>> NEXT CASE, GONZALEZ VERSUS STATE. WHENEVER YOU ARE READY. >> GOOD MORNING.
THE LAW FIRM OF ERIC PINKARD ON BEHALF OF MR. GONZALEZ. FIRST ARGUMENT I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT HIS CLAIM NUMBER ONE OF
THE APPELLATE BRIEF. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL
COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PROPERLY ARGUE FOR CHANGE IN VENUE IN THIS CASE. I DON'T THINK I HAVE TO REMIND
THE COURT THAT YOU REPEATEDLY STATED ON MANY OCCASIONS THAT TRIAL COURT SHOULD GRANT EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND THE
POSTCONVICTION ON THOSE WHO REQUIRE FACTUAL DETERMINATION. >> THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A HYBRID.
THE TRIAL LAWYER DID MAKE THE CHANGE OF VENUE. THEY DID NOT OR SHE DID NOT ARGUE THE MOTION INCLUDE IN THE
MOTION OR DO IT APPROPRIATELY. >> AN ARGUMENT THE COUNCIL WAS IN EFFECT FOR THE MANNER THAT PRESENTED THE ARGUMENT ON CHANGE
OF VENUE AND THE REASON HE WAS INEFFECTIVE, THE TRIAL COURT, ALL THAT FREE TRIAL PUBLICITY TO PUT TO THE JUDGE TO EXPLAIN WHY
YOU NEEDED A CHANGE. >> THE TRIAL JUDGE DID ADDRESS TO SEE IF THEY COULD SEAT A JURY WITHOUT AN ADVERSE PUBLICITY
PROBLEM. WHAT HAPPENED? ISN'T THAT WHAT TRIAL JUDGES DO AND ARE TAUGHT TO DO, BEFORE
AUTOMATICALLY GRANTING. >> IN THE MANNING CASE IT WAS CITED BY THE TRIAL COURT. IT CAN PROCEED IN TWO WAYS, IT
CAN REVIEW THE EVIDENCE PUT BEFORE THEM BY THE TRIAL COUNSEL OR ATTEMPT TO SEEK THE JURY. THE JURY WAS NEVER QUESTIONED
ABOUT WHAT THEY KNEW ABOUT THE CASE. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE STATE ATTORNEY SAID DOES ANYBODY KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE? EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE ROOM, THEY SAID CAN YOU SET THAT ASIDE AND GET MR. GONZALEZ A FAIR
TRIAL. THAT IS ALL THE QUESTIONING BEFORE THE JURY. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
INFORMATION, DESPITE THE TREMENDOUS -- >> NOT THE MOTION ITSELF, THE EXTENT OF THE MORE DIRE FROM THE
PROSPECTIVE PANEL. >> THE TWO STEP PROCESS, THE TRIAL COUNSEL FIRST, SUBMIT ALL THE INFORMATION TO THE JUDGE ON
THE BASIS OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY AND THE JUDGE TAKES THAT INFORMATION. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE
WATCHED OR DIDN'T WATCH. ONCE YOU HAVE DONE THAT. >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT I THOUGHT THIS REFLECTED THAT THE
JUDGE INDICATED THE JUDGE WAS VERY FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THE JUDGE WAS ABLE TO ABSORB AND PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, WHAT TELEVISION SHOW DID HE WATCH? WHAT DID HE READ?
>> THEY SIT THERE ON THE RECORD AND MISSED EVERYTHING THEY READ ABOUT THE CASES, THE RECORD YOU ARE REQUIRING FROM THOSE CASES?
>> DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN MAKE AN APPELLATE REVIEW WHETHER THERE WAS PRETRIAL PUBLICITY SUFFICIENT NO JUROR COULD BE
ASSEMBLED, AND IN THIS CASE -- GOT A RECORD OF IT. >> WASN'T THERE A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE JURY IN THIS CASE?
A QUESTIONNAIRE? >> I BELIEVE THERE IS A QUESTIONNAIRE. >> DID THE QUESTIONNAIRE ADDRESS
THE ISSUE? DID THE JURY FILL OUT A QUESTIONNAIRE? DID IT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF
PUBLICITY IN THE CASE? >> I DON'T THINK IT IS IN DISPUTE BY ANYBODY THAT THE JUROR SAID THEY HEARD ABOUT THIS
CASE. EVERYBODY IN PENSACOLA HEARD ABOUT THE CASE. ALL JURORS -- THE QUESTIONNAIRES
THAT I HEARD ABOUT THIS CASE. >> WHAT IS YOUR EXPECTATION AS TO WHAT JURORS SHOULD BE TOLD AT THE MOMENT.
SHOULD THE JUDGE OR THE PROSECUTOR OR DEFENSE COUNSEL STAND UP AND TELL THEM EVERY DETAIL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE?
WHAT IS IT YOU WANT THEM TO DO? >> I WENT TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT THE CASE AS HAPPENED IN THE MANNING CASE, WHICH IS
CITED IN THE JUDGE'S ORDER, MR. MANNING SAID THERE WAS TOO MUCH ADVERSE PUBLICITY. THEY WENT TO THE PROCESS OF
ASKING JURORS WHAT THEY DO, JURORS TOLD THEM WHAT THEY DO AND THIS COURT FOUND DUE TO THE NATURE OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY
THERE COULDN'T BE A JUROR-- AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE JUDGE'S ORDER, THERE IS ALSO THE COLEMAN CASE.
WHICH IS FROM THE 11th CIRCUIT WHICH STANDS FOR PROPOSITION NORMALLY JURY SELECTION PROCESS IS HIGH
STANDARD GETTING A CHANGE IN VENUE. IN THAT CASE, THE JUDGE DID EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS
CASE. THEY TRIED TO SIT A JURY AND THEY ASKED THESE CONCLUSIVE QUESTIONS, WHAT THAT COURT HELD,
WAS QUESTIONS ALONG THE LINE, HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE, AND CAN YOU PUT IT ASIDE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO FIND
OUT WHAT THE JURY KNOWS ABOUT THE CASE? AND CONCLUSORY PROTESTATIONS OF IMPARTIALITY IS NOT ENOUGH.
