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

Payment of mney to a witness for any p-se is favorable evidence that bears
on the credibility of the witnesses,
1978).
Antone v. State, 355 So. 2d 777 (Fla.
When a pre-trial request for specific evidence is made (as was done
here), and such evidence is withheld by the prosecution, a new trial must be
ordered if the evidence 'fnight have affected the outm of the trial".
V. State, 382 So. 2d 1205 (Fla, 1980): ___. U.S. v. agclrs, 427 U.S. 97
(1976).
Fyltone
During the voir dire, a pmspectim juror, in the presence of the entire
venire, iraquired about acromplice testimony and characterized it asl'brbribed".
(T, 729).
in getting the court to instruct the juror that "no one has been paid for
anything". (T. 730).
paid mney, and during s mtion stated that they had mt been given mney.
(T. 2217-2219).
When defense clounsel agreed, the prosecution objected and succeeded
Defense counsel was unaware that any witnesses had been
The prosecutor in argument stated that witness Joan Bennett
had received nothing for her testhny ,(T. 2254), and castigated defense
counsel for his use of the word "br-"'. (T. 2253).
Had counsel knm of the cash payrrrents to witnesses, the prosecutor's
indignation at counsel's use of the term would have m y hollm before the jury.
Tb say that twenty dollars would have no effect on a witness's testhny when,
by the state's own theory, three people were murdered over a fifty dollar drug
debt, is contradictory.
was material to mre than inpea-t of the witnesses themselves. Under the
circumstances of this case, a cloud was cast over the defense frwn the outset
of the trial, and remained there.
The fact that cash payrrvents were Made to state witnesses
Had the cash papnts been brought to the
jury's attention, that cloud would have shifted tso the prosecution.
Because the
failure to reveal this favorable evidmce might have affected the a utm of
the trial, reversal is mdated.
Page -49-