FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J une 19, 2012 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 30 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 5- cv -0 15 27 -RAL-TBM
GEORGE JAMES TREPAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 9, 2 01 2)

Befo re CARNES, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . HULL, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Fl or id a d eat h ro w in m at e Geo rg e Ja m es Trep al ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’sde ni al of h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . After r ev ie w

an d o ral arg um en t, we af firm . I. BACKG ROUND A. Ov erv ie w In19 91 , a Flo rid a jury con vi ct edTrep al , a so ph is ti cat edch em is t an d M en sa
m em be r, of m ur de rin g h is ne ig hb orPeg gy Carr an d a tt em pt in g t o m

ur de r si x 1 ot he r m em

be rs of C arr’s fa m il y . Trepa l p oi so ne d the vi ct im s b y ad di ng th e to xi c el em en t t ha ll iu m

to bo tt le s o f Co ca-C ol a in th e Carrs ’ ho m e. Trep al ’s tri al las te d am on th , with m or e th an70 wit ne ss es to ge th er pr ov id in g o ve rwh el m in g e vi de nc e o f Trep al ’s gu il t. Fo r ex am pl e, se ve ral in de pe nd en t wi tn es se s ch ro ni cl edTrep al ’s lo ng -ru nn in g c on fli ct s wi th an d
an im os ity to wardth e Carr fam il y . Evid en ce es tabl is he d Tre pa l’s ex te ns iv e kn owl ed ge of c he m is try, as wel l as hi s p os se ss io n o f ch em is try lab or at ory equi pm en t, a n um

be r of to xi c ch em ic al s, an d aho m em ad e jou rn al onpo is on s an d po is on de te ct io n i n h um anorg an s. Fi na ll y , m ul ti pl e ex pe rts un ifo rm ly test ifi ed th at(1) th e v ic ti m s wer e p oi so ne d b y th al li um , (2) th al li um

was fo un d i n b ot h t he
em pty an d u no pe ne d C oc a-Co labo tt le s i n t he vi ct im s’ ho m e, an d (3 ) th al li um was

Mensa is a soc iety

of per sons ag ed 14 and olde r who a re in the top 2% of

intelligenc e, as 1 shown by test score s. 2fo un d i n abro wn b ot tl e in Trep al ’s gar ag e. Thal li um is a he av y

m et al li c el em en t th atis bo th rare an d t ox ic to hu m an s. Whendi ss ol ve d, i t i s o do rle ss an d t as te le ss . A let ha l d os e o f th al li um is ap pr ox im at el y

14 m il li gr am s p er k il og ram of b od y weig ht , whi ch foranav erag e p ers on is aro un d 1 gra m of tha ll iu m . Trep al ’s cas e wou ldbe lo ng ov er b utfor th e fac t tha t i n 1 99 7, s ix y ears aft er Trep al ’s tri al , th e Offi ce o f th e In sp ect orGene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s Dep artm en t of Ju st ic e (“ OIG”) i ss ue d arep ort (t he “ OIG Rep ort” ) th atwas c rit ic al of c ert ai n
work p erfo rm edby Rog er Ma rtz , a Sp eci al Agen t i n t he Ch em is try-Tox ic ol og y Uni t o f th e FBI Labo rat ory , who tes ti fie d a ga in stTrep al . After o th er wi tn es se s ha d e st ab li sh edin de pe nd en tl y th atth al li um

was fo un d i n Tre pa l’s g arag e an d was pu t i n C oc a-Co labo tt le s t o p oi so n t he vi ct im s, Ag en t M art z wen t fu rth er an d t rie d to id en ti fy

th e p art ic ul ar ch em ic al form of t ha ll iu m

th atwas fo un d i n Tre pa l’s ga rag e an d i n t hr ee u no pe ne d C oc a-Co labo tt le s i n t he vi ct im s’ ho m e. Trep al fil eda st at e p os tc on vi ct io n m ot io n a ll eg in g t ha t ce rta in pa rts of Martz ’s tri al tes ti m on y

were fa ls e an d t hu s Tre pa l was en ti tl edto a ne w tri al un de r Gig li o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 05 U.S. 15 0, 9 2 S . Ct. 7 63 (19 72 ). The s ta te co urt d en ie d Trep al ’s m ot io n, fi nd in g t ha t al th ou gh so m e o f Martz ’s tri al tes ti m on y was fa ls e, it di d n otpre

jud ic e Trep al en ou gh to warran t a n ew tr ia l, g iv enth e st ren gt h o f th e
un ch al le ng edpo rti on s o f Martz ’s tes ti m on y , othe r ex pe rts ’ un ch al le ng ed
3te st im on y , andall th e o th er tria l ev id en ce o f Trep al ’s gu il t. The Flo rid a Supr em e

Co urt af firm ed
. Trep al fil edhi s § 22 54 pe ti ti on , whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d. A cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) was gra nt edon Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im . As
ex pl ai ne d l at er, thi s ca se pre se nt s m an y th orny iss ue s ab ou t Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im , su ch as the ap pr op ria te lev el of d efer en ce due th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d en ia l of th e cl ai m , whethe r Martz ’s tes ti m on y was fa ls e, whe th er Ma rtz ’s tes ti m on y can be im pu te d t o t he st at e p ro se cu to r, an d wh ethe r an y fal se tes ti m on y

was m at eri al
un de r Gig li o. Al th ou gh we id en ti fy an d d is cu ss th e is su es to so m e ex te nt , we ul ti m at el y

ne edno t d eci de th em

be cau se ev enass um in g a rg ue nd o t ha t Trep al ha s sh own a Gig li o e rro r, Trep al ha s n otsu ffer edth e req ui si te actua l p reju di ce an d th us an y Gig li o e rro r was ha rm le ss . To sh ow wh y Trep al was n otpre

jud ic ed , we
ou tl in e in de pt h t he ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l an d i n s ta te po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs . B. The Po is on in gs Trep al an d h is wife , Dr. Dian a Carr, li ve d i n Al tu ras , Flo rid a, on pro pe rty ad joi ni ng th e h om e o f vi ct im Peg gy Carr an d h er h us ba ndPare arl y n “ Py e” Ca rr. 2

Dr. Car r, a me dical doctor , is no relation to Py e or Peg g y Carr a nd their family . When 2 we r efe r to the “Car

r fa mily ,” we mean Pye and Peg g y Carr a nd their re latives living on their proper ty (whe ther or not those r elatives be ar the surname Ca rr) , not Trepa l’s wife or

any of her 4The two ho m es —Pye Carr’s an d Tre pa l’s—were l oc at edam idora ng e g ro ve s an d

were v ery is ol at ed . The n ex t n eare stne ig hb or s wer e ab ou t a qua rte r-m il e away. In J un e 1 98 8, Pye Carr re cei ve d a n ano nym ou s l ette r st at in g, “ Youan d a ll y ou r so -cal le d fa m il y

ha ve two week s t o m ov e o utof F lo rid a fo rev er o r el se y ou wil l al l d ie . This is no jok e.” The let te r was po st m ark edinne arb y Bart ow, Fl or id a. Even th ou gh Py e’s ho m e was in Altur as , th e le tt er co rrec tl y li st edPy e’s
m ai li ng ad dr es s as be in g i n B art ow, Fl or id a. Py e’s an d Tre pa l’s h om es , bo th in Altur as , hadBart ow m ai li ng ad dr es se s b ecau se th ey go t the ir m ai l o n t he Bart ow po stoff ic e ro ut e. Trep al wou ldkn ow t hi s fa ct . On Oct ob er 2 3, 1 98 8, Pe gg y Carrbe ga n t o s ho w sym pt om s o f an un kn own il ln es s, i nc lu di ng naus ea, p ai n i n h er ch es t an d e xt rem it ie s, an d d iff ic ul ty br eat hi ng . She was a dm it te d t o B art ow M em or ia l Ho sp it al th e n ex t d ay an d s ta y ed fo r th ree d ay s. Ba ckat h om e, Peg gy’ s s ym pt om s wo rs en ed , andth e ch il dr enin th e Carr ho m e, Trav is an d Du an e, be gan t o s ho w si m il ar s ym pt om s. OnOcto be r 30 , 19 88 , Peg gy, T rav is , andDuan e were a dm it te d t o Win te r Hav enHos pi ta l. 3

relatives. To avoid conf

usion, we will ref

er to Dr . Carr a s “Tre pal’s wife .” Peg g y Carr a nd her te enag ed son Dua

ne Dubbe rly

moved into Py e’s home a fter Peg g y 3 and Py e’s Ma

rch 1988 w edding . Py e’s tee nag ed son, Tra vis Carr, lived in the home a s well. 5Treat in g n eu ro lo gi stDr. Ric ha rdHos tl er s us pe ct edth al li um po is on in g. 4 W it hi n 2 4 h ou rs , lab tes ts co nf irmed th e p res en ce o f th al li um in Peg gy’ s t is su es . Des pi te tre at m en t, Pe gg y Carr ’s con di ti on de te rio rat ed , andwit hi n aweek sh e laps edin to a co m a fro m whi ch sh e n ev er awo ke . She di edon Marc h 3 , 19 89
. Dua ne rem ai ne d h os pi ta li zedfortwo m on th s an d Tra vi s fo r si x m on th s, b ut bo th ev en tu al ly recov ered . Test s re ve al edth e p res en ce o f th al li um no t o nl y in Trav is an d Du an e, bu t al so in Py e, hi s d au gh te r Gel en a, an d h is gra nd daug ht er Kas ey , who als o l iv edwit h P y e an d P eg gy. 5 C. The I nv es tig at io n Fo ll owi ng th e th al li um

po is on in g d ia gn os is , th e Po lkCo un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce an d o th er g ov ern m en ta l ag en ci es sea rch edfor th e so ur ce o f th e Carrs ’
ex po su re. Rep res en ta ti ve s o f th e Po lkCo un ty H eal th Depa rtment, t he Flo rid a Dep artm en t o f Heal th an d R eh ab il it at iv e Servi ces (“ HRS”) , andth e EPA se arch ed
Pure thallium metal is not absorbed appr ecia bly into the human body . Howeve r, there 4 are a number

of thallium salts (including thallium nitrate) that are water soluble. When dissolved, thallium forms an ion that, in human tiss ues, interf ere s with the body ’s ability to use ox yg en and g ener ate e nergy . Thallium is used in certain manuf actur ing pr ocesse s and in che mical labora tories, but it is not commonly

available to the public. Thallium was used a s an ing redie nt in rodenticides and pesticides in the United States until 1972, when the Envir onment Protection Ag ency (“EPA” ) banned its use in such pr oducts. In Marc h 1988, Py e conve rted a detac hed g ara g e on his proper ty into an apar

tment for 5 his daug hters, Tammy

Carr a nd Gelena

Be ll, and Py e’s two- year old gr anddaughter, Ka sey Be ll. The re sidents of the apa

rtment spent time in the “main” house , too.

6th e Carrs ’ ho m e. 6

At t he Carr s’ ho m e, in ve st ig at or s re co ve redan8-p ackof 1 6- ou nc e g la ss Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es fro m

th e k it ch en . Three bo tt le s wer e fu ll an d fo urwere em pt y . 7 The HRS an d F BI Lab or at or ie s t es te d a ndfou ndth al li um in th e th ree f

ul l b ot tl es
an d t ha ll iu m

res idue inth e fo urem

pt y bo tt le s. Th e b ot tl e cap s fr om th e th ree f

ul l bo tt le s s ho wedev id en ce o f ha vi ng be enrem ov edby a sm al l t oo l an d t he n p la ced ba ckon to th e b ot tl es with apre ss or c ap pi ng de vi ce. The in ve st ig at io n b ecame a cri m in al on e. InDecem be r 19 88 , in ve st ig at or s i nt erv ie wedTrep al . Whe n a sk edwhy
an y on e wou ldwantto po is on th e Carrs , Trepa l s ai d t ha t p erh ap s s om eo ne want ed th em to m ov e o utof t he ir h om e. In ve st ig at or s fo un d Tre pa l’s re sp on se eeri ly si m il ar t o t he th reat en in g l ette r. Pol ic e la te r le arn edTrep al ha d aco ll eg e d eg ree i n ch em is try andinth e 1 97 0s was the ch em is t o f a m etha m ph et am in e labo rat ory , for whi chhe serve d t wo an d aha lf years in fed eral pri so n. Lo cal po li ce b eg anan
un de rco ve r in ve st ig at io n o f Trep al th atlas te d m or e th ana y ear. On Dec em

be r 12 , 19 89 , in ve st ig at or s s earc he d Tre pa l’s h om e. They fou nd a small b ro wn b ot tl e in th e drawerof aworkbe nc h i n h is ga rag e. The b ot tl e

L ocal of ficials sea rche d Peg g y

and Py e’s plac es of e mploy ment and found no tha llium. 6 The e ighth bottle consisted of broken pie ces of

g lass. 7 7co nt ai ne d awhi te po wde r th atwas t es te d a ndfou ndto co nt ai n t ha ll iu m .

Trep al was a rres te d. OnApri l 5 , 19 90 , Trepa l was in di ct edonon e co un t o f fir st -d eg ree m

ur de r, si x c ou nt s o f at te m pt edfir st -d eg ree m

ur de r, se ve n c ou nt s o f po is on in g fo odor wa te r, an d o ne co un t o f ta m pe rin g wi th a co ns um er p ro du ct . D. Tri al Ev id ence Trep al ’s tri al ran fro m

Jan ua ry 7 t o F eb ru ary 7, 1 99 1. In th e g ui ltph as e, th e St at e cal le d m or e th an70 wit ne ss es . Trepa l’s t hr ee at to rn ey s— J. Woffo rd St id ha m , Jo na th anSti dh am , andDabn ey Co nn er— cal le d n o wi tn es se s, re lying on th e ev id en ce el ic it eddu rin g c ro ss -ex am in at io n. Bel ow we s etfor th inm or e d et ai l t he tri al ev id en ce b y whi ch th e St at e
co nn ect edTrep al to th e Carr po is on in gs , di vi de d i nt o t he se to pi cs : (1 ) Trep al ’s
su sp ic io us po li ce i nt erv ie w andth e en su in g u nd erco ve r in ve st ig at io n o f Trep al , in cl ud in g t he “ Men sam

ur de r week en d” ev en t Trep al ho st ed ; (2 ) th e se arch es of Trep al ’s ho m es , in whi ch po li ce d is co ve redTrep al ’s che m is try equ ip m en t, p oi so n jou rn al , po is on ou s ch em ic al s, an d t he bo tt le of t ha ll iu m ; (3 ) Trep al ’s che m is try
an d c riminal ba ck gr ou nd ; (4 ) Trep al ’s hi st ory of a ni m os ity

to wardth e Carrs ; (5 ) Fl or id a HRS’s t es ti ng of t he em pt y Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es ; (6 ) ex pe rt Ha ve ko st ’s te st in g a t t he FBI Lab ; (7 ) Martz ’s tes ti m on y ; an d (8 ) te st in g b y th e Co ca-C ol a
co rp or at e labo rat ory . 81. Trep al ’s Sus pi ci ou s In te rv ie w andEns ui ng Und erco ve r In ve st ig at io n

Dete ct iv e Ern es t M in cey of th e Po lkCo un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce l edth e in ve st ig at io n a ndth e in te rv ie w of Tre pa l t ha t p uthi m on th e p ol ic e’s rad ar. In hi s in te rv ie w, whi chto okpl ace o n Dec em be r 22 , 19 88 , Trepa l l oo ke d v ery ne rv ou s. Trep al to ldDete ct iv e Mi nc ey an d F BI Ag en t Br adBrek ke th athe was asel fem pl oyed co m

pu te r pr og ramm er an d t ech ni cal writ er an d h e kne w no th in g o f th al li um . Whe n a sk edwhy so m eo ne m ig htwantto po is on th e Carr fam il y , Trepa l s ai d pe rh ap s s om eo ne want edth em to m ov e o utof the ir h ou se , whi ch , Trepa l n ot ed , th e Carrs ha d d on e. Mi nc ey fou ndth is res po ns e su sp ic io us be cau se itwas di ffer en t fr om

th os e g iv enby the m or e th an50 pe op le Mi nc ey ha d a lre ady in te rv ie wedan d, as no te d e arl ie r, itwas “ al m os t i de nt ic al ” to th e th reat en in g l et te r. InApri l 1 98 9, an art ic le in th e lo cal ne wsp ap er ad ve rti se d upc om in g e ve nt s fo r th e Me ns a o rg an iz at io n, o f whi ch Trep al an d h is wife were m em be rs . The art ic le di sc us se d a n upc om in g “ Men sam ur de r week en d” rol e-p la y in g e ve ntth at Trep al an d h is wife were h os ti ng . Sus anGore ck , a Sp eci al Agen t wi th th e Po lk Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t, b eg ananun de rco ve r in ve st ig at io n o f Trep al by at te nd in g t he ev en t u nd er the ass um edna m e “ Sh erry Guin .” The Men sam

ur de r week en d was he ldat alo cal ho te l. The re were fou r

9“ m

ur de rs ” act edou t dur in g t he week en d, wh ic h t he parti ci pa nt s, wh il e act in g o ut th ei r ro le s, t rie d t o s ol ve . The s to ry co nc ern edvo od oo . The m ur de rs were v ery
so ph is ti cat ed , andeach of t he fou r was pre ced edby the vi ct im rece iv in g a th reat en in g n ot e. Trep al ’s wife wro te th e m ur de r sc en ari os wit h Tre pa l’s h el p. In pa rti cu la r, Trep al hi m se lf wro te a bo ok le t g iv ento pa rti ci pa nt s dur in g t he week en d t ha t d is cu ss ed , am on g o th er t hi ng s, p oi so ni ng an d t hr eat s b y ne ig hb or s. It s ta te d: Few vo od oo is ts be li ev e th ey can be ki ll ed by ps y ch ic m ean s, bu t no on e do ub ts th at he can be po is on ed
. Whe n a de ath t h r e a t ap p e a rs on th e do or st e p , p ru de nt pe op le th ro w o ut al l th ei r fo od an d watc h wha t th ey e a t. Hard ly an y on e di es fro m m ag ic
. Mo st it em s on th e do or st e p a r e jus t a n ei gh bo r’s way

of s ay in g, “ I do n’t l ik e y ou . Mov e o r el se .” Dur in g t he week en d, Trep al to ldGore ck th athe an d h is wife were p la nn in g to m ov e an d t ha t Trep al m ig htbe sel li ng hi s Al tu ras ho m e. Gore ckto ldTrep al sh e wou ldli ke to lo okat Tre pa l’s h om e if itwere fo r sa le
. A few da y s af

te r th e Me ns a m

ur de r week en d, Ag en t Go reck , as Sh erry Gui n, wen t t o Tre pa l’s h om e, os te ns ib ly abo utbu y in g i t. Go reckvi si te d Tre pa l
se ve ral m or e ti m es in May andJu ne 19 89 . Gorec k b ecame frien ds with Tre pa l an d hi s wi fe an d l earn ed , am on g o th er t hi ng s, t ha t Trep al was v ery in te res te d i n b ot an y

10an d kne w abo utpo is on ou s p la nt s. 8

InNov em

be r 19 89 , Trepa l an d h is wife m ov edto Seb rin g, Fl or id a. Fro m Decem be r 19 89 to Jan uary

