Title: Simpson v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC18-1238 
____________ 
 
JASON ANDREW SIMPSON, 
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Appellee. 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC19-700 
____________ 
 
JASON ANDREW SIMPSON, 
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
RICKY D. DIXON, etc., 
Respondent. 
 
January 13, 2022 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
Jason Andrew Simpson, a prisoner under sentence of death, 
appeals the denial of numerous guilt-phase claims raised in his 
motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal 
 
- 2 - 
Procedure 3.851 and petitions this Court for a writ of habeas 
corpus.1  Because we agree with Simpson that the State committed 
a Brady2 violation by failing to disclose that one of the witnesses 
was a confidential informant for the State, we reverse the denial of 
postconviction relief as to the guilt phase, vacate Simpson’s 
convictions for first-degree murder, and remand to the trial court 
for a new trial. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
Simpson was convicted in 2007 of the 1999 first-degree 
murders of “Big Archie” Crook,3 a drug dealer against whom 
Simpson was working as a confidential informant for the 
Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO), and Crook’s pregnant girlfriend, 
Kimberli Kimbler.  In the years leading up to the murders of Big 
Archie and Kimbler, Big Archie and his son, “Little Archie,” were 
heavily involved in the drug trade in Jacksonville.  Big Archie 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const. 
 
2.  Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 
 
3.  To distinguish between the victim, Archie Howard Crook, 
and his son, a witness, Archie Clyde Crook, the victim will be 
referred to as “Big Archie” and his son will be referred to as “Little 
Archie,” a nickname by which he is known. 
 
- 3 - 
supplied drugs that Little Archie would sell.  Simpson was one of 
their associates in the drug trade, as was George Michael Durrance.  
On the morning of July 16, 1999, Big Archie’s father discovered the 
bodies of Big Archie and Kimbler in the master bedroom of the 
home they shared.  They had been hacked to death with an axe. 
Detectives with the JSO responded to the scene.  There were 
no visible signs of forced entry to the home, and nothing was 
disturbed inside other than the master bedroom.  Detectives 
learned that Little Archie and his friend, Shawn Smallwood, had 
visited Big Archie’s house between 10 and 11 p.m. the night of July 
15, 1999.  They smoked marijuana, and Big Archie ate strawberry 
shortcake.  The medical examiner estimated that, judging by the 
state of the food in Big Archie’s stomach, he died within an hour 
after he ate.  Little Archie testified that when he left Big Archie’s 
home that night, he did not lock the door behind him, and Big 
Archie did not get up and lock it after him.  Both Little Archie and 
Smallwood denied any involvement in the murders. 
During their search of the property behind Big Archie’s house, 
detectives located an axe believed to be the murder weapon, a pair 
of socks, and two pieces of torn material on a barbed wire fence.  
 
- 4 - 
Four days later, on July 20, 1999, a pile of clothing was found 
behind an air conditioning unit at a church adjacent to Big Archie’s 
house, including a baseball cap, a black sweatshirt, black 
sweatpants, and a pair of tennis shoes.  The torn pieces of material 
found on the barbed wire fence matched the color and appearance 
of the sweatshirt and sweatpants located on the church property.  
Detectives also recovered a pager located next to the victims’ bed.  
The first number on the pager belonged to Simpson’s mother, with 
whom Simpson was living at the time. 
Evidence collected at the scene was processed by Florida 
Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and FBI analysts.  Two 
human head hairs were recovered from Kimbler’s right hand.  DNA 
analysis excluded Kimbler, Little Archie, Simpson, Smallwood, and 
Durrance as sources of the first hair but not Big Archie.  As to the 
second hair, Little Archie, Simpson, Smallwood, and Durrance were 
excluded as sources but not Kimbler.  DNA analysis of the 
scrapings from Kimbler’s fingernails excluded Simpson, Smallwood, 
and Durrance as potential donors of the material under Kimbler’s 
fingernails, but not Little Archie or Big Archie. 
 
- 5 - 
DNA from five bloodstains on the sweatpants was tested.  
Three of the stains were mixtures, the primary profile of which 
matched Kimbler’s DNA profile, and two from which Simpson could 
not be excluded as a minor contributor.  The other two stains 
contained a single DNA profile matching that of Big Archie.  The 
primary contributor of the DNA profile found on the waistband of 
the sweatpants was Simpson.  Assuming the DNA profile on the 
waistband was a mixture of two DNA profiles, Big Archie, Little 
Archie, Kimbler, and Smallwood were excluded as minor 
contributors.  Simpson was also the primary contributor of the DNA 
profile found on the leg cuffs of the sweatpants.  The profile of the 
minor contributor to the leg cuffs was unable to be determined.  
Although there was no blood on the sweatshirt, Simpson was the 
primary contributor of the DNA profile found on the neck.  Big 
Archie and Smallwood were excluded as minor contributors, but not 
Little Archie.  A white, crusty stain on the left shoulder of the 
sweatshirt contained a single DNA profile matching that of 
Simpson. 
Three hairs recovered from the packaging containing the 
sweatpants, sweatshirt, and baseball cap were subjected to DNA 
 
- 6 - 
testing.  One hair contained no DNA.  The other two hairs matched 
each other, and a partial DNA profile of those hairs matched 
Simpson’s DNA profile.  Big Archie, Little Archie, Kimbler, and 
Smallwood were excluded as the source of the two hairs.  A DNA 
profile could not be obtained from the baseball cap or socks. 
The State presented testimony from an expert who opined that 
the major profile of DNA on the clothing would be the DNA from the 
person who had worn the clothing most recently.  But on cross-
examination, the expert agreed that if one person wore clothing over 
an extended period of time and it was then put on by a second 
individual for a short period of time, he would not expect the major 
profile to come from the most recent wearer. 
Prior to the murders, JSO Detective Robert Hinson met with 
Simpson on June 10, 1999, shortly after Simpson’s release from jail 
on grand theft charges, because Simpson was willing to assist JSO 
with investigation of criminal activity.  Detective Hinson was 
investigating a group of individuals, including Little Archie, Big 
Archie, and Durrance, concerning another homicide.  On June 21, 
1999, Simpson contacted Detective Hinson to tell him that he had 
been in contact with Little Archie, who wanted Simpson to “hit a 
 
