F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au gust 29, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1379 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 0- 08 17 9- CV-1 -DLG CLEO DOUGL AS LECROY, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant,
ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DE PA RT MEN T O F CO RRE CT IO NS , Respondent -Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Augus t 29 , 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H a nd H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. HU LL , C ircuit Judg e: In198 6, the de fe ndant, Cl eo D ougl as L eC ro y , w as c onvi ct ed of tw o c ount s of f ir st d eg re e m

ur de r an d tw o c ount s of

r obbe ry w ithaf ir earm a nd s en te nc ed

toFor the sake of simplicity , we r efe r to Cleo L eCroy as “the defe ndant” a

nd his brother, 1 J on L eCroy , by

his full name. Th e State of

F lor ida joi ne d th e de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n, fi le d in state c ourt , to va c ate his 2 sentenc e base d on Roper. 2 de ath f or one of the m ur de rs . A ft er

e xhaust ing his state -c ourt r em ed ie s, the 1 de fen da nt fil eda § 2 25 4 p et it io n c ha ll en gi ng hi s co nv ic ti on s an d d eat h s en te nc e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e de fe ndant’ s § 2 254 pe tit ion , but gr an te d ac er

tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

on s ev er al iss ue s. A ft er

or al a rg um en t i n th is a

ppe al , the F lor ida Su pr em e Co urt va cate d th e de fe ndant’ s de ath se nte nc e ba se d onRo pe r v. Si m m ons, 125 S
. Ct
. 118 3 ( 2005 ), be ca use he w as 17- y ears -o ld at the ti m e of his of fe nse s. S ee Ro pe r 125 S. Ct
. a t 12 00 ( co nc lud ing that “ [t ] he E igh th and

2 Fo urte en th A m en dm en ts f or bid im posi tio n of

the de ath pe na lty

on o ff en de rs w ho
were u nd er t he ag e o f 18 when th ei r cri m es were co m m it te d” ). Acco rd in gl y , we need only address the defendant’ s guilt -phase issues. A fter r eview, we dism iss as
m oot th e defe ndant’s § 2254 petiti on to th e extent it challenges his no w vac ated de ath se nte nc e, but

a ff irm the de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ion s. I. Background Be ca use the state c ourts d en ie d c er ta in g uil t- pha se c la im s ba se d onthe
ove rwhe lm ing e vid en ce a ga ins t the de fe ndant, w e fi rs t r ev ie wthe tr ia l e vid en ce in great detail re garding the m urders of John and Gail Hardem an. That e vidence3

includes th e defe ndant’s confe ssion s to the pol ice and his ex-girlfriend, as we ll as phy sic al a nd c ir cu m stanti al e vid en ce c or ro bor at ing the de fe ndant’ s c onf es sio ns. A . T h e Cr i me O n January

3, 198 1, w hil e in the Mi am i are a, the de fe ndant i nf orm ed his e xgirlfriend, C arol H undl ey , that he had been in the Br own’ s Farm Ar ea and had used a m an’ s .30-06 rifle w ithou t the m an’ s knowledge. T he Brow n’ s Farm Ar ea is a hun tin g are a tha t i s 21 squ ar e m ile s of de nse ly w oode d, r

ugge d te rr ai n inP al m Beac h County , F lorida. T he defendant told Hundley that he and his fam ily

we re goin g back up to th e Br own’ s Farm Ar ea and m ade ar

rangem ents to m eet her there t h e n e x td a y. T he ne xt d ay , on J anuary 4, 198 1, the de fe ndant e nc ount er ed W ill ia m S te ve Mart in i n th e Br ow n’ s F ar m A re a an d a ske d if

he ha d se enthe H ar de m an s. Mart in inf orm ed the de fe ndant whe re he ha d la st s ee n th e H ar de m an s. A t the ti m e, the de fen da nt was c arrying a sh ot gu n a nd a .22 cal ib er p is to l i n a si de ho ls te r. Appr oxi m at el y

te n m inu te s late r, Mart in s awthe de fe ndant e xc hangi ng ple as an tr ie s w iththe H ar de m an s. Appr oxi m at el y 45 m inu te s a ft er

that, Mart in heard a shotgun b last, f

ollowed by

a serie s of sm all-caliber shots
. Although it wa s not unu sua l t o he ar

suc h gunf

ir e dur ing hun tin g se as on, the de fe ndant h ad j ustThe de fenda nt also informed his brother , J on L eCroy , that he had shot a man and whe re 3 he had shot the ma

n. J on L eCroy

beca me ver y upset and stormed of

f. 4 kil le d Jo hn and G ai l H ar de m an . T he de fe ndant h ad a lso sto le n th e H ar de m an s’

. 30- 06 r if le a nd . 38 h an dgun
. Whe n th e de fe ndant w en t ba ck to his f am ily ’ s c am

psi te , he im

m ed ia te ly spok e w ithH undl ey , w ho h ad dr ive n up to the a re a to m ee t hi m . T he de fe ndant inform ed Hundley

that a m an had shot at him and that he shot the m an in the head
w ithhis sho tgun. T he de fe ndant t old H undl ey that the m anha d sh ot at hi m because he w as using the m an’ s rifle. T he defendant also told Hund ley that he had ta ke n th e m an ’ s w al le t and s how ed he r the $30 he ha d take n. A ft er te lli ng Hundley that he had thrown aw ay his jac ket that had a bullet ho le in it from wher e the m anha d a lle ge dly

sho t a t hi m , the de fe ndant b ur ne d hi s pants . 3 T he de fe ndant and C ar ol H undl ey the n dr ove to w he re he ha d hi dde n th e Hard em an s’ .30 -0 6 ri fle an d .3 8 h an dg un an d p ut th em in th e b ackof t he tru ck
. On the w ay

back to Miam i, F lorida, the defe ndant also to ld Hundley that a w om an ha d c om e runni ng o ut o f the bus he s and tha t he ha d sh ot h er thr ee ti m es w ithhis

. 22 p ist ol, onc e in the he ad , ne ck , a nd c he st. A t tha t t im e, the de fe ndant s ai d
som ethin g a

bout the re not be ing a ny

w itn es se s.Ab out thre e or fo ur we e ks pr ior

to e arl y Janu ary 19 81 , th e de fe nd ant h a d s po ke n to 4 Willi am E lle tt a

bo ut E lle tt’ s p ur c ha sin ga ri fl e fr om h im. 5 A ft er r et ur nin g to Mi am i, the de fe ndant g av e the
. 38 h an dgunto Jon Le Croy
. The def

endant plann ed on selling John Hardem an’ s .30-06 rifle. On January

5, 1981, John Hardem an did no t show up for work. T his caused his pare nts to be co m e co nc er ne d, a nd the y

c ont ac te d th e au tho ri tie s. A lso on January 5, the de fe ndant s old

Joh n H ar de m an ’ s . 30- 06 r if le to W ill ia m

E lle tt fo r $100
. 4 O n a

ppr oxi m at el y

January 6, 198 1, the de fe ndant t old Caro l H undl ey

that he
wa s goin g to sho ot sand th rough th e barr el of his .22 pistol to dam age the barr el
an d pr ev en t a

ba lli sti cs m at ch
. T he de fe ndant a lso tol d H undl ey that he w an te d to go b ac k to the a re a to c ut the bul le ts o ut the bod ie s so the y c oul d no t be tr ac ed
. B. The S earch O n January

7, 198 1, the auth or iti es ini tiate d an in te nsi ve se ar chf or the H ar de m an s. A lth oughthe auth or iti es w er e ab le to loc at e the H ar de m an s’ c am psi te
an d ve hic le , the y

w er e una ble to fi nd any

sig n of the H ar de m an s. T he re fo re , the
au tho ri tie s pl ac ed

a le rt s inthe loc al m ed iase ek ing a ny inf orm at ionr eg ar din g th e H ar de m an s.Duringthe def endant’ s state cour

t trial, sever al witnesses we re pr epar ed to testify that 5 J on L eCroy

had stated that he had se en the Ha rdema ns alive af

ter 11:00 a.m. The state trial cour t e xclu de d s uc h te sti mony

on he ars ay g ro un ds
. 6 O n January

9, 198 1, Joy ce L eC ro y , the m oth er of the de fe ndant and J on L eC ro y , inf

orm ed ar ad io s ta tio n th at

he r fam ily

ha d se enthe H ar de m an s w hil e hunt ing
. T he L eC ro y s, inc lud ing the de fe ndant and J on, vol unt ee re d to he lp w ith the se ar cha nd arr ive d inthe hun tin g are a on J anuary 9, 198 1. O n th e dr ive to the Br ow n’ s F ar m A re a, the de fe ndant and J on L eC ro y r ode with H undl ey

and Richard Fr eshour (a fr iend of the LeC roy s). During the drive, the de fe ndant and J on L eC ro y c ar ri ed kni ve s, a nd the de fe ndant s ta te d th at he hoped h is brother, Jon Le Croy , c ouldcut the bullets ou t before the a utho rities found th e bodies. Fr eshour also heard the defendant state that he shot th e m an be ca use the m ansho t a t hi m

f ir st. Jon LeCr oy

inform ed the authorities that he had last seen th e H ardem ans at 8:00 a. m . on January

4, 1981, in the Brow n’ s Farm Ar ea. T he defendant inform ed the auth or iti es that he ha d la st s ee n th e H ar de m en s a t 11 :00 a . m . on J anuary 4, 1981 , in the Br own’ s Farm Ar ea. 5 St ill on J anuary

9, 198 1, the de fe ndant a ssi ste d th e au tho ri tie s inse ar ch ing
ana re a tha t ha d be enpr ev iou sly se ar ch ed se ve ra l t im es . D ur ing the se ar ch , the de fen da nt di sc ov ered a ba ck pa ckan d b oa t-c us hi on s b el on gi ng to th e Hard em an s.7

A cc or din g to the a

uth or iti es , the de fe ndant c oul d no t have f ound the ba ck pa ck a nd boat-cushio ns without p rior knowledge of their w hereabouts because they we re covered w ith bu shes behin d a hilly are a. The L eCroy s went hom e on January 9, 1981. When the authoriti es called T om L eC ro y ( the de fe ndant’ s and J on L eC ro y ’ s f athe r) to se e if

the y w oul d be
re tur nin g th e ne xt d ay

to as sis t w iththe se ar ch , T om L eC ro y state d th at

he w oul d ha ve to ca ll ba ck
. Asho rt w hil e la te r, T om

L eC ro y c al le d th e au tho ri tie s and state d th at

he a nd h is s ons w oul d r et ur n to the a re a to s earc h f

or the H ar de m an s, but that he w an te d to c ont inu e the se ar chw ith out a ny pol ic e of fi ce rs c om ing w ith t h e f a mi l y. O n January

10, 198 1, the L eC ro y s a ga in a ssi ste d th e au tho ri tie s inthe
se ar chf or the H ar de m an s. B oththe de fe ndant and J on L eC ro y pr of es se d to be great tra ckers w ho could find the Har dem ans if they we re given enough tim e. The def endant began searching for the Hardem ans with State W ild Life O ff ic er S te ve Ch an ce . D ur ing the se ar ch , the de fe ndant p ro fe sse d to se e tr ac ks o f the Har dem ans but Office r Chance did no t see anything
. The def endant further cl ai m ed that G ai l H ar de m anw as in “ thi ck br ush” a nd tha t of

fi ce rs w oul d no t f

ind the H ar de m anw om anw iththe m an . T he de fe ndant c la im ed to ge t a ll thi s inf orm at ionf

ro m “ sig ns” he w as r ea din g inthe w oods
. Whil e supp ose dly tr ac kin g8

the H ar de m an s, the de fe ndant i nf orm ed O ff ic er Ch an ce that the H ar de m an s w oul d not be f ound a liv e an d th at

the w om anw oul d be a w ay f ro m the m an . Whil e the de fe ndant b eg anhis se ar chw ithO ff ic er Ch an ce , he spe nt m ost

of January 10, 198 1, se ar ch ing f

or the H ar de m an s w ithE lsi e Be van, a60- y ear- old vol unt ee r re se rv e W ild

L if e O ff ic er w iththe F lor ida

G am e an d F re sh W at er

F ish Co m m iss ion
. T he de fe ndant c am e up t o B ev anon J anuary 10, 198 1, a nd t old

he r tha t he
co uld “ tr ac k” he r to the “ bodi es . ” Be van sa id t his w as str an ge be ca

use , a t the tim e, pe opl e w er e not

a ssu m ing that the H ar de m an s w er e de ad
. T he de fe ndant stated that he would help Bevan if she we nt into the woods alone with him
. Af ter obt ai nin g pe rm iss ionf

ro m he r supe rv iso rs , Be van a cc om panie d th e de fe ndant i nto the w oods
. The tw o started their searc h where the defendant had found th e backpack and cushio ns the day

before. When they

got to th e ar ea, there w ere other officer s pr es en t. T he de fe ndant the n a ske d B ev anif she w oul d take a10- m inu te w al k w ith him
. Again, she agreed. D uring all this tim e, the defendant claim ed to be a great tracker
. During his search w ith Bevan, the defe ndant stated th at he sawsigns that tw o C ubans and a

“ nig ge r” ha d dr ag ge d G ai l H ar de m an . T he de fe ndant a lso sa id9

that he saw signs that Joh n Har dem an wa s dead and that Gail H ardem an wa s
runni ng and s cr eam ing
. Whe n B ev antol d th e de fe ndant tha t sh e w as am oth er a nd w or ri ed about the H ar de m an s, the de fe ndant a ske d he r “ w hy w or ry ?” the y a re de ad
. S hortly the re af te r, Be van a ske d w hy

the y w er e se ar ch ing so r

ugge d an are a. T he de fe ndant i nf

orm ed he r: “ If y ou p ut a gunto he r he ad , she ’ d have to go
an ywhe re.” Be va n t he n a sk edth e d efen da nt ho w so m eo ne co ul d fo rce t wo pe opl e, w ho w er e ar

m ed , to go any

w he re . T he de fe ndant r es pond ed : “ If y ou p ut a gun to h er

he ad , Joh n w oul d have to put his down. ” T he de fe ndant a lso tol d Be van th at

Joh n H ar de m anha d aguna nd tha t G ai l H ar de m anha d a
. 38 h an dgun in h er poc ke t. A lth oughBe van ne ve r sawa ny sig ns o f the H ar de m an s, the de fe ndant pr of es se d to se e sig ns o f w he re G ai l H ar de m anw as r ap ed a nd knoc ke d ou t. T he defendant also claim ed to see signs th at afte r G ail Hardem an had been knocked down, she got up runni ng and scream ing, and try ing to get back to see if her husb an d w as de ad
. Whe n B ev ana ske d if he ha d he ar d G ai l sc re am ing , the de fen da nt rep li ed“ no , I was a m il e fro m th ere.” The de fen da nt als o t ol d B ev an th athe was s m art er t ha n t he po li ce o ffi cers . The def endant further stated that the police thou ght th at he w as dum b, “but th ey10

are dum b because they

are looki ng for blood
. . . . T hey won’ t find any

blood .” Whe n B ev ana ske d w hy , the de fe ndant r es pond ed that “ if y ou s tr an gle som eb ody there is no bloo d.” The def endant also claim ed that he saw signs that the bodi es ha d be enc ove re d. When Bevan asked him

to take her to the bodies, the defendant said several tim es that he c oul d no t t ak e he r to the bod ie s y et be ca use “ the y w oul d th ink

that I did it
. ” T he de fe ndant s ai d th at his br oth er

w oul d take the m

to the bod ie s th e ne xt da y . Whe n B ev ana ske d hi m w hy som eo ne w oul d br ing the H ar de m an s w ay out he re to kil l the m , the de fe ndant s ai d, “ W el l, be ca use , y ou know , if

the y ge t the bo di es , th e p ol ic e can id en ti fy what th ey

were s ho t wi th , what ki nd of g un .” N o di sc ove ri es w er e m ad e on J anuary 10, 198 1. A ft er the auth or iti es c al le d of

f the se ar chf

or the nig ht, Mr
. a nd M rs . L eC ro y (the defendant’ s and Jon Le Croy ’ s parents) inform ed the authorities that th ey
w oul d no t be c om ing ba ck to the a re a to s earc h f

or the H ar de m an s. H ow ev er , the
au tho ri tie s of

fe re d to pic k- up the de fe ndant and J on L eC ro y so tha t the y

c oul d
as sis t i n th e se ar ch
. O n January

11, 198 1, the auth or iti es pic ke d up the de fe ndant and J on L eC ro y so tha t the y

c oul d a ssi st i n th e se ar chf or the H ar de m an s. O nc e the11

defendant and Jon Le Croy arr ived at the Brown’ s Farm Ar ea, the defendant asked Jon L eC ro y