19 90 , Gore ckren te d Tre pa l’s h om e in Altur as . 2. Sear ch es of Tre pa l’s Ho m es an d Di sc ov ery of Thal li um Bo tt le Whi le Gore ckwas re nt in g Tre pa l’s h ou se in Altur as , sh e an d o th er l aw
en fo rcem en t o ffi cers sea rch edit . FBI Ag en t Br ekke fou nda br own bo tt le in si de th e drawerof aworkbe nc h i n Tre pa l’s d et ach edga rag e. Age ntBrek ke un cap pe d th e b ot tl e an d s aw res idue in si de it
. Gor ecksen t t he bo tt le to th e FBI Lab fo r
an al y si s. The FBI Lab in fo rm edGore ckth atth e b ot tl e co nt ai ne d tha ll iu m I ni tra te . 9 Po li ce al so sea rch edTrep al ’s new h om e in Seb rin g, Fl or id a. Po li ce fo un d ch em is try bo ok s, i nc lu di ng : (1 ) The Merc k In de x o f Ch em ic al s an d Dru gs ; (2 ) th e Han db oo k o f Ch em is try andPh y si cs , whi chco nt ai ne d c he m ic al in fo rm at io n o n

In J anuar y 1990, Gore ck met with Tre pal and br ought up the Carr poisoning s. Gorec k 8 testified that Tre pal was usua lly very talkative, but was quie t and thoug htful duringthis conver sation. Simi larly , Patricia B oatright, who was a friend a nd confida

nte of Tr epal, testified she aske d Trepa l about the poisonings a nd he “didn’ t meet [her] ey es, and the subject wa s then dropped.” For

some wee ks after

war d, there “wa s a straine d quality” to B oatright’s relationship with Trepa l, and she ne ver discusse d the poisonings a g ain bec ause “ [i ]talway s just fell like a thud and the subjec t was cha ng ed.” Two for ms of thallium nit rate exis t: thallium Initrate a nd thallium I I Initrate. The two 9 forms of thallium nitrate have diffe rent c hemical struc tures and pr operties, though both are tox ic to humans. 11th al li um ; an d (3 ) th e Fi re Pro te ct io n Gu id e o n Haz ard ou s M at eri al s, wh ic h

co nt ai ne d asec ti on on th al li um co m po un ds
. Po li ce al so sei zedfro m Trep al ’s ho m e: (1) a pa m

ph le t wri tt enby T rep al cal le d “ Ch em is try for t he Co m pl et e Id io t, Prac ti cal Gui de to all Ch em is try” with pi ctur es an d i nd ex ; (2 ) “ m an y , m an y ” ch em ic al s, p lu s ch em is try-rel at edgl as swa re an d e qu ip m en t; an d (3 ) a h om em ad e jou rn al de sc rib edas “ a g en eral po is on gu id e.” Trep al ’s jou rn al in cl ud edph ot oc op ie d p ag es fro m a bo oken ti tl ed , Poi so n Dete ct io n i n Hu m anOrga ns . One of t he ph ot oc op ie d p ag es in cl ud eda di sc us si on of th al li um . The jou rn al was t es te d fo r fi ng erp rin ts an d was fou ndto ha ve Trep al ’s pri nt s o n i t. Trep al ’s wife’s p rin ts were n otfou ndon th e jou rn al
. Trep al ’s jou rn al als o c on ta in edph ot oc op ie d p ag es fro m an ot he r bo okwit h a
se ct io n e nt it le d, “ Deat h b y Po is on Syno ps is .” One pa ge fro m th e jou rn al , whi ch
was readto th e jury, stat edth at“ Dete rm in in g wh ethe r a p ers on di edas ares ul t o f
na tu ral il ln es s o r as a res ul t o f po is on in g i s o ne of t he m os t d iff ic ul t t y pe s o f in ve st ig at io n b ot h fo r th e o ffi cer a ndforth e m ed ic al expe rt.” The pa ge de sc rib ed th e p ro ces s b y

whi ch on e tr ie s t o d et erm in e if so m eo ne ha s b eenpo is on ed
. The
ne xtpa ge in th e jou rn al st at ed , am on g o th er t hi ng s, “ The pre se nc e o f an y on e po is on is so di ffi cu ltto asc ert ai n t ha t i t m ay be un de te ct edun le ss th e [m ed ic al ]
ex am in er h as so m e id ea as to th e type o f po is on forwhi ch he is lo ok in g.” 12So m e o f th e p ho to co pi es in th e jou rn al were m ad e fro m a li br ary bo okat Cen tra l Pi ed m on t Co m

m un it y Co ll eg e in Ch arl ot te , North C aro li na . Trep al at te nd edCen tra l Pi edm on t Co m m un it y Co ll eg e fro m

19 74 –1 97 5. 3. Trep al ’s Che m is try andCri m in al Back gr ou nd Sev eral witne ss es tes ti fie d abo utTrep al ’s che m is try exp eri en ce, wh ic h wen t ba ckwell ov er a d ecad e, an d t he co ll ect io n o f ch em is try equ ip m en t Trep al ke ptin hi s Al tu ras ga rag e an d S eb rin g h om e. Fi rs t, DEA Agen t Ri ch ardBro ug ht on tes ti fie d t ha t, i n t he m id -1 97 0s , Trepa l

“ was th e ch em is t an d m as te rm in d” of agro up th atpro du cedm etha m ph et am in e. Dav idW arre n, Trep al ’s partn er i n t he m etha m ph et am in e p ro du ct io n s ch em e, al so te st ifi edto Trep al ’s rol e as ch em is t fo r th e g ro up . Trep al ’s m etha m

ph et am in e p ro du ct io n e xp eri en ce was pa rti cu la rly relev an t be cau se , as Ag en t Br ou gh to n t es ti fie d, t ha ll iu m ni tra te can be us edinth e p ro ces s. Sp eci fic al ly, th al li um

III n it rat e canbe us edto pro du ce p he nyl-II- pr op an on e, cal le d “ P2 P,” wh ic h “ is animm ed ia te pre cu rs orus edin th e m an uf actur e o f bo th
m etha m ph et am in e an d a m

ph et am in e.” Whe n the P2 P is pro du ced , a se di m en t dr op s o utof s ol ut io n, an d t ha t s ed im en t i s t ha ll iu m I ni tra te . The P2 P “ is th en

13us edto m an uf actur e am ph et am in e, an d t he Thal li um I Nit rat e is di sp os edof.” 1 0 Seco nd , a wit ne ss co nf

irmed th atTrep al ke ptch em ic al s an d o th er ch em is try equi pm en t i n t he ga rag e o f hi s Al tu ras ho m e. Cal vi n Ad am s, a b ui ld er wh o d id
so m e work fo r Trep al an d h is wife as t he y were m ov in g i nt o t he ir Al tu ras ho m e in 19 82 an d wh o h el pe d t he m with t he m ov e, no ti cedth aton e o f th e it em s h e h el pe d
m ov e in to Trep al ’s gar ag e “ was a pl as ti c m il k c art on fil le d wi th ch em ic al bo tt le s.” The re were at l eas t fo ur

or f iv e b ox es of c he m ic al s an d c he m ic al bo tt le s an d o th er ch em is try ite m s. So m e o f th e ch em ic al s wer e in bro wn b ot tl es li ke th e b ot tl e po li ce fo un d i n Tre pa l’s g arag e. Ada m s as ke d Tre pa l wh athe was d oi ng wit h t he ch em is try ite m s, an d Trep al rep li ed , “ I’m

a ch em is t. I i nt en d t o s etup a labo rat ory inth e g arag e.” Trep al als o h adanan ti qu e-t y pe bo tt le cap pe r, whi chis us edto affi x m et al cap s
on to gl as s b ot tl es . Trep al to ldAdam s h e so m et im es m ad e win e fo r hi m se lf a nd cap pe d t he win e b ot tl es . Thi rd , Trepa l’s ch em is try col le ct io n a t t he ti m e o f hi s arres t i nc lu de d m an y
ex ot ic an d d an ge ro us ch em ic al s. Sco ttRy la nd , an a na lytic al ch em is t fo r th e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Law Enfo rcem en t, an al y zedva rio us ch em ic al s t ha t wer e Although the re w as no evide nce T repa l himself used or obtained tha llium ni trate dur ing 1 0 his methamphetamine-pr oduction day s (Warre n supplied Trepa l with his P 2P), as che mist for the g roup Tre pal may

well have been a

war e of tha llium ni trate’ s role in makingP2P.

14se iz edfro m

Trep al ’s ho m es in Altur as an d S eb rin g. The se ch em ic al s i nc lu de d
so di um cy an id e, ba riu m

ch lo rid e, co ba ltni tra te , po ta ss iu m ferri cy an id e, ch ro m iu m tri ox id e, pl at in um

ox id e, le adch lo rid e, an d u ran iu m ox id e, al l o f whi ch are t ox ic
. 4. Trep al ’s Ani m os it y Towardth e Carrs Num ero us wit ne ss es reco un te d Tre pa l’s y ears of t hr eat s, ar gu m en ts , and
an im os ity to wardth e Carrs . For e xa m pl e, Alan Adam s, wh o d idlawn care for Trep al in 19 82 an d 1 98 3, s aw Trep al in te ractwit h t he ch il dr enwho li ve d a t t he Carr s’ pro pe rty. Trep al “ al way s g othi gh ly ups etan d u su al ly y el le d o bs cen it ie s at th em .” Trep al “ m ad e th reat s” to wardth e Carr ch il dr enon “ se ve ral oc cas io ns .” One ti m e Trep al sai d, “ I wil l g etth em .” Ano th er t im e, Trep al “ go t h ig hl y up se t whe n the y

rod e so m e m ot or cy cl es th ro ug h h is y ardan d s ai d, ‘I’ m go in g t o k il l y ou .’ ” Mar ga retSm it h, wh o was Py e’s fi rs t wi fe an d the m ot he r of Tam m y an d Trav is , li ve d n ex t d oo r to Trep al forfou r y ears . Trep al di d n otli ke th e Carrs ’ do gs . Sev eral ti m es Sm it h s aw Trep al “ th ro win g s ti ck s o r st om pi ng hi s fo otat th em trying to ge t t he m

ou t o f hi s yard.” Jo hn Sch affe r bo ug htth e Carrs ’ ho m e aft er Pe gg y ’s dea th an d b ecame Trep al ’s new n ei gh bo r. Trep al to ldSch affe r th atPy e h ada dr in ki ng pro bl em an d irr it at edTrep al by com in g o ve r to Trep al ’s ho us e whi le dru nkan d b an gi ng on 15Trep al ’s do or . Trepa l t ol d S ch affe r th atth ere was a “bi g s oc ia l d iff eren ce” be twee n the Trep al an d C arr fa m il ie s b ecau se th e Trep al s wer e res erv edan d ch il dl es s an d k ep t t o t he m se lv es , wher eas th e Carrs were “ ki ndof r edne ck is h a nd . . . the ch il dr enweren ’t di sc ip li ne d t he way th ey sh ou ldbe .” The C arr c hi ld ren bo th eredTrep al by pla y in g t he rad io to o l ou dl y an d b ei ng di sr es pe ct fu l. Py e es ti m at edhe ha d d is ag reem en ts wit h Tre pa l atlea st10 or 1 2 t im es . One ti m e th e Carrs were “ worki ng on [Trav is ’s] tru ckin th e b ackof the
works ho p” an d t he y

an d avi si to r were l is te ni ng to “ a p art y tap e” t ha t h adris qu e jok es an d p ro fan it y

on it
. The tap e was pl ay edpre tt y lo ud ly, an d Tre pa l ca m e o ve r to tal k t o P y e ab ou t i t t hr ee t im es . Py e d idno t turn t he tap e d own . InMarc h 1 98 8, Trep al cal le d t he zo ni ng bo ardto co m pl ai n abo utth e Carrs
co nv ert in g t he ir g arag e to anap art m en t, wh ic h Tre pa l cl ai m edvi ol at edth e zo ni ng
or di na nc e. A cou nt y

co de s i ns pe ct or

is su edth e Carrs a no ti ce o f vi ol at io n fo r bu il di ng wit ho uta pe rm it , andPy e la te r go t a p erm it
. One da y in Sep te m

be r 19 88 , Gelen a’s fo rm er h us ba ndRo na ldCh es te r was
worki ng on hi s t ru ckan d h adth e rad io on . Trep al ask edCh es te r to tu rnth e rad io do wn b ecau se Trep al was re ad in g abo ok
. Trep al was s ha ki ng an d “ act edli ke he
was up se t.” Ch es te r tu rn edth e rad io do wn, an d “ li ke two m in ut es lat er” Tre pa l
cam e an d a ga in to ldCh es te r to tu rnth e rad io do wn, ev enth ou gh th e rad io was n ot 16pl ay in g l ou dl y .

Bo th Trep al ’s andth e Carrs ’ ho us es ha d t he ir wa te r supp li edby w el ls . On
oc cas io n, ea ch ho m e h adto sh are wat er b y ho ok in g up t o t he ot he r’s well
. Inearl y Octo be r 19 88 , at wh ic h t im e o ne of t he well s was supp lying wate r to bo th ho us es , Trep al cam e o ve r to th e Carrs ’ ho m e to co m pl ai n abo utth ei r rad io pl ay in g o ut si de
. Py e to ldTrep al th ey

wou ldtu rnth e rad io off

so on . Trepa l l eft , andth ey di d s o. Late r Trav is tu rn edth e rad io ba ckon whi le wash in g h is car, an d Tre pa l ag ai n
co m pl ai ne d. Pye to ldTrep al th atTrav is was “ jus t l is te ni ng to th e rad io an d
was hi ng th e car .” Afte r Py e wen t i nt o t he ho us e, Trep al di sc on ne ct edth e wat er ho se to th e Carrs ’ ho m e. A few da y s b efo re Pe gg y Carrbe cam e il l, Trep al ’s wife h ad“ a d is cu ss io n” wit h P eg gy “ ab ou t s om e lo udm us ic .” The Carrch il dr enwere p la y in g t he m us ic
ou ts id e an d “ [i]t was ex tre m el y lo udev enin si de [Trep al ’s] ho us e.” Trep al ’s wife
as ke d P eg gy to h av e th e Carr ch il dr entu rnth ei r m us ic do wn. Peg gy tol d Tre pa l’s wife th atPeg gy “ di dn ’t hav e to .” Trep al ’s wife b el ie ve d Tre pa l was ho m e wit h he r atth e ti m e. Trep al ’s con ve rs at io ns wit h l aw en fo rcem en t re fle ct edhi s an im os ity to ward th e Carr fam il y . Trepa l’s co m m en ts als o s ho wedth athi s h os ti li ty towar d t he Carr s co nt in ue d e ve n a fte r Peg gy was k il le d a ndth e res t o f th e Carrs m ov edaway . 17Trep al to ldAgen t Go reckth atPy e Carr was “ al way s t ry in g t o s el l h im so m ethi ng ”
an d “ tri edto sel l h im

ev erythi ng bu t h is wife .” Trep al co nt inue d t al ki ng an d

“ se em edto ge t ag it at ed .” Trep al to ldFBI Ag en t Br adBrek ke th atth e Carrs ha d n otbe enfri en dl y to hi m an d h is wife , andth atPy e tr ie d t o t ak e ad va nt ag e o f th em by sell in g t he m

a ba rb ecu e co ok er Pye hadm ad e. Trep al reac he d a n o ral ag reem en t t o b uy Py e’s
works ho p b eh in d h is ho us e fo r $1 0,0 00 , bu t Pye bac ke d o utof t he de al
. Trep al co m

pl ai ne d abo uta lo t o f pe op le co m in g a ndgo in g o utof t he Carr s’ ho us e, an d t he ir h av in g alo t o f tr uc ks . Trepa l “ act edan gry an d e xh ib it ed
an im os ity ,” whi ch Agen t Br ekke “ fel t was unus ua l s in ce the in ci de nt s . . . were
se ve n o r ei gh t years o ld .” 5. Fl or id a HRS’s Tes ti ng of Wash in gs fro m Em pt y Co ca-C ol a Bo tt le s Alt ho ug h p artof M art z’s te st im on y ab ou t t he ful l Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es is ch al le ng edhe re, o th er ex pe rts co nf irmed th e p res en ce o f th al li um inth e Co caCo labo tt le s atth e Carrs ’ ho m e an d i n t he bro wn b ot tl e in Trep al ’s gar ag e. Fo r
ex am pl e, Larry Bl ackwell , a Flo rid a HRS ch em is t, t es te d t he samples sen t fr om th e Carrs ’ ho m e, in cl ud in g t he wash in gs fro m th e em pt y Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es . 1 1

The e mpty

bottles, which containe d nothing visible in them, wer e tested to see if there 1 1 was a ny thallium residue in the bottle that could not be see n. This was done by addingto the bottle “a c oncentr ation of distilled water a nd nitric ac id, which would dissolve any metals,” 18Bl ackwell us edtwo in st ru m en ts , an i nduc ti ve ly coupl edpl as m a at om ic em is si on

sp ect ro m et er (“ AES” or“ ICP” ) an d agraph it e fu rn ace a to m ic ab so rp ti on sp ect ro m et er (“ AAS”). The AES an d AAS t es ts in di cat e o nl y th e p res en ce an d 1 2
co nc en tra ti on of t he m et al sea rch edfor(in th is cas e, th al li um ). They chem ic al ly de co m po se an y ot he r io ns or e le m en ts inass oc ia ti on with t he m et al , so th ey
can no t i nd ic at e wha t co m po un d o f th al li um

was p res en t i n t he samples . The
was hi ng s fr om

th e em pt y Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es were p os it iv e fo r th al li um , as wer e
ur in e sa m pl es fro m th e Carr fam il y

m em be rs . 6. Hav ek os t’s Tes ti ng at F BI Lab
a. Fu ll Co ca-C ol a Bo tt le s— Q1, Q2 , andQ3 The th ree f

ul l b ot tl es of C oc a-Co lawere s en t t o t he FBI Lab an d l ab el edas
sa m pl es Q1, Q2 , andQ3. Don al d Hav ek os t, an an al yti cal ch em is t wi th th e Elem en ta l An al y si s Un itof t he FBI Lab , was as ke d t o a na lyze th e co nt en ts of t he fu ll bo tt le s Q1 , Q2, an d Q3 forth e p res en ce o f he av y m et al po is on s, i nc lu di ng
ars en ic , lea d, an d t ha ll iu m . Hav ek os t t es te d t he samples us in g AES an d fo un d t he
swirling the distil led wate r/nitric ac id mix ture a round in the bottle for a

bout a minute, and then pouringthe re sulting “w ashing ” into a sample bottle to be te sted using A ES and/or AAS. The AES mea sures the intensity and wavelength of light e mitted by a sample when it is 1 2 heate d, while the AAS mea sures the intensity and wavelength of light a bsorbed by

the sample when it is heate d. Eac h test then compar es the lig ht intensity and wavelength to that from a known standar d. 19“pr ed om in an t el em en t was th al li um .” Hav ek os t fo un d n on e o f th e o th er h eav y

m et al s fo r whi chhe tes te d. Onc e Hav ek os t l earn edth atth al li um was p res en t, h e ag ai n p erfo rm edan AES ana lysis , th is ti m e co m pa rin g t he res ul t wi th th atfro m kn own th al li um st an da rd s h e p rep aredin th e labo rat ory to de te rm in e th e qua nt it y of t ha ll iu m pr es en t i n t he Co ca-C ol a. Fo r th e b ot tl e labe le d Q1 , Have ko stfou nd40 3.6
m il li gr am s o f th al li um

inth e to ta l v ol um e o f th e b ot tl e. Fo r th e b ot tl e labe le d Q2 , Hav ek os t fo un d 9 15 .3 m il li gr am s o f th al li um . Fo r th e b ot tl e labe le d Q3 , Have ko st fo un d 7 67 .5 m il li gr am s o f th al li um .