THAT IS THE KEMP CASE. SO IN THIS CASE WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE AN ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS PRETRIAL PUBLICITY SO
PERVADED THE COMMUNITY, THAT MADE SELECTING A JURY IN THAT, AN IMPARTIAL JURY DRAWN FROM THAT COMMUNITY IMPOSSIBLE.
WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF WHAT THEY KNEW AND BECAUSE THE TRIAL THE TRIAL ATTORNEY DID NOT PUT FORTH A RECORD WHAT THEY KNEW.
WHAT WE DO KNOW IS, DURING THE, AND IN OUR 38.51 MOTION WE WERE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, WHAT MADE A FACIALLY SUFFICIENT CLAIM ABOUT
WHAT HAD BEEN ALLEGED AND WHAT TYPE OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE WERE THE SHERIFF OF THAT PARTICULAR
JURISDICTION HAD GONE OUT OF HIS WAY TO GO ON TELEVISION TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT LEONARD PATRICK GONZALEZ.
HE CALLED THE KILLINGS TO BE EXECUTION-STYLE. HE SAID IT WAS A CONTRACT KILLING.
HE SAID THERE WERE DRUG CONNECTIONS. THAT MR. GONZALEZ WANTED TO BE AN MAFIA GUY.
THAT PSYCHIATRIST REFERRED TO MR. GONZALEZ WAS A INVETERATE LIAR AND CONTRACT MAN. HE SAID THAT THE PEOPLE WERE
AFRAID TO TESTIFY IN THE CASE BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF BEING WHACKED BY MR. GONZALEZ. HE SAID THAT MR. GONZALEZ WAS
INVOLVED IN THE MEXICAN MAFIA WHEN HE WAS, WHEN HE WAS PUT FORTH THE INFORMATION AHEAD THAT MR. GONZALEZ HAD REQUESTED BOND
HE PUBLICLY SAID, PEOPLE IN HELL WANT ICE WATER. HE CALLED MR. GONZALEZ, DIABOLICAL, EVIL AND
MANIPULATIVE. HE TALKED ABOUT THE WHACKS AND HITS HE HAD GIVEN ON OTHER PEOPLE THIS IS PERSUASIVE,
CONTINUOUS, OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE GONZALEZ CASE. THEY ALSO RELEASED THE
STATEMENTS OF, MANY STATEMENTS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT NEVER TESTIFIED IN THE CASE AT ALL. LEONARD PATRICK GONZALEZ, SR.,
PAMELA LOVE. THERE WAS ALSO NUMEROUS AND REPEATED NEWSPAPER STORIES ABOUT THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE AND
THAT THEY WERE SPECIAL NEEDS ADOPTED CHILDREN WERE INVOLVED. AND, FRONT PAGE STORIES ABOUT THE TRAGIC IMPACT THAT THESE
KILLINGS HAD ON THE FAMILY AND ESPECIALLY THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN. I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE TO ALSO CITE
FROM, IN THE MANNING CASE THEY DISCUSSED MANNING v. STATE, WHICH IS THE ONE CITED BY THE COURT, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT,
AND DENIAL OF THE MOTION, THEY CITE THE SINGER CASE WITHIN THE MANNING CASE. THIS COURT CITES A PREVIOUS
DECISION. IT SAYS IT BETTER THAN I CAN SAY IT. TALKING ABOUT PRETRIAL PUBLICITY
IN A CASE. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS LIKEWISE MUST BE REQUIRED TO ABSTAIN FROM MAKING PRETRIAL
STATEMENTS REGARDING DETAILED CRIME UNDER INVESTIGATION. SUCH STATEMENTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ADMITTED.
YET, IF THOSE WHO SIT ON THE JURY HAVE READ THE PRESS REPORTS, IT IS MOST DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE HUMAN
MIND TO NOT FILL IN FROM EXTRA JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE THAT WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED AT THE TRIAL. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN
THIS CASE BY DESIGN OF SHERIFF MORGAN. HE IS THE ONE, HE WASN'T BEING ASKED QUESTIONS.
HE WENT OUT AND HELD PRESS CONFERENCES SPECIFICALLY TO CALL MR. GONZALEZ A LIAR IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THIS CASE
TOOK PLACE AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THE JURY THAT WAS SELECTED TO HEAR THIS CASE HEARD THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE THEY
WEREN'T ASKED AT VOIR DIRE. AND IF THEY DID, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE A FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL JUROR IN THAT JURISDICTION. >> I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR SECOND
POINT ON APPEAL. THE, YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE GRAND JURY PANEL MAY HAVE BEEN TAINTED SOMEWHAT BY THE SHERIFF
MAKING AN APPEARANCE, SAYING HELLO TO JURORS WHEN THEY FIRST COME IN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THAT'S
ABOUT? WHAT WAS IT THAT THE SHERIFF DID? >> OKAY, WELL THAT STARTED WHEN
HE HAD-- WHEN THREE DIFFERENT FEDERAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGES IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WROTE A
LETTER TO SHERIFF MORGAN BECAUSE THE FEDERAL JURIES, THE JURIES FOR THE FEDERAL COURT AND STATE COURT, THEY ALL BEGIN THE
JOURNEY BY GOING TO THIS ONE PARKING LOT WHERE THEY'RE BROUGHT TO THE VARIOUS LOCATIONS, WHETHER YOU'RE ON THE
GRAND JURY, WHETHER YOU'RE ON THE STATE JURY, WHERE YOU WILL BE ARE BROUGHT TO THE PARKING LOT.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE PEOPLE SHOWING UP, POTENTIAL JURORS FOR FEDERAL CASES IN FEDERAL COURT WITH SHERIFF MORGAN'S BUSINESS
CARD, HE WAS GOING TO GREET THE JURORS AND IN HIS WORDS, AS HE ADMITTED LATER TO PUT A POSITIVE LIGHT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND SO THE FEDERAL JUDGE WROTE SHERIFF MORGAN A LETTER AND SAID, YOU'RE INTERACTION WITH THESE PERSPECTIVE JURIES RAISED
LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE COURT'S ABILITY TO SEEK FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURORS AND ESPECIALLY--
>> WHAT DATE IS THIS LETTER? >> MARCH 3rd, 2011. HE ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING MAJORITY OF THOSE ELECTED WILL
SERVE ON CRIMINAL JURIES. THE POTENTIAL FOR BIAS CREATED BY A SENIOR ELECTED PUBLIC LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER GREETING
PERSPECTIVE JURORS AND HANDING OUT BUSINESS CARDS TO THEM JUST PRIOR TO JURY SELECTION IS UNDENIABLE.