- 7 - 
lick,” which Simpson understood in that instance to mean that 
Little Archie was going to steal a car.  The next time Detective 
Hinson spoke with Simpson was on July 16, 1999, the day Big 
Archie and Kimbler’s bodies were discovered.  When Detective 
Hinson heard about the murders that morning, he contacted 
Simpson to gather information.  Detective Hinson met Simpson at 
Simpson’s mother’s house, where Simpson was staying.  When 
Detective Hinson arrived at the house, he noticed that Simpson had 
a “large gash” on his finger, which Simpson claimed he injured 
when hitting the electrical panel in his mother’s garage.  When 
Detective Hinson told him about the murders, Simpson expressed 
that he was not sorry about Big Archie’s death.  Simpson told 
Detective Hinson that Big Archie and Little Archie had been putting 
the word out on the street that Simpson was a snitch and was 
cooperating with the police.  Simpson said the last time he spoke 
with Big Archie was a couple of weeks prior when they went 
somewhere together to buy drugs.  Simpson told Detective Hinson 
that Little Archie had stolen fifty pounds of marijuana from Big 
Archie.  After speaking with Simpson, Detective Hinson notified the 
homicide detectives working this case that they should look further 
 
- 8 - 
at Simpson.  Detective Hinson also told the homicide detectives 
what Simpson said about Little Archie stealing his father’s 
marijuana.  A few days later, Detective Hinson obtained a voluntary 
DNA sample from Simpson. 
From July 1999 to fall 2001, detectives made little progress in 
the investigation of the murders.  Then, in fall 2001, while awaiting 
trial on a charge of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, Durrance 
notified JSO and the State Attorney’s Office that Simpson had 
confessed to him in 1999 that he murdered Big Archie and Kimbler.  
Durrance told detectives that in the days before the murders, 
Simpson came to his house and told him that he was going to rob 
Big Archie of $10,000.  Simpson also told Durrance that Big Archie 
offered him money to kill Durrance, but Simpson laughed it off and 
told Durrance he would never kill him.  A few days after the 
murders, Simpson asked Durrance to front him some drugs or loan 
him some money.  Assuming Simpson had robbed Big Archie as he 
said he intended to do, Durrance told him that he should already 
have money.  Simpson replied, “You know, I’m the one who killed 
him, you know I did.” 
 
- 9 - 
Armed with Durrance’s allegation that Simpson confessed, 
Detective Hinson called Simpson to come to the police station to 
speak with detectives.  When the detectives told Simpson that they 
needed his assistance with the “Crook/Kimbler” murders, Simpson 
initially said that he did not know them.  Once the detectives said, 
“Archie Crook,” Simpson stated that he knew him but looked at his 
watch and said, “It’s time for me to go, I’ve got to get to work.”  
Simpson then said, “You cannot hold me here, I do not scare easy.” 
A year later, in fall 2002, detectives learned that DNA 
matching Simpson’s was found on the clothing left on the church 
property.  Simpson was brought in for an interview.  When one of 
the detectives told Simpson that they wanted to talk to him about 
the “Crook and Kimbler” murders, Simpson replied that he did not 
know them.  When asked whether he knew “Big Archie,” Simpson 
said he knew him “a little.”  Simpson told the detectives that he had 
information on the case and wanted to share it, but he wanted a 
deal in a then-pending, unrelated case.  When the detectives told 
Simpson that they thought he committed the murders because they 
had his DNA at the crime scene, Simpson denied involvement and 
said that was impossible.  When the detectives told Simpson that 
 
- 10 - 
they were not in a position to offer him a deal, the interview 
concluded. 
Simpson was interviewed again the next day.  Detectives 
advised Simpson that other people were pointing fingers at him, 
including Durrance.  Simpson told the detectives that there was no 
loyalty between him and Durrance because he was the person who 
had initially provided the information to police that led to 
Durrance’s arrest and ultimate conviction in the trafficking case, 
and he suspected Durrance was aware of that fact.  Detectives 
showed Simpson pictures of the church and the clothes worn 
during the murders and told him that they had information that the 
clothes belonged to Simpson.  Simpson was then arrested for the 
murders of Big Archie and Kimbler. 
At trial, the defense’s theory of the case was that Little Archie, 
Smallwood, and Durrance were all involved in the homicides.  The 
defense argued during closing argument that Little Archie murdered 
Big Archie and Kimbler because he was jealous of Kimbler’s unborn 
baby and perhaps because there were drugs and a lot of money 
involved.  The defense further argued that Durrance lied about 
Simpson’s confession as retribution for Simpson’s cooperation with 
 
- 11 - 
law enforcement in the case against Durrance, and Durrance also 
had a motive to kill Big Archie because Big Archie had owed him 
money and wanted Durrance dead. 
Little Archie admitted during trial that he was angry and upset 
that Kimbler was carrying his father’s child.  Little Archie had 
hoped that his father and mother would get back together, and he 
was upset that his father was living with Kimbler.  Contrary to 
Simpson’s trial testimony, Little Archie denied having gone over to 
Simpson’s home in the days prior to the murder and denied having 
ever borrowed any clothing from Simpson.  Little Archie testified 
that Simpson was “a little bigger” than he was but admitted that he 
could wear sweatpants and a sweatshirt that were bigger than his 
normal size. 
Little Archie admitted that he “might have said” that Kimbler’s 
baby would never see the light of day.  He also admitted that he 
“could have said” that he would kill Big Archie, Kimbler, and the 
baby.  Brenda Crook Bennett, Big Archie’s sister and Little Archie’s 
aunt, testified that she advised Detective Williams that there was a 
time when Little Archie said, in front of Big Archie, that he would 
kill Big Archie, Kimbler, and the baby if they ever had a baby.  
 