“ w ha t are w e goi ng t o do ?” J on L eC ro y the n dr ewac ir cl e on the gr ound
. JonL eC ro y

that sa id, “ H er e is whe re w e ar e now , ” an d dr ewali ne th ro ug h t he cir cl e. Jo n LeC ro y co nt in ue d: “ W e are go in g b ackth ere a nd when we pass this tree with this const ruction tape on it, I w ant y ou (the defendant) to get off because I am

going to take Elsie [ Bevan] straight back into the Brow n’ s Farm be cau se I ha ve a gu t fe el in g I a m go in g t o t ak e h er ri gh t t o t he bo di es .” When the defendant and Jon Le Croy separated, the defendant began searching with O ffice r Chance. T he defendant inform ed Of ficer Chance that they shou ld b e se ar ch ing f

or som ethin g w hit e be ca

use G ai l H ar de m anw as w eari ng the rm al und er

w ear an d th at

the y sho uld a lso be se ar ch ing f

or adiam ond ri ng be ca use G ai l w as w eari ng a

diam ond ri ng. About 20 m inu te s a ft er

the de fe ndant and J on L eC ro y se parate d, Jon Le Croy found Jo hn Hardem an’ s body
. When the call cam e in that John Hardem an ha d be enf

ound , the de fe ndant k ep t say ing that “ I knowshe [ G ai l H ar de m an ] is
ar ound he re . S he ha s go t t o be a liv e. ” H ow ev er , asho rt w hil e la te r, the
au t h o r i t i e s f

o u n dGa i l Ha r d e man ’s b o d y. JohnH ar de m andie d f

ro m asin gle sho tgun sl ug t o th e he ad
. H is w al le t and
a . 30- 06 hunt ing r if

le w er e m iss ing
. G ai l H ar de m an ’ s bo dy w as f oundThe United States Supre me Court denied the de fenda nt’s petition for ce rtiorar i. L eCroy 6 v. Florida , 473 U.S. 907, 105 S. C t. 3532 (1985). 12 approxim ately

400 feet aw ay . A . 38 revolver belong ing to her w as m issin g, her trousers wer e unzipped, and her brassiere wa s partially undo ne. How ever, there
w er e no s ign s of

astr uggl e, the body

ha d no t be enm ove d, a nd a ll of Mr s. H ar de m an ’ s j ew el ry

w as pr es en t. S he die d f

ro m thr ee . 22 c al ibe r, c los e- range guns hot s to the c he st, he ad , a nd n ec k. A ft er the dis co ve ry

of the bod ie s, the auth or iti es que sti one d th e de fe ndant
an d Jo n L eC ro y . T he L eC ro y f am ily vol unt ee re d to tr av el to the pol ic e statio n f or furthe r que sti oni ng. A ft er the L eC ro y s arr ive d a t the pol ic e statio n, the de fe ndant
rece ived and waived his rights and gave two inculpatory statem ents to the po lice. C. The D efen dant’ s Conf essions A ft er the state tr ia l c ourt or igi na lly sup pr es se d th e de fe ndant’ s c onf es sio ns
an d othe r ev ide nc e, the state appe al ed
. T he F lor ida S upr em e Co urt r ev er se d and ordered that the defendant’ s following confessio ns and oth er e vidence wer e adm issib le. See State v. Le Croy , 461 So.2d 88, 90-93 (Fla. 1984 ). 6 O n January

11, 198 1, a ft er

be ing a dvi se d of

his Mi randar igh ts, the defendant gave the following taped confession at the police station to d etectives W el ty a nd C ope land.A hea d is a hunting a rea in the Br own’s F arm Ar ea. 7 13 D ef en dant: I w as pr etty -w el l l ost . I sawapig a nd I sho t hi m w itha slu g and i t w en t r ic oc he tin g aro und. W el ty : Y ou s hot

apig ? D ef en dant: A t a

pig
. W elty : Okay D ef en dant: H it a tr ee , br oke the tr ee in ha lf a nd w en t i nto ahe ad
. I 7 he ar d it bounc ing a ro und. W el ty: Let m e k in d o f – I am go in g t o k eep in te rrupt in g you . O k a y? D e f e n d a n t : O k a y. W el ty : Y ou s hot

apig w ithaslu g. What ki nd o f gun w er e y ou carr y ing ? D ef en dant: . 12- gauge , sin gle sho t. W el ty : Wha t br an d? D o y ou knoww as it S m itha nd W es son, Ithaca? Defen da nt : I do n’t k no w. W elty : You don’t know the nam e? You are an (inaudibl e)

hunt er. D ef en dant: It

a in’ t m y gun . I t w as aS m itha nd W es son. W el ty : Whose is it? D ef en dant: My

br oth er ’ s.14

W el ty : W er e y ou c ar ry ing a ny oth er w ea pons ? D ef en dant: Y es , I c ar

ri ed a8m m a nd a
. 22. W el ty : Y ou w er e carr y ing thr ee gun s? D ef en dant: N o, no, no. W el ty : I j ust

w an t t o kn owthe gun s y ou w er e carr y ing
. D e f e n d a n t : 8 mm. We l t y: Wh e n , S u n d a y? D ef en dant: Y es , sho tgun and a
. 22. W el ty : Wha t ki nd o f
. 22. De fendant: I have no idea. W el ty : Pi sto l? D ef en dant: Y es , pis tol
. W el ty : Whose pis tol ? De fendant: Mine. W el ty: Whe re i s i t at no w? De fendant: Hom e. W el ty : It

is at hom e? O kay . Y ou w as hun tin g. Y ou s hot a t a pig. Apparently

y ou m issed and th e bullet was ri co ch et ing a ro und?15

D ef en dant: Inthe – i nsi de of ahe ad it w en t – W el ty : H owlon g have y ou b ee n hunti ng? D ef en dant: Ro ughl y

10 y ears . W el ty : A slu g do es n’ t r ic oc he t aro und a he ad of tr ee s. D ef en dant: W el l, it

w as [ sic ] sounde d li ke the bul le t, the slu g. W el ty : O kay . Wha t ha ppe ne d th en ? D ef en dant: Whe n I w al ke d in to the he ad a nd I sawam anthe re that I (i naudi ble ) de sc ri be d a s Jo hn. W el ty : D o y ou thin k it w as Joh n? D ef en dant: W el l, I sawhis j ac ke t the re a ft er w ar ds. W el ty : Sam e j ac ke t Jo hn h ad on? D ef en dant: Sam e j ac ke t. W el ty : H oww as the m anly ing ? D ef en dant: O n hi s ba ck
. W elty : Face up? You could have saw his fac e? D ef en dant: I co uldn’ t ge t c los e en ough
. I t w as down li ke thi s. W el ty : L ike on h is f ac e co ve ri ng i t? D ef en dant: T ha t or

it c oul d have f

el l. W el ty : D id y ou c he ck to se e if he w as ble ed ing ?16

D ef en dant: N o. W el ty : Sl ee pin g? D ef en dant: N o, I didn’ t. W el ty : D id y ou s ee a ny blo od? D ef en dant: N o. We l t y: H o wc l o s e d i dyo ug e tt o h i m? D ef en dant: Ro ughl y

a ny w he re be tw ee n 10 a nd 2 0 y ar ds. We l t y: O k a y. De fendant: Could have been even five. W elty : Did y ou panic? D ef en dant: Y es , I did , ve ry

m uc h. W el ty : Wha t w en t thr oughy our m ind ? D ef en dant: W el l, w el l a t tha t t im e nothin g, r ea lly be ca use it w as – I j ust c om ple te ly bla ck ed out . W el ty : O kay . Wha t ha ppe ne d th en ? De fendant: You know (inaudible) I turned around and sho t three

tim es w itha. 22 and tha t i s w he n I sawhis j ac ke t and i t wa s outs ide the head, got m y head together and started in. W el ty : Whe n y ou h eard tw igs br eak, y ou s hot

a t a j ac ke t?17

D ef en dant: About

that t im e I w el l ( ina

udi ble ). I sawsom ethin g br ow n and I sho t bu t I ha d m y e y es on – W el ty : H owm ay

ti m e did y ou s hoot ? D ef en dant: T hr ee ti m es . W el ty : H owm ay

ti m es did y ou h it the j ac ke t? De fendant: I have no idea. W el ty : D id the j ac ke t, w as the re – a ppare ntl y the re w as som eo ne in the j ac ke t. I m ean, j ac ke ts d on’ t j ust w al k aro und, ri ght ? D ef en dant: It

c oul d have be ena ny

body be ca use that i s th e j ac ke t he ha d onthat m or

nin g. W elty : He y , w ait a m inute. If y ou hear twigs break, y ou turn around and y ou hear – and y ou see a j acket and y ou fire qui ck , w as it

G ai l? D ef en dant: I can’ t t el l y ou. W el ty : W as it

G ai l? De fendant: I can’ t really tell y ou that. It had to have been his ja cket on. I t ha d to ha ve be en . W elty : W ell, y ou just saw Ga il not m ore than 20, 30 m inutes

an d y ou kne ww ha t ki nd o f j ac ke t sh e ha d on
. W as it G ai l? De fendant: She had a gre en one on and he had a brown one and that

is the one I sho t I sho t t ow ar ds, the br ow n j ac ke t.18

W elty : And w hat color j acket did John have on when he w as

lay ing on the gr ound

de ad ? D ef en dant: H e didn’ t have one on. H e ha d ac he ck er ed shi rt on. W el ty : N o j ac ke t? D ef en dant: N o, he too k th e j ac ke t of f lik e m ay

be she got

c old a nd h e ga ve it to he r to p ut – W elty : You sawher fa ce? D ef en dant: N o. I sawthe br ow n j ac ke t. W elty : Com e on, level w ith m e. D ef en dant: A ll I am

te lli ng y ou m

y e y es ( ina udi ble ) shot

[ sic ] a nd the y c los ed
. W el ty : D id y ou knowit w as G ai l? D ef en dant: I am

a lm ost pos iti ve it

w as . W elty : Not alm ost po sitive. D ef en dant: Y es . W el ty : Whe n – D ef en dant: Y es , it

w as . W elty : You are positi ve. D ef en dant: Y es . We l t y: O k a y. D i ds h e f a l l d o w n ? D i ds h e s c r e a m?19

D ef en dant: N o. W el ty : D id y ou s ee blo od? D ef en dant: N o, no w or ds w er e sa id, no w or ds at a ll, no y el l, no nothin g. W el ty : Wha t di d y ou s hoot f or , m ak e sur e the re is no w itn es se s? De fendant: Ye s, sir. We l t y: O k a y. D ef en dant: Be ca

use I w as r

unni ng s care d.

. . . A ft er r ep eate dly

de ny ing that he ha d a

ppr oa ch ed

the bod ie s, take n th e H ar de m an s’ gun s, or

hid de n th e ba ck

pa ck a nd c ushi ons, the de fe ndant a lte re d hi s sto ry dur ing his f

ir st t ap ed c onf es sio n. D ef en dant: I j ust

r em em be re d e ve ry

thi ng. S he dr aw ed

on m e an d sh ot at m e an d t ha t i s wh atm ad e m e sh oo t t ha t way. Th a ti s wh a tmad e me s h o o tt h a twa y. We l t y: Th i s i s n o tamak e - up s t o ry. De fendant: I sw ear on m y life it is. It ain’ t no m ake-up story
. That is wha t ha

ppe ne d. W el ty : Y ou s hot

Joh n. Y ou kne wit

w as Joh n f

ro m the c lothin g an d ha t and o ve r his he ad about 20 y ar ds f

ro m him y ou he ar d – D ef en dant: W el l, I he ar d –20

W elty : W ait a m inute. Y ou heard the bush es cra ck. Now , what

ha ppe ne d. N owy ou c anta lk. D ef en dant: I tur

ne d aro und an d I r em em

be r j ust li ke he r havin g a gun in her hand. I ain’ t too su re if she shot because I wa sn’ t really

looki ng that close. I heard a shot, that had to c om e fr om

he r. T ha t i s w he n I sho t. W elty : No, no, D ougi e. Com e on, get – if som eone shoo ts at

m e, I a m goi ng t o kn owit , he y , the y sho oti ng a t m e, y ou know
. D id s he sho ot at y ou? I don ’ t w an t no m ay be s. D ef en dant: Y es , be ca

use it w en t r igh t ne xt t o m

y ne ck
. W el ty : Whic h si de of y our ne ck ? D ef en dant: My

le ft sid e of m y ne ck
. W elty : Howm ay

tim es did she fire? D ef en dant: O ne ti m e. T ha t w as w hy I pul le d ou t m

y pis tol
. W el ty : H owm ay

ti m e did y ou s hoot ? D ef en dant: T hr ee ti m es . W el ty : D id s he hol le r at y ou? Defen da nt : Sh e d id n’t s ay a wor d, n o. No ne of u s s ai d o ne word
. May be she wa s shocked at what she saw, the accident. It w as a n a cc ide nt and that i s – s he j ust didn’ t t al k. T ha t i s the w ay I w as , too . W el ty : Whe n sh e fe ll on the gr ound , y ou s awhe r fa ll, r igh t? D ef en dant: Ri ght
.21

. . . De fendant:
. . . I sawblood squirt, go out o f her when I hit her m ore

or le ss i n th e ne ck
. We l t y: O h , i n t h e n e c k ? Ok a y.

. . . W el ty : O kay . A nd are y ou s ur e tha t y our gun s are a t y our hous e? D ef en dant: My

ow n. W el ty : Y es . D ef en dant: O r the ir s? W el ty : Y our s? D ef en dant: A t m

y hou se , out , up, c le an ed , j ust li ke I a lw ay s do
. W el ty : A ll ri ght
. Y ou d idn ’ t dam ag e y our . 22 o r an ythi ng l ike that? Y ou kn ow som e people, if they want to hi de a m ur de r, the y

w ill kno ck

the barr el out

to kin d of

c hange the gr ove s init

but y ou d idn ’ t do a nythi ng l ike that? D ef en dant: I didn’ t e ve n th ink of doi ng n oth ing li ke that.

. . . Investigators th en returned to the defendant’ s statem ent that Gail H ardem an h a ds h o ta th i m. W el ty : D id y ou s ee he r w ithagunin he r hand? B e hone st.22

D ef en dant: N ot p osi tiv el y , no. W el ty: All rig ht . Befo re y ou sai d h er h an ds were i n h er p oc ke ts .

T he n y ou s ai d sh e ha d agunin he r hand, y ou kne wshe had a gun. T hat was discussed because she is supp osed to have been a pretty

goodshot with her hands in h er pocket, son. Be honest with m e, please. De fendant: W ell, I am

positi ve that there w as a bullet fired f rom that dir ec tio n. W el ty : H er

hands w er e in h er

poc ke ts. D ef en dant: Sh e co uld

ha ve j ust ha d it r igh t the re by

he r poc ke t, sho t thr oughthe poc ke t or

a nythi ng b ec au se the re w as a bul le t f ir ed f ro m that di re ct ion
. W elty : It could have been another hunt er? De fendant: It could have been any one. Wel t y: Bu th erh an d s we re i n h erp o ck et s . If s h e f i re d– I’m g o i n g t o s t a n dup a n ds h o wyo u , p u tmy h a n d s i n my p o c k e t s . I h a v e n o g u n s o r a n yt h i n g o n , n o g u n s i n my poc ke t, I pr om ise y ou. D o y ou thin k sh e co uld ha ve fired f rom her pocket, y ou are say ing bu t her hands wer e in h er poc ke ts? D ef en dant: Inhe r j ac ke t po ck et s. W elty : In her j acket pockets? H er hands we re in her j acket

poc ke ts? D ef en dant: W el l, in he re , y es , f ro m thi s po ck et . T ha t i s w he re the j ac ke t –23

W el ty : I am

goi ng t o gi ve y ou a

m inu te to thi nk. Y ou thin k ba ck a nd l et it go thr oughy our

m ind
.

