITE

OF THE CLIENT HAVING THE RIGHT

TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, ARE YOU

STILL SAYING A MAN...

[INAUDIBLE].

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> SO WE HAVE TO ALLOW A PERSON

TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO...

[INAUDIBLE].

>> WELL, I'M NOT SURE IN A

CAPITAL CONTEXT THAT THAT IS THE

RIGHT WAY TO HANDLE IT.

BUT, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

MS. DAVIS.

>> MAY IT PLEASE THIS COURT, I'M

BARBARA DAVIS.

I REPRESENT THE STATE OF

FLORIDA.

JUST A FEW FACTUAL HOUSEKEEPING

MATTERS.

THE -- ALL THE PRIOR VIOLENT

FELONIES HAPPENED BEFORE THESE

TWO MURDERS EXCEPT FOR TWO OF

THEM ONE WAS THE CARJACKING IN

ALACHUA COUNTY AND ONE WAS GRAND

THEFT -- GRAND THEFT IN ALACHUA

AND THE CARJACKING IN -- ALACHUA

AND THE CARJACKING IN MARION.

>> THE JUDGE LISTS STATE PRIOR

VIOLENT FELONIES AND LOOKS FROM

THE PSI THAT HE HAD -- HE HAD

HAD IN, AT LEAST -- HE HAD THE

SENTENCE IN 1983, THE 7 YEARS IN

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

FOR GRAND THEFT AND HE WAS ALSO

INCARCERATED IN THE DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS IN 1990.

FOR VARIOUS CHARGES THAT HE GOT

A SUBSTANTIAL SENTENCE FOR.

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE, UNTIL THE --

HE WAS THEN -- MUST HAVE BEEN

RELEASED SOMETIME IN THE '90s,

AND IN OTHER WORDS, HE HAD TWO

SUBSTANTIAL PRISON TERMS, AND

THEN HE WAS RELEASED AND THEN

THESE OTHER ONES THAT ARE --

MARIAN COUNTY, AND ST. JOHN'S

AND ALL OF THAT, DOES THAT --

YOU ARE SAYING THOSE OCCURRED,

ACTUAL CRIMES OCCURRED BEFORE

THE MURDER?

>> YES.

.

BECAUSE ONCE, ONCE THE VICTIMS

WERE FOUND, AND HE HAD LEFT HIS

CAR, AT THE CRIME SCENE, AND

TAKEN ONE OF THE -- SCENE AND

TAKEN ONE OF THE VICTIM'S CAR,

THERE WAS A BLOW OUT ON THE

VICTIM'S CAR AND LEFT THE CAR IN

ALACHUA AND SOLD ANOTHER CAR AND

THERE WAS A HIGH SPEED CASE AND

A CARJACKING IN MARIAN COUNTY

AND ALL OF THE ALACHUA

ROBBERIES, ONCE HE GOT THEM INTO

CUSTODY AND TOUCHES ON THIS IN

THE PENALTY PHASE HE TOLD THEM

ABOUT THE ROBBERIES THEY DIDN'T

EVEN KNOW ABOUT AND --

>> HIS CONVICTION FOR THOSE

OCCURRED AFTER THE -- HE WASN'T

-- OCCURRED AFTER THE MURDERS?

CONVICTIONS FOR -- THERE ARE

CRIMES, AND BEFORE THESE MURDERS

BUT HIS CONVICTIONS FOR THEM

STILL WAS AFTER THE MURDER.

>> YES, BECAUSE ONCE THEY

ARRESTED HIM, ACTUALLY HE WAS

ARRESTED IN CITRUS COUNTY AND

CAME BACK TO MARION COUNTY AND

THEY FOUND OUT ABOUT THE ALACHUA

ROBBERIES AND THE JUDGE, IF YOU

LOOK IN THE BEGINNING OF THE

RECORD, SHE WAS WITHIN THE

TRANSPORT ORDER TO MARION AND

THEN, HE WOULD BE ALREADY AT

LAKE BUTLER AND SHE'S GOT THE

TRANSPORT ORDER TO LAKE BUTLER

AND REMEMBER, THE PUBLIC

DEFENDER WAS NOT APPOINTED ON

THIS CASE UNTIL FEBRUARY, SO

EVEN THOUGH HE WAS ARRESTED IN

OCTOBER THEY WERE HOLDING HIM ON

OTHER CHARGES AND SHE WAS HE WAS

NOT ARRESTED ON THE MURDERS

UNTIL FEBRUARY 6TH.

>> IS THERE A PENDING MURDER

CHARGE.

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW.

AND... ALSO, AS FAR AS ISSUE

NUMBER ONE, THE JUDGE STEPPING

IN AND I JUST, ON THE JUROR FOR

CAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT

THAT PAGE 25 OF MY ANSWER BRIEF,

ACTUALLY, WHAT THE PROSECUTOR

SAID IS, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE

CONCERNED ABOUT MS. SCHULTZ

BASED ON HER LOSS OF HER SON AS

A MURDER VICTIM, AND SO, THE

JUDGE SAYS THAT IS TRUE, AND THE

PROSECUTOR CONTINUES, SO, I

THINK WE ARE GOING TO... AND

THEN THIS JUDGE SAYS, I'LL

STRIKE HER FOR CAUSE AND THIS

JUROR SCHULTZ WAS MARRIED TO A

RETIRED POLICE OFFICER.

HER DAUGHTER HAD BEEN KILLED 7

MONTHS EARLIER AND HER --

ANOTHER DAUGHTER HAD BEEN IN THE

MILITARY POLICE.

