Opinion ID: 178000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim 4: Alleged Hanzel Recantation

Text: Claim 4 concerns the testimony of Deborah Hanzel, a State witness who testified at trial about a phone call with Lambrix. More specifically, at trial Hanzel testified: Q: And what, if anything, did you say to [Lambrix]? A: Well, I read an article to him in the paper, about them looking for him, and I asked him if it was true and if he killed a guy for the car, and he said that was one of the reasons. At trial Hanzel also testified that she and her boyfriend, Preston Branch, were in a car with Lambrix on February 12, 1983, when Lambrix offered to show them where Lambrix had killed two people and buried them. Before reviewing Lambrix's Claim 4 about Hanzel, we review Lambrix's claim about Hanzel in the first § 2254 proceedings and what the district court concluded back then. In his first § 2254 petition, Lambrix claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failure to have Hanzel's testimony excluded based on her being an agent for the State and for failure to adequately cross-examine and impeach Hanzel. Lambrix alleged Hanzel was recruited to work as both an agent and a witness for the State prior to her telephone call with Lambrix, that she was questioning him as a State agent, and thus her testimony about the telephone call should be excluded. The district court found that it was never demonstrated at trial that Hanzel had been recruited to work as an agent of the State. The district court pointed out that despite the fact that Lambrix was permitted an opportunity to prove this claim at the evidentiary hearing, Lambrix presented no evidence and testimony on this point. The district court also pointed out that the fact that Hanzel's telephone calls were traced does not establish that Hanzel was solicited by the State to obtain incriminating information. Rather, a tap and trace device was placed on Hanzel's phone in order to determine Lambrix's location in case he called Hanzel. In any event, the district court also found that the key witness against Lambrix at trial was Frances Smith and that Lambrix had shown no prejudice because Hanzel's testimony was not the significant testimony in the trial. The district court concluded that [i]n light of the other evidence presented, the result would not have differed had this [Hanzel] testimony been excluded. In his Application, Lambrix now claims that Hanzel recanted her above testimony in 2003. [5] The state court held two evidentiary hearings regarding Lambrix's Hanzel-recantation claim. At the first evidentiary hearing, Hanzel denied that Lambrix admitted killing two people, and testified police officers made her afraid of Lambrix. Hanzel did not deny that the phone call with Lambrix, which she testified about at trial, occurred, but testified she did not remember it. Hanzel also testified Lambrix did tell her about two buried bodies. On July 9, 2003, the state trial court denied Lambrix's Hanzel-recantation claim. The state trial court found that all Lambrix had shown was that Hanzel did not have a good memory about events 20 years ago, stating: The Court has reviewed the transcript of the sworn statement given by Deborah Hanzel before trial, as well as the transcript of her trial testimony. The Court compared those transcripts with the testimony given at this evidentiary hearing. Even when taken in the light most favorable to the Defendant, perhaps all that counsel has proven is that Ms. Hanzel does not now have a very good memory of something that occurred nearly twenty years ago. For example, Ms. Hanzel recalls today that the Defendant told her about buried bodies, but she now asserts that he did not say anything about killing them. Ms. Hanzel also states that she does not now remember the phone calls she received from the Defendant after the crimes were committed (although she testified about them at trial). Ms. Hanzel does not, however, now deny that the calls were placed. In addition, Ms. Hanzel concedes that she remembers some things, but not others. She allowed that some statements she made which were recorded twenty years ago did not refresh her recollection, while at the same time asserting that she does not recollect that the Defendant confessed to the killings. Upon evaluation of the testimony of Ms. Hanzel (and the other two witnesses who testified at the hearing), it is apparent that perhaps the only thing Ms. Hanzel knows for certain at this time is that twenty years ago she believed Mr. Lambrix killed two people and buried their bodies behind a trailer in Glades County, but now she does not. At no time during this proceeding did Ms. Hanzel repudiate her prior testimony or otherwise acknowledge that she did not tell the truth at any time she was placed under oath in 1983 or 1984. Lambrix v. State, 39 So.3d 260, 270-71 (Fla.2010) (quoting state trial court order). On October 23, 2003, three months after the state trial court denied Lambrix's claim, Hanzel wrote a letter to the state trial court (which she followed with an affidavit), informing the state trial court that she had not testified truthfully at the evidentiary hearing and that in fact Smith had convinced her to testify falsely at trial. The state trial court ordered another evidentiary hearing, which took place on February 9 and April 5, 2004, at which Hanzel testified, among other things, that Lambrix never told her he killed Bryant or Moore and that Smith told her Lambrix attacked Moore after Moore went nuts. The state trial court again denied relief on Lambrix's Hanzel-recantation claim, finding again there was no credible evidence to support Lambrix's Hanzel-recantation claim: With regard to Deborah Hanzel, the Court is presented with a confused witness who made equivocating statements about testimony she gave with respect to a double homicide that occurred well over twenty years ago. As the Court previously ruled on July 9, 2003, Hanzel's testimony never met the legal requirements for a recantation. .... With regard to Claim II (the Hanzel recantation)[,] the Court finds that there is no credible evidence to support the Defendant's allegations. The Court stands by its ruling previously made on July 9, 2003, and nothing that the Court has heard since has caused it to reach a contrary conclusion. Claim II is, once again, DENIED. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Hanzel rulings. Lambrix v. State, 39 So.3d 260, 270-73 (Fla.2010). In doing so, the Florida Supreme Court noted that: (1) under Florida law, recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable, (2) the trial court in witness-recantation cases must examine the credibility of a recantation, and (3) the trial court's credibility determinations should be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. at 272. After reviewing the record and the state trial court's findings, the Florida Supreme Court concluded there was competent, substantial evidence for the trial court's ruling. Id. The Florida Supreme Court pointed out that statements in Hanzel's affidavit most strongly supported Lambrix's recantation claim, but that when Hanzel was on the stand during the second evidentiary hearing, she generally could not testify to those statements on her own and needed to refer to the affidavit to `refresh' her recollection. Id. The Florida Supreme Court also concluded that even if Hanzel had not testified at trial that Lambrix stated he killed two people, the recantation would not be of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial because (1) Hanzel never recanted her testimony that Lambrix offered to show her where two bodies were buried and (2) [e]ven without Hanzel's testimony, there would still be the testimony of [Preston] Branch that he heard Lambrix make statements similar to those to which Hanzel testified. Id. at 272-73 (quotation marks omitted). To the extent Lambrix's current claim in his Application relies on the contention that Hanzel was an agent of the State and the State coerced Hanzel into testifying, it was already presented to the district court. To the extent Lambrix's current claim relies on one or more versions of Hanzel's recantation testimony from 1998 to 2004, we conclude Lambrix has shown neither (1) that the factual predicate of this claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence, nor (2) that the facts underlying his claim would establish by clear and convincing error that but for a constitutional violation, no reasonable factfinder would find Lambrix guilty of first-degree murder. Indeed, we agree with the Florida Supreme Court that recanted testimony 20 years later is exceedingly unreliable and the state trial court's rulings about Hanzel's memory and credibility are supported by the evidence. See In re Davis, 565 F.3d 810, 825 (11th Cir.2009) (noting the established principle that recantations are viewed with extreme suspicion by the courts).