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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

not vote gor the deqth psnqlty, (T, 593-5, 59577, 597-8, 735, 7361, This court has previously rejected the 'lcross-secthn of the cmm-unity'! mt, ' __* Wley v. 'State, - 366 SO, 261 19 (Fla, 19791 !he ''gdlt proneness" of the "death-qualified" jury is an issue that this court has not addressed, hawever. Nettles v. State, 409 So, 2d 85 (Fla. 1st. D.C,A, 1982), This issue ^1 can properly be litigated only after a full-blown evidentiaq heazring; the denial of an widentiaq hearing by the trial court was error. Grigsby v. Wry, 637 F. 2d 525 (8th Cir. 1980). Such a hearing was conducted pursuant to the r d i n Grigsby, supra, arad the federal district court found: "To swmrrarize, death qualification skews the predispositional balance of the jury pool by excluding prospective jurors who unequivocally express opposition t~ the death palty. zhe evidence .... clearly establishes that a juror's attitude toward the death penalty is the nmst pmerful kmwn predictor of his overall predispsition in a capital criminal case. That evidence shms that persons who favor the death penalty are predisposed in favor of the prosecution and are unrorrmonly predisposed against the defendant. The evidence shms that death penalty attitudes are highly correlated with other criminal justice attitudes. Generally, those who favor the death penalty are rmre likely to trust prosecutors, distrust defense munsel, to believe the state's witnesses, and to disapprove of certain of the accepted rights of defendants in criminal cases. A jury so selected Will not, therefore, be carpsed of a cross section of the cmnnmity. Rather, it will be -s&i of a group of persons who are uncmmnly predisposed to favor the prosecution, a jury 'organized to convict". Grigsby v. Fry, Case No. PB-C-78-32, (E.D.Ark. filed August 5, 1983). The defendant requests this court to accept the studies and findings in Grigsby, supra, dr, at the very least, to remand this cause to the trial court for an widentiary hearing, The argum-ks and authorities contained in defendantrs Pbtion to Declare F. S. 921,141 Unconstituti'onal (R, 77-79, T, 5158);m1++0n rn vaate Death Penalty Page -72-
CR, 6167 T, 58-7 Penalty (R. 16-31 , T. 35-37),, are adopted herein. ImxrmNP'xxI THE DEFQWANT'S SENTENCE OF DEATH cFv\sNoT BE CARRIED QUT BEcaUSE DI?J'UH BY -ON IS CRUEL AND/OR UNUSuaL PUNISHMENT, IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTEI AND l3- To THE U.S, CONSTITUTION AND ART1CI;E I, SECTION 17 OF THE FLORIIA CONSTITUTION. The argumnts and autharities contained in defendant's Wtion 73 Declare F. S. 922.10 Unconstitutional (R 68-70, T. 77-78), are adopted herein. THE TRIAL CoUrcT ~ U S L smcED Y THE DEFEKDWT To DEATH ON COUNT 11, WHERE THE JURY'S IN FAVOR OF LIFE: WA5 WELL- SlJF'FORTED BOTH IN FACT AND IN Lslw. The Florida capital sentencing process contemplates that, after receipt of the juryls reccBnmended sentence, the trial judge will Weigh evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to arrive at a reasoned judgmznt as to the appropriate smtence to irrg?ose". Sa.2d 1327, 1331 (Fla. 1981), Brawn v. Wainwright, 392 A m ison of the evidence intmduced at the trail and sentencing proceedings with the trial couTtls sentencing order (R. 476-509) reveals findings of fact that are unsupportd by, if not contrary to, the evidence, errmeom consideration of aggravating circzrmstances, and a total disregard for mitigating circumstances and for the weight to be given a jury advisory sentence. At the trial of this cause, the defendant testified in his own behalf and admitted being present when three wders were comnittd. the hOanicide of Richard Padgett (Count I), was mmntradictedi the defendant's version of the Murder of Nancy Sheppard (Count 111 was contradicted by Billy Long, but supported by the testhny of other w2tnesses, Page -73- His version of The defendant's version
Page 1 and 2:
RPPEAL FffQM THE CIRCUIT COURIT OF
Page 3 and 4:
V TRIAL COuIiT EXRED IN FAILING TO
Page 5 and 6:
UNRELATED O??F'ENSE AS EVIDENCE OF
Page 7 and 8:
ACEEY. mm, 33tlTo~7"T% (Fla. 4th ;D
Page 9 and 10:
c?JME3IEV. smm 345 So. 2 d m CURRYV
Page 11 and 12:
i%W'HW v. STATE j// So'.' 2d 7807Fl
Page 13 and 14:
MCMILLANV. smm 4119 So. 2d 1-la. 3r
Page 15 and 16:
0 PRamCE v. STATE 337 So, 2d 7 n l
Page 17 and 18:
mmv, STATE 2d =la. 1st D.C.A, 1982)
Page 19 and 20:
0 INTRODUCTION The appellant, Fbber
Page 21 and 22:
of Other Crbs, Wrongs, or Acts. (R.
Page 23 and 24:
0 (T. 1128-1129).crooVer said nothi
Page 25 and 26:
0 going to kill "the mther fucker",
Page 27 and 28:
this would alleviate any problem be
Page 29 and 30:
took out his knife and stabbed Padg
Page 31 and 32:
(T, 1342-1343). mng's rmther disapp
Page 33 and 34:
he said it, "nobdy paid any mbd to
Page 35 and 36:
told the defendant to "back off". (
Page 37 and 38:
and said, Yh ny God". (T. 1260). tw
Page 39 and 40: out of the cay. and walked around b
Page 41 and 42: WHEXFER THE THE JUHI UPON THE LAW Q
Page 43 and 44: IX X WHlTIWB THE TRIAL ERRED IN m I
Page 45 and 46: XVIII WHEXfER THE TRUG COUW: FBRED
Page 47 and 48: they were afraid of being killed by
Page 49 and 50: ut munsel could not argue it becaus
Page 51 and 52: to the co-defendant, who continued
Page 53 and 54: participate in the killing, 2. If t
Page 55 and 56: Brother Caps. (T. 1185) (4). the de
Page 57 and 58: So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1983).
Page 59 and 60: EXPW AND JTETIFY PLEA BARWWNG WITH
Page 61 and 62: type of rebuke counsel received. on
Page 63 and 64: utilized the stature of his office
Page 65 and 66: likewise improper for the State Att
Page 67 and 68: Payment of mney to a witness for an
Page 69 and 70: the prosecutor informed a juror onc
Page 71 and 72: the fiream or threatened Padgett wi
Page 73 and 74: from the operation of discowry rule
Page 75 and 76: I resides. Stanley, supra; - Florid
Page 77 and 78: Pernutting the reputation testby. o
Page 79 and 80: little probative value w kn it is c
Page 81 and 82: - The fact that a defendant refused
Page 83 and 84: The United States Supre court has s
Page 85 and 86: 'BE general rule is that statements
Page 87 and 88: The general rule is that a witness'
Page 89: any person the defense "expects to
Page 93 and 94: Sheppard's necklace and ring me tak
Page 95 and 96: (-TT* 1032, 10491. An execution-sty
Page 97 and 98: (5) W ilm Urgmn, the defendant's si
Page 99 and 100: The defense also argued for mitigat
Page 101 and 102: mitigating circumstance in a capita
Page 103: CFRI'IFICATE OF SERVTCE I HEREBY CE
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?