. . . D ef en dant: Y es , he r hands w er e in h er poc ke ts. W el ty : W ith out

asha dowof

adoubt? D ef en dant: W ith out

asha dowof

adoubt. W el ty : Y ou k ill ed

he r so s he w oul dn’ t be aw itn es s? D ef en dant: U nle ss s he f

ir ed f ro m he r poc ke ts. I kno wthe re w as a shot fired from

that direction, only

one. W el ty : Wha t di d y ou s hoot he r fo r, so s he c oul dn’ t t el l – D ef en dant: Wha t? W el ty : Y ou k ill ed

that w om anso s he c oul dn’ t – D ef en dant: W el l, f

or that r ea son an d pl us I tho ught she w as the one that shot at m e. W el ty : N o, I a m

not goi ng t o buy

that. Co pe land: Y ou j ust

kil le d he r be ca

use y ou d idn ’ t w an t he r to t al k? D ef en dant: O kay , I did
. W el ty : Is that the tr

uth ? Y ou j ust

sho ok y our

he ad in dis gust

or whatever
. De fendant: Ther e w as a shot fired. T here w as a shot fired fr om that w ay . T he re w as asho t f

ro m that di re ct ion
.24

W el ty: A sh ot fir ed . Didsh e fi re t ha t s ho t? You do n’t k no w,

ri ght ? Defen da nt : No, I d on ’t kn ow. W el ty : H er

hands w er e in h er

poc ke ts? De fendant: As f

ar a s I know she could have sho t through her pocket but oth er w ise she didn’ t do it
. W el ty : Bu t y ou d idn ’ t – y ou d idn ’ t w an t he r al ive , did y ou? D ef en dant: N o, a t the ti m e, no, I w as sc ar ed
. I didn’ t kn oww ha t t o do. W elty : You didn’t w ant no witnesses, nobod y to put th e finger on D ougi e be ing the one that ki lle d th ose tw o pe opl e or the f ir st p er son an d th e se co nd? D ef en dant: N o, no. A ft er giv ing thi s f

ir st s ta te m en t, the de fe ndant a lm ost im m ed ia te ly a ske d to spe ak to a se co nd o ff

ic er to co rr ec t hi s st or

y . T he de fe ndant a ga in r ec ei ve d and
w ai ve d hi s M ir an dar igh ts. D et ec tiv e Ri ch ar d B ro w nin g th enr ec or de d th e de fe ndant’ s se co nd c onf

es sio n. B r o w n i n g : I f

yo uw o u l d , a tt h i s t i me , I w o u l dl i k e yo ut o t e l l me w ha t ha ppe ne d? De fendant: All right. I w as tracking a hog into the head. I w as

fo llo w ing j ust

the tr ac ks. I didn’ t se e him
. I w en t i n th e he ad a nd the hog , w he re he w as la id d ow n go t up a nd too k of f. B y the ti m e I fi re d a t hi m

I hit Joh n, som e guy in th e h eadna m edJo hn . I do n’t k no w th e la st na m e. I25 w en t ov er the re a nd I loo ke d a t i t and i t sc ar ed m e an d I p i c k e dup t h e h a ta n dl a i di to n t o p o f h i m. I tma d e me sic k f ro m w ha t I saw . S o, I pic ke d up the guna nd g ot r e a d y t o h e a do u t . I p i c k e dth e m b a c kup a n dt o o kt h e m, tookthem

with m e. Br ow nin g: Y ou t ook w ha t w ithy ou? D ef en dant: T he gun s. Br ow nin g: Wha t ty

pe of gun s? D ef en dant: . 30- 06 r if

le a nd a
. 38 s pe ci al
. I w as goi ng o ut o f the he ad sc ar ed
. I w as a lm ost

out w he n hi s w if

e cam e up, ap pr oa ch ed

m e an d a ske d m e w ha t I w as doi ng w ithhis gun. I m ade no com

m ents and she started y elling. H er hands w en t stra igh t up in the a ir
. S he start ed r ea lly y el lin g lo ud. My

he ad w as kil lin g m e an d sh e re al ly start ed y el lin g lo ud and tha t i s w he n I tur ne d and s hot her. Br ow nin g: Wha t di d y ou s hoot he r w ith ? D ef en dant: A
. 22 p ist ol. Brow ning : Pistol? H ow m any tim es did y ou sho ot her? D ef en dant: T hr ee ti m es .

. . . Br ow nin g: Wha t di d y ou d o w iththe tw o guns whe n y ou w en t t o

cam p? De fendant: I put them

in the bush es at that tim e until the chance I got a nd I w en t and g ot the m a nd p ut the m

in the tr uc k.26

. . . Brow ning : Can y ou explain to m e how G ail Hardem an’ s pants were

found un done? D ef en dant: W el l, I f

el t f or ahe ar tbe at r igh t f ro m und er the be lly but ton . I f

el t i n w ithm

y f ing er ti ps t o se e if

I c oul d fe el the he ar

tbe at a nd I c oul dn’ t f

ee l no thi ng and I f

el t on the upp er r ib c ag e an d I didn’ t f

ee l no be at . May

be be ca use I w as so n er

vous m y hands w er e shakin g. Br ow nin g: L et

m e as k y ou this : C any ou e xpl ai n to m e how , if she w as so u pse t and s he w as w av ing he r hands ar ound , how is i t tha t w he n th e body

w as f ound a nd h er hands w er e in he r poc ke ts? De fendant: I stuck them in there. Br ow nin g: Why

did y ou d o th at ? D ef en dant: W el l, I w as sc ar ed
. Br ow nin g: W el l, f

or w ha t r ea son did

y ou thin k to do tha t? D ef en dant: Make it

loo k li ke a n a cc ide nt.

. . . Brow ning : Can y ou explain to m e how it w as the day y ou were helping us with the searc h that y ou go t off the halftra ck an d w en t di re ct ly

to Johna nd G ai l’ s kn ap sa ck a nd the cu shi ons an d th e pe rs ona l be lon gin gs tha t w as hid de n in t h e b u rn a r e awh e r e yo uf i r s tt a l k e dt o t h e m th a td a y? D ef en dant: T ha t ha d to ha ve be enac oin ci de nc e be ca use I j ust w en t right where they

we re.Ros ie Ha rr is w a s a fr ie nd of Jon L e Cr oy ’s
. 8 In addition to his confessions to law enfor ceme nt and his ex-girlfr iend, the def endant 9 also confe ssed to Roge r Clay ton Slora, a F lorida State prisoner who was inc arc erated with the defe ndant. Slora testified that the de fenda nt stated that when he shot J ohn Har deman, he was 27 Brow ning : You had no part in put ting th em there? De fendant: No part in putting th em there.

. . . Brow ning : Okay
. And y ou say that the shoo ting o f the m ale w as an accident but then the sh ootin g of the fem ale w as an int en tio na l thin g? D ef en dant: Y eah. B r o w n i n g : O k a y. D ef en dant: Be ca

use m y he ad start ed r ea lly bus tin g op ena nd I los t co ntr ol. Th e d ef en d an tan dJ o n Le Cr o y t h en d i re ct ed o ff i ce rs t o Wil l i am El l et t ’s hom e. A t E lle tt’ s r es ide nc e, the auth or iti es r ec ove re d Jo hn H ar de m an ’ s . 30- 06 ri fl e. Whil e som e of

fi ce rs w en t t o th e L eC ro y ’ s r es ide nc e to r ec ove r the d ef en d an t ’s s h o t g u n an d.2 2 ca l i b erp i s t o l , o t h ero ff i ce rs we n tt o Ro s i e H arri s ’s hom e to r ec ove r G ai l H ar de m an ’ s . 38 h an dgun
. 8 Whil e of fi ce rs w er e enr out e to the L eC ro y r es ide nc e, the de fe ndant ap olo giz ed

to D ep uty

W el ty f or ly ing a nd s ta te d th at

he got ana il an d r anit thr oughthe barr el of

his
. 22 p ist ol t o pr ev en t a ba lli sti cs m at ch
. 9looking into J ohn Har deman’ s ey es and that he g ot a rush fr om shooting Ha rdema n in the head. Slora also testified re g ardingsexual contact betwe en the de fenda nt and Gail Ha

rdema n. The state also used w itness Slora in its prosecution of J on L eCroy . Acc ordingto Slora, J on L eCroy told the defe ndant that “I

killed for you.” Ac cordingto the g overnme nt at J on L eCroy ’s trial, this meant that J on L eCroy killed J ohn Har deman. The de fenda

nt and J on L eCroy

wer e indicted on F ebrua

ry 4, 1981, for two c ounts of 10 fi rs t- de g re e mur de r a

nd tw o c ounts of

ro bb e ry wi th a fi re arm . T he de fe nd ant w a s tr ie d in Fe bruar y 1986, and the jury

returne d a guilty

verdic t on all counts on Fe bruar y 28, 1986. The defe ndant’s pena lty

phase w as conduc ted on Marc h 10, 1986. J on L eCroy ’s trial beg an in April 1986, and Jon L eCroy was a cquitted of a ll charg es on April 18, 1986. On Oc tober 1, 1986, the state trial judg e sente nced the defe ndant to death f or the murder of Gail Har deman. 28 II. Th e Tr ial Th e d e f e n d a n ta n dJ o n Le C r o y we r e i n d i c t e dt o g e t h e r , b u tt r i e ds e p a r a t e l y, fo r th e fi rs t-d eg ree m

ur de rs an d a rm edrob be rie s o f Jo hn an d Gai l Har de m an . At 10 the de fe ndant’ s tr ia l, the j ur y he ar d a ll the e vid en ce out lin ed above dur ing the governm ent’ s case-in-c hief, includi ng the defendant’s c onfession s to law enforcem ent, his ex-girlfr iend, and Roger S lora. De fense counsel cross-exam ined all but on e of the governm ent’ s witnesses. Af ter the state r ested, def

ense counsel el ec te d no t t o pr es en t e vid en ce . R athe r, the de fe nse e le ct ed to hol d th e gove rn m en t t o it s burd enof pr oof
. U nde r Fl or ida

law , thi s a llo w ed

de fe nse
co unse l t o have the f

ina l c los ing a rg um en t. S ee F la
. R. Cr im
. P
. 3. 250. During its closing argum ent, def ense counsel focused on the differ ence betwee n felony

m urder and third-degree m urder. T his was im

portant because a
co nvi ct ionf

or f el ony m ur de r w oul d m ak e the de fe ndant e lig ibl e fo r the de ath29

penalty , but a c onvi ction for third-degree m urder w ouldnot. D efense c ouns el not ed that the re w er e tw o m eans b y w hic h f el ony m ur de r co uld

be pr ove n w ith
re spe ct to JohnH ar de m an ; nam el y , that the de fe ndant k ill ed Joh n H ar de m anw ith the int en t t o st ea l hi s . 30- 06 r if le or that the de fe ndant k ill ed Joh n H ar de m anw ith pr em ed itatio n. T he de fe nse the n arg ue d th at the e vid en ce did

not sho we ith er

of the se m eans b ey ond a re as ona ble doubt. A cc or din g to de fe nse c ouns el , the e vid en ce sho w ed , a t be st, that the de fe ndant h ad

take n th e . 30- 06 r if

le a nd . 38 p ist ol a ft er

he ha d ki lle d th e H ar de m an s, not

be ca use of a ny pr em ed itate d pl anto se ll the r if le , but a s th e re sul t of a desperate 17-y ear- old who was not think ing straigh t. T herefor e, counsel
ar gue d, the j ur

y sho uld f ind that the de fe ndant c om

m itt ed athe ft , r athe r than a robbery , and find hi m

guiltyof third-degree m

urder. T he defense em

phasized that nothin g w as take n f

ro m the H ar de m an ’ s c am

psi te a nd tha t no ne of

Joh n and G ai l H ar de m an ’ s j ew el ry

w as take n. A s f o r G a i l H ar d e ma n , d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l c o n c e d e dt h a tt h e r e w a s s o me
ev ide nc e of

pr em ed itatio n; n am el y , the de fe ndant’ s st at em en ts tha t he kil le d G ai l H ar de m anto ge t r id o f an y w itn es se s. H ow ev er , de fe nse c ouns el a rg ue d th at the de fe ndant s ai d m an y

dif fe re nt thin gs and tha t i t w as m or e lik el y that G ai l30

H ar de m anw as kil le d ou t of f ear an d ov er -r ea ct ionr athe r than an pl anto el im inate
w itn es se s. T he de fe nse w en t thr ougha ll the e vid en ce , e m pha siz ing tho se pie ce s of evidence that could lead a j ury to find a reasonable doubt o n the felony -m urder charge and attem

pting to explain away

evidence that suppo rted a f elony -m urder
co nvi ct ion
. A ft er onl y 21⁄2 hour s of

de lib er at ion s, the j ur

y c onvi ct ed

the de fe ndant o f fe lon y m ur de r of Joh n H ar de m an , pr em ed itate d m ur de r of G ai l H ar de m an , a nd t w o c o u n t s o f

armed r o b b e ry. Af ter the defe ndant was found gui lty of m urdering the Har dem ans, he f ired hi s co ur t-app oi nt edatt orne y , and ret ai ne d p riv at e co un se l fo r th e p en al ty pha se . Following the sentencing proceedings, the j ury rec omm ended life, by

an 8-4 vote, fo r the m ur de r of Joh n H ar de m ana nd d eath, by a7- 5 vo te , f

or the m ur de r of G ai l H ar de m an . T he state c ourt se nte nc ed the de fe ndant t o de ath by e xe cu tio n f

or the
m ur de r of G ai l H ar de m an , li fe -i m

pr iso nm en t f

or the m ur de r of Joh n H ar de m an , an d th irty y ears ’ im pr iso nm en t f

or e ac h of the r obbe ry

c onvi ct ion s. III . S ta te D ir ec t A pp ea l Inhis state dir ec t a

ppe al , the de fe ndant r ai se d se ve ra l i ssu es r eg ar din g hi s de ath se nte nc e, inc lud ing ac la im that the im

posi tio n of

the de ath pe na lty

on31

s o me o n e w h o w a s l e s s t h a n 1 8
- ye a r s - o l da tt h e t i me h e c o mmi t t e dt h e c r i me violates the United States Constitu tion. Beca use the Florida Suprem e Court has
va cate d th e de fe ndant’ s de ath se nte nc e, w e do n ot o utl ine the se nte nc ing iss ue s th e de fen da nt rai se d o n d ire ctap pe al an d a t v ari ou s s ta ge s o f th e p ro ceed in gs . In ste ad , w e fo cu s onthe c onvi ct ioniss ue s th e de fe ndant r ai se d. Inhis state dir ec t a

ppe al , the de fe ndant a sse rt ed f ive iss ue s r el at ing to his convictio ns; nam ely , that: (1) the second confession given to th e police, to cor rect inaccuracie s in his first statem ent, w as inadm issable; (2) the robbery charges w ere ina de qua te to pr ope rl y

a dvi se the de fe ndant o f the c harg es a ga ins t hi m ; ( 3) Jon L eC ro y ’ s in cu lpa tor

y state m en ts r eg ar din g th e la st t im e he sawthe H ar de m an s al ive sho uld

ha ve be ena dm itt ed

dur ing the tr ia l; (4 ) se parate se nte nc es f or both
ro bbe ry a nd f el ony m ur de r ba se d onr obbe ry

w er e ina ppr opr ia te ; and ( 5) the
m andatory

m inim um sentences on the two separate robbery conviction s wer e im proper. Wi t h r e g a r dt o t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’s s e c o n dc o n f

e s s i o n , t h e F l o r i d aS up r e me Court declined to revisit its ear lier, pre-tr ial ruling in 1 985 th at the statem ent was adm iss ibl e. L eC ro y

v. S ta te , 533 S o. 2d 7 50, 753 ( Fl a. 198 8)
. T he F lor ida Su pr em e Co urt a lso c onc lud ed that “ ha vin g no wr ec ei ve d and r ev ie w ed the f ull
re co rd of the tr ia l, it

is cl ea r be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t a dm iss ionof thi s32

se co nd s ta te m en t, e ve n if e rr or , did not im pa ct on the j ur

y ve rd ic t. ” I d. ( ci tin g State v. DiGuilio , 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986 )). Th e F l o ri d a S up re m e C o u rt al s o d ec l i n ed t o re v i s i tt h e s t at e t ri al co u rt ’s
co nc lus ionthat the r obbe ry c harg es w er e “ suf

fi ci en t t o a

ppr ise [ the de fe ndant] of the na tur e of

the c ri m es c harg ed

a nd d id n ot m isl ea d or

e m barr as s [ the de fe ndant] in the pr ep ar at ionof

ade fe nse . ” I d. a t 75 4. N ex t, the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt a ddr es se d Jo n L eC ro y ’ s a lle ge dly inc ulp at or

y state m en ts a s to w he n he la st s awthe H ar de m an s a liv e. A cc or din g to the Florida Suprem e Court, the exclusion of this evidence was not err or, and, even if err oneous , any

err or wa s harm less. I d. S pecifically , the F lorida Suprem e Court state d th at

the de fe ndant now argues that the trial court e rr ed i n re fusing to adm it hearsay ev id ence that Jo n to ld o the rs that he ha d se ende ad bod ie s be fo re a nd w as the la st to se e the vic tim s a liv e w hic h, appe llant urg es , is a statem ent ag ai nst int erest w ithin the m eaning of [a Florida hearsay ex ce pti on]
. Co nc er

nin g the state m en t tha t Jon saw the vic tim s la st, thi s i s b a s e do n t h e t e s t i mo n y o f a w i t n e s s t h a t J o n s a i dh e s a wt h e v i c t i ms at 11 a. m . t h e d a y

o f t h e m u r d e r a n dt h e t e s t i m o n y

o f a n o t h e r w itn es s t h a tC l e o t o l dh i m h e l a s ts a wt h e v i c t i ms a tap p r o x i ma t e l y 1 0 : 3 0 a . m. T hus, appe llant r ea sons , Jonm ad e ana dm iss io n ag ai nst int er es t by say ing he saw the victim s after Cleo. W e do not agree that a hear say state m en t by