b. Em pt y Co ca-C ol a Bo tt le s— Q11 , Q12 , Q13 , andQ14 Hav ek os t’s l ab or at ory

un itrece iv edfro m

th e Fl or id a HRS l ab or at ory th e
was hi ng s fr om

th e fo urem

pt y Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es , whi ch th e FBI lab el edQ11 , Q12 , Q13 , andQ14
. The wash in gs fro m th e fo urem

pty bo tt le s co nt ai ne d t ha ll iu m in th e fo ll owi ng am ou nt s: 4.3 2 m il li gr am s, 3 .65 m il li gr am s, 2 .08 m il li gr am s, an d .62 m il li gr am s.

c. Trep al Garag e Sam pl e—Q2 06 Hav ek os t l at er re cei ve d t he res idue fro m th e b ro wn b ot tl e fo un d i n Tre pa l’s ga rag e, whi ch th e FBI lab el edQ20 6. Th e sa m pl e co ns is te d o f 64 0 m il li gr am s o f

“be ig e-co lo red , di rty-whi te cry st al li ne m at eri al or p owd er.” Hav ek os t t es te d t he 20po wde r us in g s can ni ng ele ctro n m ic ro sc op y (“ SEM”)
. Hav ek os t fo un d tha ll iu m in th e co m po un d. d. Hav ek os t Tri al Test im on y At t ria l, Hav ek os t t es ti fie d abo uthi s t es ti ng of t he ful l b ot tl es Q1 t hr ou gh Q3, t he wash in gs fro m

th e em pt y bo tt le s Q1 1 t hr ou gh Q14 , andth e p owd er
res idue in th e b ro wn b ot tl e, Q20 6, fr om Trep al ’s gar ag e. Have ko sttes ti fie d t ha t he fou ndth al li um

in all of t ho se samples . Trepa l h as ne ve r ch al le ng edHave ko st ’s fin di ng s, t es ti ng m etho do lo gy, or tr ia l t es ti m on y . 7. Martz ’s Test im on y Befo re Ma rtz tes te d a ny sam pl es , th al li um

ha d a lre ady

be enfou ndin all of th em . Mart z was ask edon ly to d et erm in e wha t s al t o f th al li um was i n t he samples of Co ca-C ol a fro m

th e fu ll Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es Q1, Q2 , andQ3, an d fr om th e
res idue fou ndin th e b ro wn b ot tl e Q20 6. Martz di d n ottes t, an d d idno t t es ti fy ab ou t, the wash in gs fro m th e em pt y Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es Q11 th ro ug h Q1 4. Martz fir sttes te d the Co ca-C ol a fro m th e fu ll Q1, Q2 , andQ3 b ot tl es . Martz tes ti fie d t ha t h e p erfo rm eda di ph en y la m in e (“ DP”) t es t o n a ll th ree s am pl es
an d “ go t a b lu e co lo r,” wh ic h h e sa idin di cat edth e so lu ti on “ co nt ai ns a ni tra te .” Martz tes ti fie d: “ Bas edon th attes t I c on cl ud edth atth al li um ni tra te was a dd edto th e Co ca-C ol a.”
21Martz als o p erfo rm edanio n c hr om at og rap hy (“ IC”) tes t t o d et erm in e

whe th er t ha ll iu m

ni tra te was p res en t i n t he Q1, Q2 , andQ3 s am pl es . Mart z te st ifi edth athe tes te d a ll th ree s am pl es an d a ga inco nc lu de d t ha t al l t hr ee s am pl es
co nt ai ne d n it rat e io ns . Bas edon th e DP an d IC tes ts , Mart z o pi ne d t ha t t ha ll iu m ni tra te was i n t he Q1, Q2 , andQ3 s am pl es . 1 3 On cr os s- ex am in at io n, M art z ad m it te d h e d idno t “ a h un dr edpe rcen t”
ex cl ud e th e p os si bi li ty tha t t he ni tra te he fou ndin th e Co ca-C ol a m ay ha ve co m e fro m a so ur ce o th er t han t he th al li um sal t t ha t was ad de d, b utMart z “ fo un d
no th in g e ls e in th e Co ca-C ol a to in di cat e th atan yth in g e ls e was pre se nt .” Late r, Martz rece iv edQ20 6, the bro wn b ot tl e wit h wh it e p owd er i n i t fr om Trep al ’s gar ag e, an d was ask edto id en ti fy th e whi te po wde r. Martz tes te d t he po wde r us in g i nf

rare d a ndx-r ay

di ffra ct io n (“ XRD”) an d c on cl ud edth e b ro wn bo tt le co nt ai ne d t ha ll iu m I ni tra te . Martz di d n otm eas ur e qua nt it at iv el y th e 1 4
am ou ntof s ub st an ce i n the bo tt le , bu t “ ba se d o n t he tes ts [he ] di d, n ot hi ng els e
was id en ti fie d.” The po wde r wei gh ed.64 gra m s, wh ic h i s ab ou t “ a li tt le m or e th antwo asp iri n t ab le ts ” o r on e “ ex trast ren gt h c ap su le ” o f Ty le no l.
There was no wa

y from those tests to deter

mine whether

the thallium nitrate was 1 3 thallium Initrate or tha llium I I Initrate. And as to Q1, Q2, a nd Q3, Martz did not testify whether it was Ior I I I , but only

that it was thallium nitrate . Martz testified that thallium Initrate a nd thallium I I Initrate “ have dif fer ent cr y stalline 1 4 structure s, and the x-ray

equipment is able to diffe rentiate those particula r two compounds.” 228. Test in g b y Co ca-C ol a Co rp or at e Lab or at ory Ch em is ts at t he Co ca-C ol a co rp or at e labo rat ory tes te d t he effe ctof a dd in g
va rio us th al li um

sal ts to bo tt le d C oc a-Co la
. Co ca-C ol a ch em is ts fir stad de d v ari ou s t ha ll iu m co m po un ds to bo tt le s o f Co ca-C ol a to see whi ch wou lddi ss ol ve . The ch em is ts su cces sf ul ly dis so lv ed th al li um m al on at e, th al li um

form at e, th al li um

ph os ph at e, an d t ha ll iu m

su lfa te in th e Co ca-C ol a, an d re -cap pe d t he bo tt le
. Whe n fi ni sh ed , th e Co ca-C ol a in th e recap pe d b ot tl e “ lo ok edth e sa m e” as itha d b efo re. Late r th e Co ca-C ol a ch em is ts pe rfo rm edth is tes t u si ng th al li um I ni tra te
an d t ha ll iu m

III n it rat e. The th al li um I ni tra te di ss ol ve d a ndth e Co ca-C ol a lo ok ed
no rm al
. The th al li um

III n it rat e d idno t d is so lv e wel l. It“ ga ve a . . . bro wni sh pr eci pi ta nt ” an d “ [t]he Co ca-C ol a tu rn edso rt o f a m ud dy col or .” Inti m e, “ th e
m ud dy col or

set tl edto th e b ot to m ” o f th e b ot tl e, bu t “ th e b ev erag e lo ok ed
subs ta nt ia ll y

di ffer en t, m

uc h l ig ht er i n c ol or , andth ere was a pr eci pi ta ntor s ort o f
a m ud dy-lo ok in g s ub st an ce atth e b ot to m of t he bo tt le .” A Coc a-Co larep res en ta ti ve cam e to th e FBI Lab a ndtes te d t he th ree f ul l bo tt le s o f Co ca-C ol a (Q1 , Q2, an d Q3 ) fo r car bo ni zat io n a ndpre ss ur e. The th ree bo tt le s h adlo wer tha n C oc a-Co la ’s no rm al lev el s o f car bo ni zat io n a ndpre ss ur e. Thi s was ev id en ce t ha t t he Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es ha d b een un cap pe d s o t ha t t ha ll iu m 23co ul d b e ad de d t o t he m , andth enrecapp ed . Not ab ly too , a wit ne ss ha d s een

Trep al wit h ade vi ce u se d t o re cap bo tt le s. E. Verdi ct, Pena lty Phas e, an d Sent ence Afte r de li be rat in g fo r si x h ou rs , th e jury fou ndTrep al gu il ty of on e co un t o f fir st -d eg ree m

ur de r, si x c ou nt s o f at te m pt edfir st -d eg ree m

ur de r, se ve n c ou nt s o f po is on in g fo odor wa te r wit h i nt en t t o k il l o r in jure , andon e co un t o f ta m pe rin g wit h aco ns um er p ro du ct . Inth e p en al ty pha se , th e St at e cal le d Dr. Ri ch ardHos tl er, the ne ur ol og is t who tre at edPeg gy Carr, to tes ti fy ab ou t the pa in Peg gy Carr ex pe rie nc edfro m th e th al li um po is on in g, i nc lu di ng he r co m pl ai nt s o f an in te ns e b urni ng sen sa ti onin he r fee t an d t he factsh e was in pa in forsev eral da y s, u nt il sh e b ecame com at os e. The Sta te cal le d n o o th er wi tn es se s. The pa rti es en te redin to two st ip ul at io ns . Firs t, t he y st ip ul at edth atTrep al (1 ) “ was arre st edan d c on vi ct edof t he off en se of c on sp ira cy

to m anuf actur e
m etha m ph et am in e in 19 75 ,” (2 ) “ was in carc erat edforth is off en se fora pe rio d o f two -an d- on e-h al f y ears ,” an d (3 ) ha d “ no reco rdof o th er cr im in al co nv ic ti on s.” Seco nd , th e p art ie s s ti pu la te d t ha t Trep al “ do es no t h av e a h is to ry of v io le nt be ha vi or .” The de fen se cal le d n o wi tn es se s an d, ap artfro m th e st ip ul at io ns , pre se nt ed
24no ev id en ce. Aft er d el ib erat in g fo r ab ou t o ne ho ur , th e jury, by a 9 t o 3 vo te , reco m m en de d t ha t t he co urt i m po se th e d eat h p en al ty. The st at e tr ia l co urt fo ll owe d t he jury’ s re co m m en da ti on an d i m

po se d t he de ath p en al ty on t he fir st -d eg ree m ur de r co nv ic ti on . The st at e tr ia l co urt s en te nc edTrep al to co nc urren t 9 0- y ear s en te nc es onth e
rem ai ni ng co nv ic ti on s. F. Dire ct Appe al Trep al ap pe al edto th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Trep al arg ue d, i nt er al ia , th atth e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt h is fir st -d eg ree m ur de r co nv ic ti on . The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt af firm edTrep al ’s con vi ct io ns an d d eath s en te nc e. Trep al v. St at e, 62 1 S o. 2 d 1 36 1 (F la . 19 93 ) (“ Trep al I”). The Supr em e Co urt de ni edTrep al ’s cert io rari pe ti ti on . Trepa l v . Flo rid a, 51 0 U.S. 1 07 7, 1 14 S. Ct. 89 2 (1 99 4)
. G. In iti al Sta te Po st co nv ic tio n Pro ceed in gs On J un e 1 6, 1 99 5, Trep al fil eda Fl or id a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 .85 0
m ot io n t o v acat e h is co nv ic ti on s an d d eat h s en te nc e, whi ch he lat er am en de d. Trep al ’s am en de d 3 .85 0 m ot io n ra is ed30 cla im s, i nc lu di ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. OnNov em

be r 6, 1 99 6, af

te r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt is su eda 40 -p ag e o rd er d en y in g re li ef o n a ll of Tre pa l’s cl ai m s. Trep al ap pe al ed
. 25H. 19 97 OI G Repo rt

InApri l 1 99 7, wh il e Trep al ’s 3.8 50 ap pe al was p en di ng in th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, t he OIG Rep ort i ss ue d. Am on g o th er t hi ng s, t he OIG Rep ort cri ti ci zedso m e o f Martz ’s tes ti m on y ab ou t Q1 , Q2, an d Q3 in th e Trep al cas e. The OIG’ s m ai n c rit ic is m was t ha t M art z’s te st im on y as t o Q1 th ro ug h Q3
was “ st ro ng er t ha n h is an al yti cal res ul ts wou ldsupp ort.” The OIG Rep ort ad m it te d “ Martz co ul d h av e p ro pe rly op in edth atcert ai n s am pl es were co ns is te nt wit h t ha ll iu m

ni tra te ha vi ng be enad de d t o t he m .” Howev er, the OIG Rep ort cri ti ci zedMart z fo r te st ifyin g tha t “ th al li um ni tra te was a dd edto th e Co ca-C ol a”
an d t ha t, i n h is op in io n, t ha ll iu m ni tra te was i n t he Q1, Q2 , andQ3 s am pl es . The OIG Rep ort al so po in te d o utth atMart z h adrun DP tes ts onQ1, Q2 , an d Q3 bu t IC tes ts on on ly Q 1 a ndQ2. Bec au se Mart z d idno t ru n a n IC tes t o n Q3 (c on tra ry

to hi s t ria l t es ti m on y ), th e OIG Rep ort o pi ne d t ha t M art z d idno t h av e
anan al yti cal ba si s fo r st at in g Q3 was e ve n c on si st en t wi th th e ad di ti on of n it rat e. Thi rd , th e OIG Rep ort faul te d M art z’s tr ia l t es ti m on y ab ou t t he nu m

be r of te st s h e p erfo rm ed . Mart z was ask edwhet he r he ha d p erfo rm edan y tes ts ot he r th anth e DP te stto de te rm in e if th ere was th al li um

ni tra te in th e Co ca-C ol a
sa m pl es , andMart z an swe redth athe ha d d on e “ on e o th er t es t,” I C. Bu t i n fa ct Martz ran ot he r te st s b es id es DP an d IC , whi chhe di d n otm en ti on at t ria l. Fo urth , 26th e OIG Rep ort cr it ic iz edMart z fo r no t p erfo rm in g c ert ai n a dd it io na l t es ts su ch as

(1 ) th e “ va li da ti on ex pe riment o f ad di ng th al li um ni tra te to kn own un adul te rat ed Co ca-C ol a” an d ru nn in g the DP an d IC tes ts on th is kn own sample, and(2) qu an ti fy in g t he ni tra te he id en ti fie d i n Q1 th ro ug h Q3 an d c om parin g t he am ou nt of ni tra te to th e am ou ntof tha ll iu m th atHave ko stfou ndin th os e sa m pl es . Add it io na ll y , th e OIG Rep ort i nd ic at edth atMart z’s no te s wer e la ck in g i n d et ai l
an d i n s om e in st an ces in accu rat e. The OIG Rep ort co nc lu de d t ha t M art z’s work o n t he Trep al cas e de m on st rat ed“ a lo wer thr es ho ldof s ci en ti fic pro of th anis ge ne ral ly accep te d i n fo ren si c sc ie nc e” an d a“ la ck[of ] ap pr op ria te sci en ti fic rig orin [Martz ’s] ap pr oa ch to ex am in at io ns .” I. Rem an d a nd Ano ther 3.8 50 Ev id enti ar y H ea ri ng in T ri al Cour t Afte r th e OIG Rep ort was is su ed , andup on Trep al ’s m ot io n, t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt s ta y edTrep al ’s app eal an d re li nqui sh edjuri sd ic ti on to th e 3 .85 0
co urt. Trep al th enam en de d h is Ru le 3.8 50 m ot io n t o ra is e, am on g o th er t hi ng s, a Gig li o c la im

as t o h is co nv ic ti on s. The 3.8 50 co urt h el d a n e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng . 1. Ro ge r Martz Trep al ’s firs t wi tn es s was Mart z. Mart z d is cu ss edhi s m etho do lo gy and te st im on y an d a ckno wled ge d s om e err or s, b utul ti m at el y he ldfas t t o h is op in io n a t 27tri al th atth al li um ni tra te ha d b eenad de d t o Q1 , Q2, an d Q3 , th e fu ll Co ca-C ol a bo tt le s. Martz be li ev edth e OIG Rep ort co nt ai ne d t hr ee m ajorcri ti ci sm s o f hi s wo rk in th e Trep al cas e: (1) Mart z g av e a s tro ng er o pi ni on th anth e OIG be li ev edwas
warra nt edwhen he op in edth e th al li um ni tra te “ was ad de d” to th e sa m pl es in st ead of th e res ul ts be in g “ co ns is te ntwit h t ha ll iu m ni tra te ha vi ng be enad de d” ; (2 ) Martz ’s no te s wer e in co m pl et e an d i n p la ces in accu rat e; an d (3 ) Martz sai d a ll th ree s am pl es Q1 t hr ou gh Q3 were tes te d fo r ni tra te , bu t Q3 was n ottes te d u si ng th e IC. Martz ackno wled ge d h e co ul d h av e d on e a b et te r job of t ak in g n ot es , andhe
erre d i n n otm en ti on in g t ha t h e d idno t ru n t he IC t es t o n Q3 . Butne it he r fai lu re affe ct edhi s fi na l re po rt o r fi na l o pi ni on . Martz ’s op in io n was st il l t ha t t ha ll iu m ni tra te was a dd edto th e Co ca-C ol a. Martz tes ti fie d tha t “ in hi nd si gh t, [h e] pr ob ab ly sho ul d h av e” t es te d a ll th ree s am pl es us in g t he IC t es t, b ut“ a lo t o f ti m e if we ha ve m

ul ti pl e sa m

pl es , we wou ld n’t t es t al l o f th em . W e wou ldtes t a rep res en ta ti ve sample f

orth e co nf

irmatory tes t ju stto sp eedth in gs up .” As t o Q3 , Mart z d idno ot he r te st s b es id es th e DP te st . Martz jus ti fie d h is
co nc lu si on th atQ3 h adni tra te in it , des pi te on ly run ni ng on e te ston th atsample: I ha ve 25 y ears of ex pe rie nc e te st in g sa m pl es th at are as so ci at ed with
28th e cas e an d do in g rep res en ta ti ve sa m pl es fro m th os e cas es , th at if y ou ta ke two ou t o f th ree o f th e sa m pl es , th ey bo th ha ve th al li um in it , two of th e th ree ha ve ni tra te , an d th e th i r d o n e ha s a pr es um pt iv e te st fo r ni tra te , I us ed m

y 25 y ears —o r 20 y ears of ex pe rie nc e worki ng th es e type of cas es to co nc lu de th at th e th ird sa m pl e, ev en th ou gh I di dn ’t do th e co nf irmativ e te st , th e o nl y

lo gi cal expl an at io n wo ul d b e n it rat e. Martz als o e xp la in edth atth e DP te stis a pr es um pt iv e sc reen in g t es t fo r
ox id iz in g a ge nt s, s uc h a s n it rat es . The DP tes t was po si ti ve forQ1, Q2 , andQ3,
an d n eg at iv e fo r an un adul te rat edCo ca-C ol a sa m pl e. A po si ti ve res ul t i s i nd ic at ed by a bl ue co lo r. At Trep al ’s tri al , Mart z te st ifi edth atwhen y ou po urDP in to a so lu ti on th at
co nt ai ns a ni tra te , “ y ouge t a b lu e co lo r.” Howev er, tha t t es ti m on y fai le d t o ackno wled ge th at“ th ere’s o th er ch em ic al s t ha t wi ll gi ve a bl ue co lo r” i n aDP tes t. Alt ho ug h M art z h adfir sttes ti fie d a t t ria l tha t h is co nc lu si on th atth al li um ni tra te
was ad de d t o t he Co ca-C ol a was ba se d o n t he DP tes t, l at er i n h is tri al tes ti m on y he cla rif ie d t ha t h e h adals o re li edon th e IC t es t re su lt s i n re ach in g t ha t
co nc lu si on . 1 5 Martz tes ti fie d t ha t t he IC i s u se d a s a “ co nf irmatory tes t” to co nf

irm th e Martz conducted f

our other te sts on the Coca-Cola bottle samples: mass spec trometry 1 5 (“MS”) , x -ra

y diffra ction (“X RD”), sc anningelec tron microscopy (“SEM”) , and liquid chromatogr aphy

