Opinion ID: 1133717
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Deal with Dennis Freeman

Text: Ponticelli first claims that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose evidence of an alleged deal with Dennis Freeman. This claim revolves around the State's failure to disclose the prosecutor's note following a telephone conversation with Freeman's defense counsel. The note states: Spoke with Fred Landt [Freeman's defense counsel] regarding Dennis Freeman. Told him I would make no firm offer prior to [Ponticelli's] trial but assured him his cooperation would be remembered with favor before mitigating judge/Sturgis. Will make no formal deal on the record prior to trial. At the evidentiary hearing, the prosecutor testified that she did not believe this note indicated that she had promised to reward Freeman for his cooperation in Ponticelli's case, nor did she know whether Freeman had received any favorable treatment. Ponticelli's defense counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that he believed this note indicated the State had made an unspecified deal with Freeman. Even if one accepts defense counsel's testimony as sufficient to establish the first two elements of Brady, Ponticelli's claim still fails because Ponticelli has not established that the State's failure to disclose this evidence resulted in prejudice. The evidence had only limited impeachment value and certainly does not rise to the level necessary to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine our confidence in the verdict. See State v. Lewis, 838 So.2d 1102, 1116 (Fla.2002) (finding no showing of prejudice where impeachment value of undisclosed evidence would have been limited), cited in Mordenti v. State, 894 So.2d 161, 170 (Fla.2004). Ponticelli alleges the suppressed evidence was prejudicial because it provided a basis for impeaching Freeman and would have led the jury to question both the truth of Freeman's testimony and the State's credibility. We disagree. First, this evidence was merely cumulative to that presented at trial. Cf. Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 508 (Fla.2003) (finding no prejudice under Brady because [i]n light of the significant impeachment evidence presented at trial, evidence of the State's reward to [the witness] would have been merely cumulative). Freeman was significantly impeached on his motive for testifying and his capacity for truthfulnessthe very factors that, according to Ponticelli, make this evidence prejudicial. During cross-examination, Freeman testified that he had previously worked undercover for the State, had frequently contacted the local sheriff's department with incriminating information on his fellow prisoners, and had testified as a jailhouse informant on at least one occasion. Freeman also testified that he had been less than honest about his history of cooperation with the State when he testified under oath at the pretrial deposition, that all of his twenty-six prior felony convictions involved crimes of dishonesty, and that he had been continuously incarcerated since December 9, 1985. Given the significant amount of evidence impeaching Freeman's credibility as well as the State's credibility in calling him to testify, Ponticelli has not established that the State's failure to disclose the prosecutor's note before trial constitutes prejudice under Brady. See Marshall v. State, 854 So.2d 1235, 1251 (Fla.2003) (finding no prejudice under Brady when defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined [the witness] and, in doing so, elicited testimony concerning the subject of the State's alleged promise to the witness); but cf. Mordenti, 894 So.2d at 171 (finding prejudice when the undisclosed evidence refuted a critical issue at trial and the witness impeached by the evidence was the only one who was able to testify to this issue). Furthermore, even assuming this evidence had some additional impeachment value, we find no reasonable probability that it would have led the jury to doubt the incriminating portions of Freeman's testimony. Freeman's testimony was incriminating to the extent the jury believed that Ponticelli had, in fact, confessed to the crimes. This testimony was corroborated by a map Freeman provided to the State on which Dotson's phone number was written in Ponticelli's handwriting and by a number of other witnesses who testified at trial that Ponticelli announced his intent to murder the Grandinettis and later admitted that he had done so. We find no reasonable probability that this evidence would have caused the jury to doubt Freeman's testimony. Therefore, we deny this claim.