Jonthat he sawthe vi ct im s at 11 a
. m . is ana dm iss ion a g a i n s ti n t e r e s t . A n o t h e r w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d h e s a w C l e o w i t h t h e v i c t i ms ar ound 10 a. m . a nd C le o a dm itt ed in his state m en t t o th e pol ic e tha t he ha d conv er se d wi th the vic tim s that m or nin g, f or appr oxi m at el y

tw en ty m inutes, that they

had separated, and that the killi ngs occurred later a fter33

a p er i o d o f hu nting
. As to Jon say ing th at he had seen dead bodies be fo re , the state m en t i s m eanin gle ss w ith out f ur th er de ve lop m en t and co uld onl y ha ve be ende ve lop ed by ca lli ng Jon as a wi tne ss. T he state poi nts out

that ha d t hi s be endon e, the state w oul d have be enable to elicitJ on ’ s st a t e m e nt

t o t he p ol i c e t hath e h a d se e n t he v i c t i m s bo die s shor tly a ft er Cl eo ki lle d th em . T his w oul d have be enc onsi ste nt w ith Cl eo ’ s st at em en ts t o the po li ce tha t he tol d Jo n of the kil lin gs, a nd the ap pr oxi m at e loc at ion of the bodi es , shor tly af te r the cr im es . W e se e no error . Moreover, as the state argues, even if it w as err or, the e rror w as cl earl y harm le ss. E vid en ce sho w ing tha t Jon ha d a lso be enind ic te d and had som e role in eith er the c rim es or in attem pting to conceal the crim es w as giv ento the j ur

y . W e do n ot see howthi s am big uous he ar say

c oul d ha ve a ff ec te d th e ve rd ic t. Id. ( internal citation and footn otes om itted). A s f or the de fe ndant’ s arg um en t r eg ar din g hi s r obbe ry c onvi ct ion s, the Fl or ida S upr em e Co urt no te d th at it ha d a lr ea dy

c onc lud ed

that “ se nte nc es on b oth fel on y m ur de r an d t he un de rlyin g fe lo ny [rob be ry ] were ap pr op ria te .” Id
. Furtherm ore, the Florida Suprem e Court stated that the “ uncont radicted evidence here w as that [the defendant] first killed and robbed Jo hn Hardem an and, af ter an ind et er m ina te la pse of ti m e, kil le d and r obbe d G ai l H ar de m anw he n sh e ar ri ve d on t h e s ce n e. ” I d . C o n s eq u en t l y, th e F l o ri d a S up re m e C o u rt re je ct edt h e d ef

en d an t ’s
as se rti on th athe was i m

pr op erl y sen te nc edfortwo sep arat e ro bb ery co nv ic ti on s. Id
. Fi na lly , the F lor ida S upr em e Co urt a ff

irm ed the im posi tio n of

the de ath penalty for the m urder of G ail Hardem an. Id. at 757-58
. The United StatesOn April 29, 1992, the state f iled a motion for the disclosure of def ense c ounsel’s files. 11 In 1994, the Flor ida Supreme Court c oncluded that the de fenda nt waived his attorne y -client privileg e whe n he filed a

motion for post-conviction re lief cla iming inef fec tive assistance of counsel. L eCroy

v. State, 641 So.2d 853, 854 (Fla. 1994)
. 34 Suprem e Court denied the defendant’ s petition for ce rtiorari. L eCroy v. F lorida, 492 U.S . 925, 109 S. Ct. 3262 (1989). IV . S ta te P ost -C on vic ti on A . D ef

en da nt ’s 3. 850 M ot ion In199 0, the de fe ndant f

ile d am oti on f

or pos t- co nvi ct ionr el ie f pur suant t o Fl or ida Ru le of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 3. 850. I n 19 96, the de fe ndant f ile d ase co nd 11
am en de d 3. 850 m oti on f

or pos t- co nvi ct ionr el ie f. I n hi s 17 1- pa ge m oti on, the de fe ndant r ai se d th e fo llo w ing c la im s r eg ar din g hi s c onvi ct ion s: ( 1) the la ck of fundi ng p ro hib ite d de fe nse c ouns el f ro m f ull y inv es tig at ing a nd p re pari ng h is post -c onvi ct ionm oti on, in vio la tio n of the Co nst itu tio n; ( 2) the state w ith he ld certa in “ files and rec ords” pertaining to the defendant’ s case, nam ely taped state m en ts b y

num er ous w itn es se s; ( 3) the state c om m itt ed Br ady a nd G igl io vio la tio ns; ( 4) ine ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

appe llate c ouns el , both inthe appe al f ro m the m otion to supp ress as w ell as in his state direct appeal, nam ely that the record
on a ppe al w as inc om

ple te in both in stanc es ; ( 5) the tr ia l c ourt’ s st at em en t tha t he
w oul d have to “ loc k up ” the j ur or s if the y did not r ea chave rd ic t by

the e nd o f theTh e de fe nd ant t ake s th e state tr ia l c ourt ’s loc k- up state me nt o ut o f c on te xt. T he state 12 trial court a ctually

stated that: “I

am re quired to lock you up in a hotel, not lock you up but keep y ou sequester ed in a hotel whe re you can’ t separate . . . .” The state cour t was mere ly

informing the jury of the how e vents wer e g oing to tra nspire duringdeliberations, and this st atement did not constitute err or. See B rady

v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct . 1194, 1196-97 (1963) (statingthe 13 g overnme nt is obli g ated to produc e evide nce that is materially favor able to the de fenda

nt, either as substantive or impea chment evide nce) ; Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 766 (1972) ( concludingthat the “de liberate dece ption of a cour t and jurors by

the pre sentation of known fa lse evidenc e is incompatible with due proc ess”)
. Th e de fe nd ant’ s p ro se c uto ri a l mi sc on du c t c la im c on sis te d o f t he fo llo wi nga lle g atio ns : 14 (1) the state sepa

rate ly prosec uted both the def

endant a nd J on L eCroy

for the mur ders of

J ohn and Ga il Harde man under the theory

that eac h was the trig g erma n at their re spective tria ls; (2) the prosec ution eng ag ed in witness tamper ing; ( 3) the prose cution ref err ed to evidenc e not in the rec ord duringclosing argument and wa s so animated that he w as twice admonished by the trial court; (4) the prosec ution attempted to elicit testimony , such as that Ga il Harde man was dr ag g ed, tied-up, strang led, and se x ually molested, when the re w as no basis for such testimony ; (5) the prosec ution provided its witnesses with scripts of expected testimony ; (6) the pr osecution 35 day vio la te d th e de fe ndant’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts ( he re ina ft er r ef er re d to a s th e

“ loc k- up s ta te m en t” ); ( 6) ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

tr ia l c ouns el f

or : ( a) f ai lin g to 12 pur sue ade fe nse c en te re d aro und Jon L eC ro y a s th e m ur de re r; ( b) f

ai lin g to pur sue ade fe nse c en te re d aro und se lf -d ef en se ; ( c) f

ai lin g to li tig at e the iss ue
co nc er nin g th e dis tr ic tin g pr oc ed ur e in P al m

Be ac h C ounty ; ( d) im

pr ope rl y
w ai vin g j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns r eg ar din g a ff

irm at ive de fe nse s; and ( e) not pur sui ng Br ady a nd G igl io v iol at ion s and f ai lin g to obt ai n vari ous doc um en ts tha t c oul d ha ve be enuse d at tri al ; ( 7) the tr ia l c ourt’ s e xc lus ionof JonL eC ro y ’ s a lle ge dly 13 inc ulp at or

y state m en ts v iol at ed

the Co nst itu tio n; ( 8) the state e nga ge d invari ous ins tanc es of

pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct ; ( 9) the state ’ s in tr oduc tio n of sho ck ing 14misstated the role of mitig atingevidenc e; and ( 7) the prose cution eng ag ed in unprofe ssional

c on du c t outsi de the c ourt ro om t o th e po int

that he re fu se d to fu

rt he r c oo pe ra

te wi th t he de fe ns e e v e ni nth e “ s l i g h t e s t ” w ay. The State 3.850 Court did conduc t a hea ringpursuant to Huff

v. State, 622 So.2d 982 15 (F la. 1993). A H uff he aringis used to determined whether an evide ntiary

hear ing is ne cessa

ry as to a ny c la ims
. 36 and gruesom e photog raphs violated th e Constituti on and trial couns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o ob

j ec t t o th em ; ( 10) the de fe ndant’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts
w er e vio la te d by

F lor ida ’ s R

ule s of P ro fe ssi ona l C ondu ct

that pr ev en t l awy er s, or their associates, f

rom speaking with jurors af

ter a trial; (11) the trial c ourt
er ro ne ousl y ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y r eg ar din g e xpe rt

te sti m ony ; and ( 12) the
cum ulative procedural and subs tantive errors during the defendant’ s trial violated th e Co ns ti tu ti on . B. Th e St at e 3. 850 C ou rt ’s D ec isi on The def endant’ s 3.850 m otion wa s originallyscheduled for an evidentiary he ar ing
. H ow ev er , a ft er the c as e w as tr an sf

er re d, the ne wj udge sum

m ar ily 15 d e t e rmi n e dt h a ta n e v i d e n t i a ry h e a r i n g wa s u n n e c e s s a ry. A lth oughthe S ta te 3. 850 Co urt di d no t ho ld an e vid en tia ry he ar ing on the defendant’ s am ended 3.850 m otion , it did issue a 20-page opin ion addressin g each of the de fe ndant’ s c la im s. W ithr es pe ct to the de fe ndant’ s c la im

that a la ck of fundi ng p ro hib ite d hi s a tto rn ey f ro m f ull y inv es tig at ing a nd p re pari ng h is p ost -37

convictio n 3.850 m otion , the S tate 3.850 Court concluded that th e claim wa s

“ legally insufficient as a m atter of law. ” T he State 3. 850 Cou rt also concluded that the de fe ndant “ w ai ve d” his c la im that the state w ith he ld c er ta in “ fi le s and
reco rd s” pe rta in in g t o h is cas e, na m el y tap edst at em en ts by num ero us wit ne ss es . H ow ev er , the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt gave no b as is f or c onc lud ing that the de fe ndant h a dw a i v e dt h e c l a i m. W ithr es pe ct

to the de fe ndant’ s c la im

that the state c om

m itt ed Br ady a nd Giglio violatio ns, the State 3.850 Court conclud ed that the evidence wa s
ove rwhe lm ing a nd tha t the de fe ndant h ad not e sta bli she d ar ea sona

ble pr oba bil ity that the outcom e w ouldhave been differ ent if the state had disclosed the evid ence in issu e. Specif

ically , the S tate 3.850 Court concluded that [t ] he ev ide nc e in thi s ca se w as ove rwhe lm ing
. T he D ef en dant n ot o nly co nf es se d to kil lin g th e H ar de m an s to the pol ic e, but he c onf es se d to Caro l H undl ey

a nd R oge r Slora. Aple tho ra of phy sic al a nd circum stantial evid en ce cor roborated those confessio ns and further established t h e Defendant’ s guilt
. Based on the wea lth of evidence ag ai nst him , the re is no r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity that hi s c on vi ct ionor se nte nc e of de ath w oul d ha ve be en dif fe re nt h ad

the S ta te dis cl ose d or de fe nse c ouns el dis co ve red the e vid en ce a lle ge d by the D ef en dant i n thi s c la im
. T he re fo re , thi s c la im is de nie d. T he S ta te 3. 850 Co urt a lso c onc lud ed that se ve ra l c la im s w er e pr oc ed ur al ly ba rred be cau se th ey

“ ei th er were or c ou ldha ve be en rai se d o n d ire ctap pe al ,”The State 3.850 Court also conc luded that “De fenda nt has failed to show a

ny err ors that 16 occur red dur ing those proce eding s that were omitted from the re cords on a ppeal.” 38 includi ng the defendant’s c laim s that (1) the rec ord on appeal was incom plete, 16
an d ( 2) the tr ia l c ourt’ s lo ck -u p st at em en t vi ola te d th e Co nst itu tio n. W ithr es pe ct

to the de fe ndant’ s c la im s th at tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff

ec tiv e in
num erous respects during the gu ilt phase of the trial, the S tate 3.850 Court concluded th at the defendant had not sh own a r easonable probabilit y that
c o u n s e l ’s p e r f

o rman c e wo u l dh a v e a f

f e c t e dt h e o u t c o me o f

t h e t r i a l
. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, the State 3. 850 Cou rt stated that singu larly or cum ulatively , the a llegations of deficient conduct that are suf fi ci en tly ple d, e ve n if

take n a s tru e, woul d no t have , w ith in a reasonable probabilit y , affe cted the outcom e of this ca se. As n o t ed pr ev iou sly , the qua lity an d quan tity of ev ide nc e pr es en te d by the S ta te sim ply would not have been un derm ined even if defense counsel had pr es en te d the e vid en ce that D ef en dant c la im s he sho uld

ha ve pr es en te d. T he re fo re , thi s c la im

is de nie d. W ithr eg ar d to the de fe ndant’ s c la im that the tr ia l c ourt’ s e vid en tiary r uli ng (e xc lud ing JonL eC ro y ’ s in cu lpa tor y state m en ts a s to w he n he la st s awthe H ar de m an s) vio la te d th e Co nst itu tio n, the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt de te rm ine d th at the cl ai m was “ pr oc edur al ly barre d a s i t was rai se d a nd reject edon di rect ap pe al .” A s f or the de fe ndant’ s c la im s of pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct , the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt a ddr es se d e ac h c la im ind ivi dua lly
. W ithr eg ar d to the state pur sui ng a39

theory at the defe ndant’s tria l that the defendant was the triggerm an and a theory at JonL eC ro y ’ s su

bse que nt tri al that Jo n L eC ro y w as the tr igg er

m an , the S ta te 3.850 Court not ed that tri al c ouns el c ha lle nge d the St at e’ s in co nsi ste nt the or ie s inhis m otion for newtrial. A t the hearing on the m otion , this Court foun d that the State had initially overstated Jon’s inv olvem ent in Jon’s trial and had the n r etre at ed

to ana ide r an d a

be tto r the or

y . T his Co urt a lso f

ound the ev ide nc e of the D ef

en dant’ s gui lt ove rwhe lm ing a nd d en ie d th e m oti on. T he D ef en dant c oul d have , but

did not , c ha lle nge thi s C ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion for new t rial, and the State’ s inconsi stent theories, on direct ap pe al
. T hus, thi s cla im is pr oc ed ur al ly barr ed
. It is a lso w ith out m er it. Th e S t at e 3 .8 5 0 Co u rt al s o co n cl u d ed t h at t h e majo ri t y o f t h e d ef en d an t ’s claim s regarding the state having p resented m isleading evid ence and im proper
ar gum en t, in vio la tio n of