- 12 - 
Several other witnesses reported having heard Little Archie say that 
Kimbler’s baby would never see the light of day. 
When Detective Williams interviewed Little Archie the day the 
bodies were found, Little Archie was aware of the positions in which 
the bodies were found, which he said that he learned from his 
grandfather, although his grandfather denied telling him.  During 
the interview, Little Archie seemed nervous and upset, and “jumped 
around somewhat on the explanations to the questions” police had 
asked.  Little Archie told police that he had taken some medication 
or had forgotten to take some medication. 
Simpson took the stand at his trial.  Simpson testified that he 
was cooperating with law enforcement in 1999.  After he got out of 
jail in 1999 in the grand theft case, Simpson rented a room in a 
trailer.  According to Simpson, one day when he was painting his 
mom’s house, Little Archie came over to see him.  Little Archie told 
Simpson that he heard Simpson was working with the police but 
then told Simpson he was joking.  Simpson asked Little Archie to 
drive him back to his trailer.  During the ride to the trailer, Little 
Archie asked Simpson if he could borrow some clothes because he 
wanted to “hit a lick,” meaning he was planning to steal a car.  
 
- 13 - 
Little Archie said he needed dark clothes because he did not have 
anywhere he was staying.  When they got to the trailer, Simpson 
told Little Archie that he could pick some clothes out from a pile of 
clothes on the floor while Simpson took a shower.  When Simpson 
got out of the shower, Little Archie was gone, but the top drawer to 
Simpson’s dresser was open, and Lieutenant Tom Waugh’s (one of 
the officers to whom Simpson was providing information) business 
card, which Simpson kept inside his dresser, was on the top of the 
dresser.  Simpson immediately called Lieutenant Waugh to tell him 
about his conversation with Little Archie and then called Detective 
Hinson to tell him what Little Archie planned to do.  Shortly after 
that, Simpson moved out of the trailer and in with his mother.  At 
the time of the murders in July 1999, Simpson was living at his 
mother’s house. 
Simpson testified that on the morning of July 16, 1999, the 
power went out at his mother’s house.  He scratched his finger 
trying to turn the power back on at the breaker box in his mother’s 
garage.  Simpson could not recall if he called the Jacksonville 
Electric Authority (JEA) that morning or not but recalled that the 
power came back on quickly, and he went back to sleep.  Sometime 
 
- 14 - 
later, Simpson’s mother woke him up, tossed him the phone, and 
told him Detective Hinson had called.  When Simpson met with 
Detective Hinson later that day, he did not bother to put a bandage 
on the scratch on his finger.  When Detective Hinson told him that 
Big Archie and Kimbler were dead, it took a while for him to process 
the news. 
Simpson testified that he did not, and had no reason to, 
murder Big Archie or Kimbler.  When asked about the clothing with 
the victims’ blood and his DNA on it, Simpson stated that Little 
Archie had taken that clothing from his trailer.  Simpson identified 
the articles of clothing in court as belonging to him.  With respect to 
the initial interview with the detectives in 2001, Simpson stated 
that the detectives were rude and had left him in the room by 
himself for a while.  When Simpson was leaving the police station 
that day, he told the detectives that he had to leave to go to work.  
Simpson denied that he told detectives he did not know Big Archie 
and Kimbler.  Simpson stated that he misunderstood and thought 
the detective asked him if he knew “Crews.”  Simpson was 
confused, but when the detective then mentioned “Archie and Kim,” 
Simpson said of course he knew them.  He told detectives that he 
 
- 15 - 
did not scare easily and was not afraid because one detective was 
yelling in his face and trying to scare him.  Regarding the second 
interview in fall 2002, Simpson denied that he said that he did not 
know who Crook and Kimbler were.  Simpson denied ever having 
been to Durrance’s house in 1999 and denied ever telling Durrance 
that he killed Big Archie and Kimbler. 
Simpson testified that he knew he was putting himself in 
danger by informing on Durrance.  He also testified that Big Archie 
told him that he had heard from Little Archie that Simpson was 
working for the police.  Simpson said he “might have” or “very 
possibl[y]” paged Big Archie the day before the murders because it 
would not have been out of the ordinary to do so. 
An electric reliability specialist with the JEA confirmed that 
there was a three-minute power outage at Simpson’s mother’s 
house at 7:46 a.m. on July 16, 1999.  JEA also received a call that 
morning from a caller identified as “Mr. Simpson,” approximately 
ten minutes after the outage. 
Simpson also presented the testimony of Terry Thompson, 
Little Archie’s cousin.  Thompson testified that he saw Little Archie 
and Smallwood at the RaceTrac gas station about three or four 
 
- 16 - 
miles from Big Archie’s house at around midnight on July 16, 1999.  
After he saw Little Archie and Smallwood, Thompson went to Big 
Archie’s house to see if Big Archie was there, but there was no 
answer.  Dana Guinn, the father of Thompson’s girlfriend, testified 
that he was with his daughter and Thompson in the car at the 
RaceTrac on July 15, 1999, at 11:30 p.m.  When Little Archie and 
Smallwood first pulled into the RaceTrac, Guinn thought they may 
have been a little jittery, but they were kidding around with 
Thompson, who got out of the car to talk to them.  Once they left 
the gas station, Guinn, Thompson, and Guinn’s daughter went 
directly to Big Archie’s house.  Thompson went around the back to 
tell Big Archie that they wanted to hook up a telephone line, but no 
one came to the door. 
The jury found Simpson guilty of both murders, and the trial 
court ultimately imposed a sentence of death for each murder.  
Simpson v. State, 3 So. 3d 1135, 1138-39 (Fla. 2009).  Simpson 
appealed, and this Court affirmed the convictions and sentences in 
2009.  Id. at 1149.  Simpson subsequently filed a motion for 
postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 
3.851 and several amendments thereto.  The trial court held a 
 
