Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

The public interst is ill served by conduct such as fiat
exhibited by the prosecuting attorney in this case. The
right of a person accused of a crb to be represented by
counsel and to be fairly tried is basic to the concept of due
process. Iack of respect for this essential requirerwnt by
an officer of the court cannot be tolerated, even. at the
expense of requiring a new trial. Id., at 68.
when considered in their totality, both prosecutors' sumations
were prejudicial, inflamoatory, total&improper, and a virtual 'Inail
order catalogue of prosemtorial misconduct". Peterson v. State, 376
So. 2d 1230, 1233 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1979). See also, Harris v. State,
414 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3rd D.C,A. 1982); Jakson v. State, 421 So. 2d 15
(Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1982). Ihe remdy is a new trial.
Subsequent t~ the trial and advisory sentencing proceeding in this
cause, it came to defense counsel's attention that prosecuting attorney Ralph
Greene had paid twenty dollars cash to three state witnesses, during the trial
and before the witnesses testified. (R. 464, T. 2526-2527). Counsel had
previously filed a bbtion for Prcducticn of Favorable Evidence (R. 44) and a
Pbtion to Cayel Discoveq (R. 156-158). !the pmsecution admitted these adions
at the hearing on defendant's ArrU3ndmrzt to Mtion for New Trial (R. 464-4651,
but excused the paymtnts as "lunch mney". (T. 2527-2530).
It is well settled that a withholding by the prosecution of -ledge
of evidence known to be useful to the defendant, even though useful only for
kirpachn-mt purpses, can be grounds for a new trial. Matera v. State, - 254
So. 2d 843 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1971), Pitts v. - State, 247 So. 2d 53 CFla. 1971).
Page -48-