G igl io, w er e pr oc ed

ur al ly barr ed be ca use the y c oul d ha ve be enr ai se d ondir ec t a ppe al
. H ow ev er , the S ta te 3. 850 Co ur t di d a ddr es s tw o of the de fe ndant’ s G igl io c la im s onthe m er its
. W ithr eg ar d to the state ’ s e ff orts at havin g R oge r Sl or a, the pr iso ne r w ho testified at both th e defe ndant’s and Jon LeC roy ’ s trials, tr ansferr ed to other facilities in exchange for f avorable testim ony , the S tate 3.850 Court determ ined that the de fe ndant m ad e nothin g othe r than c onc lus or y a lle ga tio ns. W ithr eg ar d to the state providin g scripts to its witnesses, the State 3. 850 Cou rt concluded that [w ] hil e it w oul d hard ly

be im pr ope r fo r the pr ose cu tor to dr af t a li st o f que sti ons he int en ds t o a sk a w it ne ss , and the r es pons es he int en ds t o40

el icit fo r his ow n us e at

tr ia l, it is im pr ope r to i nf

lue nc e a w itn es s to answer falsely
. The Def

endant has m ade no allegation, however, m uch le ss a show ing , tha t any of the w itn es se s gave fa lse te sti m ony . T hus, he ha s f ai le d to e sta

bli sh e ve n apr im a fa ci e ca se und er G igl io. T he S ta te 3. 850 Co urt a lso a ddr es se d th e de fe ndant’ s c la im s th at the state im properly argued to the j ury

and j udge regarding the role sym pathy and m ercy shou ld p lay . T he S ta te 3. 850 Co urt c onc lud ed that the se c la im s w er e pr oc ed ur al ly barr ed be ca use the y e ith er w er e or c oul d have be enr ai se d ondir ec t a ppe al
. T he St at e 3. 850 Co urt a lso c onc lud ed that the de fe ndant “ m ay

not use ac la im

of ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el to ci rc um

ve nt [ pr oc ed

ur al ] bar. R eg ar dle ss, the Defen da nt ha s fa il edto sh ow ei th er d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce o r pr ejud ic e . . . .” W ith regard to the defendant’ s claim that he wa s convicted and sent enced be ca use of ape rs ona l ve nde tta

by the pr ose cu tor

a ga ins t de fe nse c ouns el , the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt c onc lud ed

that the de fe ndant “ did

not , a nd c an not , sho ww ith in a
re as ona ble pr oba bil ity that any dis lik e be tw ee n th e pr ose cu tor a nd d ef en se
c o u n s e l , o r

t h e a c t i o n s o f

t h e p r o s e c u t o r

a s ar e s u l tt h e r e o f

, a f f e c t e dt h e o u t c o me of hi s t ria l. Thu s, t hi s cl ai m is de ni ed .” T he S ta te 3. 850 Co urt a lso c onc lud ed that the de fe ndant’ s c la im r eg ar din g introdu ction of sho cking and g ruesom e photog raphs was proce durally barre d be ca use it c oul d have be enr ai se d ondir ec t a ppe al
. A s f

or the de fe ndant’ s c la im41

that de fe nse c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o ob

j ec t t o th e phot ogr ap hs o r pur sue the iss ue dur ing his dir ec t a ppe al , the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt c onc lud ed that the de fe ndant “ fa ile d to ple ad suc h an a lle ga tio n w ithspe ci fi ci ty ” an d th at the de fen da nt ha d “ fai le d t o s ho w pre jud ic e.” T he S ta te 3. 850 Co urt a lso a ddr es se d th e de fe ndant’ s c ha lle nge to the Florida Rules of Pr ofessional Cond uct. A ccording to th e defe ndant, the rules pr ev en te d de fe nse c ouns el f ro m que sti oni ng the j ur

y a ft er the ve rd ic t, a nd, the re fo re , vio la te d hi s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts. T he S ta te 3. 850 Co urt r ej ec te d th e defendant’ s argum ent, c onclud ing th at [t ] he Ru le s are pr om

ulg at ed by the Flor ida

S upr em e Co urt t o r eg ula te m em bers of the Florida Bar. T he De fendant is not a m em ber o f the bar. T he r e f o r e , t h e D e f

e n d a n td o e s n o th a v e s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e the ap pli ca bil ity of ar ule that do es not gove rn him dir ec tly
. Mo re ove r, the lawa llo w s j ur or

int er vie w s un de r ce rt ai n c ir cu m st ance s. T he Defe ndant’ s in ab ili ty

to m ee t the r equir em en ts o f thi s r ule doe s no t r e n d e r h i s a t t o rn e y

e x e m p tf r o m t h e r u l e s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n du c t , nor d o e s i tr e n d e r

h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n ds e n t e n c e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y i n f i rm. Finally , the S tate 3.850 Court concluded that th e following claim s wer e

“ procedurally

barre d as they

either w ere or could have been raised on direct appeal”: (1) the tr ial court err oneous ly instructed the jury

regar ding expert te sti m ony ; and ( 2) the c um ula tiv e pr oc ed

ur al a nd s ubst an tiv e er

ro rs dur ing the defendant’ s trial violated the Const itutio n. T he State 3. 850 Cou rt also concluded42

that “ [t ] o th e ex te nt D ef

en dant c la im s th at

tr ia l c ouns el r en de re d in ef fe ct ive
as sis tanc e fo r fa ilure to ‘ fu lly li tig at e’ the se iss ue s a t tri al , he m ay not c ir cu m ve nt th e b ar wi th su ch a cl ai m in ord er t o s eeka se co nd ap pe al .” C. Florida S upre m e C ourt T he F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt a ff

irm ed the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt’ s de nia l of the de fe ndant’ s 3. 850 m oti on. I n th e ap pe al f ro m the de nia l of

his 3. 850 m oti on, the de fe ndant r ai se d th e fo llo w ing iss ue s r el at ed to his c onvi ct ion s: ( 1) f

ai lur e to attach portions o f the re cord to the order deny ing relief; (2) f ailure to grant an evidentiary

hearing concerning Brady and Giglio viol ations, m isleading evid ence, and ineffective a ssistance of trial counsel; (3) failure to hol d an evidentiary he ar ing c onc er

nin g tr ia l c ouns el ’ s a lle ge d in ef fe ct ive ne ss i n th e gui lt pha se ; ( 4) failure to allow defense counsel to pol l the j ury ; (5) the re cord on appeal contained
om iss ion s and m isnum

be re d pa ge s; ( 6) the e xc lus ionof te sti m ony

c onc er nin g Jo n L eC ro y ’ s r ole in the c ri m es ; ( 7) the state e nga ge d invari ous ins tanc es of pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct ; ( 8) the state im pr ope rl y a dm itt ed gr ue som e an d shoc kin g ph oto gr ap hs; ( 9) the j ur y w as giv enthe w ro ng s tandard f or j udgi ng
ex pe rt te sti m ony ; and ( 10) pr oc ed ur al a nd s ubst an tiv e tr ia l e rr or s duri ng the de fe ndant’ s tr ia l vi ola te d th e Co nst itu tio n. L eC ro y v. D ugge r, 727 S o. 2d 2 36, 237 n.3 (Fla . 1998).43

T he F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt c onc lud ed that the de fe ndant w as not e nti tle d to
ane vid en tiary

he ar ing on any

of his c la im s inthe 3. 850 pr oc ee din gs and tha t the St at e 3 .8 5 0 Co u rt ap p l i ed t h e c o rr ec ts t an d ar d s wi t h re s p ec tt o t h e d ef en d an t ’s claim s relating to Brady

and Giglio. I d. at 238-40. T he Florida Suprem e Court al so c onc lud ed

that the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt a ppl ie d th e co rr ec t st an dard s and d id n ot
er r re gard ing the de fe ndant’ s c la im s th at tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff

ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o obt ai n th e Br ady

m at er ia ls o r to o bj ec t t o th e pr ose cu tio n’ s a lle ge d us e of
m isl ea din g e vid en ce . I d. a t 23 9- 40. W ithr es pe ct

to the de fe ndant’ s c la im

that hi s tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e during th e guilt ph ase, the Florida Suprem e Court again concluded that “ [t] he trial
co urt pr ope rl y

appl ie d th e law . W e fi nd n o e rr or . ” I d. a t 24 1. T he F lor ida Suprem e Court further

decided that the defendant’ s claim that defense counsel was
una ble to pol l the j ur

y w as “ w ith out

m er it. ” I d. a t 24 1 n. 12. W ithr eg ar d to the
re m ai nde r of

the de fe ndant’ s 3. 850 iss ue s, the F lor ida S upr em e Co urt sum

m ar ily de te rm ine d th at

the y w er e “ pr oc ed

ur al ly barr ed
. ” I d. a t 24 1 n. 11. D . St at e Ha be as P et it ion A t the sam e tim e he appe al ed the de nia l of

his 3. 850 m oti on t o th e Fl or ida Su pr em e Co urt, the de fe ndant f ile d astate pe tit ionf

or aw ri t of ha be as c or pus w ith the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt. I n hi s st at e ha be as pe tit ion , the de fe ndant r ai se d th eIn Nelms, the F lorida Supreme Court c oncluded that de fense counsel wa s not ineffe ctive 17 fo r f a ili ngto a nti c ipate a

su bs e qu e nt c ha

ng e in t he F lor ida

law r e g ard inga

Pa lm B e a c h Co un ty administrative orde r af

fec ting the se lection of juror s. Nelms, 596 So.2d at 442.

44 fo llo w ing iss ue s r eg ar din g hi s c onvi ct ion s: ( 1) ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

appe llate
co unse l f or f ai lin g to r ai se ac ha lle nge to (a ) the dis tr ic tin g pl anf or se le ct ing j ur or s, ( b) the tr ia l c ourt’ s lo ck -u p st at em en t, a nd ( c) m isl ea din g j ur y ins tr uc tio ns;
an d(2 ) t h e t ri al co u rt i m

p ro p er l y ex cl u d ed t es t i m o n y co n ce rn i n g J o n Le Cr o y’ s adm iss ion s a s to the ti m e he la st s awthe H ar de m an s. L eC ro y , 727 S
. 2d a t 23 8
n. 4. A s f

or the de fe ndant’ s st at e habe as pe tit ion , the F lor ida S upr em e Co urt, in the sam e opinio n affir

m ing th e denial of the defe ndant’s 3. 850 m otion , c onclud ed that the issu e of the im

proper districting p lan for j urors had not b een ra ised at trial
an d th at the ine ff ec tiv e- as sis tanc e- of

-a ppe llate -c ouns el iss ue w as f or ec los ed by N el m s v. S ta te , 596 S o. 2d 4 41 ( Fl a. 199 2)
. L eC ro y , 727 S o. 2d a t 24 1. T he 17 Fl o ri d a S up re m e C o u rt al s o d et er m i n ed t h at t h er e w as n o m er i tt o th e d ef en d an t ’s claim that appellate counsel was ineff ective for f

ailing to challenge the state trial court’ s lock-up statem ent. I d. at 241-42. F inally , the F lorida Suprem e Court
su m m ari ly con cl ud edth atth e d efen da nt ’s rem ai ni ng is su es were wi th ou t m eri t. Id
. a t 24 2 n. 13. T hus, f

or ase co nd t im e, the F lor ida S upr em e Co urt a ff

irm ed the de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es .45 V . S ec ti on 225 4 P et it ion O n M ar ch1, 200 0, the de fe ndant t im el y f ile d af ed er al ha be as pe tit ion pur suant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54. A ga in, giv enthe de fe ndant’ s de ath se nte nc e is n ow
va cate d, w e dis cu ss o nly

tho se iss ue s th at

r el at e to h is c onvi ct ion s. In a May 6, 2002 order, the district court noted that the state courts had properly concluded that certain claim s by the defendant we re proce durally barre d unde r Fl or ida

law , the state ’ s pr oc ed

ur al bar re ste d onind ep en de nt and a de qua te state pr oc ed

ur al gr ound s, a nd tha t the de fe ndant h ad f ai le d to sho wc au se a nd prej udice for his procedural default. T hus, in that order, the district court dism issed the following g uilt-phase claim s as procedurally barre d: (1) the trial
co urt’ s lo ck -u

p st at em en t vi ola te d th e Co nst itu tio n; ( 2) the dis tr ic tin g pr oc ed ur e in Pa lm Be ac h C ounty

w as unc onst itu tio na l; (3 ) the state ’ s in tr oduc tio n of sho ck ing
an d gr ue som e phot ogr ap hs v iol at ed the Co nst itu tio n; and ( 4) the state e nga ge d in
se ve ra l i nst an ce s of

pr ose cu tor ia l m isc ondu ct . A s to the r em ai nin g f

our gui lt- pha se c la im s, the dis tr ic t c ourt, in its May 6, 2002 order, determ ined that the defendant had tim ely requested, but had been denied, an evidentiary

hearing on his 3 .850 m otion in state court. The district
co u rtfu rt h ern o t ed t h at t h e S t at e 3 .8 5 0 Co u rt s i g n ed , wi t h o u tch an g e, t h e s t at e’s pr opos ed or de r de ny ing the de fe ndant an e vid en tiary he ar ing a nd d en y ing hisThe district cour t further deter mined that the fourth c laim – that the state trial cour t 18 improperly

excluded hear say

evidenc e re g ardingJ on L eCroy ’s guilt – did not war rant a n evidentiar y hear ing be cause there wer e no fa ctual issues re g ardingthat claim. This evidenc e wa s J on L eCroy ’s alleg edly

inculpatory

statements as to whe n he last saw the Har demans a live. As noted ea rlier, the F lorida Supreme Court c oncluded that the e x clusion of this hearsa y evidenc e was not er

ror, a nd even if err oneous, any

err or wa s harmless. L eCroy , 533 So.2d at 754. Ov e r t we nty wi tne sse s te sti fi e d at th e de fe nd ant’ s e vid e nti ary he ari ng , in c lud ingfa

mil y 19 members, f

riends, mental he alth profe ssionals, the defe ndant’s school tea cher s, and others. The majority of the witnesse s and testimony conce rned mitig ation evidenc e in the pena lty phase. At the e vid e nti ary

he ari ng , JonL e Cr oy

ini tia lly te sti fi e d, but th e n a sse rt e d h is F if th 20 A m e n dm e n tr i g h t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, d ur i n gc r o s s - e x am i n at i o n , th e g o v e r n m e n ta s k e d

J o nL e C r o y: “ Yo u d idn ’t

sh oo t John

Ha rd e man?” Jon L e Cr oy

re sp on de d th at a

man w a s p ointin ga

g un at hi s littl e brothe r so he shot him. The g overnme nt acc used Jon L eCroy of per jury and a la wy er w as appointed for

J on L eCroy . At this point , all questioning of J on L eCroy

cea sed. Howeve r, the g overnme nt wished to question J on L eCroy ag ain. Ther efor e, Jon L eCroy was c alled ag ain at the c onclusion of the evide ntiary hear ing. A t this t ime, J on L eCroy asser ted his Fifth Amendment r ights to all questions related to the murder of John Hardeman. The district court struc k J on L eCroy ’s ea rlier state ment from the r ecor d and did not consider it whe n denying

46 3. 850 m oti on. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f urthe r fo und tha t the de fe ndant w as dil ige nt i n his efforts to develop th e fa ctual basis for his claim s and obtain an evidentiary he ar ing in state c ourt. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ul tim at el y c onc lud ed

that thr ee of

the de fe ndant’ s f

our gui lt- pha se c la im s w ar

rante d an e vid en tiary

he ar ing
. 18 InMay 200 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld an e vid en tiary he ar ing on the f

oll ow ing three guilt-phase claim s: (1) ineffe ctive assistance of appellate counsel on direct ap pe al ; ( 2) ine ff

ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

tr ia l c ouns el ; and ( 3) the state ’ s vi ola tio ns o f the c onst itu tio na l r equir em en ts i n B ra dy a nd G igl io. 19 A s f or the de fe ndant’ s gu ilt -p ha se c la im s, the te sti m ony of tw o in div idu al s du rin g t he ev id en ti ary he ari ng is pa rti cu la rly relev an t. Firs t, Ri ch ardA. Barl ow, 20the def

endant’ s § 2254 petition. On appea l, the defe ndant has not cha lleng ed the district cour t’s e v i d e n t i ar y r u l i n g , an d thu s w e d o n o tc o n s i d e r

th i s t e s t i m o n y. 47 the A ssi stant S ta te ’ s A tto rn ey w ho p ro se cu te d th e de fe ndant, te sti fi ed a t the
ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing
. Whe n B ar loww as a ske d a bout the “ sc ri pts ” he pr ep ar ed f or the w itn es se s inthe de fe ndant’ s tr ia l, he r es pond ed that w he n “pr ep ar ing the
w itn es s to te sti fy

in j ai l, I a ct

ua lly w ri te out e ve ry que sti on I int en d to a sk a
w itn es s, a s w el l a s de sc ri be in the re the not es , the pa ge of the de posi tio n, the pol ic e re port or

w ha te ve r it is tha t I got

the a nsw er

the y ha d pr ev iou sly

giv en , a nd I do that for alm ost every single witness in a m aj or case. ” Barlow f urther stated that he gave these ty

ped “ scripts” to the witnesses and then “ go[es] over w ith them tho se que sti ons to c onf

irm the ir a nsw er s are , in fa ct , ba se d onw ha t the y ha ve sa id in d ep osi tio ns, pol ic e state m en t, a cc ur at e. . . . I c onf irm w iththe m

w he the r tha t i s sti ll ac curate , if

the re is an y

c hange in tha t, a nd tha t’ s ho wI a ct ua lly pr ep ar e fo r th atwit ne ss to tes ti fy .” Ac co rd i n g t o Ba rl o w, t h e p ro s ec u t i o n ’s the or y w as that the H ar de m an s ha d be enout c am pin g and hunt ing in the Br ow n’ s f

ar m hun t are a al ong w iththe L eC ro y fam ily , not tog ethe r but in separ ate – it wa s very popu lar hunt ing ar ea in southern Palm Be ach C o u n t y. Tha t d u rin g the course of the tim e period that the parties we re there, Jon and Cleo LeCr oy cam e across the Hardem ans who had been actually cam ped out th ere in a tent and cam ping are a.Eisenber gref err ed to “pha se one” and “pha se two” the ories. It appea rs that he wa s 21 ref err ing to the guilt and sentencingphases of the trial. 48 T ha t Jo n and C le o, ba sic al ly , tog ethe r m ad e ce rt ai n de te rm ina tio ns tha t the y

w oul d be a n e as y

co up le to ro b, that, in fa ct , Cl eo did , in fa ct , r ob the m . H e shot Mr
. H ar de m an an d sh ot m ult ipl e tim es Ms
. H ar de m an . T ha t he sto le aw al le t wit h a ppr oxi m at el y

$30 from Mr. Hardem an and I believe it w as, I believe it wa s a brand new th irt y ou gh t s ix rif

le
. . . .