NOW THAT IS THREE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGES WHO WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY, ALL THREE OF THEM, WENT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT, FOR DISTRIBUTE COURT JUDGES, TO ASK SHERIFF MORGAN TO STOP DOING THIS.
SHERIFF MORGAN DID NOT STOP DOING THIS. YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, THIS IS NOT JUST ANY PERSON THAT IS
CREATING JURORS TO SERVE ON THE GRAND JURY IN THE GONZALEZ CASE. THIS IS THE VERY PERSON THAT IS APPEARED NUMEROUS TIMES, GOING
OUT OF HIS WAY TO, TO SLANDER MR. GONZALEZ, TO SAY HE IS INVETERATE LIAR, A HITMAN, A CON MAN, THIS IS A GUY GOING OUT
GIVING BUSINESS CARDS TO POTENTIAL GRAND JURORS IN THIS CASE. THAT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
THAT IS A CORRUPTION OF THE SYSTEM. >> YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT
THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE AND THE STATE COURTHOUSE ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER, THEY SHARE THE SAME PARKING LOT?
I DON'T KNOW MY WAY AROUND. >> THAT IS LITTLE USUAL, OBVIOUSLY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAPPENS IN
EVERY JURISDICTION BUT THE INFORMATION IS-- BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER TO THE INVOLVED AND TRIED TO GET SHERIFF MORGAN
TO STOP DOING THIS I DON'T THINK THIS IS DISPUTE, WE ALLEGE IN OUR 3.51 THEY ALL GO TO THE SAME SPOT AND TAKEN TO THE FEDERAL
COURT AS A TRIAL, THEY GATHER, A TROLLEY COMES TAKE THEM TO THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, TAKE THEM TO THE STATE.
THEY CAN BE A MEMBER, WHETHER CIVIL JURY, CRIMINAL JURY, WHATEVER. THAT IS LIKE A STARTING POINT.
THAT IS WHY MORGAN WAS GOING THERE. HE KNEW AT THAT WAS THE STARTING POINT FOR THE JURORS BECAUSE HE
WANTED TO MAKE POLITICAL POINTS WITH THE JURORS. HE WANTED TO PUT LAW ENFORCEMENT IN GOOD LIGHT.
>> IF A CITIZEN GETS A SUMMONS TO APPEAR FOR A FEDERAL TRIAL AND THOSE CITIZENS GET A SUMMONS TO APPEAR FOR STATE TRIAL, BOTH
GO FROM THE SAME PARKING LOT AND FROM THERE THEY ARE TAKEN BY TROLLEY TO THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE OR THE STATE
COURTHOUSE? >> THAT IS WHAT WE FOUND OUT TO BE THE SYSTEM, THAT IS WHAT WE ALLEGE IN OUR 38.51 MOTION THAT
THE STATE JURORS WOULD BE IN THE SAME PARKING LOT SHERIFF MORGAN ADMITTED HE WAS GOING TO SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THAT WAS
THE DAY THEY SHOWED UP FOR JURY SELECTION, EITHER MONDAY OR TUESDAY. THAT IS IN HIS LETTER AND
AFFIDAVIT HE GAVE IN RESPONSE. A LOT OF LAWYERS GOT INVOLVED. THE CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER TO THE INVOLVED.
HE FINELY AGREED HE WOULDN'T GO DOWN THERE WHEN BILLINGS CASES COMING UP FOR THE REGULAR JURY. HE SAID I COULD UNDERSTAND WHY
THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY PREJUDICIAL, I'M THE FACE OF THAT CASE. HE IS RIGHT ABOUT THAT.
HE IS THE FACE OF THE CASE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THE OTHER ISSUE.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH OUR DECISION IN CARTELLI? >> I DON'T BELIEVE I AM. >> IN CARATELLI WE HELD, A
DEFENDANT COULD ESTABLISH THE PREJUDICE ELEMENT OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM WITH THE RESPECT TO THE SELECTION OF
JURORS ONLY BY PROVING THAT A BIAS JUROR SERVED ON THE JURY. >> RIGHT. WELL I THINK WE HAVE A DIFFERENT
BIAS-- >> I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. YOU'RE TALKING, THIS IS CHANGE
OF VENUE. THE HEART OF THIS IS THIS, THIS FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO DO WHAT IT TOOK AS PART OF THE JURY
SELECTION. >> RIGHT. >> BECAUSE IT IS CERTAINLY CONCEIVABLE WE COULD HAVE HAD,
THE QUESTIONS YOU SAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED, IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED, THEN, THE RESPONSES MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUCH WE FELT IT
WOULD BE PERFECTLY PROPER TO SEAT THE JURY AND PROCEED, CORRECT THIS. >> YES.
BUT UNDERSTAND-- >> AT THE HEART, THE HEART OF YOUR WHOLE CLAIM REALLY IS INEFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL IN
JURY SELECTION. SO I'M HAVING A HARD-- PERHAPS I'M WRONG, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING EITHER SIDE HAS TALKED ABOUT IN
THIS CASE, AM I CORRECT CARATELLI? >> I DON'T THINK IT WAS CITED BY EITHER PARTY.
>> CARATELLI IS NOT A DECISION MADE IN SOME CORNER. THIS IS PART OF OUR JURISPRUDENCE IN FLORIDA ON
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIMS ON POST-CONVICTION WITH RESPECT TO A JURY SELECTION. SO I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME
UNDERSTANDING WHY THIS MIGHT NOT HAVE SOME POSSIBLE APPLICATION? >> WELL, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF
PREJUDICE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE ABLE TO PROVE THAT PRETRIAL PUBLICITY WAS SUCH IN THAT AREA.