(“L C”). Martz’s MS testing of the samples “wa sn’t succe ssful,” and he did not rely on it for any

of his conclusions. Martz tested the Q1 sample, but not Q2 or Q3, usingXRD and SEM. The tests other tha n DP “wer e to g ive [Martz] neg ative re sults, and [ he] didn’t need to repe at them on the other

samples.” In short, Martz did not mention t he testingother than D P and I C beca use his “opinion was ba sically . . . from the [DP] test and the [I C] .” 29res ul ts of t he DP tes t. Howev er, wit ho uta po si ti ve res ul t o n b ot h t es ts , Mart z

“ wou ldno t ca ll ita po si ti ve ni tra te .” Martz ackno wled ge d t ha t n ei th er t he DP no r th e IC t es ts alo ne pro vi de po si ti ve id en ti fic at io n fo r ni tra te (by the m se lv es , each tes t ca n a t b es t p ro du ce
res ul ts “ co ns is te ntwit h” ni tra te ). Bu t M art z st at edth atif b ot h t es ts are p os it iv e, th enin hi s o pi ni on y ou ha ve pro ve n t he pre se nc e o f ni tra te . And , bo th th e DP an d IC t es ts were p os it iv e fo r th e Co ca-C ol a in Q1 an d Q2 . Mart z st at edth at

“ ge ne ral ly in fo ren si c sc ie nc e, y ou do a m ul ti pl e o f te st s, atlea sttwo , inord er t o pr ov e so m ethi ng is pre se ntbe cau se of t he factth aty ou cange t fa ls e p os it iv es .” Inth e St at e’s cro ss -ex am in at io n, M art z p oi nt edou t t ha t t he OIG nev er s ai d Martz ’s actua l t es ti ng of t he samples in th e Trep al cas e was do ne im pr op erl y . The OIG m erel y

qu es ti on edth e d oc um en ta ti onan d t es ti m on y . Martz als o o pi ne d tha t “ ba se d o n t he da ta[he ] pr ov id ed ,” he di d n otbe li ev e
an y on e co ul d s ay

th al li um ni tra te was n otad de d t o t he Co ca-C ol a sa m pl es . Tha t is be cau se th al li um

is pre se ntan d t he re are ele va te d l ev el s o f ni tra te . 1 6

At the 3.850 hea

ring , two other F BI

tox icolog y

experts testified: (1) Thomas Jourdan, 1 6 who worke d in the FB IL ab’s Chemistry and Toxicology

Unit from 1992 to 1997 and ser ved as chief of the Mate rials and De vices Unit since 1997; a nd (2) Steven B urmeister, the chief of the FB IL ab’s Chemistry

and Toxicology

Unit. Both agree d that to a re asonable scientific c erta inty , thallium nit rate was a dded to Q1 and Q 2, and they g ave r easons f

or their opinions. Both c ould not testify as to Q3 bec ause no I C test was run on Q3. In its ruling, the 3.850 c ourt discounted the testimony

of Jourdan and B urmeister, so we do not rely on it. 302. Mar la ndDul an ey , Jr.

Trep al ’s m ai n wi tn es s i n t he st at e co ll at eral pro ceed in g was Marl an d Dul an ey , Jr., a co ns ul ti ng to xi co lo gi st . Dul an ey op in edth athe co ul d n otrel y on th e IC ch art s t o a“ reas on ab le sci en ti fic cert ai nt y ” b ecau se Mart z d idno t ru n pr op er s ta nd ard s an d b la nk s. Martz di d n otrun ch lo rid e o r su lfa te st an da rd s t o
co nf irm whe re ch lo rid e an d s ul fat e io ns ap pe aredon th e ch art s. Martz ran a ni tra te st an da rd , bu t d idso by add in g kno wn n it rat e to wate r, no t t o C oc a-Co la
. Dul an ey di d n otdi sp ut e th atth al li um was p res en t i n t he Co ca-C ol a sa m pl es . Bu t Du la ne y

op in edth atall on e can say with reas on ab le sci en ti fic cert ai nt y ab ou t Q1, Q2 , andQ3 i s t ha t t he y co nt ai n t ha ll iu m . Dul an ey co ul d n otrul e o utth e po ss ib il it y

th atth al li um

ni tra te was a dd edto th e Co ca-C ol a sa m pl es . Mo reo ve r, Dul an ey co ul d n ottes ti fy

th atth e th al li um

sal t p res en t i n t he Q sam pl es was
so m ethi ng ot he r th anth al li um I ni tra te , bec au se he ha d i ns uf fic ie ntin fo rm at io n. Dul an ey tes ti fie d tha t M art z’s “ ap pr oa ch is so ba d, . . . itha s s o m an y ho le s t ha t
an y bo dy can s ay

an yth in g t ha t t he y

want , bec au se th ey

ha ve to m ak e as su m

pt io ns , an d i f y ou ass um e th is an d t hi s an d t hi s, t he n t hi s i s t ru e.” Bu t the da tapro vi de d
no way to tes t t he ass um

pt io ns . Bas edon hi s re vi ew of

th e d at a, Dul an ey

op in edth atth e co nc lu si on th at th al li um ni tra te was a dd edto Q1 an d Q2 can no t b e m ad e to a reas on ab le de gr ee o f 31sc ie nt ifi c certa in ty. Acco rd in g t o Du la ne y , add in g n itrat e to Co ca-C ol a an d

ru nn in g a n IC on itwas “ th e fu nd am en ta l s te p t ha t wo ul d a ll ow u s t o s ay th at th al li um ni tra te was a dd edto Co ca-C ol a,” an d t ha t was no t d on e. 3. Fred eri c Whit eh ur st Fred eri c Whit eh ur st , th e fo rm er FB I Lab ex am in er wh os e co m pl ai nt s b eg an th e OIG in ve st ig at io n, wo rk edin th e FBI Lab fr om 19 86 to 19 98
. Whi te hu rs t’s
areaof e xp ert is e was ex pl os iv es , bu t h e was fam il ia r wit h t he tes ts an d e qu ip m en t
us edinth e Trep al cas e. Whi te hu rs t o pi ne d t ha t t he IC t es ti ng inth e Trep al cas e d idno t m eet
acce pt ab le sci en ti fic st an da rd s. Whi te hu rs t ag reedwit h Du la ne y th atMart z sh ou ldha ve run a st an da rdin Co ca-C ol a in st eadof wa te r “ to see whateffe ctth e Co ke an d t he in st ru m en t h as on th e ch ro m at og rap hy.” Non ethe le ss , Whi te hu rs t h adno do ub t t ha t t ha ll iu m was fo un d i n the Co caCo la
. Bu t Whi te hu rs t b el ie ve d t he re were “ to o m an y un kn own s” to co nc lu de whi chform

of t ha ll iu m

was a dd ed
. Howev er, Whit eh ur stadm it te d t ha t, b as edon th e te stres ul ts he rev ie wed , Q1 an d Q2 are co ns is te ntwith t ha ll iu m ni tra te ha vi ng be enad de d t o t he m , andne ithe r he no r an y on e el se co ul d, b as edon th e d at a
av ai labl e, ru le ou t t ha ll iu m ni tra te ha vi ng be enad de d t o t he samples
. In

32Whi te hu rs t’s o pi ni on , th ere was no t en ou gh da tato say on e way or a no th er. 1 7 J. Deni al of T repa l’s Am ende d Rule 3.8 50 Mot io n On Oct ob er 2 6, 2 00 0, t he 3.8 50 co urt i ss ue d a36 -p ag e o rd er d en y in g Trep al ’s am en de d R

ul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n. The 3.8 50 co urt fo un d t ha t “ [n ]o real att ack [was ] m ad e o n t he fin di ng s o f Q20 6,” th e b ro wn b ot tl e fro m Trep al ’s gar ag e. Thu s, the co urt l im it edit s d is cu ss io n o n t he tes ti ng of Q2 06 to th e rel at io ns hi p o f Q20 6 t o Q1 , Q2, an d Q3 , th e sa m pl es fro m th e fu ll Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es . As t o Q1 , Q2, an d Q3 , th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt f ou ndth e fo ll owi ng in st an ces of f al se te st im on y by Martz at Tre pa l’s t ria l: (1) Mart z st at eda po si ti ve DP tes t i nd ic at es th e p res en ce o f a n it rat e (i ns te adof s ay in g t he pre se nc e o f an ox id iz in g i on , of whi chni tra te is anex am

pl e); (2) Mart z st at edni tra te was n otpre se ntinth e
un adul te rat edCo ca-C ol a (wh erea s t he IC res ul ts in di cat eda ni tra te co ul d b e pr es en t, al th ou gh th e DP te stwas n eg at iv e); (3) Mart z st at edhe ran IC t es ts on Q1, Q2, an d Q3 (whe n h e o nl y tes te d Q1 an d Q2 ); ( 4) Mart z d idno t re ve al he pe rfo rm edad di ti on al tes ti ng onth e Q sa m pl es (be y on d t he DP an d IC tes ts he
Trepa l’s trial attorney s J onathan Stidham and Da bney Conner testified at the 3.850 1 7 evidentiar y hearing. Stidham and Conner testified that the compa

rison of the c ontents of the Q206 bottle to the Q1 through Q3 Coca- Cola bottles was important to the case , and thus defe nse counsel hire d their own c hemistry expert to try

to disprove that the thallium in the Coca-Cola bottles came f

rom Q206. Howe ver, the defe nse expert was not a ble to do so, and so they

did not call him to testify . The de fense expert’s ana ly sis did not replicate Mar tz’s work and proc eede d alongcompletely

differ ent lines. 33di sc us se d a t t ria l); an d (5 ) Martz st at edth atth e te st s i nd ic at edth al li um ni tra te was ad de d t o Q1 , Q2, an d Q3 (in st eadof t ha t the tes t re su lt s wer e co ns is te ntwit h th al li um ni tra te ha vi ng be enad de d t o Q1 an d Q2 , andco ns is te ntwit h a n o xi di zi ng io n b ei ng pre se ntin Q3). The 3.8 50 co urt ca ll edMart z’s tr ia l co nduc t “ ou tra ge ou s an d s ho ck in g,” bu t
no te d t ha t re ga rd le ss , to pre va il on an y of h is cla im s, Trep al m

us t s ho w he was pr ejud ic ed
. Thu s, “ th e co urt m us t l oo k t o t he effe ctth e ev id en ce wo ul d h av e o n th e jury verd ic t, b oth i n the gu il t p ha se an d t he pe na lt y ph as e.” As t o Tre pa l’s Gi gl io cla im , th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt d is cu ss edth e m at eri al it y st an da rd , as fo ll ows : [Trep al ] cl ai m s a vi ol at io n of Gig li o fo r us e of fal se te st im on y at tr i al
. Gig li o v. Uni te d St at es , 40 5 U.S. 1 5 0 ( 1 9 7 2 ).
. . . Gig li o ho ld s th at a co nv ic ti on ba se d on fal se or pe rjure d te st im on y , whi ch th e pr os ecu ti on kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own was fal se , vi ol at es du e pr oc es s whe n su ch in fo rm at io n i s m at eri al
. The m at eri al it y pr on g is th e sa m e as th atus ed in Brad y. S e e Ro se v. St at e, W L 15 08 57 6 (Fl a. 20 00 ). Fal se in fo rm at io n is m at eri al if “ th ere is a reas on ab le li ke li ho od th at it co ul d ha ve [a]ffect edth e jury verd ic t.” Id
. The 3.8 50 co urt d et erm in edth atth e m at eri al it y qu es ti on“ im

pl ie s a c om

paris on ” be twee n M art z’s “ actua l t es ti m on y ” attri al an d “ wha t M art z co ul d h av e trut hf ul ly te st ifi edto at t ria l.” Den y in g re li ef, the 3.8 50 co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Trep al co ul d n otsh ow

34pr ejud ic e. The 3 .85 0 c ou rt f ou ndth at“ gi ve n t he tes t re su lt s t ha t M art z co ul d h av e rig ht fu ll y tes ti fie d abo utan d c on si de rin g a ll th e o th er ev id en ce i n t he cas e,” t he re
was “ no reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e v erd ic t wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” 1 8 K. Rule 3.8 50 Appea l Trep al ap pe al edth e d en ia l o f hi s R ul e 3 .85 0 m ot io n t o the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt, wh ic h a ffi rm ed . Trepa l v . Sta te , 84 6 S o. 2 d 4 05 (Fl a. 20 03 ) (“ Trep al II”),
rece de d fr om

in pa rt b y

Guzm anv. St at e, 86 8 S o. 2 d 4 98 , 50 6 (F la . 20 03 ). As t o Tre pa l’s Gi gl io cla im , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt quo te d a t l en gt h t he 3.8 50 co urt’s o rd er. Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 10 -2 6. In pa rti cu la r, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt quo te d t he 3.8 50 co urt’s s ta te m en ts th at : (1 ) th e Gig li o

“ m at eri al it y

pro ng is th e sa m e as th atus edin Brad y ”; (2) “ [f]als e in fo rm at io n i s
m at eri al if ‘th ere i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth atitco ul d h av e aff ect edth e jury
ve rd ic t’”; (3 ) inco nduc ti ng th e Gig li o a na lysis , Mart z’s “ actua l t es ti m on y sh ou ld be co m pa redto whatMart z co ul d h av e trut hf ul ly test ifi edto at t ria l” ; (4 ) in th e

In full, the 3.850 court sa id: 1 8 As to the guilt phase, the court finds
. . . that there is no rea sonable likelihood that the ver dict would have be en diffe rent. This case was based almost entirely on circ umstantial evidenc e. The testing results of the Coke samples and Q206 wer e the only direc t evidenc e of Trepa l’s guilt. Even so, g iven the test results that Martz could have rig htfully testified about and considering all the other evidenc e in the case , the court finds no rea sonable likelihood that the guilt phase results wou l d h av e been differ ent. Although this is a circ umstantial evidenc e case , the evidenc e was strong . Turning to the penalty phase,
. . . . [t ]he court finds that there is no rea sonable likelihood that the verdict would have bee n differ ent. . . . 35gu il t p ha se , “ th ere i s n o re as on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e v erd ic t wo ul d h av e b een

di ffer en t” ; an d (5 ) in th e p en al ty pha se , “ th ere i s n o re as on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e
ve rd ic t wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t.” Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 25 -2 6 (e m ph as is ad de d andom it te d)
. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt t he n s etfor th it s o wn an al y si s. Id. at42 6- 28
. 1 9 The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt ag reedwit h t he 3.8 50 co urt’s co nc lu si on “ th atTrep al
was no t i m

pe rm is si bl y

pre jud ic edby the tes ti m on y

of M art z.” Id . at 4 26
. To ex pl ai n wh y , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt re vi ewedth e 3 .85 0 c ou rt’s fin di ng s o n s pe ci fic fal se or m is le ad in g s ta te m en ts Mart z m ad e atTrep al ’s tri al : In th e pr es en t cas e, th e ci rcu it co urt fo un d th at th e fo ll owi ng st at em en ts m ad e attri al by Martz were i m pr op er fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on s:
- Martz st at ed : “ Andwhen y oupo urth at[i.e ., di ph en y la m in e or DP] in to a so lu ti on whi ch co nt ai ns a ni tra te y ou ge t a bl ue co lo r.” (The ci rcu it co urt, ho wev er, fo un d as fo ll ows : whe n y ou po ur DP in to a so lu ti on th at co nt ai ns an ox id iz in g io n—whi ch m ay or m ay no t be a ni tra te —you g eta bl ue co lo r.) - Martz st at ed : “ Bas edon th attes t [i .e., th e DP te st ] I co nc lu de d th at th al li um ni tra te was ad de d to th e Co ca-C ol a.” (The ci rcu i t c o u rt, ho wev er, fo un d as fo ll ows : al l th at co ul d be co nc lu de d ba se d on th e DP te st—i n co njunc ti on wit h th e ot he r te st s—was th at th e te st res ul ts were co ns is te ntwit h t he pre se nc e o f th al li um ni tra te .)

- Martz st at ed : “N o ni tra te s were pr es en t in th e un adul te rat ed Co ca-C ol a.” (The ci rcu it co ur t , h owe ve r, fo un d as fo ll ows : io n

The F lorida Supreme Court noted that the Martz testimony claim involved a mixed 1 9 question of law a

nd fac t. Trepa l I I , 846 So. 2d at 426. Thus, the Florida Supreme Court revie wed the 3.850 c ourt’s “ultimate ruling ” de novo but its fac tual finding s based on whe ther they wer e “suppor

ted by competent substantial evide nce.” I d. at 427.

36ch ro m at og rap hy o r IC te st in g sh owe d th e pr es en c e of a subs ta nc e th at

co ul d h av e b eena ni tra te in th e u na du lt erat edCo ke .)

- “ In th is pa rti cu lar cas e, whe n I te st ed th e Co ca-C ol a [v ia IC] th e res ul ts were po si ti ve fo r th e ni tra te io n.” (The ci rcu it co urt, ho wev er, fo un d as fo ll ows : th e IC te st can sh ow on ly th e pr es en ce of an ox id iz in g io n—whi chm ay

or m ay no t b e a n it rat e.)

- Martz was as ke d: “ Did y ou te st each of th e sa m pl es on th e io n ch ro m at og rap h to de te rm in e whe th er ni tra te was pr es en t? ” He res po nd ed : “ Yes , I di d.” (The ci rcu it co urt, ho wev er, fo un d as fo ll ows : Martz di d no t te st each sa m pl e. He di d no t te st th e th ird sa m pl e, i.e., Q3, on th e io n c hr om at og rap h.)

- Martz st at ed : “ On th ree sa m pl es th at I te st ed , al l th ree co nt ai ne d ni tra te io ns .” (The ci rcu it co urt, ho wev er, fo un d as fo ll o w s: on two sa m pl es th at Martz te st ed , al l t ha t h e ap pr op ria te ly cou ldha ve att es te d to was t ha t t he tes ts were co ns is te ntwith t he pre se nc e o f a n it rat e; an d th at on th e th ird sa m

pl e, th e te st s were co ns is te nt wit h th e pr es e n ce of anox id iz in g i on—wh ic h m ay or m ay no t h av e b een a ni tra te .)