. . . Muc h of

the S ta te ’ s po sit ionin thi s ca se wa s de ri ve d f ro m the state m en ts o f Cl eo LeCro y in his ow n st at em en ts t o th e pol ic e an d hi s ac tio ns t o th e pol ic e in p re te ndi ng tha t he w as a gr eat tra ck er that c oul d go thr oughthe w oods an d se e the se f oot pr int s w he re non e w er e ex ist ing and he could com e up with these stories to the poli ce. T he police wer e tot al ly dis be lie vin g of

that and b el ie ve d th at

he ha d a

gr eat de al of know le dge about

w ha t ha ppe ne d pr ior

to the ir a ct ua lly be ing f ound
. I be lie ve m

y the or y to the jury was that i t w as ac om bin at ionof fe lon y m ur de r an d fir st deg re e m

ur de r. I n F lor ida

w e can pr es en t bo th si m ul ta ne ou sl y

an d a ll ow t he jury to m ak e th e se le ct io n. . . . T hus, the pr ose cu tio n’ s th eo ry w as that the de fe ndant and J on L eC ro y planne d to
ro b th e H ar de m an s, that the de fe ndant s hot the H ar de m an s, a nd tha t i t w as a
com binatio n of felony

m urder and first-degre e m

urder. Se co nd, Jam es E ise nbe rg , af orm er A ssi stant S ta te P ubl ic D ef en de r w ho
w as appoi nte d to r ep re se nt t he de fe ndant d

ur ing the state tr ia l, a lso te sti fi ed dur ing the evidentiary

hearing. Ac cording to Eisenberg, his theory in “ phase one,” wa s 21 that the defendant had “ com e acr oss Jo [h] n Har dem an and shot him accidently .” E ise nbe rg f

urthe r el ab or at ed

that the de fe ndant49

w as start le d and I gue ss, I thi nk, Mr
. H ar de m anha d a cc ide nta lly sho t i n Mr
. L eC ro y ’ s di re ct iona nd, the re fo re , start led Mr. L eC ro y , w ho ins tin ct ive ly

sho t bac k and i t w as e ith er a n a cc ide nt o r se lf

-d ef en se ty pe ac tio n, a nd tha t a s to G ai l H ar de m an , that he ha d be en , he w as ups et a nd he ha d be enc onf

ro nte d by he r y el lin g and s cr eam ing an d th e gun w en t off, not to in tention ally

kill her, and e ither by accident or a lesser degree of hom icide. A lth oughE ise nbur g st at ed that he ha d so m e re as on t o be lie ve e ith er JonL eC ro y
or the de fe ndant’ s f

athe r “ did it , ” he a dm itt ed

that the de fe ndant c onsi ste ntl y tol d hi m “ th athe was t he on e who pu ll edth e tr ig ge r.” A ft er c ondu ct ing the e vid en tiary he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d th e defendant’ s § 225 4 petitio n. A s for the guilt-phase claim s that wer e not dism issed
as pr oc ed ur al ly barr ed , the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that: (1 ) the de fe ndant f

ai le d to
es ta bli sh tha t e ith er

his tr ia l or

appe llate c ouns el s’ pe rf

orm an ce s w er e de fi ci en t; (2 ) the de fe ndant f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh any pr ej udi ce f

ro m the a lle ge d B ra dy vio la tio ns; a nd ( 3) the de fe ndant f ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t the gov er

nm en t kn ow ing ly
use d m at er ia lly

f al se e vid en ce in vio la tio n of G igl io. O n S ep te m

be r 27, 200 4, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d ac er tif ic at e of appealability

as to all of the defe ndant’s cla im s, including th ose claim s the district
co urt de te rm ine d w er e pr oc ed ur al ly barr ed
. T he de fe ndant t im el y appe al ed
. VI. Stand ard of R eview50

Be ca use L eC ro y

f ile d hi s f ed er al ha be as pe tit iona ft er

Apr il 24, 199 6, thi s
ca se is gove rn ed

by the A nti te rr or ism

a nd E ff ec tiv e D eath P en al ty

A ct of 199 6 (“ A E D PA ”) , w hic h “ es ta bli she s ahig hly

de fe re nti al standard

f or r ev ie w ing state court j udgm ents.” P arker v. Se c’ y for D ep’ t of Corr. , 331 F. 3d 76 4, 768 (11 Cir. th 2003 ); se e H al iburt on v . S ec ’ y f or D ep ’ t of Co rr . , 342 F
. 3d 1 233, 123 7- 38 ( 11 th Ci r. 200 3) ( “ both th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ev ie wa nd o ur r ev ie wis gr eatly ci rc um sc ri be d and i s hi ghl y de fe re nti al to the state c ourts” ) (quot at ionm ar ks and citation om itted); Craw ford v. H ead, 311 F.3d 128 8, 1295 (11 Cir. 2002 ) (sam e). th U nde r A E D PA , ape rs on i n c ust ody pur suant t o th e j udgm en t of astate
co urt sh al l no t be gr an te d ha be as r el ie f unl es s th e state c ourt’ s de ci sio n w as ( 1)

“ contrary to, or involved an un reasonable application of, clearly established Fed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co ur t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or ( 2)
. . . wa s based on an un reasonable determ ination of the fac ts in lig ht of the evidence pr es en te d i n t he Sta te co ur t p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d)
. Mor eo ve r, § 22 54( e) (1 ) pr ovi de s th at “ a de te rm ina tio n of

af ac tua l i ssu e
m ade by a Sta te court shall be presum ed to be correc t” unless the petiti oner car ries his bur de n to r eb ut the pr es um pti on o f co rr ec tne ss “by

c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing
ev ide nc e. ” 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54( e) (1 ); se e al so R obi nsonv. Mo or e, 300 F
. 3d 1 320, 1342 (11 Cir. 2002 ).

thSe c tio n 2 25 4( e )( 2) pr ov ide s: 22 I f the a pplicant has fa iled to develop the f actua l basis of a c laim in St ate c ourt pr oc e e din g s, the c ourt

sh a ll n ot h old

an e vid e nti ary

he ari ngon

the c la im unle ss the applica

nt shows that – (A) the claim re lies on – (i) a ne w rule of

constitutional law, made re troac tive to c a se s o n c oll ate ra l r e vie w b y the Sup re me Court , that was pre viously

unavailable ; or (ii) a f actua l predicate that could not have been previously

discovere d throug h the exercise of due diligenc e; and (B ) the fa cts underly

ing the claim would be suff icient to establish by

clea r and c onvin c inge vid e nc e that but f or c on sti tut ion a l e rr or , n o r e a so na ble fac tfinder would ha

ve found the applicant g

uilty of the unde rlying of

fense
. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)
. As dis c us se d e arl ie r, the de fe nd ant t ime ly re qu e ste d a

n e vid e nti ary

he ari ngin t

he State 23 3.850 Court, but that request wa s denied. The district court found that the de fenda nt was dilige nt in his efforts to deve lop the fac tual basis of his exhausted claims in state court, but had be en summarily

denied a n evidentiar

y hear ing. F urther, be cause on appea l the state has not cha lleng ed the district court’s grant of the fede ral e videntiary hear ing, w e nee d not, and do not, decide wh e the r t he dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in g ra nti nga fe de ra l e vid e nti ary

he ari ngin t

his c a se . Se e Mc Na ir v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 2005 WL1634046, at *3-4 (11 Cir. J uly 13, 2005). th 51 I n t h i s c a s e , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtc o n du c t e da n e v i d e n t i a ry h e a r i n g a s t o s o me of the de fe ndant’ s c la im s. S ec tio n 22 54( e) (2 ) se ve re ly li m its the c ir cu m stanc es in which a district court m ay properly conduct an evidenti ary

hearing. 28 U. S. C. § 22 54( e) (2 ). O n a

ppe al , the state ha s no t c ha lle nge d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n 22 to h old a n e vid en tiary

he ar ing a s to som e of

de fe ndant’ s c la im s. R athe r, the state 23
co nte nds tha t, a ft er

c ondu ct ing a n e vid en tiary he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y de nie d th e de fe ndant’ s § 2 254 pe tit ion
.52

Furtherm ore, when r eviewing the district court’ s denial of a § 2254 h abeas pe tit ion , w e re vie wque sti ons of lawa nd m ixe d qu es tio ns o f lawa nd f ac t de nov o,
an d f ind ing s of

f ac t f or c le ar e rr or . N y land v
. Mo or e, 216 F
. 3d 1 264, 126 6 ( 11 th Ci r. 200 0) ; Wri ght

v. H oppe r, 169 F
. 3d 6 95, 701 ( 11 Ci r. 199 9)
. F ina lly , “ [t ] he th di st ric t co ur t’s d et erm in at io n o f whe th er t he st at e co ur t d eci si on was re as on ab le
. . . is subje ct to de novo review .” H all v. H ead, 310 F.3d 683 , 690 (11 Cir. 2002 ). th V II. D isc us sio n A . C on vic ti on Iss ue s – P ro ce du ra l B ar Inhis § 22 54 p et iti on, the de fe ndant r ai se d th e fo llo w ing iss ue s c onc er nin g his conv ictions which bot h the state courts and the federal district court de te rm ine d w er e pr oc ed

ur al ly barr ed : ( 1) the tr ia l c ourt’ s lo ck -u p st at em en t violated th e Constituti on; (2) the districting procedure in Palm Beac h Countywa s
u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l ; ( 3 ) t h e s t a t e ’s i n t r o du c t i o n o f s h o c k i n g a n dg r

u e s o me phot ogr ap hs v iol at ed

the Co nst itu tio n; ( 4) the state e nga ge d inse ve ra l i nst an ce s of pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t. W ithr eg ar d to the de fe ndant’ s c la im that the tr ia l c ourt’ s lo ck -u p st at em en t violated th e Constituti on, the State 3.850 Court determ ined that the claim wa s procedurally

barre d because it either w as or could have been raised on direct appeal. “ The diff

iculty with the procedural def

ault argum ent is found in the ‘ wa sThe de fenda nt did raise a r elated c laim in his st ate ha beas pe tition before the F lorida 24 Supreme Court; namely

that appellate counsel wa s ineffe ctive for failingto raise the state trial c o urt ’ s c o m m e n t s a s ani s s u e o n a p p e a l
. T h e F l o r i d a

S u p r e m e C o urtr e

j e c t e d th ati s s u e . L e C r o y, 727 So.2d at 241-42. “In order to be exhausted, a fe dera l claim must be fairly prese nted to the state c ourts.” Mc Na ir v. Campb e ll, 41 6 F .3 d 1 29 1, 20 05 WL16 34 04 6, at *6 (1 1 Cir . July 13 , 2 00 5) . “ I t is th no t su ff ic ie nt m e re ly

that th e fe de ra l ha

be a s p e tit ion e r h a s b e e n thro ug h th e state c ourt s . . . no r i s it s uf fi c ie nt t hat a ll the fa c ts n e c e ssa

ry to s up po rt

the c la im w e re be fo re the state c ourt s o r t hat a somewhat similar state- law cla im was made.” Kelly v. Sec’y for De pt. of Corr., 377 F .3d 1317, 13 43 -4 4 ( 11 Cir . 2 00 4) (c itatio ns omi tte d) . Rathe r, fe de ra l c ourt s “ have re qu ir e d a state th 53 ra ise d’ or ‘ co uld ha ve be enr ai se d’ dic hot om y . ” S m ithv. D ugge r, 840 F
. 2d 7 87, 791 (11 Cir. 1988 ) (discussing th e state court’ s refusal to address the m erits of a

th claim m ade in a 3.850 proceeding). As this Court has concluded, if, in fact, the claim wa s raised on direct ap pe al in state c ourt, it

w as ne ce ssari ly

r ule d up on and m igh t ve ry w el l be

“ foreclosed fr om

state collatera l attack, [but] it would be available in the federa l
case a s an exhausted claim .” Id. If , how ever, the claim

“ could have been raised [o n d ire ctap pe al ], bu t was no t, i t wo ul d b e b arre d fr om an y st at e co ll at eral rev ie w, and likewise barr ed from feder al review .” Id. (citing Murray v. Carrier , 477 U. S. 478, 106 S. Ct. 2369 (1986)). Review ing th e state court r ecord, we conclude that the de fe ndant d id n ot r ai se the loc k- up s ta te m en t a s ac la im on d ir ec t a

ppe al to the Fl or ida S upr em e Co urt. F urthe rm or e, the de fe ndant d id n ot a ppe al the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt’ s de te rm ina tio n th at thi s c la im

w as pr oc ed

ur al ly barr ed to the F lor ida Su pr em e Co urt. 24prisoner to pre sent the state c ourts with the same c laim he urg es upon the fe dera l courts.” Picar d

v. Conno r, 40 4 U .S. 27 0, 27 6, 92 S. Ct . 5 09 , 5 12 (1 97 1) . “ Whil e we do no t r e qu ir e a ve rb atim re state me nt o f t

he c la ims br ou g ht i n s tate c ourt , w e do re qu ir e that a pe tit ion e r p re se nte d h is claims to the state cour

t such that a re asonable rea der w ould understand e ach c laim’s particula r leg al basis and spe cific f

actua l foundation.” McN air, 416 F .3d at –, 2005 WL1634046, at *7 (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). We conclude the substantive claim that the tria l court e rre d by

makingthe lock-up state ment is separate and distinct from a n ineffe ctiveassistance -of- counsel c laim based on the f ailure to objec t to, or appea l, the trial court’ s lock-up state me nt. Thus , th is c la im w a s n ot f a ir ly pr e se nte d to the state c ourt s. Th is C ourt

ha s a lr e a dy

c on c lud e d th at th e pr oc e dura l r e qu ir e me nts of F lor ida ’s Rul e 25 3.850 constitute independe nt and ade quate state g rounds under the applica

ble law. Whiddon v. Dug g er, 894 F .2d 1266, 1267-68 (11th Cir. 1990). 54 Ac cordingly , w e conclude that the State 3. 850 Cou rt’ s refusal to consider the de fe ndant’ s a sse rt ionthat the tr ia l c ourt’ s lo ck -u p st at em en t vi ola te d th e Co nst itu tio n a s pr oc ed

ur al ly barr ed r es te d ona n in de pe nde nt and a de qua te state gr ound that pr ec lud es f

ed er al ha be as c onsi de ratio n of

thi s is sue . W e al so

25
co nc lud e tha t the de fe ndant f ai le d to pr ope rl y

e xhaust thi s is sue w he n he f

ai le d to raise it, or an issue sufficiently sim ilar, to the Florida Suprem e Court on direct ap pe al or in his appe al of

the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt’ s de ci sio n. C onse que ntl y , thi s cl ai m about the tr ia l c ourt’ s lo ck -u

p st at em en t i s pr oc ed

ur al ly barr ed , a nd w e do not c onsi de r it. S ee , e . g. , Co le m anv. T hom pson , 501 U
. S. 722 , 735 n. 1, 111 S
. Ct
. 2546 , 255 7 n. 1 ( 1991 ) (“ [I ] f the pe tit ion er f ai le d to e xhaust

state r em ed ie s and the
co urt t o w hic h th e pe tit ion er w oul d be r equir ed

to pr es en t hi s c la im s inor de r toAEDPA has slig htly altere d how fe dera l courts may deal with proc edura lly

defa ulted 26 claims. Acc ordingto § 2254(b)(1) (A), a fede ral c ourt is prec luded from grantinghabea s relief un le ss “ the a

pp lic ant h a s e xha

us te d th e re me die s ava ila ble in t he c ourt s o f t

he State .” 28 U. S.C. § 2254(b)( 1)(A) (empha sis added). H oweve r, “[a]n application for a writ of habe as cor

pus may be denie d on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the a pplicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.” I d. at § 2254(b)( 2) (e mphasis added) . Whil e we have the option to deny

the claim on the mer its, we also may continue to re st our conclusions on the proce dural ba

r. We do note that in his state habea s petition, the defenda nt raised a

n issue of ineff

ective 27 assistance of counse l based on a ppellate c ounsel’s fa ilure to raise this dist rictingissue in his 1998 direc t appea l. Howeve r, the F lorida Supreme Court c oncluded that this ineff ective- assistance -ofcounsel issue “ has alre ady been de cided a dverse ly

to the defe ndant.” L eCroy , 727 So.2d at 241 (citingNelms v. State, 596 So.2d 441 (Fla. 1992) ). As in Nelms, the de fenda nt’s 1986 trial and 1988 direc t appea l were conclude d befor e the 1989 r uling r eg ardingthe Palm Be ach districting plan in Spencer

v. State, 545 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1989) , and, thus, appe llate counse l was not ineffe ctive for

failingto anticipate the c hang e in the law. N elms, 596 So.2d at 442. 55 m eet th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t wo ul d n ow fi nd th e cl ai m s p ro ced ur al ly barre d . . . ther e is a procedural def ault for purpose of federa l habeas .
. . .” ). 26 W ith regard to the defendant’ s second claim , that the districting procedure in P al m Be ac h C ounty