AND THAT COMES FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THAT IS THE WHOLE BODY OF LAW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GO ON SO.
I HAVEN'T READ THE CASE. JUST TRYING TO DISTINGUISH IT, BUT I THINK PREJUDICE IS PRESUMED.
NOBODY, EVEN IF THEY SAY, YEAH I COULD SIT, IF YOU HAVE THAT MUCH INFORMATION, THEN YOU JUST CAN'T HAVE A JURY IN THAT COUNTY AND
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GOT THE SHERIFF WHO IS TRYING TO MAKE MR. GONZALEZ OUT TO BE PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE, FOR MONTHS AND
MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS, ALMOST DAILY, LEADING UP TO THIS TRIAL. A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF PRETRIAL
PUBLICITY IN THIS CASE. >> YOU'RE DOWN TO LIKE A FEW MINUTES FOR YOUR REBUTTAL. MIGHT WANT TO KEEP THAT.
>> I KNOW. I WILL SIT DOWN. >> GOOD MORNING. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS LISA HOPKINS I'M APPEARING ON BEHALF OF STATE IN THIS MATTER. SUMMARY DENIAL WAS WHOLLY
APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE, EVEN ACCEPTING THE FACTS AS TRUE IN APPELLANT'S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, HE
WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER THE LAW. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH ISSUE ONE.
CHIEF JUSTICE LABARGA, YOU ASKED IF THERE WAS A QUESTIONNAIRE. THERE WAS A QUESTIONNAIRE. IT WAS FILED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL
PRE-TRIAL ON THE DATE THAT THEY ADDRESSED THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE. THEY ACTUALLY ALSO ADDRESSED THE
QUESTIONNAIRE. THE QUESTIONNAIRE AT THE FIRST THREE QUESTIONS HAD TO DO WITH THE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY.
THE FIRST QUESTION BEING, HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE MURDER OF BYRD AND MELANIE BILLINGS THAT HAPPENED JULY 9th, 2009?
THE SECOND QUESTION BEING, WHAT HAVE YOU HEARD? PRIEST EXPLAIN. THEY WERE GIVEN THREE LINES TO
PROVIDE WHAT TYPE PUBLICITY THEY HEARD ABOUT THIS CASE. >> LET ME ASK YOU AS A POINT OF INFORMATION.
THE MURDER HAPPENED IN JULY OF 2009? >> YES, MA'AM. >> WHEN WAS THE JURY SELECTION?
>> THE JURY SELECTION WAS OCTOBER 25th OF 2010. SO A LITTLE OVER A YEAR LATER. AND THEN THE THIRD QUESTION, ON
THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS, HAVE YOU FORMED AN OPINION ON THIS CASE? PLEASE EXPLAIN. THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ACTED AS
INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE FOR THE JURORS. 84 OF PERSPECTIVE JURORS THAT WERE QUESTIONED ON
OCTOBER 25th, 2010, DID ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. THE RECORD REFERENCES THE QUESTIONNAIRES SPECIFICALLY ON
PAGE 207, EUGENIA HERNANDEZ, ULTIMATELY SELECTED FOR THIS JURY DID STATE THAT SHE, WHEN ASKED, YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE
INDICATES THAT YOU HAD HEARD ABOUT THIS CASE. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO PUT THAT ASIDE?
SHE INDICATED YES. I CAN PUT THAT ASIDE AND BASE THE, BASE MY DECISION ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURT.
>> WERE THERE ANY JURORS WHO WERE ACTUALLY EXCUSED BECAUSE OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY? >> YES, MA'AM.
CARLA GODWIN, RICHARD BETIX WERE DISMISSED FOR CAUSE. THEY ALL INDICATED FOLLOWED THE CASE AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
PUT THAT ASIDE AND BASE THEIR DECISION ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURT. JUSTICE CANADY, YOU BROUGHT UP
CARTELLI, I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT CASE. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS BIAS ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD FROM THE
JURORS AND I BELIEVE THAT COULD BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE AS WELL WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL FOR NOT PROPERLY ARGUING THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE. >> DO WE HAVE ANY CASES, WHERE I KNOW, THAT WE'VE HAD CHANGE OF
VENUE, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS BUT, HAVE WE HAD ANY CASES WHERE WE FOUND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL FOR NOT MOVING FOR CHANGE OF VENUE? >> I'M TO THE AWARE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR.
>> BECAUSE I'M TRYING, BECAUSE IT IS CARATELLI IS GOOD LAW. IF IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE PUBLICITY WAS SO PERVASIVE THAT
IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A FAIR JURY, COULD YOU SAY, WELL THEY SHOULD HAVE CHANGED VENUE. BUT SINCE HERE, AS YOU SAID
YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH OF A PROTECTION THAT WHAT WAS DONE SHOWS THAT IT WASN'T SO PERVASIVE, I THINK WE'RE BACK TO
A MIXTURE OF A CARATELLI STANDARD. THAT IS SORT OF A FRIENDLY QUESTION.
THERE COULD BE CASES WHERE IT IS SO CLEAR THIS WAS THE POSE NOTORIOUS MURDER EVER AND EVERYBODY KNEW ABOUT IT AND IT
WAS, TOOK FIVE DAYS TO GET A JURY. BUT THAT IS NOT THIS CASE? >> NO, YOUR HONOR.
UNDER THE RAWLINGS CASE TWO-PRONG TEST. >> MAYBE IT WAS RAWLINGS I WAS THINKING OF.
>> I BELIEVE IT IS RAWLINGS. THAT IS TWO-PRONG TEST. FIRST TEST LOOK AT TYPE OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY.
