Opinion ID: 75958
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony of Howard Pearl

Text: 60 Howard Pearl was Robinson's lead trial counsel. 16 Since 1972, Pearl had been an assistant public defender in Florida's Seventh Judicial Circuit, where Robinson was tried. From 1978 to 1993, Pearl was assigned to capital cases. During that fifteen-year period, Pearl defended 300 capital cases. Of those 300 capital cases, Pearl tried somewhere between 90 and 100 cases before juries, all within Florida's Seventh Judicial Circuit. Robinson's capital case came to Pearl during the middle of Pearl's career. 61 In this case, Pearl relied, in large part, on Krop to investigate potential mitigation witnesses. Pearl testified that [t]here are times when strategically we feel that while the witness ... might be highly reluctant to talk to a Public Defender investigator or an attorney, they might ... be willing to speak to a mental health professional. Pearl did not personally contact background witnesses, but he gave their names, [and] other data ... to Dr. Krop and asked him to make the inquiries. Pearl, however, did help Krop obtain information from Robinson about his background. For example, about one month prior to resentencing, Pearl wrote a letter to Robinson advising that he was in the process of final preparation and asking Robinson to provide names of any family members in Georgia. Robinson replied by letter, naming certain individuals. Robinson also wrote, I wish I could give you more to work with, but the majority of people I have known and/or been close to are now deceased. Pearl forwarded Robinson's reply to Krop and attached a note, which read as follows: 62 Dear Harry: Just received this letter from Johnny Robinson. It may contain sources of information/background previously untapped. Sincerely, Howard. 17 63 Pearl could not specifically recall whether he forwarded to Krop other names that Robinson gave Pearl during a prison visit. However, Pearl testified that it would have been my practice unfailable [sic] to have done so. I can't imagine not having done so. Pearl also indicated that he communicated with Krop several times and sent him everything he learned about Robinson. Krop reported to Pearl that he had some difficulty ... reaching family members and ... receiving from them the kind of cooperation and cooperative spirit that I am sure he wanted to get ..., but he [Krop] did talk to family members. Pearl noted that Krop is just as competent in finding people and tracking them down as I am, so I left it to him. When asked whether he would have helped Krop get in touch with certain people, Pearl replied, in part, that he would have done anything that [Krop] asked him to do, if he ... asked me to find a particular person in a particular city, I would have done what I could to find that person, but I don't remember Dr. Krop asked me to do that. According to Pearl, Krop never told Pearl either (1) that he did not have sufficient information to render a diagnosis of Robinson, or (2) that he could not find witnesses and thus needed additional assistance from Pearl. 64 Pearl further testified that, in general, it was difficult to obtain information from Robinson. Pearl recalled that Robinson was reluctant to give information or to identify the people from his family or from his past that we might have considered calling. According to Pearl, Robinson told him he did not want them to testify. Pearl agreed that, after his initial death sentence, Robinson was a friendly, truthful, and cooperative client, but Robinson certainly didn't want to get members of his family involved and didn't talk about that. Pearl later clarified that Robinson was highly reluctant and non-communicative, and that therefore Pearl did not have access to the additional witnesses that Robinson's state 3.850 counsel have found over a period of five years. 65 Many of those additional witnesses relayed Robinson's poverty. That poverty came as no surprise to Pearl because he knew about it beforehand. In Pearl's opinion, evidence of poverty would not have had a substantial impact on a St. Augustine jury, in part, because St. Johns County was not a rich county, and thus Robinson's poor, rural background would not be meaningful to people who had similar backgrounds. 18 As to the stream of migrant labor in the East, Pearl did not consider the question of whether — the fact that [Robinson] was a member of the migrant stream. Pearl knew, however, that Robinson worked around migrant laborers, as well as the environment in which [Robinson] lived. But Pearl did not believe that information would have been productive if exhibited to a St. Johns County jury in terms of capturing there [sic] sympathy or interest. 66 Pearl also testified about his choice to use Krop as the mitigation witness. Pearl had used Krop as a mitigation witness in other capital cases. Pearl explained that [w]ith Dr. Krop's investigation, interviews, tests, his ability to receive information from anyone and include[] it in his testimony as history, even though it is mere hearsay, he eliminates the risk of loose canons.... if I use mothers, relatives, friends, I always run the risk that such people are not controllable and that their testimony may run away from me because they have their own agenda, rather than attend to the things I want them to say. However, with Krop, Pearl could bring in all the testimony as history without the risk of outbursts ... [or] uninvited ejaculations which might risk the defendant in the eyes of the jury. 67 In this case, Pearl stated that he looked at other witnesses to see whether I might want to [put people on other than Krop], and Pearl decided not to. Pearl explained that he decided there was nothing — no other people who could testify that Dr. Krop could not include in his testimony that would not put the defendant at additional risk on cross-examination by a competent prosecutor.... And when deciding whether to present a witness in mitigation, Pearl generally considered whether or not ... that [witness] ... would constitute a deployment of evidence that could be used on cross-examination to destroy the character of the defendant or to compromise the meaning or intent of the evidence. 68 In light of Robinson's criminal history, Pearl testified that there would be danger in presenting a witness who had not seen Robinson in some time. Pearl stated that [i]t would be catastrophic because the prosecutor could have confronted these witnesses with Mr. Robinson's later criminal activity ... [a]nd then ask[ed] them whether or not that might change their minds about their opinion of Mr. Robinson's good character. Pearl acknowledged that the resentencing jury was going to hear about portions of Robinson's criminal background anyway, but at least with Krop it would come from a neutral source.... Other witnesses would have appear[ed] ... more inclined toward his side ... less impersonal. And the cross examination would have hammered and repeated facts about his prior criminal record ... [which] would have been driven into the minds of the jury much more repeatedly.... 69 Moreover, Pearl was successful in defeating the introduction of certain similar fact evidence at resentencing. One week after St. George's murder, Robinson was arrested for an armed robbery and sexual assault of another woman stranded on the interstate. Thus, the resentencing jury never heard, as the State put it during the 3.850 hearing, that [Robinson] had used a similar, MO, if you will, of driving along the interstate, quote, `Helping a disabled vehicle, committing an armed robbery and a sexual assault.' 19 70 Pearl acknowledged that lack of corroboration of Krop's testimony was a point attacked by the State during Robinson's initial sentencing. However, Pearl felt that further character evidence about Mr. Robinson [at the resentencing] would be harmful not helpful.