w as unc onst itu tio na l, the de fe ndant d id n ot r ai se thi s is sue on direct appeal or in his state 3.850 m otion
. Consequent ly , the district court pr ope rl y de te rm ine d th at

thi s c la im

w as une xhaust ed

a nd p ro ce dur al ly

barr ed , a nd
w e do n ot c onsi de r it. S ee id. 27 A s f or the de fe ndant’ s c la im

that the state ’ s in tr oduc tio n of sho ck ing a nd gruesom e photog raphs violated th e Constituti on, the State 3.850 Court determ ined that the claim

wa s procedurally

barre d because it could have been raised on direct appeal. Likew ise, the F lorida Suprem e Court also determ ined that the claim wa sThe State 3.850 Court consider ed and r ejec ted two of the de fenda nt’s claims of 28 pr os e c uto ri a l mi sc on du c t on the me ri ts: (1 ) a lle g e dly

tr ans fe rr ingg ov e rnme nt- wi tne ss S lor a in exchang e for

favor able testimony ; and (2) g iving the w itnesses scripts of their e x pecte d te sti mony . T o th e e xtent th e se iss ue s a re no t pr oc e dura lly

ba rr e d, we c on c lud e that th e state court’s r esolution of these issues is not contrar y to, or an unre asonable application of, f eder al law. 56 pr oc ed ur al ly barr ed
. C onse que ntl y , w e co nc lud e tha t the state c ourt’ s de ci sio n
re ste d onind ep en de nt and a de qua te state gr ound s, a nd tha t f ed er al ha be as r el ie f is unavailable to th e defe ndant on this iss ue. Fi na lly , the de fe ndant a sse rt s th at the state e nga ge d inse ve ra l i nst an ce s of prosecutorial m iscondu ct. Both the State 3. 850 Cou rt and Florida Suprem e Court (in the appeal from

the denial of 3.850 relief) determ ined that these claim s wer e pr oc edur al ly barre d b ecau se th ey co ul d h av e b een rai se d o n d ire ctap pe al
. As 28
w iththe de fe ndant’ s c la im r eg ar din g th e shoc kin g and g ru es om e phot ogr ap hs, the state c ourt’ s de te rm ina tio n r es ts o n in de pe nde nt and a de qua te state gr ound s and habeas relief

is, there fore, unavailable. B. Conviction Issues – Evide ntiary Hearing A s no te d e ar lie r, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d c ondu ct a n e vid en tiary

he ar ing on the following three guilt-ph ase issues: (1) ineffe ctive assistance of appellate counsel
o n d i re ct ap p ea l ; (2 ) i n ef

fe ct i v e a s s i s t an ce o f t ri al co u n s el ; an d(3 ) t h e s t at e’s violatio ns of the constit ution al requirem ents of Brady and Giglio. T he districtUnder Strickland, the def

endant must establish both that his counsel’s per formanc e wa s 29 de fi c ie nt a

nd that he wa s p re

jud ic e d b y

his c ouns e l’ s d e fi c ie nt p e rf or manc e . Stri c kla

nd , 4 66 U. S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. 57 co urt c onsi de re d th e m er its of the se thr ee c la im s and c onc lud ed that no ne of

the se claim s war

ranted habeas re lief. In this case, the state courts denied the defendant’ s ineffec tive-assistanceof -c ouns el c la im s ba se d so le ly on the pr ej udi ce pr ong of S tr ic kland v
. W as hin gto n, 466 U
. S. 668 , 104 S
. Ct
. 205 2 ( 1984 ). H ow ev er , a ft er the 29 evidentiary

hearing, the district court denied the defendant’ s ineffec tiveas si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m s b as edso le ly on t he pe rfo rm an ce p ro ng of S tri ck la nd
. The district court also concluded that the defendant failed to establish prej udice fr om a ny Br ady vio la tio ns, a nd f

ai le d to sho wa ny

G igl io v iol at ion s. T he se differe nt conclusi ons ordi narily warrant diffe rent defer ence. A s f or the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion s r eg ar din g th e pe rf orm an ce pr ong of Strickland, w e engage in de novo review and do not defer to the state court be ca use it did not r ule on the pe rf

orm an ce pr ong (thus, the re is nothin g to de fe r to
as t o t h at s ub -i s s u e) . Ho we v er , a s t o t h e p re ju d i ce p ro n g an dt h e s t at e c o u rt ’s ul ti m at e d en ia l o f th e d efen da nt ’s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m s, we
m ay gr an t ha be as r el ie f onl y

if the state c ourt’ s r es olu tio n of the se iss ue s w as ( 1)

“ contrary to, or involved an un reasonable application of, clearly established58

Fed eral law as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co ur t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; or ( 2)
. . . wa s based on an un reasonable determ ination of the fac ts in lig ht of the evidence presented in the State court procee ding .” 28 U. S. C. § 225 4(d). T he f ac t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld an e vid en tiary he ar ing m ay

a dd a pot en tia l w ri nkl e to A E D PA ’ s de fe re nc e. S om e co urts h av e co nc lud ed that the fact that a district court hold s an evidentiary hearing in accordance with A ED PA doe s no t a lte r the f

ed er al standard

of r ev ie w ; tha t i s, c ourts are sti ll re qui re d to ap ply the de fe re nc e m an da te d in§ 22 54( d)
. S ee Mathe ne y v. A nde rs on, 377 F
. 3d 740, 747 ( 7 Ci r. 200 4) ( “ [O ] ur c as e lawis cl ear in h old ing that § 2254 (d ) is th ap pli ca ble e ve n th oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt he ld an e vid en tiary he ar ing
. T he
ev ide nc e obt ai ne d insuc h ahe ar ing is qui te li ke ly to be ar on the r ea sona

ble ne ss o f the state c ourts’ a dj udi catio n bu t w e do n ot s ee w hy it sho uld a lte r the standard

of federa l review .” (internal quotation m arks, citations, and ellipsis om itted)); V aldez v. Cockre ll, 274 F.3d 941, 946-47, 951-52 (5 Cir. 2001 ) (“ Where a district court th el ec ts, in ins tanc es not

barr ed by § 22 54( e) (2 ), to hol d an e vid en tiary he ar ing , the hearing m ay

assist the dis trict court in ascertaining whether the state court re ached an unreasonable determ ination under either § 2254(d)(1) or (d)( 2). An evidentiary hearing is not an exercise in futility j ust because §§ 22 54(d) and (e)( 1) require de fe re nc e. ”)
. O n th e oth er hand, som e co urts h av e co nc lud ed , a t l ea st i n c er ta inThe a rgument as to why

§ 2254(d) mig ht not apply in cer tain instances in which a 30 fede ral e videntiary

hear ing is pre mised in sound practica lity . I f the fe dera l evidentiary hear ing uncover s new, re levant evide nce that impacts upon a petitioner’ s claim(s) a nd was not bef

ore the state cour t, it is problematic to a scer tain how a f

eder al cour

t would defe r to the state c ourt’s deter mination. That is, the new, re levant evide nce w as neve r bef ore the state cour

t so it never considere d the impact of the evidenc e whe n denying r elief, a nd there is arguably

nothing to def

er to. In contra st, the argument that a fe dera l evidentiary hear ing doe s not alter the f eder al sta nd ard of re vie w i s a s f

oll ow s. AE DPApla c e s a highly de fe re nti a l st and ard

of re vie w i n habea s case s and provides that habea s relief “shall not be g rante d with respec t to any claim that was a djudicated on the me rits in St ate c ourt proce eding s” unless ce rtain conditions are met. 28 U. S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . T he wo rd s “ sh a ll” and “ any” are po we rf

ul w or ds and

re nd e r A ED PA applicable to all claims raised in a habea s petition reg ardle ss of whethe r a f eder al evidentiar

y hear ing is he ld. After a ll, AEDPA itself dictates under what cir cumstance s a fe dera l evidentiary hear ing c an be he ld. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). Apetitioner’s ha beas c laim, even if subjec t to a pr op e r f e de ra l e vid e nti ary

he ari ng , is sti ll “ any” c la im f or the purp os e s o f § 22 54 (d )’ s h ig hly de fe re nti a l st and ard

of re vie w, and

the ne w e vid e nc e in t

he fe de ra l pr oc e e din gis c on sid e re d in deter mining whe ther the state court re ache d an unre asonable deter mination. Aga in, we do not de c ide , o r i mpl y

in a ny wa y , whic h a

pp ro a c h is c or

re c t. 59 ins tanc es , that A E D PA ’ s r equir em en t of de fe re nc e to s ta te c ourt de te rm ina tio ns i s not appl icable w hen the federa l evidentiary hearing revea ls new evidence that w as not cons idered by

the state court. See Monroe v. A ngelon e, 323 F.3d 286, 297 (4 th Ci r. 200 3) ( “ A E D PA ’ s de fe re nc e re qui re m en t do es not appl y w he n ac la im

m ad e on f ed er al ha be as r ev ie wis pr em ise d onBr ady m at er ia l tha t ha s surf

ac ed f or the fi rs t t im e dur ing f

ed er al pr oc ee din gs. ”) ; se e al so H oll an d v. Ja ck son, 124 S
. Ct
. 2736 , 2738 (2004); Miller v. Cham pion , 161 F. 3d 12 49, 1254 (10 Cir. 1998 ). t h 30 W e ne ed not de ci de w ha t e ff

ec t, if a ny , the f

ed er al e vid en tiary

he ar ing in thi s c as e ha s onour

standard of r ev ie wbe ca

use w he the r w e en ga ge in de nov o reviewor apply

the defer ence m andated in § 22 54(d), w e conclude that the district60

court properly

denied habeas relief as to the defendant’ s guilt -phase claim s. I n ad dit ionto de te rm ini ng tha t no ne of the de fe ndant’ s gu ilt -p ha se c la im s w ar rants habeas relief

, w e also conclude that onl y two of his claim s war

rant additional dis cu ssi on. C. Ineff

ective A ssistance of Tr ial Counsel The def endant claim s that his trial couns el w as ineffe ctive because he f ailed to i ntr oduc e ev ide nc e tha t w oul d po int to Jon L eC ro y ’ s gu ilt
. W e fi rs t di sc uss Stri ck land’ s pe rf

orm an ce pr ong. 1. Pe rform ance P rong A s no te d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt, “ it ap pe ar s th at [ the de fe ndant’ s] tr ia l de fe nse
co unse l c ondu ct ed

atho ro ugh inv es tig at iona nd ana ly sis of the c as e an d up on h is pr of es sio na l r ev ie w , he m ad e re as one d, str at eg ic de ci sio ns w ithr es pe ct to the presentation of evidenti ary and legal issues to the trial court. ” Further , the district
co urt c onc lud ed

that the de fe ndant “ is r ea lly obj ec tin g to . . . the tr ia l strate gy
em plo y ed by tr ia l de fe nse c ouns el ” an d “ [t ] his Co urt do es not e le ct to se co nd gue ss t he tr ia l strate gy

de ci sio ns o f co m

pe te nt c ouns el
. ” Be ca

use the state c ourts
re ste d th ei r de nia l of

the de fe ndant’ s in ef

fe ct ive -a ssi stanc e- of

-c ouns el c la im s on the pr ej udi ce pr ong of

S tr ic kland and w e ow e no d ef er en ce to the dis tr ic t c ourt onTh e As sis tant S tate ’s Attor ne y , B arl ow , who pr os e c ute d th e c a se a g a ins t th e de fe nd ant, 31 te sti fi e d th at de fe ns e c ouns e l us e d a dif fe re nt d e fe ns e the or

y . Sp e c if ic a lly , B arl owstate d th at, “the unde rlying de fense was Cleo didn’t do it. May be Jon di d it . . . .” 61 this iss ue, w e first deter

m ine de novo whether

trial counsel’ s perform ance w as constitu tionallyineffec tive. During the evidentiary

hearing on the defendant’ s § 225 4 petitio n, trial counsel, E isenberg, described his theory of defense a s being an accident or lesser de gr ee of hom ic ide
. E ise nbe rg de sc ri be d th e de fe ndant at the ti m e of the 31
m ur de rs a s be ing startled and I guess, I think, Mr. Hardem an had accidentally shot in Mr. L eC ro y ’ s di re ct iona nd, the refo re , start le d M r. L eC ro y , w ho ins tin ct ive ly

sho t ba ck a nd i t w as e ith er ana cc ide nt o r se lf -d ef en se ty pe ac tio n, a nd tha t a s to G ai l H ar de m an , that he ha d be en , he w as ups et a nd he ha d be enc onf

ro nte d by he r y el lin g and s cr eam ing an d th e gun w en t off, not to in tention ally kill her, and either b y accident o r a lesser degree of hom icide. The de fen da nt was c ha rg edwit h t he fel on y m ur de rs of J oh n a nd Gail Hard em an . If c onvi ct ed

of e ith er of the se c ri m es , the de fe ndant f ac ed the pos sib ili ty

of the de ath pe na lty
. H ow ev er , if the j ur y de te rm ine d th at

the de fe ndant c om

m itt ed onl y thi rd -d eg re e m

ur de r (n o pr em ed itatio n or int en t t o r ob b ef

or e the kil lin gs) , the d e f e n d an two u l dn o tb e e l i g i b l e f o r t h e d e a t hp e n a l t y. De fe n s e c o u n s el wa s b y n o m ea n s i n ac t i v e o r p as s i v e d u ri n g t h e d ef en d an t ’s tr ia l. R athe r, c ouns el f

ile d do ze ns o f m oti ons, a nd w as ini tia lly suc ce ssf ul i nThe fa ct that the F lorida Supreme Court late r re verse d the state trial c ourt and 32 deter mined that the def

endant’ s confe ssions and other evide nce w as admissible does not re nder trial counsel’ s perf

ormanc e def

icient. The de fenda

nt claims that counsel wa s ineffe ctive in a number of wa y s, including 33 failingto do the following : (1) discove r and use J on L eCroy ’s polyg raph r esults; (2) pre sent evidenc e that Jon L eCroy g ave police a rifle differ ent from the one he had use d the day of the mur de rs ; ( 3) pr e se nt a

le tte r Jon L e Cr oy wr ote his atto rn e y

a sk inghim

if he wo uld g e t mo re tim e than his brother if c onvicted; (4) pr esent e vidence that the def endant’ s pare nts favore d J on L eCroy and cha ng ed their initial statement to police; and ( 5) pre sent evidenc e of imprope r police tactics used to c oerc e stateme nts from J on L eCroy and his pare nts. 62 ge tti ng the de fe ndant’ s c onf es sio ns and o the r ev ide nc e supp re sse d by the state trial court. In addition to filing several pre-tr ial m otion s, def ense counsel 32 de pose d go ve rn m en t w itn es se s and, a t tri al , e xte nsi ve ly c ro ss- ex am ine d a ll but

one
o f t h e g o v ern m en twi t n es s es . De fe n s e c o u n s el t h ro u g h l y t es t ed t h e g o v ern m en t ’s
case. While defense counsel did n ot call witnesses as part of the defendant’ s case, this decisio n provid ed defense counsel with the final closing argum ent. S ee F la. R. Cr im
. P
. 3. 250. T he de fe ndant a sse rt s th at r athe r than si m

ply puttin g th e gove rn m en t t o it s burden of provin g the felony m urders, defense counsel shou ld have elicited
ev ide nc e of