- Martz was as ke d: “ Bas ed on th os e two te st s [i.e ., DP an d IC], is it y ou r op in io n th at wha t was in th os e th ree C o c a - C o la s, si r, was th al li um ni tra te ? ” He res po nd ed : “ Tha t is co rrec t.” (The ci rcu it co urt, ho w e v er, fo un d— as no te d ab ov e—t ha t al l th at Martz ap pr op ria te ly c o u l d ha ve atte st ed to was th at th e te st s were co ns is te nt wit h th e pr es en ce o f th al li um

ni tra te .) Id . at 4 27 (br ack et s i n o rig in al ). The Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t he n n ot ed
un ch al le ng ed , in cri m in at in g fa ct s t ha t ex is te d re ga rd le ss of M art z’s fal se te st im on y : Reg ard le ss of th e ab ov e im pr op rie ti es in th e te st im on y of Martz (an d reg ard le ss of th e im

pr op rie ti es in hi s te st in g pr act ic es an d om is si on s in hi s tes ti m on y ), th e fo ll owi ng co nc lu si on s nev ert he le ss can pr op erl y be dr awnfro m

th e p res en t re co rd : [1 .] Peg gy Carr di ed fro m in ge st in g th al li um (o f an un de te rm in ed type). [2 .] Of th e va r i o u s f orm s of th al li um , on ly th al li um su lfa te an d
37th al li um ni tra te (s ub -g ro up I) di ss ol ve in Co ca-C ol a wit ho ut ch an gi ng

th e ap pe aran ce o f th e Co ke or f oa m in g o utof t he bo tt le
. [3 .] The br own bo tt le fo u n d in Trep al ’s ga rag e co nt ai ne d (a) th al li um , an d (b ) an ox id iz in g io n co ns is te nt wit h t h e pr es en ce of a ni tra te . [4 .] Fi ve em

pt y Co ca-C ol a bo tt le s fo un d in th e Carr ho us eh ol d co nt ai ne d t ha ll iu m

(of anun de te rm in edtype). [5 .] Test s on two un op en ed bo tt le s of Co ca-C ol a fo un d in th e Carr ho us eh ol d (a ) sh owe d t he pre se nc e o f th al li um , a nd (b ) y ie ld edres ul ts th atwere co ns is te ntwit h t he pre se nc e o f a n it rat e. [6 .] Test s on a th i r d un op en ed bo tt le of Co ca-C ol a fo un d in th e Carr ho us eh ol d (a) sh owe d th e pr es e n c e of th al li um , an d (b ) y ie ld ed res ul ts th at were co ns is te nt wit h th e pr es en ce of an ox id iz in g io n (wh ic h m ay or m ay no t h av e b een a ni tra te ). Id . at 4 27 -2 8. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he 3.8 50 co urt’s “ factua l fin di ng s ar e supp orte d b y co m pe te nt , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , andth e
co urt p ro pe rly con cl ud ed —b as edon th os e fi nd in gs —t ha t the pre jud ic e su ffer edby Trep al was i ns uf

fic ie ntto warran t a n ew tr ia l. We fin d n o e rro r.” Id . at 4 28
. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s m ajor it y op in io n d idno t s ta te ex pl ic it ly wha t
m at eri al it y

st an da rditwas app lying , anddi d n otco m m en t upo n (wh ethe r to ap pr ov e o r di sapp ro ve ) th e m at eri al it y st an da rdap pl ie d b y

th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt. Ina sp eci al co nc urren ce, two Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt ju st ic es cla rif ie d t he di ffer en t p reju di ce s ta nd ard s re la ti ng to Brad y an d Gi gl io cla im s. Trep al II, 84 6 So . 2dat 4 37 (Pari en te , J., co nc urrin g) . The co nc urren ce ex pl ai ne d i ts vi ew th at

38th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt i nc orrect ly stat edth atth e Bra dy andGig li o m at eri al it y st an da rd s were i de nt ic al . Id. at43 8- 39 . Neverth el es s, t he jus ti ces co nc urredbe cau se , eve n if M art z’s fal se tes ti m on y sat is fie d t he ot he r el em en ts of t he Gig li o t es t, t he te st im on y “ co ul d n otha ve ledth e jury to fi ndot he r th anth atTrep al in te nt io na ll y po is on edhi s n ei gh bo rs wit h t ha ll iu m , res ul ti ng in th e d eat h o f Peg gy Carr.” Id . at 43 9. Sev eral m on th s af

te r Trep al II, th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt, i n aun an im ou s de ci si on , no te d i ts pre ced en t l ack edcla rit y an d e xp la in edth atth e Bra dy and Gig li o m at eri al it y

st an da rd s ar e d iff

eren t. Gu zm anv. St at e, 86 8 S o. 2 d 4 98 , 50 5- 06 (Fl a. 20 03 ). Und er Br ady , on e m us t s ho w “ a rea so nabl e p ro babi li ty tha t t he
un di sc lo se d e vi de nc e wou ldha ve pro du ceda di ffer en t v erd ic t,” wh erea s u nd er Gig li o, o ne m

us t s ho w th at“ th ere i s an y reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se te st im on y co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury.” Guzm an , 86 8 S o. 2 d a t 50 6 (e m ph as is ad de d)
. Afte r Guz m an , Trepa l m ov edth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt t o re op enhi s ap pe al
. Trep al arg ue d tha t h e was en ti tl edto a ne w tri al or, a t l eas t, a re m an d t o th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt f

ora pr op er Gi gl io an al y si s. On Dec em

be r 6, 2 00 4, i n a n u np ub li sh edde ci si on , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt s umm ari ly den ie d re li ef “ on th e m eri ts .”
39L. Feder al Ha bea s Pro ceed in gs

On Au gu st17 , 20 05 , Trepa l fi le d i n t he di st ric t co urt h is 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us . Trep al ’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n c la im ed , in te r al ia , th atMart z’s fal se tes ti m on y vi ol at edGig li o. On J un e 1 5, 2 01 0, t he di st ric t co urt i ss ue d a75 -p ag e o rd er d en y in g Tre pa l’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n. The di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d Tre pa l d idno t s ho w th atth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s Trep al II d eci si on was c on tra ry to or b as edon anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f Gig li o. The di stric t co urt g ran te d Tre pa l a C OA on “ [w]het he r th e d eci si on in Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 28 —t ha t ‘th e p reju di ce s uf fere d b y Trep al as ares ul t o f Martz ’s im

pr op rie ti es was i ns uf

fic ie ntto warran t a n ew tr ia l’—i s o bjec ti ve ly
un reas on ab le .” Trep al ap pe al edto th is Co urt. 2 0 II . STANDARD OF REVIEW The Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”), Pub. L. No. 1 04 -1 32 , 11 0 S ta t. 1 21 4, “ im po se s a h ig hl y

de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardfor

The district cour

t also g rante d Trepa l a COA as to “[w]hether the de cision in Trepa l I I , 2 0 846 So. 2d at 428—‘that the [3.850] court’s f actua l findings a

re suppor ted by competent, substantial evidence in the rec ord’—is objec tively unrea sonable.” In his init ial brief on a ppeal, howeve r, Tre pal does not ar gue that the state 3.850 court’s f indings we re not supporte d by the rec ord. In any

event, the r ecor d amply

supports all the state 3.850 cour t’s fac t findings a

nd we conclude the Flor ida Supreme Court’s de cision was not unre asonable . See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)( 2). 40ev al ua ti ng st at e-co urt ru li ng s an d d em an ds th atst at e-co urt d eci si on s b e g iv enth e

be ne fitof t he do ub t.” Har dy v. Cro ss , 56 5 U.S. — , 13 2 S . Ct. 4 90 , 49 1 (2 01 1) (quo ti ng Fel kn er v . Jac ks on , 56 2 U.S. — , 13 1 S . Ct. 1 30 5, 1 30 7 (2 01 1) ). Sect io n 22 54 , as a m en de d b y

AEDPA, pro vi de s t ha t a f ed eral co urt s ha ll no t g ran t fe de ral habe as rel ie f to a st at e p ris on er o n acla im ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts in st at e co urt
un le ss th e st at e co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f th e cl ai m : (1 ) “ res ul te d i n ade ci si on th at
was co nt rary to, o r in vo lv edanun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, cl earl y est ab li sh ed Fed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s; ” o r (2 )

“ res ul te d i n ade ci si on th atwas b as edon anun reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f th e fact s i n l ig htof t he ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co urt p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d)
.

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si onab ou t wh ethe r th e st at e
co urt ac te d c on tra ry

to cle arl y

est ab li sh edfed eral law, u nr eas on ab ly app li ed fed eral law, o r m ad e an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n o f fac t.” J oh ns on v. Up to n, 61 5 F .3d13 18 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) , cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct . 30 41 (20 11 ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON Inord er t o d is cu ss th e is su e o f whe th er t he Flo rid a co urts co nt rav en edor
un reas on ab ly app li edco nt ro ll in g fed eral law h ere, we fi rs t s etfor th th e g ov ern in g 41Gig li o m at eri al it y st an da rd
. A. Gi gl io Sta nda rd InGig li o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 05 U.S. 15 0, 9 2 S . Ct. 7 63 (19 72 ), th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t wh enth e p ro se cu ti on so li ci ts or f ai ls to co rrec t kno wn fa ls e
ev id en ce, due pro ces s re qu ire s a n ew tr ia l wh ere “ th e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d i n a ny
reas on ab le li ke li ho odha ve affe ct edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury.” 40 5 U.S. at15 4, 9 2 S. Ct . at 7 66 (el li ps is om it te d) . Gig li o e rro r, whi ch “ is a sp eci es of B rad y erro r,”
ex is ts “ whe n ‘th e u nd is cl os edev id en ce d em on st rat es th atth e p ro se cu ti on ’s cas e in cl ud edpe rjure d t es ti m on y an d t ha t t he pro se cu ti onkn ew, orsh ou ldha ve kn own , of th e p erju ry .’ ” Ven tu ra v . Att ’y Gen., 4 19 F.3d12 69 , 12 76 -7 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Agu rs , 42 7 U.S. 9 7, 1 03 , 96 S. Ct. 2 39 2, 2 39 7 (1 97 6) ).

“ To es tabl is h aGig li o c la im , a habe as pe ti ti on er m us t p ro ve : (1 ) th e pr os ecu to r kn owi ng ly use d p erju redtes ti m on y or f ai le d t o c orrectwhathe
subs eque nt ly learn edwas fa ls e te st im on y ; an d (2 ) su ch us e was m at eri al , i.e., th at th ere i s an y

reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud gm en t.” Gu zm anv. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., 66 3 F .3d13 36 , 13 48 (11 th Cir
. 20 11 ) (“ Guz m anII”) ( qu ot at io n m ark s an d e ll ip si s o m it te d)
. 2 1

We refe r to our De cembe r 7, 2011 Guzman dec ision as “Guzman I I ” to distinguish it 2 1 from the F lorida Supreme Court’ s 2003 decision in Guzman v. State, 868 So. 2d 498, 505-06 (F la. 2003), discussed e arlier , which we ref er to a s “Guzman.” 42The Gig li o m at eri al it y st an da rdis “ di ffer en t an d m or e d efen se -fri en dl y ” th anth e Bra dy m at eri al ity st an da rd , as we h av e ex pl ai ne d: Whe re th ere h as be ena supp res si on of f av or ab le ev id en ce in vi ol at io n of Brad y v. Mary la nd , 37 3 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct
. 11 94 , 10 L.E d
. 2 d 2 1 5 (1 96 3) , th e no nd is cl os ed ev id en ce is m at eri al : “ if t he re i s a r eas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at , h a d th e ev id en ce be en di sc lo se d to th e de fen se , th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en d i f f e r e nt . A ‘reaso nabl e pr o b abi li ty’ is a pr ob ab il it y su ffi ci en t to un de rm in e co nf id en ce in th e ou tc om e.” Uni te d St at es v. Bag le y , 47 3 U.S. 66 7, 68 2, 10 5 S.Ct
. 33 75 , 33 83 , 87 L.Ed.2 d 48 1 (1 98 5)
. A di ffer en t an d m or e de fen se -fri en dl y st an dard of m at eri al it y ap pl ie s whe re t h e p ro se cu to r kn owi ng ly us ed pe rjure d t e s ti m on y , or fai le d to co rrec t wha t he subs eque nt ly le arn ed was fal se te st im on y . Whe re ei th er of th os e e v e n t s h as happ en ed , th e fal se ho od is de em ed to be m at eri al “ if th ere is an y reas on ab le li ke li ho od th at th e fal se te st im on y co ul d ha ve aff e c t e d t he jud gm en t of th e jury.” Uni te d St at es v. Agu rs , 42 7 U.S. 97 , 10 3 , 9 6 S.Ct
. 23 92 , 23 97 , 49 L.Ed.2 d 34 2 (1 97 6) (em

ph as is ad de d) ; acco rd Gig li o v. Uni te d St a t es , 40 5 U.S. 15 0, 15 4, 92 S.Ct
. 76 3, 76 6, 31 L.Ed.2 d 10 4 (1 97 2) ; Nap ue v. Ill in oi s, 36 0 U.S. 26 4, 27 1, 79 S.Ct
. 11 73 , 11 78 , 3 L.Ed.2 d 12 17 (1 95 9)
. Uni te d S ta te s v . Alzat e, 47 F.3d11 03 , 11 09 -1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) . Thu s, fo r Bra dy vi ol at io ns , th e d efen da ntm us t s ho w a reas on ab le pro babi li ty the res ul t wo ul d h av e be endi ffer en t, b utfor

Gig li o v io la ti on s, t he de fen da ntha s t he li gh te r bu rd enof sh owi ng th atth ere i s an y reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e affe ct edth e jury’ s ju dg m en t. Alz at e, 47 F.3dat 1 10 9- 10 . The Br ady m at eri al it y st an da rd“ is subs ta nt ia ll y m or e d iff

ic ul t fo r a d efen da ntto m eetth anth e ‘cou ld

43ha ve affe ct ed ’ st an da rd ” u nd er Gi gl io
. Id. at11 10 n.7
. 2 2 B. Whe ther Trep al ha s Sa tis fie d § 22 54 (d) A th res ho ldis su e is th e p ro pe r st an da rdof d efer en ce t ha t ap pl ie s t o the Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s d en ia l o f Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im —t ha t i s, wh ethe r Trep al ha s s ho wn t ha t t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s cl ai m in Trep al II was
co nt rary to o r ba se d o n a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edSupr em e Co urt p rece de nt . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d )(1 ). Here, the rel ev an t Supr em e Co urt pr eced en t i s Gi gl io , for“ no Supr em e Co urt ca se si nc e Gig li o i ts el f ha s s qu arel y ad dr es se d aGig li o c la im .” Ventur a, 41 9 F .3dat 1 27 9. Trep al arg ue s tha t we s ho ul d re vi ew th e m eri ts of h is cla im de no vo be cau se th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s Trep al II d eci si on was c on tra ry to Gig li o i n t ha t i t ap pl ie d t he wron g m at eri al it y st an da rd . Trepa l i s co rrec t t ha t a s ta te co urt d eci si on fal ls un de r th e “ co nt rary to” pro ng of § 22 54 (d )(1 ) if it“ ap pl ie s a rul e th at
co nt rad ic ts th e g ov ern in g l aw se t fo rth ” in a pr io r Supr em e Co urt h ol di ng . Pric e v. Vi nc en t, 5 38 U.S. 63 4, 6 40 , 12 3 S . Ct. 1 84 8, 1 85 3 (2 00 3) (qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d) . Howev er, i t i s l es s t ha n c le ar wh ethe r th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt i n

“[T] he re ason the lowe r materiality burden a pplies where there is knowing use of 2 2 perjure d testimony

is that such a situation involves prosecutor ial misconduct and a corr uption of the truth-see king f

unction of the trial.” Alzate, 47 F.3d at 1110; accor d Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103- 04, 96 S. Ct . at 2397. 44Trep al II ap pl ie d am at eri al it y rul e th atco nt rad ic ts Gig li o’s. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt, fo r it s p art , di d n otex pr es sl y st at e wha t
m at eri al it y

st an da rditap pl ie d. In st ead , th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt quo te d n earl y th e en ti re an al y si s o f th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt, a ndth enst at edth atitag reedTrep al was n ot pr ejud ic edby Martz ’s tes ti m on y : Afte r ev al ua ti ng th e co nf li ct in g te st im on y of th e witne ss es , th e [3 .85 0] co urt co nc lu de d th at Trep al was no t im pe rm is si bl y pr ejud ic ed by th e te st im on y of M art z. W e ag ree.

. . .

. . . [W] e ag ree th at th e pr ejud ic e su ffer ed by Trep al as a res ul t of Martz ’s im

pr op rie ti es was i ns uf

fic ie ntto warra nt a n ew tr ia l. . . . [W ]e co nc lu de th at th e [3 .85 0] co urt’s factua l fin di ng s a r e supp orte d by co m pe te nt , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce in th e reco rd , an d th e [3 .85 0] co urt pr op erl y co nc lu de d—

ba se d on th os e fin di ng s—th at th e pr ejud ic e su ffer ed by Trep al was in su ffi ci en t to warra nt a ne w t ria l. W e fin d n o erro r. Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 26 -2 8 (f oo tn ot e o m it te d)
. As t o t he qu ot edpo rti on s o f th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt’s a na lysis , eve n tho se are n ot
en ti rel y cle ar as to whet he r th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt m is -ap pl ie d Gi gl io ’s m at eri al it y st an da rd . Alth ou gh th e 3 .85 0 c ou rt s ta te d— in co rrec tl y —t ha t t he “ m at eri al it y pr on g [o f Gig li o] is th e sa m e as th atus edin Brad y ,” it s v ery ne xtsen te nc e
co rrec tl y set s fo rth th e Gig li o s ta nd ard : “ Fal se in fo rm at io n i s m at eri al if ‘th ere i s a
reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atitco ul d h av e affe ct edth e jury verd ic t.’” Trep al II, 84 6 So . 2dat 4 25
. 45W e n eedno t re so lv e th e que st io n o f th e p ro pe r st an da rdof d efer en ce t o t he

Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt’s ad jud ic at io n o f Trep al ’s cla im of Gi gl io erro r. Ins te ad , 2 3 we ad op t an ap pr oa ch th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt i ts el f ha s emplo y edwhen a p et it io ne r fai ls to sh ow p reju di ce ev enun de r de no vo rev ie w: Eve n if th e st a t e c o urt us ed an in co rrec t le ga l st an da rd , we ne ed no t de te rm in e whe th er AEDPA’ s de fere nt ia l st an da rd of rev ie w, 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), ap pl ie s in th is si tu at io n. Cf
. W il li am s v. Tay lo r, 52 9 U.S. 36 2, 39 7– 39 8, 12 0 S.Ct
. 14 95 , 14 6 L.Ed.2 d 38 9 (2 00 0)
. Tha t is be cau se , ev en if AEDPA de fere n c e d oe s no t ap pl y , Tho m pk in s can no t sh ow pr ejud ic e un de r de no vo rev ie w, th e m or e fav or ab le st an da rd of rev ie w fo r Tho m pk in s. Co urts can no t gr an t writ s of habe as co rp us un de r § 22 54 by en ga gi ng on ly in de no vo rev ie w whe n it is un cl ear whe th er AEDPA de fere nc e ap pl ie s, § 2 2 5 4( d)
. In th os e si tu at io ns , co urts m us t res ol ve whe th er AEDPA de fere nc e ap pl ie s, be c a us e if it do es , a habe as pe ti ti on er m ay no t be en ti tl ed to a writ of h ab e a s co rp us un de r § 22 54 (d ). Co urts can , ho wev er, de ny writ s of habe as c o r p u s un de r § 22 54 by en ga gi ng in de no vo rev ie w whe n it is un cl ear whe th er AEDPA d e fere nc e ap pl ie s, be cau se a habe as pe ti ti on er wil l no t be en ti tl ed to a writ of hab e a s co rp us if hi s or he r cl ai m is reject ed on de no vo rev ie w, see § 2 25 4( a). Berg hu is v. Th om

pk in s, 5 60 U.S. —, 13 0 S . Ct. 2 25 0, 2 26 5 (2 01 0) (em ph as is ad de d) . As was th e cas e fo r th e Supr em e Co urt i n Th om pk in s, we n eedno t de te rm in e whe th er t he st at e supr em e co urt u se d a n i nc orrectleg al st an da rd , forwe

We are awa

re that the Supreme Court has instructe d us that, on fede ral ha beas r eview, 2 3 we a re to g ive state c ourt dec isions “the benef it of the doubt.” Cullen v. Pinhols ter, 563 U.S. —, 131 S. Ct . 1388, 1398 (2011) ( quoting Woodford v. Visc iotti, 537 U.S . 19, 24, 123 S. Ct . 357, 360 (2002)) . Our c oncurr ing c olleague points out good r easons why we should conc lude the Florida Supreme Court did not apply an incor rec t standard in its adjudication of Tr epal’ s Gig lio claim. B ut Trepa l’s claim fa ils even under de novo re view. 46co nc lu de th atTrep al can no t p rev ai l ev enun de r de no vo rev ie w.