- 17 - 
twelve-day evidentiary hearing, and thirty-seven witnesses testified.  
Following the evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order 
on July 6, 2018, denying in part Simpson’s motion and granting in 
limited part Simpson’s motion as to the penalty phase under Hurst 
v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), receded from in part by State v. 
Poole, 297 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1051 
(2021). 
II.  ANALYSIS 
Simpson now appeals the denial of relief as to the guilt phase 
raising numerous claims4 and has petitioned this Court for a writ of 
 
4.  The claims raised by Simpson are (1) trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to object to improper arguments during the 
State’s closing arguments; (2) the State violated Giglio v. United 
States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), by knowingly misrepresenting 
Simpson’s release date, and trial counsel was ineffective in failing to 
respond with readily available evidence that would have shown the 
State’s position was false; (3) the State committed a Giglio violation 
by knowingly misrepresenting Kimbler’s injuries in closing 
argument; (4) newly discovered evidence in the form of Durrance’s 
recantation; (5) the State violated Giglio and Brady by knowing and 
concealing evidence tending to show that Durrance’s testimony was 
false; (6) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to discover and use 
the impeachment evidence referenced in claim 5; (7) the State 
violated Giglio by knowing that its alternative explanation for how 
Simpson could have entered the house was false, and trial counsel 
was ineffective for failing to show that it was false; (8) the State 
violated Brady by failing to disclose that Little Archie was a 
confidential informant against Durrance in another case; (9) the 
 
- 18 - 
habeas corpus.  Of the numerous Brady claims presented in this 
appeal, we conclude that one claim is dispositive—the State’s failure 
to disclose that prior to Simpson’s trial, Little Archie had served as 
a confidential informant against Durrance in another case.  
 
State violated Simpson’s due process rights by failing to preserve 
the evidence in this case for future DNA testing; (10) the 
postconviction DNA testing warrants a new trial; (11) trial counsel 
was ineffective for failing to independently test the DNA evidence; 
(12) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to effectively consult with 
the court-appointed DNA expert; (13) trial counsel was ineffective 
for failing to find and use Shannon Elliot, who allegedly had 
information inculpating Little Archie; (14) trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to interview and prepare Misty McNeish to 
testify at trial so that she would inculpate Little Archie; (15) trial 
counsel was ineffective for failing to show that Little Archie knew 
the positions of the bodies before anyone could have told him; 
(16) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discover and present 
evidence that Little Archie lied about his whereabouts the night of 
the murders; (17) trial counsel was ineffective for presenting an 
incoherent closing argument; (18) newly discovered evidence in the 
form of testimony from Little Archie and Terry Thompson that 
tended to corroborate Simpson’s defense that Little Archie had 
taken the clothes from Simpson’s trailer a few weeks before the 
murders; (19) the State committed Brady and Giglio violations by 
misleading the jury into believing that the last number to page Big 
Archie belonged to Simpson’s mother; (20) the State violated Brady 
or Giglio or trial counsel was ineffective related to Detective Hinson’s 
testimony; (21) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use 
available work records to corroborate Simpson’s explanation that he 
had to leave the interview with detectives because he was late to 
work, and the State violated Brady by concealing the fact that 
Simpson told the detectives this before they mentioned the 
murders; and (22) cumulative prejudice warrants relief. 
 
- 19 - 
Accordingly, we focus our analysis on this claim and do not address 
the remaining claims. 
“Brady requires the State to disclose material information 
within its possession or control that is favorable to the defense.”  
Davis v. State, 136 So. 3d 1169, 1184 (Fla. 2014).  To establish a 
Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate that “(1) the 
evidence was either exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence was 
willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State; and (3) because 
the evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced.”  Id.; see 
also Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 (“[T]he suppression by the prosecution of 
evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process 
where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, 
irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”). 
“Under Brady, the undisclosed evidence is material ‘if there is 
a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to 
the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.  
A “reasonable probability” is a probability sufficient to undermine 
confidence in the outcome.’ ”  Guzman v. State, 868 So. 2d 498, 506 
(Fla. 2003) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 
(1985)).  “The determination of whether a Brady violation has 
 
- 20 - 
occurred is subject to independent appellate review.”  Davis v. State, 
928 So. 2d 1089, 1113 (Fla. 2005). 
Simpson argues that the State violated Brady by failing to 
disclose that prior to Simpson’s trial, Little Archie had served as a 
confidential informant against Durrance.  At the evidentiary 
hearing, FDLE Agent Mark Brutnell testified that he was involved in 
a multi-agency, multi-jurisdiction narcotics investigation in 1999-
2000 that resulted in the arrest and prosecution of Durrance for 
drug trafficking.  He and then-JSO Officer Bates5 authored an 
application for a wiretap on Durrance’s phone.  Little Archie was 
“Source Number Five” in the wiretap application, which detailed 
Little Archie’s account that Durrance had threatened to harm Big 
Archie after the cocaine Durrance had fronted him was stolen and 
Big Archie could not repay Durrance, as well as Durrance’s ruse of 
selling them fake cocaine to get his money back.  Little Archie was 
not paid for the information, but he was in jail at the time and 
hoping to get consideration regarding his own then-pending federal 
 
 
5.  At the time of the evidentiary hearing, Bates was an FDLE 
Agent. 
 
- 21 - 
counterfeiting charges.  Little Archie also gave an interview from 
which FDLE gleaned information.  Agent Brutnell did not indicate 
that Little Archie received any benefit from his interview with FDLE.  
Agent Bates also testified that Little Archie was a source used in the 
wiretap application for Durrance and that he was not paid for his 
information.6  He did not recall if Little Archie was attempting to get 
favorable treatment or leniency on some criminal charges against 
him. 
There was testimony at the evidentiary hearing that Little 
Archie told an assistant state attorney or one of the investigators 
that Durrance had killed a drug dealer in West Palm Beach.  When 
asked about information he had provided to the State at the 
evidentiary hearing, Little Archie testified that he told JSO he 
thought Durrance had killed Big Archie in retaliation for the drug 
disputes.  He told Assistant State Attorney Mark Caliel that 
Durrance had admitted to killing the dealer in West Palm Beach 
who had sold Durrance the fake cocaine.  After Little Archie testified 
as a State’s witness against Simpson, the State brought Little 
 
6.  In listing Little Archie as a witness against Durrance in the 
trafficking case, the State listed his address as “c/o Chuck Bates.” 
 