WAS IT INFLAMMATORY. >> WAS IT PRESENTED, THE TYPE OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, HE
SAID NOTHING WAS PRESENTED, THAT THE JUDGE JUST SAID, I READ IT OR I'VE SEEN IT OR WHATEVER. SO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PRESENTED
TO THE TRIAL JUDGE ABOUT PRETRIAL PUBLICITY? >> SO SEVERAL AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED WITH A MOTION FOR CHANGE
OF VENUE FROM PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO INDICATED HEARING EXTENSIVE PUBLICITY ABOUT THE CASE THROUGH NEWSPAPERS, THROUGH
THE RADIO, VARIOUS WAYS OF MEDIA AND-- >> WERE ANY, LIKE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES OFFERED TO THE TRIAL
JUDGE? WAS ANY, WERE THERE ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF NEWS REPORTS ABOUT THE CRIME?
>> SO, THERE WAS NO NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT WERE PRESENTED. HOWEVER, THE STATE DID STIPULATE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS
EXTENSIVE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. THEY AGREED THAT UNDER THE RAWLINGS CASE THE PROPER PROCEDURE WAS TO SEE IF THEY
COULD SEAT A JURY BEFORE THE JUDGE MADE A RULING ON THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE. SO IT'S, THE STATE'S POSITION
THAT THERE WAS NO DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT ONLY THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE BEING FILED IN WHICH IT IS
BEING PLACED BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT AND ADDITIONALLY IT SHOULD BE NOTED THE TRIAL COURT IS THE COURT THAT WAS ALSO THE
POST-CONVICTION COURT. SO JUDGE GEEKER WAS ABLE TO OBSERVE THE JURY WHILE IT WAS BEING CHOSEN.
HE WAS, HE ALSO HAD ACCESS TO THOSE QUESTIONNAIRES. BUT, ADDITIONALLY-- >> SO AFTER, WHAT'S THE SECOND
PRONG OF THE RAWLINGS TEST THAT IS? >> THE SECOND PRONG IS THE ACTUAL DIFFER CONSULT SELECTING
JURY. IN THIS CASE THEY DID NOT HAVE DIFFICULTY OF JURORS THAT INDICATED THEY COULD NOT PUT
THAT ASIDE THEY WERE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE DEFENSE USED ALL THEIR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES BUT DID NOT REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL.
THERE WERE NO CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE BASED ON PRETRIAL PUBLICITY THAT WERE DENIED. >> SO REALLY THE CLAIM ISN'T A
CARATELLI CLAIM, THEY COULDN'T SHOW ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ANY PROBLEMS SEATING THE JURY. BECAUSE ALMOST AS IF THEY
COULDN'T ESTABLISH THAT THIS CHANGE OF VENUE CLAIM ON ITS CASE, LACKS MERITS? >> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> SO I THINK YOU MADE YOUR POINT. >> JUDGE GEEKER IN HIS MOTION, IN HIS ORDER DID STOUT THAT EVEN
WITH THE ADDITIONAL NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN THE POST-CONVICTION MOTION IT WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED HIS MIND
AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED A MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE. >> I ASSUME THAT THE TRIAL ATTORNEY, ACCEPTED THE JURY
AFTER THEY HAD GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE, CHALLENGES, PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AND IN THIS CASE,
DIDN'T THE JUDGE ASK THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF ABOUT THE JURY? >> YES, YOUR HONOR, PAGE 241 OF
TRANSCRIPT, HE WAS ASKED, DO YOU ACCEPT THIS JURY AND HE INDICATED HE DID. SO, ADDITIONALLY TRIAL COUNSEL
ALSO ASKED THE JURY SPECIFICALLY PRIOR TO AT THE END WHEN EVERYONE WAS IN THE ROOM, CAN YOU ALL AGREE AND PROMISE ME AND
THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR, ALL OF US THAT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TRY TO CASE BASED UPON WHAT WEAR-TV SAYS OR SHERIFF MORGAN SAYS INS
HIS NEXT PRONOUNCEMENT OR WHAT THE NEWSPAPER SAYS, CHANNEL 5 OR WKLA OR WARG SAYS, YOU WILL ONLY HEAR THE EVIDENCE FROM THE STAND
AND HEAR FROM US BUT YOU ACTUALLY SEE, WE DON'T WANT, I ASSURE, NEITHER SIDE WANTS THE CASE TRIED IN THE MEDIA.
YOU SEE ALL THE TRAPPINGS, WE HAVE THEM ALL OVER THE PLACE, WHAT YOU HEARD ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU PROMISE MY CLIENT
PATRICK YOU CAN GIVE HIS DAY IN COURT, BE FAIR, IMPARTIAL, ONLY WHAT YOU HEAR IN THIS COURTROOM. THE VENIRE RESPONDED YES.
IN THIS CASE SUMMARY DENIAL WAS WHOLLY APPROPRIATE. EVEN WITH, EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO
PROVIDE ALL OF THE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THEREFORE THERE IS NO DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE AND THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE. SO IN EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, IN
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS FAILS. MOVE ON TO CLAIM TWO, SHERIFF MORGAN, SHERIFF MORGAN IN A
LETTER RESPONDING TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGES DID INDICATE THAT HIS PRACTICE SINCE 2007, WHEN HE WAS FIRST
ATTEMPTING TO BE ELECTED AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT, HE MADE IT A REGULAR PRACTICE TO GREET JURORS, GOOD MORNING, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR SERVICE, I UNDERSTAND THIS CAN BE IMPOSITION ON YOUR PERSONAL OR BUSINESS LIVES. YOU'RE VERY MUCH-NEEDED.
THANK YOU. AND GAVE THEM A BUSINESS CARD. THERE ARE NO ALLEGATIONS THAT HE SPOKE TO THEM ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC
CASE, AS, CHIEF JUSTICE LABARGA POINTED OUT. THIS JURY PARKING LOT HOUSED BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL JURORS,
PEOPLE ARRIVING FOR JURY DUTY. THERE IS NO WAY SHERIFF MORGAN COULD POSSIBLY KNOW WHO WAS GOING TO BE ON WHICH CASE, WHERE
IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE IN FEDERAL COURT OR STATE COURT, HE HAD NO IDEA WHO THE GRAND JURY WAS GOING TO BE.
