dada_floridamisidentification_final - UDC Law Review

Smith’s first immediate appeal was confirmed in the Florida Supreme Court. 100 Fouryears later in 1989, Chiquita Lowe recanted her identification, implicating Eddie LeeMosley instead of Frank Smith as the perpetrator. 101 As a result, the Florida SupremeCourt ruled for a new evidentiary hearing to be held in 1991. 102 At the evidentiaryhearing, the judge denied a motion for a new trial, finding the recantation of the witnessnot credible. 103By virtue of judicial misconduct, Smith was granted a new evidentiary hearing. 104Unfortunately, this hearing was not conducted until seven years after the first evidentiaryhearing in 1998. 105 In August of 1998, defense counsel filed a motion to test Smith’sDNA. 106 At the new evidentiary hearing, the Judge denied the motion for a DNA testingand a new trial. 107 Immediately after, defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider, andprior to the Judge’s ruling on the motion to reconsider, Smith lost his battle to cancer andpassed away behind bars. 108Eleven months after his death, the prosecution finally ordered DNA testing,comparing Smith’s blood to the semen collected from the victims’ underwear. 109 “Thesamples were sent to the FBI laboratory, which reported that Frank Lee Smith wasexcluded as the depositor of the semen.” 110 The DNA testing revealed that the trueperpetrator was Eddie Lee Mosley all along. 111The unfortunate moral of Smith’s story is the deficiency of the practices andprocedures in the criminal justice system of Florida.B. Florida’s Law Enforcement ProceduresIn 2006, The American Bar Association (ABA) did a case study on Florida’s deathpenalty laws, procedures and practices. The report highlighted various areas of the of theStates’ criminal justice system in need of improvement, including eyewitnessidentification. 112At a state level, Florida has not adopted a uniform policy for law enforcementidentification procedure. 113 The only requirement for law enforcement personnel is a100 Id.101 Id.102 Walsh, supra note 80.103 Id.104 Id.105 Id.106 Id.107 Walsh, supra note 80.108 Id.109 Id.110 Id.111 Id.112 American Bar Association, Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy In the State Death PenaltySystems: Florida Death Penalty Report, 65-71 (2006).113 Id. at 67.13