- 22 - 
Archie down to West Palm Beach where he testified against 
Durrance. 
The trial court denied this claim, finding no evidence that 
Little Archie acted as a paid, confidential informant in Durrance’s 
trafficking case and that there was no indication that these 
agencies made any deals with Little Archie for his cooperation.  As a 
result, the trial court did not reach the issue of prejudice.  After 
careful review of the entire record in this case, we do not agree with 
the conclusion of the trial court that there was no Brady violation, 
and we conclude that the Brady violation undermines our 
confidence in the outcome of Simpson’s trial. 
Here, the first two prongs of Brady are satisfied—this was 
impeachment evidence, and the State does not dispute that it 
should have but failed to turn over this information.  As to the 
materiality prong, the Court’s opinion in Gorham v. State, 597 
So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1992), in which it was faced with a similar 
scenario, is instructive.  In Gorham, the Court wrote: 
The State contends that Johnson’s informant status 
in other cases cannot be deemed Brady material in the 
instant case and that there is no evidence that Johnson 
was a confidential informant in this case.  We do not 
agree with the State’s contentions.  The Florida Evidence 
 
- 23 - 
Code provides that the credibility of a witness may be 
attacked by showing that the witness is biased.  
§ 90.608(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1981).  A witness’ relationship 
to a party, personal obligations to a party, or employment 
by a party all have been recognized as proper questions 
on cross-examination going to the interest and bias of the 
witness.  Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 608.4 
(2d ed. 1984). 
The State admits that Johnson was a confidential 
police informant on other occasions.  Even though the 
police did not reveal Johnson’s informant status to the 
state attorney who prosecuted Gorham’s case, the state 
attorney is charged with constructive knowledge and 
possession of evidence withheld by other state agents, 
such as law enforcement officers.  State v. Coney, 294 
So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1973); see also State v. Del Gaudio, 445 
So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So. 2d 45 
(Fla. 1984).  At the evidentiary hearing on Gorham’s 
3.850 motion, the state attorney stated that had he 
known about Johnson’s informant status he would 
“certainly” have given that information to the defense 
because it “comes within the Brady definition.”  Receipts 
from the Pompano Police Department show that Johnson 
received substantial payments for confidential 
information relating to other cases.  A receipt dated June 
9, 1982, also indicates that while Johnson was 
incarcerated during the period between Gorham’s two 
trials she received ten dollars related to this case from 
the Pompano police.  This information was never 
disclosed to Gorham, and, thus, the defense was unable 
to attack Johnson’s credibility by showing that she was 
biased. 
In evaluating Brady claims, courts must determine 
whether the withheld evidence is “material,” rather than 
just favorable to the accused.  Evidence is material “only 
if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence 
been disclosed to the defense, the result of the 
proceeding would have been different.”  United States v. 
Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985).  The standard for 
 
- 24 - 
determining “reasonable probability” is “a probability 
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”  Id.  
Given this trial’s circumstantial nature, Johnson’s role as 
the State’s key witness, and the defense’s inability to 
impeach Johnson based upon the undisclosed evidence, 
we find that such a reasonable probability exists in this 
case. 
 
Id. at 784-85 (footnote omitted). 
Here, Little Archie was confidential “Source Number Five” in 
the wiretap application that led to the arrest and prosecution of 
Durrance for drug trafficking.  As in Gorham, because Little Archie 
had been an informant in another case, he had a “relationship to a 
party” that was a potential source of bias requiring disclosure.  And 
disclosure of a witness’ informant status is required even where 
there is no evidence that the witness was given favorable treatment 
in exchange for the information.  See Hendrix v. State, 908 So. 2d 
412, 424 (Fla. 2005) (concluding that the State’s failure to disclose 
that one of the witnesses was a confidential informant for the State 
“was impeachment evidence that should have been disclosed” where 
the record refuted the claim that the witness was treated favorably 
or provided anything in exchange for the testimony). 
The State argues that even if this evidence could have had 
impeachment value, it was not material as Little Archie was 
 
- 25 - 
impeached at trial with his own motive to kill his father.  “However, 
the fact that a witness is impeached on other matters does not 
necessarily render the additional impeachment cumulative.”  
Cardona v. State, 826 So. 2d 968, 974 (Fla. 2002); see also United 
States v. Rivera Pedin, 861 F.2d 1522, 1530 (11th Cir. 1988) (“We 
acknowledge that Ream’s credibility had been eroded due to the 
testimony the defense elicited from him on cross-examination.  The 
disclosure of Ream’s conversation with Miller, however, would not 
have been merely repetitious, reinforcing a fact that the jury already 
knew; instead, ‘the truth would have introduced a new source of 
potential bias.’ ” (quoting Brown v. Wainwright, 785 F.2d 1457, 
1466 (11th Cir. 1986))).  Here, the jury did not hear testimony 
regarding Little Archie acting as a confidential informant; therefore, 
this would have introduced a new source of potential bias. 
With regard to the significance of this evidence, we note that 
both Durrance and Little Archie were crucial witnesses for the 
State.  Simpson was convicted primarily based on Durrance’s 
testimony at trial that Simpson confessed to him and 
circumstantial evidence of Simpson’s DNA on clothes found a few 
days after the murders on the property adjoining the home of Big 
 
- 26 - 
Archie and Kimbler.  At trial, Simpson did not deny that the clothes 
found belonged to him but provided an explanation as to how his 
clothes ended up near the murder scene—Little Archie took them 
from his house.  And the State’s expert testified, on both direct and 
cross-examination, that he could not exclude Little Archie from 
some DNA mixtures present on the clothes.  Contrary to Simpson’s 
trial testimony, Little Archie denied having gone over to Simpson’s 
trailer in the days prior to the murder and denied having ever 
borrowed any clothing from Simpson.7  Accordingly, evidence that 
Little Archie served as a confidential informant against Durrance 
would have allowed the defense to impeach Little Archie on a new 
source of bias (one not revealed to the jury at trial).  See Napue v. 
Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959) (“The jury’s estimate of the 
truthfulness and reliability of a given witness may well be 
determinative of guilt or innocence, and it is upon such subtle 
factors as the possible interest of the witness in testifying falsely 
that a defendant’s life or liberty may depend.”). 
 