JonL eC ro y ’ s gu ilt

a nd c onc ur

re nt p ro se cu tio n f

or the sam e of

fe nse s. 33 How ever, this ign ores the fac t that the trial evidence alre ady m ade the j ury

aw are of: (1) Jon Le Croy ’ s invo lvem ent in the search for the Har dem ans; and (2) the fac t that i t w as JonL eC ro y , not the de fe ndant, w ho u lti m at el y le d th e au tho ri tie s to the H ar de m an s’ bod ie s.On J anuar y 13, 1981, J on L eCroy

took a polyg raph e x amination at the Palm Be ach 34 County Sheriff’ s Offic e. Ac cordingto the defe ndant’s state 3.850 motion, J on L eCroy showed d e c e p t i o na s t o th e f

o l l o w i n gqu e s t i o n s : ( 1 ) W e r e y o uth e r e w h e ny o ur b o th e r s h o tth o s e p e o p l e ?; (2) Did you shoot the man or the woma n? ; and (3) “ Did y ou see those bodie s the day they wer e shot? ” On June 10, 1981, J on L eCroy took a sec ond polyg raph w ith the State Publi c De fende r’s Offic e in West Palm Beac h. Acc ordingto the results, J on L eCroy was be ing tr

uthful when he stated that he did not shoot J ohn Har deman, but wa s beingdece ptive when he said he did not shoot Gail Harde man. 63 A s f or the a ddi tio na l e vid en ce poi nti ng t o Jo n L eC ro y ’ s in vol ve m en t, the State 3. 850 Cou rt concluded that there wa s no basis for adm issio n of such
ev ide nc e. T he F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt sum

m ar ily a ff irm ed
. S ee L eC ro y , 727 So.2d at 241. F or exam

ple, the def

endant contend s that trial counsel was ine ff ec tiv e fo r fa ili ng t o ob ta in and i ntr oduc e ev ide nc e of JonL eC ro y ’ s po ly gr ap h
re sul ts. 34 A cc or din g to F lor ida

law , pol y gr ap h r es ult s are ina dm iss ab le unl es s bo th parties consent. Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766 , 787 (Fla. 2004 ); D avis v. State, 461 So
. 2d 6 7, 70 ( Fl a. 198 4)
. I f the state ha d c onse nte d, JonL eC ro y ’ s po ly gr ap h
re sul ts c oul d have be ena dm itt ed
. H ow ev er , it is ex tr em el y

unl ike ly the state
w oul d have c onse nte d to the ir a dm iss ion
. C onse que ntl y , e ve n a ssu m ing de fe nse
co unse l ha d a cc es s to JonL eC ro y ’ s po ly gr ap h r es ult s, his pe rf orm an ce w as not de fi ci en t.Th e State 3. 85 0 Co ur t mi sta ke nly re fe rs to t

he le tte r a s a

le tte r f ro m Jon L e Cr oy

to h is 35 fathe r. Even if the a

ttorney -client privileg e did not apply , the def endant ha s not asserted a

ny 36 potential basis for the a dmission of such a letter. 64 T he de fe ndant a lso poi nts to a le tte r fr om JonL eC ro y

to his a tto rn ey

a ski ng if it wa s true that he would get m ore tim e than the defendant if convicted. G iven 35 the clear inadm issib ility

of such a letter, defense counsel’ s perform ance at tr ial
w as not de fi ci en t f

or f ai lin g to se ek

it s a dm iss ion
. 36 The def endant further claim s that defense counsel sho uld have elicited te sti m ony f ro m W ill ia m E lle tt tha t w hil e E lle tt an d th e de fe ndant w er e on the phon e tog ethe r, E lle tt he ar d Jo n L eC ro y in the ba ck gr ound

de m an din g th at

the de fe ndant g et

his ( Jon L eC ro y ’ s) m one y f or the r if le
. T he f ac t i s th at de fe nse counsel attem

pted to in troduce such evidence at trial, but the state trial court
ex cl ude d su che vid en ce on h ears ay gr ound s. T he re fo re , de fe nse c ouns el a lr ea dy attem pted to in troduce the very evidence that the defendant now claim s that defense counsel shou ld have attem pted to in troduce. Inthi s c as e, the de fe ndant h ad not one , but tw o ta pe d c onf es sio ns t o th e police and had also con fessed to his ex-girlfriend. A gainst th is, and other,
ov erwh el m in g e vi de nc e, de fen se co un se l at te m pt eda two -p ro ng att ack . He atte m pte d to pla ce a s m

uc h bl am e on the hands of JonL eC ro y

w itha dm iss ibl e65

ev ide nc e as pos sib le w hil e sti ll m ai nta ini ng tha t the kil lin gs w er e ac ci de nta l, a nd not pr em ed itate d or

the r es ult of aplan to r ob the H ar de m an s. G ive n th e
ove rwhe lm ing e vid en ce in thi s c as e, w e cannot f au lt de fe nse c ouns el ’ s tr ia l
s t r a t e g y. 2. Pr ejud ice P rong E ve n a ssu m ing de fe nse c ouns el ’ s pe rf orm an ce w as de fi ci en t, the state
co urts d et er

m ine d th at

the de fe ndant f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh any pr ej udi ce . W ith
re spe ct to thi s c la im , the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt c onc lud ed that the de fe ndant h ad

not shown a rea sonable prob ability that counsel’s per form ance w ouldhave aff ected the outcom e of the trial. Specif ically , the S tate 3.850 Court concluded that singu larly or cum ulatively , the a llegations of deficient conduct that are su ffi ci en tly

ple d, e ve n if

take n a s tr

ue , w oul d no t have , w ith in a rea s o n able probability , a ffec ted the outcom e of this case. A s noted pr ev iou sly , the qua lity an d quanti ty of e vid en ce pr es en te d by

the S ta te sim ply would not have bee n und erm ined even if defense counsel had pr es en te d th e ev ide nc e tha t D ef en dant c la im s he sho uld

ha ve pr es en te d. T he re fo re , thi s c la im

is de nie d. W ithr es pe ct

to the de fe ndant’ s c la im

that hi s tr ia l c ouns el w as ine ff ec tiv e dur ing the gui lt pha se , the F lor ida S upr em e Co urt a ga in c onc lud ed that the S ta te 3. 850 Co urt “pr ope rl y

appl ie d th e law . W e fi nd n o e rr or . ” L eC ro y , 727 S o. 2d a t 24 1. In this case, the defendant had two taped confessions in which he adm itted kil lin g th e H ar de m an s and s te al ing the ir f ir earm s. T he de fe ndant’ s e x- gir lf ri en d66

also testified that the defendant adm itted to ki lling the Hardem ans. F urtherm ore, Ellett testified that the defe ndant so ld him John Hardem an’ s rifle, and several
w itn es se s te sti fi ed

that the de fe ndant m ad e state m en ts d ir ec tly li nki ng h im

to the kil lin gs. A ddi tio na lly , Mart in p la ce d th e de fe ndant w iththe H ar de m an s sh ortly before hearing a series of gunshots
. Phy sical and circum stantial evidence
co rr o b o ra t ed t h e d ef

en d an t ’s co n fe s s i o n s an dfu rt h eres t ab l i s h ed t h e d ef en d an t ’s gui lt. A ga ins t this m ount ai n of e vid en ce , a ny

a tte m pt t o pl ac e al l or

part of the
re spon sib ili ty

on J on L eC ro y

w oul d have be enine ff

ec tua l. T he j ur y w as a lr ea dy

a w ar e tha t Jo n L eC ro y

w as the ind ivi dua l w ho di sc ov ered th e b od ie s, an d t ha t J on LeCro y was a ls o h un ti ng in th e are a. As out lin ed by Barl owdur ing the f

ed er al e vid en tiary

he ar ing , the state ’ s th eo ry of the
ca se w as that bo th the de fe ndant and J on L eC ro y w er e inv olv ed

in the H ar de m an s’ de aths. T he j ur y r et ur ne d agui lty

ve rd ic t a ga ins t the de fe ndant i n un de r thr ee hours . A f ewpieces of additional evidence further linking Jon LeCr oy to the m urders would not h ave af

fecte d the outcom e of the trial. Consequently , the def endant has not establis hed the requisite prej udice from defense counsel’ s perform ance. D. Brady67

L as tly , w e co nsi de r the de fe ndant’ s c la im s th at the state ’ s a lle ge d B ra dy vio la tio ns w ar

rant a ne wtr ia l. R eg ar din g th es e cl ai m s, the de fe ndant p oin ts t o th e
co nte nti ous an d de te ri or at ing r el at ion shi p be tw ee n hi s de fe nse c ouns el a nd the state during th e guilt ph ase and contends that th e state w ithheldevidentiary
m at er ia ls. S pe ci fi ca lly , the de fe ndant c ont en ds tha t the state f ai le d to dis cl ose wit ne ss scr ip ts , an i nt ero ffi ce m em or an du m reg ard in g a jail ho us e wit ne ss , a Fl or ida G am e an d F re sh W at er

F ishCo m

m iss ionr ep or

t, his m ed ic al f

ile s, a nd
ex cu lpator

y e vid en ce r el at ed

to w itn es s D av id S w an son. A s de ta ile d be low , non e of the defendant’ s Brady

claim s war

rants habeas relief

. As the State 3.850 Court correc tly concluded regarding the no n-disclosed evidentiary

m aterials in issue, [t ] he bur de n is on the D ef en dant t o m ak e at

le as t a pr im a fa ci e show ing that i ndi vid

ua lly or c um ula tiv el y thi s “ ev ide nc e” w oul d have , w ith in a rea sona ble pr oba

bil ity , c hange d th e out co m e of his tr ia l. H is spe cu la tio n and c onj ec tur e ab out w hat the le tte rs an d not es a nd o pin ion s an d c ry pti c re fe re nc es m ay s u g g est is not su fficient to w arrant an evidentiary

hearing, m

uch less relief. T he evidence in this case wa s ove rwhe lm ing
. T he D ef en dant n ot o nly

c onf es se d to ki ll in g th e Hardem ans to the pol ice, but he confessed to Carol H undl ey and Roger Slora. A plethora of phy sical and circum stantial evidence corroborated those confessions and further establis hed the Def endant’ s guilt . B ased on the w ea lthof

e vid en ce ag ai nst him , the re is no r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity that his conv iction and sentence of death would have been differe nt had the State disclosed or defense counsel discovered the evidence alleged b y D e f e n d an ti n t h i s c l a i m.68

Further, the Florida State Suprem e Court concluded that the State 3.850 Court
co rr ec tly appl ie d th e lawa nd f

ound no e rr or . L eC ro y , 727 So
. 2d a t 23 8- 39. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso c onc lud ed that the de fe ndant h ad

f ai le d to dem onstrate any

Bra dy violatio n. S pecifically , the district court deter m ined that the defendant “ failed to dem onstrate any prej udice because he fa iled to sho w that the e rr or s a t tri al a ct

ua lly a nd s ubst an tia lly

dis advanta ge d hi s de fe nse so tha t he
w as de nie d f

undam en ta l f

ai rn es s and tha t the re is a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity that the jury w ou ldha ve returne d a di ffer en t v erd ic t h adth e ev id en ce . . . bee n d is cl os ed .” Inthi s c as e, the de fe ndant c om pla ins that the f

oll ow ing c onst itu te s B ra dy violatio ns. Fir st, the prosecutor in this case ty ped out all qu estions and answer s (in scr ip t fo rm ) fo r it s wi tn es se s. Th e g ov ern m en t d idno t t urn o ve r th es e sc rip ts . During the feder al evidentiary hearing, B arlow stated that he gave these ty ped

“ sc ri pts ” to the w itn es se s and the n “ go[ es ] ove r w iththe m tho se que sti ons to
co nf irm the ir a nsw er s are , in fa ct , ba se d onw ha t the y ha ve sa id i n de posi tio ns, police statem ents, ac curate. . . . I c onfirm with them

whether that is still accurate, if the re is an y

c hange in tha t, a nd tha t’ s ho wI a ct ua lly pr ep ar e fo r tha t w itn es s to testify .” A ccording to th e district court, the def endant “ failed to dem onstrate that the ‘ sc ri pts ’ w er e an ythi ng m or e than m er e co m m on w itn es s pr ep ar at ionby the St at e.”Duringthe fe dera l evidentiary hear ing, the State Attorney who wrote the memora

ndum 37 e xpla ine d th at sh e ha d n o p e rs on a l kn ow le dg e c on c e rn ingwh e the r S lor a re a d th e po lic e re po rt s befor e testifying, only

that it was her opinion that he mig ht have. We assume, but do not dec ide, th atS l o rare adth e p o l i ce re p o rt s b ef o re t es t i fy i n g.

69 E ve n a ssu m ing a rg ue ndo tha t su che vid en ce c onst itu te s B ra dy m at er ia l, the re is no a lle ga tio n th at a ny of the te sti m ony

of the gov er

nm en t’ s w itn es se s, w ith the e xc ep tio n of

S lor a (d isc uss ed

be low ), w as f

al se . F urthe rm or e, e ve n if the
sc ri pts c oul d have be enuse d to im pe ac h c er ta in w itn es se s, the e vid en ce of the de fe ndant’ s gu ilt , a s th e state c ourts h av e poi nte d ou t, w as ove rwhe lm ing in thi s
case. W e re adily

determ ine that noth ing in the state-court re cord or in the feder al
ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing de m onstrate s th at the de fe ndant s uf

fe re d any pr ej udi ce f

ro m the non-dis closed m aterial. Consequently , the def endant is no t entitled to h abeas
re lie f on this gr ound
. Second, the state did no t turn over a State Attorney ’ s inter-office
m em orandum

that indicated that Slora, the F lorida state prisoner who testified at the de fe ndant’ s tr ia l, r ea d th e dis co ve ry pol ic e re ports b ef

or e te sti fy ing
. 37 How ever, Slora w as extensively cross-exam ined at trial and his credibilitywa s ch al le nge d inse ve ra l w ay s. A s th e state c ourt de te rm ine d, the de fe ndant f ai le d to
es ta bli sh any pr ej udi ce f

ro m the a lle ge d B ra dy

vio la tio n. O ne m or e pie ce of evidence challenging Slora’ s already -suspect credibility would not have changedThe district cour t determined that this was Bra dy materia l, but that it would not have 38 chang ed the outcome of the c ase. The district cour

t determined that this Brady claim had to fa il because the def endant 39 could not show that the medica l and school re cords c ould not have bee n discovere d by trial counsel usingdue dilige nce. 70 the out co m e of

the de fe ndant’ s tr ia l. C onse que ntl y , ha be as r el ie f is una va ila

ble to t h e d e f e n d a n to n t h i s c l a i m. T hir d, the state did

not tur n ov er aF lor ida G am e an d F re sh W at er

F ish Co m m iss ionm em o to the P al m Be ac h C ounty

S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e co nc er

nin g a state m en t T om

L eC ro y ( the de fe ndant’ s f

athe r) m ad e tha t he c oul d f ind the body of Joh n H ar de m anin 15 m inu te s. T his is undo ubt ed ly Br ady m at er ia l, a nd 38 al tho ugh the state sho uld ha ve pr oduc ed

the doc um en t, the state c ourt c or re ct ly de te rm ine d th at

the de fe ndant f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh p re j udi ce . G ive n th e w ea lthof
ev i d en ce ag ai n s tt h e d ef

en d an tan dt h e l ac ko f e v i d en ce re g ar d i n g To m Le Cr o y’ s g u i l t , i two u l dh av e b ee n fu t i l e t o p u rs u e a d ef en s e c en t er ed ar o u n dTo m Le Cr o y’ s g u i l t . T h u s , t h e d e f

e n d an ti s a l s o n o te n t i t l e dt o h ab e a s r e l i e f o n t h i s c l a i m. Fourth, the defe ndant claim s that he was unaw are that the state had m edical and schoo l files relating to him
. The m edical files contained inform ation that state d th at

w he n th e de fe ndant b ec am e ex ci te d or a git at ed , he ha d f

ai nti ng s pe lls
an d a lle ge d m em or

y los s. T he m ed ic al a nd s ch ool f ile s in dic at ed

that the de fe ndant h ad

alowI Q a nd w as le ar

nin g di sa ble d. 3971

T o e sta bli sh tha t he suf

fe re d aBr ady

vio la tio n, the de fe ndant m ust pr ove that: (1 ) the gov er

nm en t po sse sse d e vid en ce f av or ab le to him ; ( 2) the de fe ndant did not pos se ss the e vid en ce a nd c oul d no t have obt ai ne d it w ithr ea sona

ble dil ige nc e; ( 3) the gov er

nm en t su ppr es se d th e favor ab le e vid en ce ; and ( 4) the evidence wa s m aterial. United State s v. Mer os, 866 F.2d 1304, 1308 (11 Cir. th 1989 ). I n th is c as e, de fe nse c ouns el obv iou sly c oul d have obt ai ne d th e de fen da nt ’s own m ed ic al an d s ch oo l re co rd s b y ex erci si ng reas on ab le di li ge nc e. Co nse que ntl y , the re is no B ra dy vio la tio n. Fi na lly , the de fe ndant c la im s th at the state w ith he ld i nf

orm at ionr eg ar din g Sw an son. S w an son w as a nothe r Fl or ida inm at e tha t the de fe ndant s ai d gave inf orm at ionto the auth or iti es be ca use he ( Sw an son) w as thr eate ne d by the authorities. H owever , S wanson never testified at the def endant’ s trial. Ther efore,
an y in fo rm at io n t ha t wo ul d h av e im pe ach edSwan so n’s cr ed ib il it y is imm at eri al
. T hus, w e co nc lud e tha t the de fe ndant d id n ot s uf fe r an y pr ej udi ce f

ro m the non dis cl osur e of

the se m at er ia ls and i s no t e nti tle d to ha be as r el ie f on h is B ra dy cl ai m s. V III . C on cl us ion Beca use the defendant’ s death sentence has been vacated, we dism iss as
m oot hi s § 225 4 petitio n to the extent it challeng es his death sentence. H owever ,72

i n al l o t h erre s p ec t s , a n dfo r t h e r ea s o n s s t at ed ab o v e, we af fi rm th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s de nia l of the de fe ndant’ s § 2 254 pe tit ion
. DISMI SSED I N PART and AFFIRME D IN PART
.