AND SO AS THE COURT OBSERVED,

THIS COULD HAVE BEEN THE JUDGE

IN -- JUST TAKING CARE OF

BUSINESS, BECAUSE, IT WAS

OBVIOUS, THE PROSECUTOR WAS

GOING TO STRIKE THIS JUROR, THE

PROSECUTOR HAD ONLY ONE

PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

AND THERE WAS -- MR. MCKENZIE,

WHO WAS QUITE VERBAL, AND

INTERACTIVE IN THE PROCESS,

NEVER SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, I

WANT THAT JUROR, YOU LIKE THAT

JUROR, WHY ARE YOU STRIKING THE

JUROR AND THIS IS CLEAR NOT

PRESERVED, IT'S NOT FUNDAMENTAL,

AS FAR AS THE JUDGE INTERVENING

AND SUPPOSEDLY LIMITING STANDBY

COUNSEL, THAT WAS NOT PRESERVED.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE CASE THE

DEFENSE CITED, MCKASKLE V.

WIGGINS, THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT

TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IS

GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION, STANDBY COUNSEL

CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THAT RIGHT

OR GIVE ANY APPEARANCE THAT THE

DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE COMPLETE

AUTONOMY.

THE JUDGE, TIME DURING A 67 PAGE

CHARGE CONFERENCE, REMINDED

STANDBY COUNSEL HE HAS TO ASK

FOR YOU TO HELP HIM.

AND MR. MCKENZIE, IF YOU LOOK AT

THAT COMMENT ON PAGE 497 OF THE

CHARGE CONFERENCE, THE CHARGE

CONFERENCE WENT ON TO PAGE 513.

MR. MCKENZIE NEVER SAID STOP, I

WANT HIM TO HELP ME, HE

CONTINUED TO BE QUITE

INTERACTIVE AND VERBAL, I AM

OBJECTING TO THIS, THERE WAS NO

CHILLING OF HIS RIGHTS

WHATSOEVER.

AS FAR AS HIS INEXPERIENCE WITH

THE LEGAL SYSTEM, THE FIRST ONE

OCCURRED ON AUGUST 10TH, 2007.

YOU CAN SEE THAT HE HAD

EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WITH THE

LEGAL SYSTEM, EVEN IF THAT WERE

THE STANDARD.

SHE FOLLOWED THE BOOK.

>> I KNOW YOU TOLD ME THIS OR

MAYBE YOU DIDN'T, IN TERMS OF

HIS PRIOR EXPERIENCE, THE JUDGE

HAS THE 1991 CONVICTION FOR

STRONGARM ROBBERY IN BROWARD

COUNTY.

DO WE KNOW HOW LONG HE HAS

SERVED THAT SENTENCE?

>> IF YOU PULL THE DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS SHEET ON HIM, THEY

DIDN'T HAVE ANY DATE FOR

CUSTODY, THAT WAS A 15 YEAR

SENTENCE WHICH WAS IMPOSED IN

MAY OF 1991.

HE ALSO HAD DIFFERENT IN

CUSTODY, OUT OF CUSTODY, HE WAS

RELEASED FROM THE 1991 SENTENCE

IN OCTOBER OF 2002.

AND THEN, THE OTHER CRIME THAT

THE JUDGE HAS UNDER FIRE, THE

FELONY, THE CONVICTIONS FOR

THOSE CRIMES WERE ALL AFTER THIS

MURDER AND THEY WERE PLEASED.

>> THEY OCCURRED BEFORE THE

MURDER AND HE PLED TO THEM IN

ALACHUA AND MARION AND THIS WAS

IN AUGUST.

>> ESSENTIALLY, FROM 2002 TO

2006, HE MAY BE COMMITTING

CRIMES, IT WAS IN THE RECORD

THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY WORKING FOR

$53,000 A YEAR.

>> YES, AND HE ACTUALLY WAS

QUITE PROUD OF THAT AND SAID NOT

ONLY DID HE GET THE $63,000 BUT

HE WOULD GET $53,000 BONUS AT

THE END OF THE YEAR FOR HIS

WORK.

HE ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT THAT

WHEN HE WAS DOING CLOSING

ARGUMENT THAT THE PENALTY PHASE

WHICH IS ONE OTHER FACTOR WOULD

LIKE TO CORRECT.

IN THE PENALTY PHASE, WHEN

CHRISTOPHER QUARLES SAID HE

DIDN'T KNOW ENOUGH TO TESTIFY,

MR. MCKENZIE WAS GIVING HIS

CLOSING ARGUMENT, HE STARTED

TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT ISSUES,

THE PROSECUTOR HAD AGREED TO THE

BANK STATEMENTS COMING IN, AND

HE COULD TALK TO THAT AND

EVERYTHING BUT WHAT HE STARTED

TALKING ABOUT, REALLY

EXTRACURRICULAR THINGS, THE

PROSECUTOR OBJECTED AND PUT ON

RECORD THAT THEY HAD DISCUSSED

MR. MCKENZIE PRESENTING EVIDENCE

THROUGH WITNESSES AND TESTIFYING

TO DIFFERENT FACTS SO THAT HE

COULD ARGUE THEM IN THE PENALTY

PHASE AND IT WAS HIS STRATEGY

NOT TO DO THAT, AND HE SAID ON

THE RECORD THAT I DID NOT WANT

TO BE SUBJECTED TO

CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND I DIDN'T

WANT THE STATE DELVING INTO SOME

OF THE ISSUES.

THAT IS IN THE RECORD AT 5:75.

I THINK, ASIDE FROM THE FACT

THAT NONE OF THESE ISSUES WERE

PRESERVED, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER

QUESTIONS, I WOULD RELY ON THE

BRIEFS AND ASK THIS COURT TO

CONFIRM THE CONVICTION AND

SENTENCE.

>> CHRISTOPHER QUARLES?

>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING

FURTHER.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS,

THE COURT WILL BE IN RECESS

UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING.

>> PLEASE RISE.