7.  Little Archie’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing 
corroborated Simpson’s testimony at trial regarding having been to 
Simpson’s trailer, borrowing clothes, and finding the detective’s 
business card. 
 
- 27 - 
Little Archie also testified at the evidentiary hearing that he 
told JSO that he thought Durrance killed Big Archie in retaliation 
for the drug disputes and that he told Caliel that Durrance 
admitted to killing the drug dealer in West Palm Beach who sold 
Durrance fake cocaine.  Simpson argues that with this evidence, 
the defense could have challenged why the State quickly dismissed 
Little Archie as a suspect because he was a valuable source of 
information.  The relationship between Simpson, Little Archie, and 
Durrance was of critical importance in this case, and the 
information Little Archie provided to law enforcement pertaining to 
Durrance casts a different light on this relationship.  At trial, the 
defense’s overarching theory of the case was that Little Archie, 
Smallwood, and Durrance were all involved in the homicides.  
Simpson denied that he killed Big Archie and Kimbler, denied ever 
having been to Durrance’s house in 1999, denied ever telling 
Durrance that he killed Big Archie and Kimbler, and testified that 
he had no reason to murder Big Archie and Kimbler.  Further, the 
person who was known to have seen Big Archie and Kimbler within 
an hour of their deaths and the only person to refute Simpson’s 
testimony that Little Archie had taken the sweatclothes from 
 
- 28 - 
Simpson’s trailer—Little Archie himself—also had motive and 
opportunity to kill the victims and had threatened to kill them, as 
well as Kimbler’s unborn child.  Little Archie also knew details of 
the crime, including the position of the bodies of Big Archie and 
Kimbler.  Moreover, at the time of Simpson’s trial, Little Archie was 
incarcerated in federal prison for conspiracy to distribute drugs.  
Therefore, the undisclosed evidence that Little Archie was a 
confidential informant for the State was material. 
Further, Little Archie’s testimony and credibility were of 
significant consequence when we consider the lack of evidence 
linking Simpson to the scene of the crime.  Despite the DNA 
evidence in this case, it was not a slam dunk for the State, and 
there were a number of weak points.  As counsel pointed out in 
closing, the police failed to investigate much of the evidence they 
would later testify incriminated Simpson, the shoes found at the 
church did not match the prints at the crime scene, the tire tracks 
from the scene did not match any of the vehicles Simpson had 
access to at the time, the crime scene technicians failed to collect 
much of the trace evidence from the room in which the victims were 
found, law enforcement failed to record any of the interviews during 
 
- 29 - 
their investigation, some of those who handled the evidence failed to 
follow standard operating procedures, and the State only tested a 
small fraction of the biological evidence from the crime scene.  
There was no evidence placing Simpson in Big Archie and Kimbler’s 
home on the night of the murders and no evidence to rebut 
Simpson’s testimony that he was at his mother’s house at the time 
of the murders.  And although there was evidence of a confession, it 
came years after the murders from a witness who both had a motive 
to kill one of the victims himself and who was in jail due to 
information provided by Simpson. 
Accordingly, the State’s failure to disclose evidence that Little 
Archie had served as a confidential informant against Durrance 
constitutes a Brady violation and undermines our confidence in the 
outcome of this case.8 
 
8.  We also agree with Simpson that trial counsel’s 
performance was deficient in failing to object to several of the 
State’s comments in closing argument.  However, these errors 
standing alone do not constitute grounds for a new trial.  
Accordingly, because we conclude that the Brady violation alone 
merits reversal for a new trial, we do not address these claims or 
cumulative prejudice in further detail. 
 
- 30 - 
III.  CONCLUSION 
Because we conclude that the Brady violation undermines 
confidence in the outcome of the trial, we reverse the denial of 
postconviction relief as to the guilt phase, vacate Simpson’s 
convictions for first-degree murder, and remand to the trial court 
for a new trial.  In light of the vacation of the convictions and 
remand for a new trial, Simpson’s petition for a writ of habeas 
corpus, raising claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, 
is dismissed as moot. 
It is so ordered. 
POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., 
concur. 
CANADY, C.J., dissents with an opinion. 
MUÑIZ, J., recused. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION 
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
CANADY, C.J., dissenting. 
 
Because I would conclude that the State’s failure to disclose 
evidence that Little Archie had served as a confidential source 
against Durrance was not material under Brady, and does not 
undermine confidence in the outcome even when considered 
cumulatively with counsel’s deficiency in failing to object to several 
 
- 31 - 
of the State’s comments during closing argument and other 
improper comments made by the State that were raised on direct 
appeal, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief 
as to the guilt phase.  I would also deny Simpson’s habeas petition 
on the merits.  I therefore dissent. 
The majority first claims that the fact that Little Archie 
provided confidential information that was used in a wiretap 
application made in Durrance’s trafficking case means that “he had 
a ‘relationship to a party’ that was a potential source of bias 
requiring disclosure” under our decision in Gorham v. State, 597 So. 
2d 782 (Fla. 1992).  Assuming that the State was required to 
disclose Little Archie’s history as an informant against Durrance, its 
failure to do so was not material.  The fact that Little Archie had an 
interview9 with Agent Brutnell and then-JSO Officer Bates from 
which they “gleaned” information about Durrance while Little 
Archie was in jail on his own federal charges does little, if anything, 
 
9.  Although the record indicates only one such interview took 
place on January 7, 2002, the majority seems to imply there were 
two.  See majority op. at 20-21. 
 