To p rev ai l h ere, Trep al m us t s ho w th ata Gig li o e rro r res ul te d i n “ actua l pr ejud ic e” t o h im

un de r th e st an da rdsetfor th in Brec htv. Ab rah am so n, 5 07 U.S. 61 9, 1 13 S. Ct. 1 71 0 (1 99 3) . See Gu zm anII, 66 3 F .3dat 1 34 7; see als o M an sf ie ld v. Se c’y , Dep’t o f Co rr., — F.3 d — , No. 0 9- 12 31 2, s li p o p. at12 (11 th Cir . May 9, 20 12 ) (“ On co ll at eral rev ie w, a fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al erro r is ha rm le ss un le ss th ere is ‘ actua l p reju di ce,’ m ean in g t ha t t he erro r ha d a‘ subs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ct
orin flu en ce’ on th e jury’ s v erd ic t.” ( qu ot in g B rech t, 5 07 U.S. at 6 37 , 11 3 S . Ct. at 17 22 )). Eve n i f Trep al sh ows pa rt o f Martz ’s tes ti m on y was fa ls e ab ou t s om e th in gs , andev enass um in g a rg ue nd o t ha t M art z’s fal se tes ti m on y (1) canbe im pu te d t o t he st at e p ro se cu to r, an d (2 ) was m at eri al un de r Gig li o, Trep al ha s n ot 2 4 sh own th athe su ffer edth e actua l p reju di ce re qu ire d u nd er Br ech t. We exp la in be lo w. There is a substantial issue as to whether FB IAg ent Martz’s knowingfalse te stimony 2 4 can be imputed to the Florida State Attorney who prosec uted the Tre pal ca se. See, e .g ., Moon v. Hea d, 285 F.3d 1301, 1309- 10 (11th Cir. 2002) (notingthat (1) a prosec utor has a duty

to learn of any favor able e vidence known to others ac ting on the g overnme nt’s behalf , including la

w enfor ceme nt office rs, and ( 2) thus knowledg e possessed by any member of

the “pr osecution team” is imputed to the prose cutor, but (3) whether knowledg e held by

members of

one g overnme ntal entity

can be imputed to a prosec utor workingfor a differ ent g overnme ntal entity is determined using“a c ase- by -ca se ana ly sis of the extent of interac tion and cooper ation betwee n the two g overnme nts” (quotingUnited States v. Antone, 603 F .2d 566, 570 (5th Cir. 1979)). The State c ontends that Martz was not a pa rt of the “ prosec ution team,” that he w as simply serving as an e x pert witness c alled to testify about his testing of

the evidenc e, and that his overstate ment of his opinions was neither known nor counte nance d by anyone in the State Attorney ’s offic e. We nee d not rea ch this issue to decide this ca se. 47C. Bre cht “ Actua l Prejudi ce” Sta nda rd fo r Feder al Ha bea s Rel ie f

InBrec ht , th e Supr em e Co urt b eg anby dis cu ss in g i ts pri orde ci si on in Ch ap m anv. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 1 8, 8 7 S . Ct. 8 24 (19 67 ). See Br ech t, 5 07 U.S. at 62 2, 6 30 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 13 , 17 17 . The Br ech t Co urt p oi nt edou t t ha t Ch ap m an

“ reject edth e arg um en t tha t t he Co ns ti tu ti on requi res a bl an ke t ru le of aut om at ic
rev ers al inth e cas e o f co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, an d c on cl ud edin st eadth at‘ th ere m ay be so m e co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs whi ch in th e se tt in g o f a p art ic ul ar ca se are s o
un im po rta ntan d i ns ig ni fic an t t ha t t he y m ay , con si st en t wi th th e Fed eral Co ns ti tu ti on , be d eem edha rm le ss .’ ” Bre ch t, 5 07 U.S. at 6 30 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 17 (quo ti ng Ch ap m an , 38 6 U.S. at22 , 87 S. Ct. at82 7) . Accor di ng ly, co ns ti tu ti on al de fect s i n c riminal tri al s fa ll in to two cla ss es : (1 ) “ st ru ctur al de fect s,” wh ic h requi re au to m at ic rev ers al of aco nv ic ti on , and(2) “ tri al erro rs ,” whi ch are s ub ject to ha rm le ss erro r an al y si s. See i d. at62 9– 30 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 17 . The s ta nd ard 2 5

The B rec ht Court ex plained the distinction betwee n trial err or and struc tural def ects: 2 5 Trial err or occur s during the prese ntation of the case to the jury , and is a menable to harmless-e rror analy sis beca use it may be quantitatively assessed in th e co n text of other evidenc e prese nted in order to deter mine the eff

ec t i t h ad on the trial. At the other end of the spectrum of con s t i tu t i onal err ors lie structura l defe cts in the constitution of the trial mecha nism, which defy analy sis by harmless-e rror standards. The exis tence of such defe ct s —deprivation of the rig ht to counsel, for exampl e
—

r e quires automatic reve rsal of the conviction beca use they infec t the entire trial proce ss. Br echt, 507 U.S. at 629- 30, 113 S. Ct . at 1717 (c itations, quotation m arks, f ootnotes, and brac kets, and e llipsi s omitt ed). 48Ch ap m ansetfor ha rm le ss ne ss of c on st itut io na l t ria l erro r was whet he r th e
rev ie win g c ou rt wa s “ ab le to de cl are abe li ef tha t [t he erro r] was harm le ss be y on d
a rea so nabl e d oubt .” Id . at 6 30 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 17 (qu ot in g C hapm an , 38 6 U.S. at 24 , 87 S. Ct. at82 8)
. Ch ap m anwas adi rect -ap pe al cas e, an d u nt il Brec ht , th e Supr em e Co urt h ad
no t h adoc cas io n t o s qu arel y ad dr es s wh ethe r th e Ch ap m an“ harm le ss be y on d a
reas on ab le do ub t” st an da rdap pl ie d t o c as es onco ll at eral rev ie w. Brech t, 5 07 U.S. at63 0, 1 13 S. Ct. at17 18 . Brech t d et erm in edth atCh ap m an ’s harm le ss erro r st an da rddi d n otap pl y

on co ll at eral rev ie w. Id. at62 3, 6 30 –3 8, 1 13 S. Ct. at17 14 , 17 18 –2 2. In st ead , th e Bre ch t Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the ap pr op ria te ha rm le ss -err or st an da rdforhabe as rev ie w of c riminal co nv ic ti on s was whet he r th e co ns ti tu ti on al
erro r “ ha d s ub st an ti al an d i nju rio us effec t o r in flu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s
ve rd ic t.” Id . at 6 23 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 14 (qu ot in g Ko tt eak os v. Un it edSta te s, 3 28 U.S. 75 0, 7 76 , 66 S. Ct. 1 23 9, 1 25 3 (1 94 6) ). The Supr em e Co urt re as on edth at

“ gr an ti ng habe as rel ie f m erel y be cau se th ere i s a ‘reas on ab le po ss ib il ity ’ th attri al
erro r co nt rib ut edto th e v erd ic t is at o dd s wi th th e h is to ric m ean in g o f habe as
co rp us —t o a ffo rdrel ie f to th os e who m so ci ety ha s ‘gri ev ou sl y

wron ge d’”—a nd al so im po se s s oc ia l co st s an d i nf rin ge s o n t he st at es ’ so ve rei gn ty andin te res t i n 49fin al ity

of ju dg m en ts . Id. at63 7, 1 13 S. Ct. at17 21 (qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io ns
om it te d) . Mor eo ve r, “ [s ]tate co urts are fu ll y qu al ifi edto id en ti fy

co ns ti tu ti on al
erro r an d e va lu at e it s p reju di ci al effe cton th e tr ia l p ro ces s u nd er Ch ap m an , and st at e co urts oft enoc cupy a supe rio r va nt ag e p oi ntfro m whi ch to ev al ua te th e effe ctof t ria l erro r,” an d t hu s “ itsca rcel y see m s l og ic al to requi re fe de ral habe as
co urts to en ga ge in th e id en ti cal ap pr oa ch to ha rm le ss -err orrev ie w th atCh ap m an requi res st at e co urts to en ga ge in on di rectrev ie w.” Id. at63 6, 1 13 S. Ct. at17 21
. Co ns eque nt ly, th e Bre ch t Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he Kot te ak os st an da rd —wh ic h d eri ve d fr om

th e fed eral ha rm le ss -err orst atut e, 28 U.S.C. § 2 11 1—was “be tt er t ai lo red ” th anth e Ch ap m anst an da rd“ to th e n atur e an d pu rp os e o f co ll at eral rev ie w and[was ] m or e li ke ly to p ro m ot e th e co ns id erat io ns
un de rlyin g [t he Supr em e Co urt’s] recen t h ab eas cas es .” Brec ht , 50 7 U.S. at63 8, 11 3 S . Ct. at17 22 . Thu s, t o g ran t t o h ab eas rel ie f ba se d o n c on st itut io na l t ria l
erro r, th e fed eral habe as co urt m us t fi ndno t o nl y

th atth e err oroc cu rred , bu t t ha t i t

“ res ul te d i n ‘actua l p reju di ce,’” th atis , “ th e err orha d ‘subs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf

lu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.’” Id. at63 7 (q uo ti ng Kot te ak os , 32 8 U.S. at77 6, 6 6 S . Ct. at12 53 ; ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Lane , 47 4

50U.S. 43 8, 4 49 , 10 6 S . Ct. 7 25 , 73 2 (1 98 6) ). The Br ech t s ta nd ard“ is m or e 2 6 fav or ab le to an d l es s o ne ro us on th e st at e, an d thu s l es s fa vo rab le to th e d efen da nt , th anth e Ch ap m anha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t s ta nd ard .” Man sf ie ld , sl ip op . at 1 3 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. Gig li o e rro r is tri al erro r, no t a s tru ctur al de fect . Ventur a, 41 9 F .3dat 1 27 8 n.3 . There fo re, wh enco ns id eri ng a Gig li o c la im on fed eral habe as rev ie w, we can gr an t re li ef o n t ha t cl ai m

on ly if (1 ) th e p et it io ne r es tabl is he s t ha t a Gi gl io erro r
oc cu rred , and(2) th aterro r ha d “ subs tant ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n de te rm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Brech t, 5 07 U.S. at 6 37 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 22 ; s ee 2 7 We do not phrase the B rec ht require ment as a burden of pr oof, for it is not . In O’Ne al v. 2 6 McAninch, 513 U .S. 432, 435, 115 S. C t. 992, 994 (1995), the Supre me Court held that if a fede ral ha beas c ourt has “grave doubt” about whe ther a constitutional error is ha

rmless under the Br echt standa

rd, which the Court defined a s situations i n which “the matter is so eve nly balanc ed that [t he judg e] feels himself in virtual equipoise a s to the harmlessness of the er ror,” then “the uncer tain judge should treat the e rror , not as if it were harmless, but as if it af fec ted the verdict (i.e., a s if it has a ‘substantial and injurious ef fec t or influence in determiningthe jury ’s verdic t’).” I d. The Supreme Court further explained: [W ]e deliberately phrase the issue in this case in terms of a j u d ge’s g rave doubt, instead of in terms of “burde n of proof.” The case befor e us does not involve a judge who shifts a “burde n” to help control the prese ntation of evidenc e at a trial, but rathe r involves a judge who applies a leg al standard (har mlessness) to a rec o rd t h at the prese ntation of evidenc e is no longe r likely to aff ect. I n s u ch a case , we think it conce ptually clea

rer for the judge to ask direc tly , “Do I , the judge , think that the err or substantially influence d the jury ’s decision? ” than for the judge to try to put the same question in terms of proof burdens (e.g ., “Do I believe the party has borne its burden of showing. . . ? ”). I d. at 436–37, 115 S. Ct. at 994–95. We emphasize that the Br echt standa rd is a har mless error

test that applies to fede ral 2 7 habea s review

of state c onvictions. Bre cht, 507 U.S. at 634-38, 113 S. Ct. at 1720-22; Ventura , 419 F.3d at 1279 n.4. I t does not apply to state courts’ r eview of their own c onvictions. Instead, 51Guz m anII, 66 3 F .3d13 36 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (“ Hav in g fo un d t he st at e co urt’s

de ci si on was a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, we fu rth er fi ndth atGuzm an ’s cla im is m eri to rio us forall th e rea so ns di sc us se d ab ov e. Bu t t hi s d oe s n oten d o ur in qu iry. W e m

us t n ex t co ns id er wh ethe r Guz m an ’s Gig li o c la im

ha d asubs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe cton th e o ut co m e o f hi s tri al .”). Becaus e we co ns id er the Brec htqu es ti on in th e fi rs t i ns tanc e o n fe de ral habe as rev ie w, th ere i s n o s ta te co urt Br ech t ac tu al -p reju di ce fi nd in g t o re vi ew or to whi chwe sh ou ldde fer. See Ma ns fie ld , sl ip op . at 1 2 (n ot in g t ha t fe de ral 2 8 habe as co urts “ ap pl y

a di ffer en t h arm le ss erro r an al y si s” th anth e Ch ap m an st an da rdap pl ie d b y

st at e co urts an d t ha t “ [h ]arm le ss ne ss un de r th e Bre ch t st an da rdis a qu es ti on of l aw th atwe rev ie w de n ov o” ). Of cou rs e, we st il l wo ul d de fer t o t he st at e co urt’s o th er fa ctfin di ng s d eri ve d fr om tes ti m on y , do cu m en ts , an d wh athapp en edat t ria l an d t he 3.8 50 he ari ng . Hav in g d et erm in edth atth e Bre ch t s ta nd ardap pl ie s, we n ow co ns id er h ow i t
co m pa res wit h, an d re la te s t o, Gi gl io ’s m at eri al it y st an da rd . W e n ot e th atno
the Flor ida cour

ts apply the more pe titioner-frie ndly Chapman standar d of whe ther the constitutional error is “ harmless be yond a re asonable doubt.” See Pittman v. State, — So. 3d —, 2011 WL2566325, at *9 (F la. June 30, 2011); Guzman v. State, 868 So. 2d 498, 507-08 (F la. 2003). Moreove r, B rec ht applies in fede ral ha beas r eg ardle ss of whethe r or not the state court 2 8 rec og nized the constituti onal er ror a nd applied a Cha

pman ana ly sis. Fry

v. Plil er, 551 U .S. 112, 121–22, 127 S. Ct . 2321, 2328 (2007). 52Brec htan al y si s i s n eed edforBrad y vi ol at io ns , forth e Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth at a sh owi ng of m at eri al it y

un de r Bra dy nece ss ari ly establ is he s ac tu al pre jud ic e
un de r Bre ch t. Ky le s v . Whi tl ey , 51 4 U.S. 4 19 , 43 5, 1 15 S. Ct. 1 55 5, 1 56 6

2 9 (1 99 5) . In Ky le s, t he Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he Brad y m at eri al it y

st an da rd

“ im po se [s ] a h ig he r bu rd enonth e [cr im in al ] de fen da nt ” th anth e Kot te ak os st an da rdth atth e Co urt ad op te d fo r habe as rev ie w inBrec ht . Ky le s, 5 14 U.S. at 43 6, 1 15 S. Ct. at15 67 ; s ee al so id . (no ti ng th atm at eri al it y tes t fo r Bra dy clai m s

“ wou ldreco gn iz e rev ers ib le co ns ti tu ti on al erro r on ly whe n t he ha rm to th e de fen da ntwas g reat er t ha n the ha rm su ffi ci en t fo r rev ers al un de r Kot te ak os ”). In ot he r wor ds , a Brad y

erro r can no t b e h arm le ss un de r Bre ch t b ecau se “ ‘a
reas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, h adth e ev id en ce b een di sc lo se d t o t he de fen se , th e
res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t’ nec es sa ril y en ta il s t he
co nc lu si on th atth e supp res si onm us t h av e h ad‘ subs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor in flu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.’” Id. at43 5, 1 15 S. Ct. at15 66 (quo ta ti onm ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)
. As mentioned above , Gig lio error is a specie s of B rady

err or. B ut when we ref

er he re to 2 9 “B rady violations,” we mea

n Br ady violations that are not Gig lio violations . These non- Gig lio Br ady violations are sometimes re fer red to a s Ba g ley

violations or Bra dy

/Ba g ley violations, after United States v. Ba g ley , 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. C t. 3375 (1985), which e stablished the “r easona ble probability

that the re sult of the proce edingwould have be en diffe rent” materia lity standard use d for B rady violations that do not i nvolve the knowinguse of or failure to corre ct per

jured testimony . See Kyles v. Whit ley , 514 U.S. 419, 432–43, 115 S. C t. 1555, 1565–66 (1995) (discussingBr ady

and its prog eny , including B ag ley ). 53Bu t t he m or e le ni en t Gi gl io m at eri al ity st an da rdlea ve s ro om

for th e po ss ib il it y

th atpe rjure d t es ti m on y

m ay be m at eri al un de r Gig li o b utst il l b e ha rm le ss un de r Bre ch t. See Guzm anII, 66 3 F .3dat 1 35 5– 56 (fi nd in g Gi gl io vi ol at io n a ndth enap pl y in g B rech t s ta nd ardto de te rm in e whe th er erro r was ha rm le ss ); s ee al so Ro se nc ran tz v. Lafl er, 5 68 F.3d57 7, 5 84 (6t h C ir. 2 00 9) (“ [W] hi le a tr ad it io na l Br ady m at eri al it y

an al y si s o bv ia te s a l at er h arm le ss -err or
rev ie w un de r Bre ch t v . Abraha m so n, co urts m ay ex cu se []Gigl io vi ol at io ns in vo lv in g kno wn an d m at eri al ly fals e st at em en ts as h arm le ss erro r.”); Gil da y v. Cal la ha n, 5 9 F .3d25 7, 2 68 (1s t Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ App lying [th e Gig li o m at eri al it y ] st an da rdin m os t ca se s i nv ol vi ng pe rjury or i ts equi va le ntwil l l ik el y res ul t i n a fin di ng of c on st itut io na l erro r. Scal in g t ha t l owe r m at eri al it y hu rd le , ho wev er, s ti ll wil l l eav e th e p et it io ne r fac in g t he Brec htharm le ss erro r in qu iry int o wh ethe r th e pe rjure d t es ti m on y

in factha d asubs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce o n t he jury’ s v erd ic t. In ot he r wor ds , . . . itis qu it e p os si bl e to fin d aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, b utto co nc lu de th atitwas h arm le ss .” (fo ot no te om it te d) ). W e h av e h el d t ha t t he Gig li o m at eri al it y st an da rdis equi va le ntto th e Ch ap m an“ ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t” tes t. Ven tu ra, 4 19 F.3dat 1 27 9 n.4 . And , as t he Supr em e Co urt m ad e cl ear i n B rech t, t he “ subs ta nt ia l an d in juri ou s ef fector i nf lu en ce” t es t i s m or e o ne ro us (fro m th e cri m in al
54de fen da nt/h ab eas pe ti ti on er’s p oi ntof v ie w) th anth e Ch ap m anst an da rd . Brech t,