NOW IT IS THE STATE'S POSITION THAT SHERIFF MORGAN'S CONDUCT OF CREATING JURORS AND THANKING THEM FOR THEIR SERVICE IS NOT
THE GROSS GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
>> MY ONLY CONCERN WITH IT, AS HE MENTIONED PERHAPS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARREST AND ALL THOSE THINGS, THE PUBLICITY THAT
GOES INTO THAT KIND OF THING AND THIS WAS, I REMEMBER WHEN THIS CASE HAPPENED, IT WAS A BIG CASE IN THAT AREA, YOU KNOW, IF YOU
HAVE THE SHERIFF GIVING PRESS CONFERENCE, TALKING ABOUT HOW WE GOT THIS GADD GUY, THIS GUY IS HORRIBLE AND CRIMINAL, MURDER,
ALL THESE THINGS, THE SHERIFF IS THE FACE ON TV EVERY DAY OR HOWEVER MANY DAYS HE DID IT, THEN ALL OF SUDDEN YOU'RE A
JUROR, AND YOU GOT THIS GUY HANDING YOU A CARD AS YOU WALK IN FOR JURY SERVICE, THERE IS A CONNECTION OF DOTS THERE BETWEEN
PERHAPS THAT MAY-- SO I, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE REVERSAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BUT IS
SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS SHOULD NOT BE DONE? >> WELL, THE CONDUCT THAT SHERIFF MORGAN WAS ENGAGED IN
HAS SINCE CEASED. HE IS NO LONGER GREETING JURORS AS THEY ARRIVE NOR JURY DUTY. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
SHERIFF MORGAN WAS NOT A WITNESS IN THIS CASE. IT IS LIKELY HE, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT CALLED TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL
HE LIKELY DID NOT TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. WHILE HE MAY HAVE BEEN THE FACE OF THE AGENCY THAT CONDUCTED THE
INVESTIGATION IN THE MEDIA, HE WAS NOT ACTUALLY A PART OF THIS SPECIFIC CASE. >> LET ME ASK, LET ME SEE IF I
HAVE THIS CORRECT. HE WAS NOT AT THE DOOR OF THE GRAND JURY ROOM. THIS WAS ALL IN THE PARKING LOT?
>> CORRECT. >> MY CONCERN, AGAIN HAVING BEEN A TRIAL JUDGE, WE TAKE SO MUCH CARE TO KEEP THE JURY OUT OF THE
WAY OF ANYTHING THAT MAY INFLUENCE THEM. I MEAN WE, JUDGES REALLY MAKE A BIG EFFORT TO ISOLATE THE JURORS
WHEN THEY COME IN AND TO KEEP THEM FROM HEARING ANYTHING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HEAR. THERE IS MOTIONS FOR MISTRIALS
BASED ON THE SLIGHTEST OF ALLEGATIONS. THEY MAY HAVE HEARD SOMETHING, AND THAT INTERRUPTS A TRIAL AN
HOUR, WHATEVER TO HEAR THAT MOTION. WE TAKE SO MUCH CARE TO DO THAT. AND, THEN WE HAVE THIS PERSON
WHO OBVIOUSLY, FOR WHATEVER REASONS IS PASSING OUT HIS CARD AFTER HE WAS ON TV. SAYING THIS PERSON IS WORST
THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO THIS PLANET. JUST KIND OF INTERFERES WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM, JUST SEEMS TO ME. >> I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR'S CONCERN BUT HIS CONDUCT DOES NOT
AMOUNT TO GROSS GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT. HE DID NOT, THERE IS NO ALLEGATIONS THAT HE SAID I HOPE
YOU INDICT LEONARD PATRICK GONZALEZ, JR., ON THIS CASE. THERE IS NO ALLEGATIONS THAT HE DISCUSSED ANY CASE.
HE WOULD NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO KNOW WHICH CASES WERE GOING TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE GRAND JURY WHEN HE ARRIVED.
>> MY QUESTION THOUGH IS, BOTH OF THESE CLAIMS, NEITHER CLAIM HAD EVIDENTIARY HEARING, CORRECT?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR. >> SO I'M WONDERING WHY SHOULDN'T THERE HAVE BEEN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THIS
CLAIM? WE, YOU SAY THAT THE SHERIFF JUST GAVE THESE OUT AND HE DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS WHO.
WE SAY IN THE OTHER, THE OTHER ISSUE, YOU KNOW, THE JURORS RESPONDED TO QUESTIONNAIRES ABOUT THE PUBLICITY BUT DO WE
HAVE A RECORD OF REALLY WHAT ALL OF THE PUBLICITY WAS? AND SO HOW DO WE REALLY EVALUATE IT SINCE THE TRIAL JUDGE DIDN'T
HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING? >> THE TRIAL JUDGE CAN EVALUATE THE RECORD ON ITS FACE AND ALSO THE PLEADINGS AND WHAT THEY
CONTAIN, THE FOUR CORNERS, WHAT WAS ALLEGED. AND, SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT, THEN, THAT THE I KNOW THAT OUR
CASE LAW IS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IF THE RECORD WILL SUPPORT THE TRIAL JUDGE'S DENIAL OF IT,
WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING? SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS RECORD IS SUFFICIENT, SO THAT WE WILL, WE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE
SAYING THAT, THERE WAS NO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR FAILING TO HAVE THIS CHANGE OF VENUE?
>> YES, YOUR HONOR. I THINK SUMMARY DENIAL WAS WHOLLY APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE, WHEN ON CLAIM TWO, YOU KNOW,
JUDGE GEEKER IN HIS ORDER DISCUSSED THE PREJUDICE THAT, HAD TRIAL COUNSEL FILED A MOTION TO CHALLENGE THE INDICTMENT, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL. IN THIS CASE THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING AGAINST MR. GONZALEZ AND HIS GUILT.
IN FACT, THE JURY, AT TRIAL, FOUND HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER STANDARD THAN A
GRAND JURY. IN THIS CASE, MR. GONZALEZ'S DNA WAS RECOVERED ON THE AK-47. 1 IN 320 TRILLION.