- 32 - 
to suggest Little Archie was biased toward the State in this case.10  
Agent Brutnell testified at the evidentiary hearing that by providing 
information about Durrance, Little Archie was attempting to obtain 
a benefit in his then-pending federal counterfeiting case; he was not 
attempting to aid law enforcement because of a bias toward law 
enforcement or the State.  Indeed, as a serious drug dealer (which 
Little Archie admitted to being when providing the information used 
in the wiretap application) under prosecution, he was likely quite 
biased against law enforcement.  Under questioning by the defense 
at Simpson’s trial, Little Archie testified that he was familiar with 
Officer Bates and did not like him, stating, “He was a narcotics 
agent, sir.  I was out there selling drugs.  He was trying to put me in 
jail.”  Further, at the time of Simpson’s trial, there were many other 
 
 
10.  Agent Brutnell testified at the evidentiary hearing that 
FDLE did not consider Little Archie a “true,” “documented,” 
confidential source and there was no documentation or record that 
he was one of the twelve confidential sources who provided 
information used in the Durrance wiretap affidavit; Agent Brutnell 
just happened to remember that he was.  Agent Bates also testified 
that JSO did not consider Little Archie a “documented” informant 
with respect to the Durrance investigation; since he was not paid, 
there would not have been any record of him having been a 
“source.” 
 
- 33 - 
and greater reasons why the jury could have concluded that Little 
Archie was biased towards the State in this case, e.g., this was the 
prosecution of his father’s alleged murderer and he would have 
wanted justice to be done, or, as Simpson theorizes, Little Archie 
was the real murderer of Big Archie and Kimbler and therefore had 
every reason to want Simpson convicted instead of facing 
prosecution himself.  There was no testimony at the evidentiary 
hearing that any agency made a deal with Little Archie for the 
information he provided.  And at the time, Little Archie was facing 
federal counterfeiting charges, for which none of the agencies 
involved in Simpson’s case had the authority to offer Little Archie 
any sort of consideration.  To the extent that Little Archie had a 
relationship with law enforcement that would show bias, it was 
exceedingly minimal. 
The failure to disclose a witness’s informant status is not 
always material.  The majority cites Hendrix v. State, 908 So. 2d 
412 (Fla. 2005), majority op. at 24, a case in which we determined 
that the failure to disclose the confidential informant status of one 
of the witnesses against Hendrix, Roger LaForce, was not material.  
During postconviction proceedings, Hendrix alleged that the State 
 
- 34 - 
violated Brady by failing to disclose that LaForce had previously 
been a confidential informant for the State in investigations 
unrelated to Hendrix’s case.  908 So. 2d at 423.11  The trial court 
determined that LaForce’s history as an informant was 
impeachment evidence that should have been disclosed but that 
Hendrix was not prejudiced by the failure to disclose this 
information.  Id. at 424.  On appeal, this Court agreed that Hendrix 
was not prejudiced.  Id. at 424-25.  The Court noted that “LaForce’s 
prior assistance as a cooperating defendant, which occurred over a 
year prior to Hendrix’s arrest, would have had a minimal impact, if 
any,” and that “[t]he more damaging evidence regarding LaForce, 
that he heard [Hendrix’s] confession while in prison and contacted 
the State because he was seeking a deal, had already been 
presented to the jury.”  Id. at 425. 
Here, Little Archie provided the information used in the 
wiretap application in Durrance’s case in January 2000; Simpson 
was not arrested until almost three years later in September 2002.  
 
11.  Hendrix also alleged that LaForce was given favorable 
treatment in exchange for his testimony at Hendrix’s trial, which 
was refuted by the record.  908 So. 2d at 424. 
 
- 35 - 
Simpson’s jury was aware that Little Archie was incarcerated on 
federal drug charges at the time he testified at Simpson’s trial.  The 
jury also was made aware of “the more damaging evidence” 
regarding Little Archie—that he had threatened to kill his father, 
Kimbler, and their unborn child; that he had a financial motive to 
kill his father; that he had the opportunity to commit the murders; 
and that he knew the positions in which the bodies were found.  As 
in Hendrix, because of this “more damaging evidence” regarding 
Little Archie’s bias that was presented to the jury, his prior 
assistance as one of the twelve confidential sources who, nearly 
three years prior to Simpson’s arrest, provided information used in 
the Durrance wiretap application, would have had a minimal 
impact, if any.  Even if the jury had heard “testimony regarding 
Little Archie acting as a confidential informant,” majority op. at 25, 
which “would have introduced a new source of potential bias,” id., 
its minimal impact certainly would not have put the entire case “in 
such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict,” 
Sweet v. State, 293 So. 3d 448, 451 (Fla.) (quoting State v. Huggins, 
788 So. 2d 238, 243 (Fla. 2001)), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 909 
(2020). 
 
- 36 - 
The majority seems to find meritorious Simpson’s argument 
that if he had been aware at the time of his trial that Little Archie 
had provided the JSO with his “thought [that] Durrance killed Big 
Archie in retaliation for the drug disputes and that [Little Archie] 
told Caliel that Durrance admitted to killing the drug dealer in West 
Palm Beach,”12 he “could have challenged why the State quickly 
dismissed Little Archie as a suspect [which was] because he was a 
valuable source of information.”  Majority op. at 27.13  But that 
argument is nonsensical because Simpson was also a valuable 
source of information (seemingly even more valuable than Little 
Archie based on the record before us) to the JSO, Clay County 
detectives, the DEA, and the FBI in many state and federal 
investigations involving murder, robbery, burglary, auto theft, and 
narcotics.  He was providing information regarding the potential 
involvement of Durrance, Little Archie, and other individuals in 
 
12.  Simpson did not include this point within his Second 
Amended Motion for Postconviction Relief below. 
 
 
13.  The evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing was 
that Little Archie was dismissed as a suspect because he passed a 
polygraph. 
 
