Opinion ID: 2537242
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Disclose Letters to Prosecutor from Willy Sirvas

Text: We first address Rodriguez's allegations of a Brady violation when the State failed to disclose two letters that jail inmate Willy Sirvas wrote to the prosecutor, prior to trial, alleging that Luis Rodriguez would lie. The first letter, dated August 10, 1995, stated as follows: Dear Laeser-Hague: I'm in the same dormitory as inmate Luis Rodriguez # 93-65604. You have to ask for continuance on August 14. Rodriguez told me everything about the murders and he said that the state can't pruebe [sic] him anything without a witness or pruebes [sic] that lead him to this murders. I will get in touch. The May 28, 1996, letter states: Dear Mr. Abe Laeser and Andrew Hague: A year ago I wrote a letter to the state attorney office. And my letter ignore. [sic] Now, Mr. Richard Houlihan could use my testimony in court in reference to Luis Rodriguez lies to save his ass, is only one true. [sic] The postconviction court initially summarily denied this claim, but while the appeal was pending, defense counsel was finally able to locate Sirvas in Peru. Accordingly, this claim was part of the relinquishment proceedings, in which Sirvas testified via satellite. The postconviction court found that Sirvas's testimony was not consistent with the content of the Sirvas letters and denied this claim as follows: For there to be a violation of Brady, the state must have suppressed evidence that was exculpatory and the Defendant must have suffered some prejudice as a result. .... The 1995 letter was not signed it was unknown by the prosecution from whom it was sent. It would not have been helpful to defense counsel. Arguably, the 1996 letter should have been turned over. However, Defendant was not prejudiced as a result of the failure to turn over the 1996 letter. Counsel for Defendant testified at the hearing that they did not think that Luis was telling the truth. Luis was extensively cross-examined. Even if Sirvas was called to testify at trial, his oral testimony contradicted what he wrote in the letter. He did not have any credibility in front of a jury. Luis testified at trial. His plea agreement was known at that time and he was questioned at length about the agreement. It was clear Luis entered into the plea agreement to avoid the death penalty. Luis testified to that at the trial. The inconsistencies in his trial testimony from his initial confession were noted by the Florida Supreme Court on direct appeal. Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29, 34 (Fla.2000). If any Brady violation occurred, it was not material and did not prejudice the Defendant's ability to investigate or present other aspects of the case. Although we disagree with the court's conclusions regarding whether this was favorable evidence that was not timely disclosed, we ultimately agree that Rodriguez has not shown prejudice. During the evidentiary hearing on relinquishment, Rodriguez clearly showed that the prosecutor failed to disclose these letters. Laeser admitted that he received these letters before the trial but did not turn them over to the defense. The first letter was unsigned so Laeser testified that he did not turn this letter over because he did not know who wrote it. As to the second, signed letter, Laeser testified that he did not turn the letter over to the defense because he knew that he would not call Sirvas, and the letter mentioned only Luis by name. Laeser testified that he thought the letter was relevant only to Luis's trial, and Luis had already entered a plea. Rodriguez also called Willy Sirvas. Sirvas knew Luis because he was in a cell next to Luis when they were both at the Metro West Jail. According to Sirvas, Luis talked about his case and stated that the State offered him a deal to testify against his codefendant because he was facing the death penalty and the State could not prove the charges unless Luis testified. Luis told Sirvas that even though he and his codefendant had a pact not to testify against each other, he would testify against his codefendant and blame it on him. However, Sirvas acknowledged that Luis did not describe the crime or how it occurred. On cross-examination, Sirvas acknowledged that he did not even know the codefendant's name and that Luis never told him anything specific about the case. We agree with Rodriguez that both letters should have been disclosed and strongly condemn such conduct. As this Court emphasized in Mordenti v. State, 894 So.2d 161, 168-69 (Fla.2004): Brady requires the State to disclose material information within the State's possession or control that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant. See Guzman v. State, 868 So.2d 498, 508 (Fla.2003). Errors involving the suppression of evidence in violation of Brady present issues of constitutional magnitude. See Cardona v. State, 826 So.2d 968, 973 (Fla.2002). As expressed in Brady, the rule is premised on the principle that reversal is warranted when the State fails to disclose to the defense exculpatory or impeaching evidence that prejudices the defendant, thereby undermining confidence that he received a fair trial: The principle ... is not punishment of society for misdeeds of a prosecutor but avoidance of an unfair trial to the accused. Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.... A prosecution that withholds evidence ... which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty helps shape a trial that bears heavily on the defendant. That casts the prosecutor in the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport with standards of justice.... Cardona, 826 So.2d at 972-73 (quoting Brady, 373 U.S. at 87-88, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215). In this case, the letters themselves strongly suggested that Sirvas possessed material impeachment evidence that defense counsel could have used in Rodriguez's defense. The prosecutor explained that he did not turn over the first letter because he did not know who wrote it. Such a rationale for failing to disclose this evidence is disingenuous; the question of how to contact the author does not excuse the prosecution from disclosing favorable evidence. By its very nature, the letter was favorable to the defense. The prosecutor further asserted that he did not disclose either letter because they were relevant only to Luis's trial. However, both letters involved the credibility of one of the State's most important witnesses against Rodriguez. In fact, the second letter was clearly written in reference to this case and even included Rodriguez's defense attorney's name, stating, Richard Houlihan could use my testimony in court in reference to Luis Rodriguez lies to save his ass. Accordingly, the letters meet the first prong of Brady and should have been disclosed to defense counsel. While the record clearly establishes that the State wrongfully withheld favorable evidence, in order to be entitled to relief, Rodriguez must also demonstrate prejudice, which he has not done. Sirvas admitted at the evidentiary hearing that Luis did not tell him any of the specifics about the case itself and that he did not even know the codefendant's name. This testimony was directly contrary to some of the statements in his 1995 letter in which Sirvas alleged that Luis had told him everything. Because his actual testimony contradicted his letters, Sirvas's credibility is questionable. More importantly, Sirvas's testimony at the evidentiary hearing shows that Sirvas did not know the underlying facts of the case and who participated in the crime. Thus, Rodriguez would have been unable to show how Luis lied about Rodriguez's involvement. When Sirvas was questioned during the evidentiary hearing, he was asked directly about why he stated in his letter that he believed Luis would lie. Sirvas responded, You know, he was lying because, you know, he was testifying, the defendant because I don't even know his name or who he was. But he told me that the State is helping me, you know, how do you call it? A charge, you know, if I testify against my codefendant. That's why he was lying, you know. At no point did Sirvas provide any testimony that sufficiently explained why Sirvas thought that Luis would lie. Both his letter and his testimony assumed that because Luis decided to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the death penalty, Luis would lie. The jury was aware that Luis had entered a plea in order to avoid the death penalty. Accordingly, the defense cannot show how Rodriguez was prejudiced by the failure to turn over the letters.