HIS DNA WAS ALSO FOUND A POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTOR ON ONE OF THE SHOTGUNS THAT WAS RECOVERED. THE BULLET CASINGS, BULLETS,
CASINGS RECOVERED WERE FROM THE 9MM SPRINGFIELD ARMORY SEMIAUTOMATIC PISTOL THAT WAS RECOVERED.
ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF BOTH CODEFENDANTS FLORENCE THORNTON, CONSISTENT WITH THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO, THAT WAS
RECOVERED FROM INSIDE OF THE HOME, THEY BOTH TESTIFIED THAT MR. GONZALEZ HAD THE NINE MILLIMETER AND HE WAS ONE THAT
SHOT MR. BILLINGS. HE WAS THE ONE THAT SHOT MRS. BILLINGS. SO, BASED ON THAT OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE A GRAND JURY WOULD HAVE REINDICTED MR. GONZALEZ. ANY CHALLENGE TO THE INDICTMENT WOULD HAVE MERELY SERVED AS A
DELAY TACTIC. SO THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING EVEN YOU THINK THERE IS DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE WHICH,
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT GO INTO THAT FIRST PRONG OF STRICKLAND AND RATHER FOCUSED ON THE PREJUDICE PRONG, HELD THAT THERE
WAS NO PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REINDICTED. HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PERFECT
TRIAL BUT A FAIR TRIAL. IN THIS CASE, MR. GONZALEZ GOT A FAIR TRIAL. ADDITIONALLY FOR CLAIM ONE,
SUMMARY DENIAL WAS FULLY APPROPRIATE BECAUSE JUDGE GEEKER WAS ABLE TO OBSERVE THOSE JURORS.
HE WAS ABLE TO COME UP TO DETERMINE THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO GET A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY. YOU HAD BOTH DEFENSE COUNSEL AND
THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF AGREEING TO THAT JURY WAS ULTIMATELY SELECTED. >> LET ME ASK YOU A RELATED
QUESTION. HOW LONG BEFORE ARREST AND GRAND JURY PROCEEDS? >> MR. GONZALEZ WAS ARRESTED
JULY 14th OF 2009. HE WASN'T INDICTED UNTIL AUGUST OF 2009, ABOUT A MONTH LATER. >> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU. UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? >> NO, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS I JUST ASK THAT YOU
AFFIRM THE LOWER COURT'S ORDER DENYING RELIEF ON CLAIMS ONE AND TWO AND SEND THE CASE BACK DOWN FOR A NEW PENALTY PHASE, THANK
YOU. >> THANK YOU. COUNSEL, TWO MINUTES. ACTUALLY A MINUTE 55.
>> JUST BRIEFLY. COUNCIL I THINK STATED EVEN IF YOU TAKE ALL THE ALLEGATIONS OF OUR 38.51 MOTION AS TRUE THE
MOTION MUST BE DENIED BUT WE ALLEGE SPECIFICALLY IN THAT MOTION THAT THE PRETRIAL PUB 'TIS IN THE CASE SO PERVADED AND
SATURATED THE COMMUNITY AS TO RENDER VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE A FAIR TRIAL. >> IS COUNSEL CORRECT WHEN SHE
DESCRIBED FOR US THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY? >> YEAH, THE QUESTIONNAIRE--
>> DID YOU GET THAT DURING YOUR MAIN ARGUMENT, THE JURORS WERE ASKED TO TELL WHAT THEY KNEW IF ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE?
>> THEY WERE JUST ASKED IF THEY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CASE. NOT THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT THEY KNEW.
>> SO YOU THINK THAT IT IS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE EVER COUNSEL TO NOT STATE IN THE PRESENCE OF JURORS IF THEY HAD
NOT HEARD IT AT ALL, ALL THIS BAD STUFF THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THAT IS THE WAY YOU SAY IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE? TO THAT IS WHAT THE COLEMAN CASE FROM THE 11th CIRCUIT I CITED IN MY BRIEF SAID,
INSUFFICIENT. BECAUSE GENERAL QUESTIONS LIKE, THE FACT THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE READ SOMETHING ABOUT THIS CASE
FROM ANY SOURCE INFLUENCE YOUR MIND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THE JURY SAID-- >> THAT CASE ASK THE JURORS IN A
QUESTIONNAIRE, LIST EVERYTHING YOU KNOW SUCH AS THIS CASE DID? >> I DON'T THINK THE QUESTIONNAIRE GAVE THE JURORS
WHAT, ELICIT THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT THIS KEMP CASE REQUIRES. I DON'T THINK THE
QUESTIONNAIRE-- >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION ASKED OF JURY? >> THE JURY WAS BASICALLY--
>> NOT BASICALLY. IT WAS IN WRITING. SO I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHAT EXACTLY WERE THE QUESTIONS?
>> ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE. >> ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE? >> I BELIEVE ASKED IF THEY KNEW BIG ABOUT THE CASE.
IF THEY KNEW THE BILLINGS MURDERS OR READ ANYTHING. >> COUNSEL MENTIONED THERE WERE THREE QUESTIONS.
>> OKAY. >> THAT DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF PRETRIAL PUBLICITY ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
>> THAT ONE OF THEM ASKED THEM IF THEY HAD HEARD TO DISCLOSE WHAT THEY HAD HEARD AND GAVE A SPACE FOR THAT.
I THOUGHT THAT IS WHAT I HEARD. ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS NOT ACCURATE? >> I'M SAYING EVEN IF THAT IS
ACCURATE THE, YEAH, I THINK IT IS ACCURATE. I WILL SAY YES IT IS ACCURATE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, YOU HAVE TO
DO MORE THAN SUCH GENERAL TYPE QUESTIONING. YOU HAVE TO GET INTO SPECIFICS WHAT THEY KNEW.
>> BUT THERE IS, THAT, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, WHAT WAS ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE, THAT IS A SPECIFIC QUESTION.
>> CORRECT BUT-- >> IT IS NOT JUST, DID YOU KNOW SOMETHING, YES, WHAT WAS IT? WHAT DID YOU KNOW?