- 37 - 
another homicide and informing on Little Archie’s involvement with 
drugs and burglaries and Big Archie’s narcotics operation. 
Further, the fact that Little Archie informed against Durrance 
does nothing to support Simpson’s theory at trial that Little Archie, 
Durrance, and Smallwood were responsible for the murders, as the 
majority suggests.  To the contrary, it cuts against it.  If Little 
Archie and Durrance were—as the defense contends—cohorts in the 
murders of Big Archie and Kimbler, it seems highly unlikely that 
Little Archie would draw attention to Durrance by implicating him 
in an unrelated murder.  Such an action could potentially 
boomerang on Little Archie by provoking a counter-accusation 
regarding the murders of Big Archie and Kimbler.  The majority 
does not explain how it believes “the information Little Archie 
provided to law enforcement pertaining to Durrance casts a 
different light on this relationship” of “critical importance” between 
Simpson, Little Archie, and Durrance.  Majority op. at 27.  But the 
fact that Little Archie informed on Durrance after the murders 
suggests that Little Archie and Durrance did not have the type of 
relationship that would be expected of cohorts in a double murder.  
And although the majority suggests that Little Archie having 
 
- 38 - 
informed on Durrance would have affected the jury’s perception of 
his credibility at Simpson’s trial, it again fails to explain how.14  The 
jury already likely perceived Little Archie as less than credible 
based on his potential motives in seeing Simpson convicted, his 
criminal record, and his evasiveness and apparent memory lapses 
during his testimony. 
The fact that Little Archie had been a source to law 
enforcement in unrelated matters is of little, if any, relevance, and 
in light of the other information known to the jury about Little 
Archie, would not have been an indication that he had a particular 
bias toward law enforcement or the State.  There is no reasonable 
probability that had this information been disclosed to Simpson, 
the result of Simpson’s trial would have been different.  I would 
thus conclude that the State’s failure to disclose that Little Archie 
had previously informed against Durrance was not material and did 
 
14.  And the majority’s claim that “Little Archie’s testimony at 
the evidentiary hearing corroborated Simpson’s testimony at trial 
regarding having been to Simpson’s trailer, borrowing clothes, and 
finding the detective’s business card,” majority op. at 26 n.7, is not 
only irrelevant to the materiality of the Brady claim but also 
inaccurate.  Nothing in Little Archie’s evidentiary hearing testimony 
corroborates Simpson’s trial testimony that Little Archie borrowed 
the sweatclothes used in the murders from his trailer. 
 
- 39 - 
not prejudice Simpson.  Assuming, however, that the first two 
Brady prongs were satisfied, I would include this claim in a 
cumulative prejudice analysis. 
I agree with the majority that trial counsel’s performance was 
deficient in failing to object to several of the State’s comments in 
closing argument—namely that “[p]hysical evidence cannot be 
wrong,” “[i]t is impossible for the criminal to act without leaving 
behind traces of his presence,” and “there is no unidentified 
forensic evidence belonging to anybody else inside of this murder 
scene and there is no unidentified blood on any of this clothing.”  
While these comments standing alone did not prejudice Simpson, I 
would consider them in a cumulative prejudice analysis along with 
the State’s failure to disclose Little Archie’s history as a confidential 
source and the improper prosecutorial comments that were 
identified on direct appeal as capable of being construed as 
improper bolstering.  See Simpson v. State, 3 So. 3d 1135, 1147 n.7 
(Fla. 2009). 
I would conclude that in the context of this case, the 
comments that “[p]hysical evidence cannot be wrong” and “[i]t is 
impossible for the criminal to act without leaving behind traces of 
 
- 40 - 
his presence” did not prejudice Simpson.  In fact, I would view the 
State’s argument that it is impossible for a criminal to act without 
leaving behind traces of his presence to have been favorable to 
Simpson, because there was no physical evidence inside the crime 
scene linked to Simpson.  I would find any prejudice from the 
State’s comment that “there is no unidentified forensic evidence 
belonging to anybody else inside of this murder scene and there is 
no unidentified blood on any of this clothing” to be very limited in 
light of the brevity of the statement and the contradictory evidence 
presented at trial.  The comments made by the State in its closing 
argument that we stated on direct appeal could be construed as 
impermissible bolstering, were brief and only minimally prejudicial. 
Individually, the prejudice resulting from the improper 
prosecutorial comments and the failure to disclose that Little Archie 
had previously acted as a confidential source ranges from not 
prejudicial to minimally prejudicial.  Even when considered 
cumulatively, I would conclude that the prejudice of these errors is 
minimal and does not undermine confidence in the outcome of 
Simpson’s trial. 
 
- 41 - 
Because I conclude that the failure to disclose Little Archie’s 
history as a confidential source was not material under Brady, that 
the cumulative effect of this failure together with the improper 
comments made by the State during its closing do not undermine 
confidence in the outcome of the trial, and that Simpson’s other 
claims are without merit, I would affirm the denial of postconviction 
relief as to the guilt phase and deny Simpson’s habeas petition on 
the merits. 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, 
Michael R. Weatherby, Judge 
Case No. 162002CF011026AXXXMA 
And an Original Proceeding – Habeas Corpus 
 
John S. Mills, Thomas D. Hall, Courtney Brewer, Jonathan Martin, 
and Bailey Howard of The Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; and 
Sonya Rudenstine, Gainesville, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant/Petitioner 
 
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael T. Kennett, Assistant 
Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee/Respondent 
 
Amity Boye and Ariel Oseasohn of White & Case LLP, New York, 
New York, and Raoul G. Cantero of White & Case LLP, Miami, 
Florida, 
 
for Amici Curiae the Innocence Project and Innocence Project 
of Florida