Opinion ID: 528299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: restriction of evidence claim

Text: 19 Stano claims that the trial court erred in restricting his presentation of evidence at both the guilt/innocence and sentencing phases of trial. He seeks reversal of his conviction, or at a minimum, reversal of his death sentence. Stano argues that the evidence that he falsely confessed to other murders which he did not commit, and the testimony of a psychiatrist that mentally ill people often confess to crimes which they do not commit and that Stano may be such a person, was exculpatory and should have been admitted by the trial court. Stano asserts that his sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment rights to establish a defense and prove the unreliability of his own confessions were violated by the trial court's exclusionary ruling, and thus, his conviction should be reversed. The district court denied habeas relief on this ground and found that the evidence was both irrelevant and speculative regarding the murder of Cathy Scharf. We agree. 20 As the district court noted, for this claim to be cognizable the trial court's evidentiary ruling must have deprived the habeas petitioner of fundamental fairness. Osborne v. Wainwright, 720 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir.1983). Generally, a federal court in a habeas corpus case will not review the trial court's actions in the admission of evidence. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 410, 414 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (citations omitted). However, when a constitutional question is presented, the federal court will inquire into the nature of the evidentiary ruling to determine whether the alleged error denied the petitioner a fundamentally fair criminal trial. Id. at 414-15; Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d 528, 530 (11th Cir.1983). 21 The disputed evidence must be material, and rise to the level of a crucial, critical, highly significant factor. Smith v. Wainwright, 741 F.2d 1248, 1258 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 1853, 85 L.Ed.2d 150 (1985) (quoting Jameson v. Wainwright, 719 F.2d 1125, 1127 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 975, 104 S.Ct. 2355, 80 L.Ed.2d 827 (1984)). Unless the evidence is critical or significant enough to have denied the petitioner a fair trial, he is not entitled to relief. For example, in Smith, the defendant was tried for first degree murder. During the course of the proceedings, the trial judge admitted testimony regarding the facts of a second murder for which the defendant was charged, but not on trial. The defendant objected to the admission of the narrative regarding the second murder and claimed that the evidence was inflammatory, prejudicial and inadmissible. On appeal from the denial of habeas relief, this court upheld the trial court's evidentiary ruling admitting the testimony and found that the petitioner failed to establish a violation of fundamental fairness. Smith, 741 F.2d at 1258. Although we recognized that the admissibility of such evidence presented a close state law question, under the materiality test, evidence concerning the second murder did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights. Id. Likewise, Stano's challenge to the trial court's evidentiary ruling merits no habeas relief in this appeal. The defense asserts that its theory of the case was to establish Stano as a liar, not a murderer. Stano argues that the trial judge excluded evidence material to this defense at the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, and material to mitigation at sentencing. The analysis in this case concerning an exclusionary ruling as compared with that in the Smith case dealing with an admissibility ruling remains the same; whether the disputed evidence was material and deprived the petitioner of fundamental fairness. 22 The trial court here correctly ruled that the evidence was not probative, was irrelevant and was inadmissible at the guilt/innocence phase since it did not indicate that Stano's confession in the Scharf case was false or tainted. Evidence that Stano falsely confessed to other murders he did not commit or for which he was not charged does not reflect that his confession regarding the murder of Cathy Scharf was also false. The petitioner's reliance on the cases cited in his brief is misplaced. Those cases deal with a defendant's right to compel presentation of relevant, material, reliable, and critical testimony; not irrelevant, speculative and conjectural testimony as here. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) (eyewitness testimony); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (critical evidence bearing substantial assurances of trustworthiness regarding another individual's confessions to the same crime for which the defendant is on trial ); Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) (evidence regarding the circumstances under which the confession at issue was secured). 23 Moreover, the proffered testimony of Dr. Stern, a psychiatrist, that people often confess to crimes which they did not commit constitutes mere speculation in connection with Gerald Stano. 5 Since the evidence was neither relevant nor probative regarding Stano's guilt or innocence for the murder of Cathy Scharf, it did not rise to the level of a crucial, critical, highly significant factor constitutionally necessitating its admission under a fundamental fairness inquiry. Consequently, its exclusion did not deny Stano a fair trial. 24 The defense also argues that Stano was prohibited from presenting the evidence in mitigation at the sentencing phase of his trial due to the trial court's exclusionary ruling. We note that a defendant must be permitted to introduce any mitigating evidence at sentencing in a capital case if the evidence relates to the defendant's character, record or the circumstances of his offense. Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 90 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). However, a trial judge still retains the discretion to exclude irrelevant, nonprobative evidence. Lockett, Id. at 604 n. 12, 98 S.Ct. at 2965 n. 12; Fla.Stat. Sec. 921.141(1) (1985). Conjectural evidence, such as that sought to be introduced by Stano, should not play any role in the capital jury's sentencing determination. See California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 542, 107 S.Ct. 837, 840, 93 L.Ed.2d 934 (1987). We conclude that the trial judge acted within his discretion in finding the evidence irrelevant and in precluding its introduction at sentencing. No adverse constitutional implications arose from the exclusion of the evidence. 6 Therefore, we affirm the district court's denial of habeas relief on this claim.