AND THEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY SAID AND THEN YOU GO FROM THERE, RIGHT? >> CORRECT.
I DON'T THINK THAT IS SUBSTITUTE FOR INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE WHERE YOU GET EACH JUROR, ASK THEM WHAT YOU KNEW.
AND ADD THIS STUFF THEY HEARD FROM MORGAN BECAUSE IT WAS ALL OVER ESCAMBIA COUNTY. IT IS INESCAPABLE.
YOU CAN'T NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY THAT IS IMPROPER OR PROPER JUROR OUT OF THAT AREA. >> YOU'RE OUT OF TIME.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS. WE'RE IN RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES.
For more infomation >> THỜI SỰ THẾ GIỚI mới nhất 23/08/2018 | TOÀN HOA KỲ R,ÚNG Đ,ỘNG T.RUẤT P.HẾ DONALD TRUMP | TIN TỨC - Duration: 1:08:25. 
For more infomation >> ¿Por qué la reina Letizia intentó separar a su hija de Sofía? - Duration: 3:12. 
For more infomation >> Opel Corsa 1.0TURBO 90PK S&S INNOVATION 5DRS - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Opel Corsa 1.4 16V 90PK S&S FAVOURITE 5DRS - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Opel Corsa Corsa 1.4 16V FAVORITE 5DRS 90PK - Duration: 1:12. 
For more infomation >> Opel Insignia Business Executive Grand Sport 1.5 Turbo 165pk - Duration: 1:14. 
For more infomation >> IBM has invented coffee drones – and they predict when you need a cup | American Today - Duration: 3:12. 
For more infomation >> 【St90ry】Cody 跟 Songsen打架？？ 这不是 Clickbait！！ - Duration: 2:58. 
For more infomation >> Resultados En Vivo Sorteo Extraordinaria Domingo 19 Agosto 2018 Loteria Nacional de Panama Numeros - Duration: 1:15. 
For more infomation >> Warum reist Herzogin Meghan ohne Prinz Harry nach Kanada? - Duration: 2:24. 
For more infomation >> Typtoon SOULIK wind velocity 26m/s ? - Duration: 1:18. 
For more infomation >> Emma Smet en vacances: un cliché s.ex.y en maillot de bain au Portugal - Duration: 1:48. 
For more infomation >> Johnny Hallyday s'échappe dans un incroyable voyage en mer - Duration: 2:36. 
For more infomation >> Nissan Note 1.2 98pk DIG-S Connect Edition Sport Pack - Duration: 1:12. 
For more infomation >> Toyota Verso-S 1.3 VVT-i Aspiration Automaat - Duration: 0:53. 
For more infomation >> Audi A3 Sportback 1.4 TFSI AMBITION PRO LINE S G-TRON Navi/ Xenon/ ECC/ PDC - Duration: 1:13. 
For more infomation >> Audi A6 3.0TDI 245PK QUATTRO PRO LINE S - Duration: 1:08. 
For more infomation >> Boyfriend charged in plot to kill baby with tainted milk - Duration: 0:35. 
For more infomation >> How Much Money do I REALLY Need to Start as a Beginning Trader? - Duration: 6:26. 
For more infomation >> Méfiez-vous des notaires! (achat place de parking) - Duration: 5:56. 
For more infomation >> 8/21/18 9:12 PM - Duration: 1:15. 
For more infomation >> Místo nákupu dupaček Michal Štika smutní: Žádné miminko nebude! Co se stalo? - Duration: 2:49. 
For more infomation >> Koho chrání plůtek u sochy svatého Václava? | Gebrian PLUS/MINUS #9 | MALL.TV HD - Duration: 1:05. 
For more infomation >> Voici comment soulager la douleur du nerf sciatique coincé dans la région lombaire - Duration: 10:30. 
For more infomation >> NTN - Ném BOM TOP 1 Thế Giới 48 Kill PUBG - Duration: 14:28. 
For more infomation >> I'd be amazed if market is above where we are now in 10 years: Peter Eliades - Duration: 3:49. 
For more infomation >> Danser peut inverser les effets du vieillissement sur le cerveau d'après une étude - Duration: 6:58. 
For more infomation >> Meghan Markle et Harry, ce sera un garçon -[Nouvelles 24h] - Duration: 1:59. 
For more infomation >> New Overwatch Map Busan Announced, Is Themed After D.Va - Duration: 2:17. 
For more infomation >> Anticipazioni Sacrificio d'amore ottava e nona puntata: la replica su MediasetPlay - Duration: 4:37. 
For more infomation >> Faire ou ne rien faire ? Un exemple parmi d'autres - Duration: 1:54. 
For more infomation >> Toyota Verso 2.2 D-4D Luna Standkachel Cruise control Trekhaak Panoramadak - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Volvo C30 1.6D DRIVE SPORT AIRCO ECC CRUISE BLUETOOTH LMV17 RIJKLAARPRIJS - Duration: 0:53. 
For more infomation >> Quitter le Real pour la Juventus a été une décision facile, dit Ronaldo - Duration: 6:18. 
For more infomation >> La Roche-sur-Yon: Un homme tué et un second dans un état grave - Duration: 6:35. 
For more infomation >> East Village & The MoMa + Let's vlog a bit in French - Duration: 8:59. 
For more infomation >> BMW X3 1.8d AWD X-Drive Navigatie Leder Xenon 19 Inch NAP! - Duration: 1:10. 
For more infomation >> Toyota HiAce 2.5 D-4D Links & Rechts schuifdeur - Duration: 1:11. 
For more infomation >> ORGANISMES D'AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX ENTREPRISES ET COMMENT FAIRE… - Duration: 8:22. 
For more infomation >> Amanda Seales' Guide To F*ckboys - Duration: 3:10. 
For more infomation >> Volkswagen Polo 1.4-16V Comfortline AIRCO 5drs 1e Eigenaar! - Duration: 1:05. 
For more infomation >> Alyssa Edwards To Star In 'Dancing Queen' Docuseries On Netflix - Duration: 1:50. 
No comments:
Post a Comment