50 7 U.S. at62 3, 1 13 S. Ct. at17 14 . Thu s, wh il e a Bra dy errorcan ne ve r be ha rm le ss un de r Bre ch t b ecau se of B rad y ’s hi gh er m at eri al it y st an da rd , a Gig li o
erro r canbe ha rm le ss un de r Bre ch t b ecau se th e Gig li o m at eri al it y st an dardis lo wer tha n t ha t o f Bre ch t. Insh ort, we ca nn otgra ntfed eral habe as rel ie f to Trep al un le ss (1) he sh ows th atMart z’s fal se tes ti m on y vi ol at edGig li o, an d (2 ) we fi ndth atth e Gig li o e rro r
was no t h arm le ss un de r Bre ch t. Becaus e th e Bre ch t h arm le ss ne ss st an da rdis 3 0
m or e st ric t fr om

a habe as pe ti ti on er’s p ers pe ct iv e th anth e Gig li o m at eri al ity st an da rd , fed eral co urts co nf ro nt edwit h c ol or ab le Gig li o c la im s i n § 22 54 pe ti ti on s i n m an y

cas es m ay

ch oo se to ex am in e th e Bre ch t h arm le ss ne ss is su e fi rs t. W e ch oo se to do so he re. W e th eref

or e as k wh ethe r, as su m in g M art z’s fal se tes ti m on y vi ol at ed Gig li o, was th e Gig li o e rro r ha rm le ss un de r th e st an da rdsetforth in Brec ht
. D. Bre cht Ana ly si s Aga in , th e Bre ch t t es t fo r actua l p reju di ce i s wh ethe r th e co ns ti tu ti on al erro r
As explained above, Tr epal must also show that the F lorida Supreme Court’ s denial of 3 0 his Giglio cla im in Trepal I Iwas c ontrary to Giglio, involved an unr easona ble application of Gig lio, or was base d on an unre asonable deter mination of the fac ts in li g ht of the evide nce prese nted in state cour

t. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). B ut we assume, but do not dec ide, for purposes of this opinion that Trepa l has satisfied those thre shold require ments of § 2254(d). 55“ ha d s ub st an ti al an d i njurio us effe ctor i nf lu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s
ve rd ic t.” Br ech t, 5 07 U.S. at 6 23 , 11 3 S . Ct. at17 14 . “ To s ho w pre jud ic e u nd er Brec ht , th ere m

us t b e m or e th ana reas on ab le po ss ib il it y th atth e err orco nt rib ut ed to th e co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e.” Ma ns fie ld , sl ip op . at 2 7 (q uo ti ng Mas on v. Al le n, 60 5 F .3d11 14 , 11 23 (11 th Cir . 20 10 )). To d et erm in e th e eff ecton th e v erd ic t o f a
co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, th e Co urt m us t co ns id er t he erro r “ in rel at io n t o a ll els e th at happ en ed ” attri al . Kot te ak os , 32 8 U.S. at76 4, 6 6 S . Ct. at12 48 . The que st io n tu rn s o n wh ethe r th e Co urt ca n “ sa y , with fa ir a ss ur an ce,” t ha t t he ve rd ic t “ was no t
subs ta nt ia ll y

swayed b y

th e err or ”: If, whe n al l is sa id an d do ne , th e [co urt’s] co nv ic ti on is su re th at th e erro r di d no t in flu en ce th e jury, or ha d bu t ve ry sl ig ht effe ct , th e ve rd ic t an d th e ju d g men t s h o u ld st an d
. . . . Bu t if on e can no t say , wit h fai r a s su ran ce, aft er po nd eri ng al l th at happ en ed wit ho ut st rip pi ng th e erro ne ou s act io n fro m th e who le , th at th e jud gm en t was no t subs ta nt ia ll y swa y ed by th e erro r, it is im po ss ib le to co nc lu de th at subs ta nt ia l rig ht s were no t affe ct ed
. The i nq ui ry can no t be m erel y whe th er th ere was en ou gh to supp ort th e res ul t, ap art fro m th e ph as e affe ct ed by th e erro r. It is rat he r, ev en so , whe th er th e erro r it se lf ha d subs ta nt ia l in flu en ce. If so , or i f on e is lef

t i n g rav e d oubt , th e co nv ic ti on can no t s ta nd
. O’ Neal , 51 3 U.S. at43 7– 38 , 11 5 S . Ct. 9 95 (qu ot in g Ko tt eak os , 32 8 U.S. at 76 4– 65 , 66 S. Ct. at12 48 ) (b rack et s an d e ll ip si s i n O’Neal) (em ph as is om it te d)
. The Brec htst an da rd“ do es no t re qu ire a sh owi ng th atbu t fo r th e err orth e jury w ou ldha ve ren de reda ve rd ic t i n fa vo r of th e d efen da nt .” Dues t v . Sin gl et ary,

5699 7 F .2d13 36 , 13 38 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Nor d oe s i t m at te r whe th er t he rev ie win g

co urt b el ie ve s t he pe ti ti on er i s g ui lt y , forth e “ cru ci al th in g i s t he im pa ctof t he th in g d on e wro ng on th e m in ds of [ th e juro rs ] . . . in t he to ta l s etti ng .” Id . (qu ot in g Kot te ak os , 32 8 U.S. at76 4, 6 6 S . Ct. at12 47 –4 8) . Butalt ho ug h t he Brec ht ha rm le ss erro r an al y si s “ is ne ces sa ril y fact -s pe ci fic an d m

us t b e p erfo rm edon a
cas e-b y -cas e b as is , th e err on eo us adm is si on of e vi de nc e is li ke ly to b e h arm le ss
un de r th e Bre ch t s ta nd ardwher e th ere i s s ig ni fic an t co rro bo rat in g e vi de nc e, or whe re o th er ev id en ce o f gu il t i s o ve rwh el m in g.” Man sf ie ld , sl ip op . at 2 7– 28 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. W it h t hi s fr am ewo rk

in m in d, we co ns id er t he im pa ctof M art z’s fal se te st im on y on th e v erd ic t. When we do so , we read il y co nc lu de th atth e ch al le ng ed po rti on s o f Martz ’s tes ti m on y di d n otha ve a subs ta nt ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor in flu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s g ui lt y ve rd ic t. Thu s, an y

ass um edGig li o e rro r
was harm le ss . Fi rs t, we n ot e th atTrep al ’s is no t a t y pi cal Gig li o c la im . Usu al ly (ind eed , in
ev ery Gig li o c as e in th e Supr em e Co urt o r in th is Co urt o f whi ch we are aware), a wit ne ss at t ria l g iv es tes ti m on y th atis lat er s ho wn t o b e d em on st rab ly factu al ly fal se . Here, by con tra st , Trepa l’s co re Gi gl io all eg at io n i s t ha t M art z g av e h is op in io n a t t ria l—th atth al li um ni tra te was a dd edto th e Co ca-C ol a in samples Q1,

57Q2, an d Q3 —an d t ha t o pi ni on was h el d a ndtes ti fie d t o wi th m or e st ren gt h t ha n

wha t h is da tasupp orte d, b utitha s n otbe ensh own to be in co rrec t as a m atte r of fact . No o ne ha s s ho wn ei th er attri al or i n p os tc on vi ct io n p ro ceed in gs th at th al li um ni tra te was n otad de d t o t he Co ca-C ol as , or tha t s om e fo rm of t ha ll iu m ot he r th anth al li um

ni tra te was a dd edto th e Co ca-C ol as . At th e 3 .85 0 e vi de nt ia ry he ari ng , Mart z h el d fa stto hi s o pi ni on th atth al li um ni tra te was a dd ed , and Trep al ’s own 3.8 50 expe rts Dul an ey an d Whi te hu rs t co ul d n otrul e o utth at po ss ib il it y , bu t m erel y

st at edth ere was in su ffi ci en t d at a to id en ti fy whi ch th al li um
sa ltwas a dd ed . Anditwas u nd is pu te d tha t t ha ll iu m inan y sal t i s a d ead ly poi so n
an d t ha t t he Carr s wer e p oi so ne d wi th th al li um . Accor di ng ly, he re the co nt en ti on is jus t tha t M art z co ul d n ottru th fu ll y ha ve tes ti fie d t ha t t ha ll iu m ni tra te is th e fo rm of th al li um th atwas a dd ed , bu t o nl y th athi s t es t re su lt s wer e co ns is te ntwit h th al li um ni tra te be in g t he form

th atwas a dd ed
. Bec au se th e que st io n we m us t an swe r is th e in flu en ce o n t he jury of th e fal se tes ti m on y , we foc us on th e n atur e o f th e fal si ty—he re, the di ffer en ce be twee n wh atMart z’s te st im on y was a ndwhatitsh ou ldha ve be en . Spe ci fic al ly,
as th e Fl or id a co urts co rrec tl y fou nd , Mart z: (1) tes ti fie d tha t a p os it iv e res ul t o n th e DP te st(th atis , when ad de d DP turns a so lu ti on bl ue ) in di cat es th e p res en ce o f
a n it rat e, whe n M art z sh ou ldha ve sai d t ha t i t i nd ic at es th e p res en ce o f an
58ox id iz in g i on , of wh ic h n it rat e is anex am pl e; (2) tes ti fie d t ha t h e ran IC t es ts on Q1, Q2 , andQ3, wh enhe actua ll y ran th e IC t es t o nl y

on Q1 an d Q2 ; (3 ) te st ifi ed th ere was no ni tra te pre se ntin un adul te rat edCo ca-C ol a, whe n h e sh ou ldha ve sai d th atth e DP te stwas n eg at iv e b utth e IC i nd ic at eda ni tra te co ul d b e p res en t; (4) te st ifi edon ly as to th e DP an d IC tes ts , when actua ll y he pe rfo rm edad di ti on al te st in g o n t he samples , th ou gh he di d n otrel y on th e o th er t es ts in form in g h is
co nc lu si on ; an d (5 ) te st ifi edth at , as ares ul t o f hi s t es ti ng , he c on cl ud edth at th al li um ni tra te was a dd edto Q1, Q2 , andQ3, wh enhe sh ou ldha ve tes ti fie d t ha t th e te st s re su lt s fo r Q1 a ndQ2 were co ns is te ntwit h t he pre se nc e o f th al li um ni tra te an d t he res ul ts forQ3 were co ns is te ntwith t he pre se nc e o f th al li um an d a n
ox id iz in g i on , whi ch co ul d b e a n it rat e. Not ab ly, Martz ’s con cl us io n abo utth e br own bo tt le Q20 6 t ha t was fou ndin Trep al ’s gar ag e—tha t i t co nt ai ne d t ha ll iu m I ni tra te —i s n otch al le ng ed
. The gap b etween whatMart z d idtes ti fy an d wh atev eryone ag rees he tru th fu ll y co ul d h av e te st ifi edis na rro w. For t he m os t p art , th e d iff eren ce i s t ha t Martz ’s tes ti m on y

sh ou ldha ve be enm or e nua nc ed , m or e g ua rd ed , les s ab so lu te or cert ai n. Th e ex cep ti on is Mart z’s po si ti ve ass ert io n t ha t h e ran th e IC t es t o n a ll th ree s am pl es Q1 t hr ou gh Q3, wh eninfacthe di d n otrun th e IC t es t o n Q3 . But
ev enso , th e DP res ul t o n Q3 was s ti ll co ns is te ntwit h t he pro po si ti on th atth al li um 59ni tra te was a dd edto Q3; itjus t m ad e th atpro po si ti onles s ce rta in . Anditha rd ly

m at te rs whet he r th al li um ni tra te was t he form

of t ha ll iu m

th atwas a dd edto Q1, Q2, an d Q3 , as o pp os edto jus t Q1 an d Q2
. Fu rth erm or e, Martz ’s tes ti m on y as awho le was ju ston e small p artof t he St at e’s ev id en ce ag ai ns t Trep al . Am on g o th er t hi ng s, t he Sta te est ab li sh edwit h ot he r wit ne ss es , who se tes ti m on y st an ds un ch al le ng ed , th at : (1 ) th e Carr fam il y
was po is on edwit h t ha ll iu m ; (2 ) th al li um was fo un d i n the ful l an d e m pt y Co caCo labo tt le s i n t he Carr s’ ho m e; (3) th al li um is a rare an d t ox ic ele m en t, an d i s di ffi cu ltto ob ta in be cau se th e ch em ic al co m pa ni es th atsel l i t d o n otsel l t o in di vi du al s; (4) a br own gl as s b ot tl e co nt ai ni ng th al li um was fo un d i n Tre pa l’s Altur as ga rag e; (5) when m ov in g i nt o h is Altur as ho m e in 19 82 , Trepa l h ad ch em ic al s i n b ro wn g la ss bo tt le s an d s ai d h e in te nd edto setup a ch em is try labo rat ory

in hi s g arag e; (6) Trep al ha d a n e xt en si ve kn owl ed ge of c he m is try anda
co ll ect io n o f ch em is try paraph ern al ia , in cl ud in g g la ss ware, b ot tl es of t ox ic ch em ic al s, an d b oo ks th atdi sc us se d t ha ll iu m ; (7 ) Trep al ha d aho m em ad e jou rn al
on po is on s an d p oi so n d et ect io n; (8) Trep al ’s po is on jou rn al bo re h is fin ge rp rin ts
an d c on ta in edph ot oc op ie s fr om a li br ary bo okbe lo ng in g t o t he co ll eg e Trep al at te nd edin th e 1 97 0s , su gg es ti ng th e jou rn al pre -d at edth e Carr po is on in gs ; (9 ) Trep al was t he ch em is t fo r a m etha m ph et am in e p ro du ct io n ri ng , andth al li um is
60so m et im es us edinm etha m ph et am in e p ro du ct io n; (10 ) Trep al di d n otge t al on g wit h a ny of th e m em

be rs of t he Carrfam il y , andhe st il l ex hi bi te d a ng er an d
an im os ity aft er t he po is on in gs ab ou t i nc id en ts th atha d h ap pe ne d years e arl ie r; (1 1) Trep al rep eat ed ly thre at en edth e Carr ch il dr en , andon ce s ai d h e wou ldki ll th em ; (1 2) Trep al ’s con fli ct s wi th th e Carrs co nt in ue d wel l i nt o 1 98 8, t he y ear o f th e p oi so ni ng s; (13 ) in th e m id dl e o f 19 88 , th e Carrs rece iv edanan on ym ou s l et te r
warn in g the who le Carrfam il y th atth ey wou ldall di e u nl es s t he y m ov edaway ; (1 4) Trep al an d h is wife were t he Carr s’ on ly nei gh bo rs ; (1 5) Trep al wrot e a Men sa“ m

ur de r m y st ery week en d” pa m

ph le t t ha t d is cu ss edpo is on in g anda

“ m ov e-o r-el se ” n ot e le ft o n ane ig hb or ’s do or st ep ; an d (1 6) Trep al ’s exp la na ti on fo r th e Carr po is on in gs was “ to ge t t he m to m ov e o ut , li ke th ey

di d.” Am idth e b read th an d d ep th of t hi s ev id en ce, Martz (who was o ne of m or e th an70 wit ne ss es du rin g t he Sta te ’s cas e) t es ti fie d t o o ne di sc ret e is su e: th e
co m pa ris on of ( 1) th e subs tanc e ad de d t o t he ful l Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es Q1 t hr ou gh Q3, wi th (2) th e subs ta nc e fo un d i n t he bro wn b ot tl e Q20 6. Th e St at e h adalr ead y
es tabl is he d t hr ou gh ex pe rt Ha ve ko st(who se workan d t es ti m on y ha s n otbe en ch al le ng edor d is pa rag edin an y way ) th atbo th subs tanc es were t ha ll iu m
co m po un ds —t ha t i s, t ha t t ha ll iu m was fo un d i n Q1 –Q3 an d i n Q2 06 . Thal li um in
an y form is rare en ou gh , as t he Sta te po in te d o utto th e jury in i ts clo si ng 61arg um en t. Ma rtz jus t fu rth er ad de d t o a n a lre ady ti gh t l in k b y

op in in g t ha t t he Q1– Q3 b ot tl es an d t he Q20 6 b ot tl e al l co nt ai ne d t he same form of th al li um —wh ic h was th al li um

ni tra te . There was n o e vi de nc e atall fro m an y 3 1 wit ne ss or s ou rce t ha t t he Q1– Q3 s am pl es an d t he Q20 6 b ot tl e co nt ai ne d d iff eren t fo rm s o f th al li um . To b e su re, Ma rtz was an i m po rta ntwit ne ss forth e St at e’s cas e, as hi s te st im on y wentto th e id en ti fic at io n o f th e p ot en ti al m ur de r weap on (th e subs ta nc e in Q20 6) , whi ch was t he pi ece o f ph y si cal ev id en ce l in ki ng Trep al to th al li um . Bu t M art z’s te st im on y

th atQ20 6 c on ta in edth al li um I ni tra te is no t ch al le ng ed
. Andth e o th er p erm is si bl e te st im on y fro m Mart z was hi gh ly inc riminat in g, s uc h a s th atth e Q1 andQ2 s am

pl es were co ns is te ntwit h t he pre se nc e o f th al li um ni tra te . Inan y ev en t, Ma rtz ’s tes ti m on y ab ou t t he samples fro m

th e Q1 t hr ou gh Q3 Co ca-C ol a b ot tl es —ev ento th e ex te ntitwas o ve rly str on g i n i ts co nc lu si on s— di d
no t, an d c ou ldno t, es tabl is h c on cl us iv el y th atth e subs ta nc e th atha d b een ad de d t o th e Carrs ’ Co ca-C ol as ha d c om e fro m th e Q20 6 b ot tl e. Even wit ho utMart z’s 3 2
To illustrate, if this case w ere a hit-and- run by a ra re a utomobile inst ead of

murder by

a 3 1 rar e poison, Have kost established, say , that the victims were hit by , and the de fenda nt owned, a red F err ari. Mar

tz narrowed it down to a 1982 r ed F err ari, but still no one could match the license plates. The State a cknowledg ed this point in i ts closing a rgument, stating, “Nobody can te ll y ou 3 2 that this thalli um nitrate is the thallium nitrate that was in those bottles bec ause it’s just thallium nitrate.” The State a

nalog ized to table salt dropped on a r ug , noting that no c rime sce ne 62te st im on y , Q20 6’s l in ka ge of Tre pa l t o t ha ll iu m was ju stas s tro ng , for

Mart z
ne it he r fo un d t he Q20 6 b ot tl e in Trep al ’s gar ag e (Br ekke di d) no r fo un d t ha t i t
co nt ai ne d t ha ll iu m

(Hav ek os t d id ). As we h av e p oi nt edou t, t ha ll iu m inan y form is a rare an d d ead ly poi so n. The po rti onof M art z’s te st im on y th atwas c ha ll en ge d was jus t o ne na rro w pa rt o f th e St at e’s st ro ng cas e ag ai ns t Trep al , andan y fal si ti es in Mart z’s te st im on y were n arro wer s ti ll . Alth ou gh Trep al be li tt le s t he ab un dantev id en ce ag ai ns t h im

at t ria l, t he Flo rid a co urts pro pe rly char act eri zedth e to ta li ty of th e
ev id en ce as “ st ro ng .” See Tre pa l II , 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 26 (“ Alt ho ug h t hi s i s a ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce ca se , th e ev id en ce was st ro ng .” (quo ti ng 3.8 50 co urt))
. Insu m , we are co nv in cedth at , if an y fal si ti es inMart z’s te st im on y ha d a ny effe ctat a ll up on th e jury’ s v erd ic t, i t was ve ry sl ig ht . Mart z’s im

pr op er t es ti m on y cert ai nl y di d n otha ve , as t he Brec httes t re qu ire s, “ a subs tant ia l an d i nju rio us effe ctor i nf

lu en ce i n d et erm in in g t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Br ech t, 5 07 U.S. at 6 23 , 11 7 S. Ct . at 1 71 4. We are co nv in cedof t ha t. Thu s, ev enass um in g a rg ue nd o t ha t Trep al co ul d e st ab li sh a Gig li o v io la ti on , we con cl ud e th atitwas h arm le ss . technicia n in the world could tell whe ther a g rain of ta

ble salt on the rug

came from a pa

rticular bottle of salt or if it was a lrea dy on the floor. Tr epal’ s attorney Wofford Stidham also made this point in his closingargument for Tr epal, a rguing, “ [D] id the thallium in t he Coca -Colas come from this litt le bottle? The innuendo w as there that it did. You heard the witness this very morningthat was a sked that question, could he sa y the thallium in the Coca-Cola ca me from that littl e bottle and he said no. You have to speculate .” 63Acco rd in gl y , Trepa l i s n oten ti tl edto habe as rel ie f. IV. CONCLUSI ON W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Trep al ’s § 2 25 4 p et it io n. AFFIRMED.

64PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e, co nc urrin g:

I co nc urin th e p an el op in io n b ecau se I ag ree t ha t Geo rg e Trep al is no t
en ti tl edto habe as rel ie f an d t ha t an y erro r un de r Gig li o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 05 U.S. 15 0, 9 2 S . Ct. 7 63 (19 72 ), th atoc cu rreddu rin g Tre pa l’s t ria l was ha rm le ss . I writ e
se pa rat el y

to ex pl ai n wh y

th e ad jud ic at io n o f Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im by the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a is als o e nt it le d t o d efer en ce u nd er An ti te rro ris m an d Effect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ct , 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) . The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a di d n otap pl y

anin co rrec t s ta nd ardin it s ad jud ic at io n o f Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im
. Nordi d t he Flo rid a ci rcu itco urt ap pl y anin co rrec t s ta nd ardin it s ad jud ic at io n o f Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im . Eith er d eci si on is en ti tl edto de fere nc e u nd er s ect io n 22 54 (d ), an d n ei th er d eci si on in vo lv es anun reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y
es tabl is he d fe de ral law. A. Nothi ng

in th e Ana lysis b

y th e S up re me Co ur t o

f Fl or id a S ug gest s tha t the Co ur t In co rr ect lyIde nt if

ie d the St an da rd

App li ca bl e to Tre

pa l’s Gig li o Cla im o r App li ed th e In co rr ect

St an da rd in Its Adj ud ic at io n o

f Tr ep al ’s Gig li o Cla im. Trep al arg ue s tha t t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a co nf la te d t he Gig li o a nd Brad y st an da rd s o f m at eri al it y

inev al ua ti ng hi s Gi gl io cla im , bu t t he re i s n ot hi ng in th e an al y si s o f hi s cl ai m by tha t co urt t o s up po rt h is ass ert io n. Se e Trep al v. St at e, 84 6 S o. 2 d 4 05 , 42 6– 28 (Fl a. 20 03 ) (Trep al II). The Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a n ev er arti cu la te d t he m at eri al it y st an da rdth atitpu rp orte d t o app ly in i ts
65ad

jud ic at io n o f Trep al ’s cla im , andit s an al y si s g iv es li tt le in si gh t i nt o wh ic h st an da rditactua ll y

ap pl ie d i n i ts ad

jud ic at io n o f th atcla im . See i d. “ Whe re t he st an da rd s u ti li zedby the st at e co urt ar e n otart ic ul at ed ,” we “ m ay pro pe rly ass um e th atth e st at e [co urt] app li edco rrec t s ta nd ard s o f fed eral law . . . inth e ab se nc e o f
ev id en ce . . . th atanin co rrec t s ta nd ardwas i n fa ctap pl ie d.” Dem ps v. W ai nwr ig ht , 80 5 F .2d14 26 , 14 34 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d) . The o nl y

di sc us si on of t he Gig li o a ndBrad y st an da rd s i n t he op in io n b y th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a ap pe ars in a se ct io n l ab el ed“ Ci rcu itCo urt’s Ana lysis ” an d i s a d ire ctqu ot e fro m th e o pi ni on by the st at e ci rcu itco urt. See Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 23 –2 5. Th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a n ei th er re pe at ed
no r ot he rwis e ad op te d, i n t he sec ti on of i ts op in io n l ab el ed“ Thi s C ou rt’s Ana lysis ,” th e st at em en ts by the cir cu itco urt re ga rd in g the Gig li o a ndBrad y st an da rd s. See id . at 4 26 –2 8. Th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a ap pr ov edth e fac tu al fin di ng s o f th e ci rcu itco urt an d a gr eedwith t he co nc lu si on by the cir cu itco urt

“ th atTrep al was n otim

pe rm is si bl y

pre jud ic edby the tes ti m on y

of M art z,” s ee i d., bu t t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a n ev er s ta te d i ts st an da rdforde te rm in in g pr ejud ic e. Nordo st at em en ts th atth e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a m ad e in ot he r op in io ns th atad jud ic at edot he r pe ti ti on ers ’ Gig li o c la im s p ro ve th atth e co urt ap pl ie d t he
66wro ng st an da rdin ad jud ic at in g Tre pa l’s Gi gl io cla im
. The rel ev an t d eci si on for
ou r an al y si s u nd er s ect io n 2 25 4( d) is th e d eci si on th atad jud ic at edTrep al ’s cla im , no t t he de ci si on s i n o th er ap pe al s. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (pr ecl ud in g fe de ral habe as rel ie f ba se d upo n “ an y cla im th atwas a dju di cat edon th e m eri ts in Sta te
co urt p ro ceed in gs un le ss th e ad jud ic at io n o f th e cl ai m ” sa ti sf ie s ce rta in requi rem en ts ) (em

ph as is ad de d) . The rel ev an ce t o o urin qu iry of an y de ci si on by th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a b efo re t ha t co urt ad jud ic at edTrep al ’s cla im

is no t read il y ap pa ren t, es pe ci al ly whe n t ha t co urt d idno t ci te an y of t ho se de ci si on s i n it s an al y si s o f Trep al ’s cla im , see Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 26 –2 8. Cf . Ventur a, 41 9 F .3dat 1 28 3 (c on si de rin g t he co nc lu si on s o f la w art ic ul at edin de ci si on s ci te d by a sta te co urt i n i ts own op in io n) . Alth ou gh th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a
erro ne ou sl y

su gg es te d t ha t t he Brad y an d Gi gl io st an da rd s wer e equi va le ntin
se ve ral op in io ns is su edbe twee n 1 99 1 a nd20 00 , see , e.g., Ro se v. St at e, 77 4 S o. 2d62 9, 6 35 (Fl a. 20 00 ), th e o pi ni on in Ventur a v . Sta te rev eal s tha t t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a was aware o f th e d is ti nc ti onbe twee n t he Brad y an d Gi gl io st an da rd s i n 2 00 1—well be fo re i t ad jud ic at edTrep al ’s cla im

in20 03 . See Ven tu ra v . Sta te , 79 4 S o. 2 d 5 53 , 56 3 (F la . 20 01 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Alzat e, 47 F.3d11 03 , 11 09 –1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) ). It i s l ik ewis e o f li tt le rel ev an ce t o o ur in qu iry tha t t he Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a “ rece de [d ]” from Trep al II ina la te r 67de ci si on , “ to th e ex te nt ” th atTrep al II s to od“ fo r th e in co rrec t l eg al pri nc ip le th at

th e ‘m at eri al it y ’ pr on gs of B rady an d Gi gl io are t he same,” becaus e th e co urt
ne it he r ov erru le d Tre pa l II no r de cl aredth atTrep al II was in te nd edto —o r di d i n fact—s tandforth atpri nc ip le . See Gu zm anv. St at e, 86 8 S o. 2 d 4 98 , 50 5– 06 (Fl a. 20 03 ). B. Nothi ng

in th e Ana lysis b

y th e Flo ri da Cir cu it

Co ur t S ug ge st s tha t the Co ur t In co rr ect lyIde nt if

ie d the St an da rd

App li ca bl e to Tre

pa l’s Gig li o Cla im o r App li ed th e In co rr ect

St an da rd in Its Adj ud ic at io n o

f Tr ep al ’s Gig li o Cla im. Eve n i f th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a h adad op te d t he an al y si s t ha t ap pe ars in th e se ct io n o f it s o pi ni on lab el ed“ Ci rcu itCo urt’s An al y si s,” t he Supr em e Co urt of Flo rid a wou ldno t h av e ap pl ie d t he in co rrec t s ta nd ardin it s ad jud ic at io n o f Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im . The Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d S ta te s h as m ad e cl ear th atwe m us t “pr es um [e] th atst at e co urts kn ow an d fo ll ow t he law,” a ndgi ve st at e
co urt d eci si on s “ th e b en efi t o f th e d oubt ,” W oo df or d v . Vis ci ot ti , 53 7 U.S. 1 9, 2 4, 12 3 S . Ct. 3 57 , 36 0 (2 00 2) . Nothi ng in th e p orti on of t he an al y si s b y th e ci rcu it
co urt t ha t ap pe ars in th e o pi ni onby the Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a is su ffi ci en t t o
ov erco m e th e p res um

pt io n t ha t t he Flo rid a co urts ap pl ie d t he co rrec t s ta nd ardin th ei r ad jud ic at io n o f Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im
. The cir cu itco urt co rrec tl y art ic ul at edth e Gig li o s ta nd ardform at eri al it y in it s ex pl an at io n o f Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im . See Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 25 . The
68fo rm

ul at io n o f th e st an da rdby the cir cu itco urt d ev ia te d o nl y sl ig ht ly from

th e fo rm ul at io n fa vo redby the Supr em e Co urt i n t ha t t he cir cu itco urt u se d “ a” i ns te ad of “ an y ” an d “

jury verd ic t” in st eadof “

jud gm en t o f th e jury,” bu t n ei th er o f th os e
m in orin co ns is te nc ie s co ul d h av e h adan y effe ctonth e an al y si s o f Trep al ’s cla im
. Thi s C ou rt h as he ldth atth e subs ti tu ti on of “ a” fo r “ an y ” is “ of no co ns eque nc e” i n th e art ic ul at io n o f th e Gig li o s ta nd ard . See Ven tu ra, 4 19 F.3dat 1 28 2. Th ere a ls o is no rel ev an t d is ti nc ti onbe twee n “ jury verd ic t” an d “

jud gm en t o f th e jury,” as bo th refe r to th e jury’ s “ de ci si on ” o n t he is su e o f th e d efen dant ’s gu il t. See Oxf or d En gl is h Di ct io nary

(2ded . 19 89 ); a cco rdBla ck ’s Law Dict io na ry (9t h e d. 20 09 ). Alt ho ug h t he cir cu itco urt i nc orrect ly stat edth at“ [t]he m at eri al it y pro ng [u se d i n Gi gl io ] is th e sa m e as th atus edin Brad y ,” Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 25 , th is si ng le m is st at em en t i s “ in su ffi ci en t” to supp ort t he co nc lu si on th atth e ci rcu it
co urt ap pl ie d the wron g s ta nd ardin it s ad jud ic at io n o f Trep al ’s cla im . Cf. Ven tu ra, 4 19 F.3dat 1 28 5– 86 . The ci rcu itco urt o ffer edno ex pl an at io n o f th e Brad y m at eri al it y

st an dard , bu t arti cu la te d t he Gig li o m at eri al it y st an da rdin term s th atclo se ly app ro xi m at e th os e u se d b y th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt. Co m pa re i d. (o bs erv in g t ha t fa ls e te st im on y is “ m at eri al if t he re i s a r eas on ab le li ke li ho odth atitco ul d h av e aff ect edth e jury verd ic t” ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s

69om it te d) , with Un it edSta te s v . Agu rs , 42 7 U.S. 9 7, 1 03 , 96 S. Ct. 2 39 2, 2 39 7

(1 97 6) (ob se rv in g t ha t fa ls e te st im on y is m at eri al “ if t he re i s an y reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury”). Tha t the cir cu itco urt ex pl ai ne d t he Gig li o s tand ardan d n otth e Bra dy sta nd ard
su gg es ts th at , if t he cir cu itco urt b el ie ve d t ha t t he same stand ardap pl ie d t o b ot h Gig li o a ndBrad y

cla im s, the n t ha t s o- cal le d “ sa m e” s tand ardwas t he Gig li o st an da rd . In t ha t ca se , th e ci rcu itco urt ap pl ie d t he co rrec t s ta nd ardto Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im
. The cir cu itco urt al so ap pl ie d t he Gig li o s tand ardus in g c orrectterm in ol og y . Afte r th e ci rcu itco urt co rrec tl y art ic ul at edth e Gig li o s ta nd ardat t he be gi nn in g o f it s d is cu ss io n o f Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im , see Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 25 , th e ci rcu it
co urt ru le d “ th atth ere [ was ] no reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e v erd ic t wo ul d h av e be endi ffer en t” in eit he r th e g ui ltph as e o r th e p en al ty pha se of Tre pa l’s t ria l h ad Martz no t t es ti fie d fa ls el y , id . at 4 26 . Trepa l co nt en ds th atth e ci rcu itco urt
m is ap pl ie d t he Gig li o s ta nd ardwhen itus edth e te rm “ wou ld ” in st eadof “ co ul d,” bu t t ha t ar gu m en t fa il s. Th e co nc lu si on of t he cir cu itco urt t ha t “ th ere [ was ] no
reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e v erd ic t wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t” in th e ab se nc e o f Martz ’s fal se tes ti m on y , id . at 4 26 , is a sa ti sf act ory res po ns e to th e que st io n whe th er t he re was “ an y

reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e fal se tes ti m on y co ul d h av e 70affe ct edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury,” Agu rs , 42 7 U.S. at10 3, 9 6 S . Ct. at23 97 . As a

m at te r of lo gi c, whe n a ns weri ng th e que st io n p os edby the Gig li o s ta nd ard , saying th atth ere i s n o re as on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e v erd ic t wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t i s th e sa m e as sayin g t ha t t he re i s n o re as on ab le li ke li ho odth atth e v erd ic t co ul d ha ve be endi ffer en t. Thi s C ou rt t oo ha s u se d t he term “ wou ld ” in ap pl y in g t he Gig li o s ta nd ardto reac h t he co nc lu si on th atfal se tes ti m on y di d n otsat is fy

th at st an da rd . Sit ti ng enba nc in McC le sk ey v. Kem p, an ap pe al fro m

a gr an t o f habe as
co rp us rel ie f, th is Co urt co rrec tl y st at edth atfal se tes ti m on y is m at eri al un de r th e Gig li o s ta nd ardif “ itco ul d ‘in an y reas on ab le li ke li ho odha ve affe ct edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury.’ ” 75 3 F .2d87 7, 8 85 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (en ba nc ) (quo ti ng Gig li o v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 05 U.S. 15 0, 1 54 , 92 S. Ct. 7 63 , 76 6 (1 97 2) ). W e th en ap pl ie d t he st an dardan d, l ik e th e Fl or id a ci rcu itco urt t ha t ad jud ic at edTrep al ’s cl ai m , con cl ud edth atth e fal se tes ti m on y at i ss ue was n otm at eri al be cau se it

“ wou ldha ve ha d n o e ffec t o n t he jury’ s d eci si on .” Id . (em ph as is ad de d) . W e
rev ers edth e g ran t o f habe as co rp us rel ie f as to th e p et it io ne r’s Gig li o c la im . Id. W e can no t faul t t he cir cu itco urt fo r ap pl y in g t he Gig li o s ta nd ardus in g t he same la ng ua ge th atwe ha ve us edwhen we ha ve ap pl ie d i t. C. Nei th er

th e S up re me Co ur t o

f Fl or id a N or th e Flo ri da Cir cu it

Co ur t Unr ea so na bl

y App li ed Cle ar lyEstab lish ed

Fede ra l La w in Its Adj ud ic at io n o f Tr ep al ’s Gig li o Cla im.

71Neit he r th e Supr em e Co urt o f Fl or id a n orth e Fl or id a ci rcu itco urt

un reas on ab ly app li edth e Gig li o s tand ardof m at eri al it y to Trep al ’s Gig li o c la im whe n tho se co urts de te rm in edth atth ere was no reas on ab le li ke li ho odth atMart z’s fal se tes ti m on y

co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury at Trep al ’s tri al , see Trep al II, 84 6 S o. 2 d a t 4 25 –2 8. Ma rtz ’s tes ti m on y was u se fu l o nl y

to est ab li sh th e p art ic ul ar t y

pe of t ha ll iu m

in th e th ree f

ul l b ot tl es of C oc a-Co latak enfro m th e Carrres id en ce an d the gl as s b ot tl e ta ke n fr om Trep al ’s gar ag e. The g ov ern m en t
es tabl is he d t hr ou gh ot he r wit ne ss es th atth al li um in an y form is rare an d
un av ai labl e to th e g en eral publ ic an d t ha t t ha ll iu m in so m e fo rm

ha d b een ad de d t o th e th ree b ot tl es tak enfro m th e Carr res id en ce an d was co nt ai ne d i n t he gl as s bo tt le tak enfro m

Trep al ’s gar ag e. Fai rm in de d ju ris ts co ns id eri ng th is
un ch al le ng edtes ti m on y

in co m bi na ti on wit h t he weal th of u nc ha ll en ge d ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce o f Trep al ’s gu il t p res en te d a t t ria l co ul d d is ag ree wh ethe r Martz ’s fal se tes ti m on y

co ul d h av e aff

ect edth e jud gm en t o f th e jury at Trep al ’s tri al . Cf. Yarb or ou gh v. Al varad o, 5 41 U.S. 65 2, 6 64 , 12 4 S . Ct. 2 14 0, 2 14 9 (2 00 4) . That“ fai rm in de d ju ris ts co ul d d is ag ree o n t he co rrec tn es s o f th e st at e
co urt[s ’] de ci si on [s ]” m ean s t ha t we ca nn otgra ntTrep al fed eral habe as rel ie f on th e b as is of h is Gig li o c la im . Harrin gt onv. Ri ch te r, 56 2 U.S. --- -, 13 1 S . Ct. 7 70 , 78 6 (2 01 1)
. 72