Opinion ID: 2686798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: penalty phase closing arguments and verdict

Text: In its closing argument, the State contended that it had proven certain statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. First, Mendoza was previously convicted of another “felony involving the use . . . of violence to the person”—specifically, the armed robbery and battery of Street. See Fla. Stat. § 921.141(5)(b). Second, Mendoza killed Calderon “for pecuniary gain.” See id. § 921.141(5)(f). Third, Mendoza committed his capital felony while he was engaged in the commission of a robbery. See id. § 921.141(5)(d). The State argued against the presence of any mitigating circumstances. As for the non-capital sentences of Humberto and Lazaro Cuellar, the State pointed out that there were material differences between Mendoza and the Cuellar brothers beyond the obvious fact that Mendoza was the shooter. For example: (1) Lazaro stayed in the car, whereas Mendoza did not; (2) Humberto was shot during the offense, whereas Mendoza shot Calderon four times; (3) Humberto had no prior criminal record, whereas Mendoza had a prior robbery conviction; (4) Humberto 22 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 23 of 58 and Lazaro entered into plea agreements, whereas Mendoza pled not guilty; and (5) Mendoza planned the robbery and recruited Humberto and Lorenzo. Next, the State argued that Mendoza was not “under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance” at the time of the murder. See Fla. Stat. § 921.141(6)(b). The State acknowledged that Mendoza, while in prison, had been prescribed psychiatric medication and that he had some history of emotional problems during childhood. The State asked the jury to focus, however, on his mental state at the time of the murder in 1992. The State maintained that Ms. Mendoza’s testimony did not cast doubt on Mendoza’s culpability. Although Dr. Toomer reported substance abuse, the State argued it was based on Mendoza’s self-reporting, and thus unreliable. The State also pointed out that Mendoza did not seek mental health treatment upon arriving in the United States. The State challenged Dr. Toomer’s testimony, arguing, inter alia, that Dr. Toomer was biased towards the defense. The State disputed Dr. Toomer’s opinion that Mendoza could be rehabilitated.
Defense attorney Wax presented Mendoza’s closing argument. Wax first emphasized that Mendoza had never planned to kill Calderon. He pointed out that Mendoza only robbed Street, though he could have killed him. Mendoza and the Cuellar brothers intended to only rob Calderon, but Calderon fired a shot. Wax 23 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 24 of 58 stressed that the fact that Calderon fired first was a “very important factor” in what had happened. Wax then turned to the mitigating evidence about Mendoza’s background and mental health problems. He reminded the jury that, unlike aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Wax stated that “[t]he two witnesses [who] played the most significance were Mrs. Mendoza . . . and Dr. Toomer.” Ms. Mendoza told the jury about Mendoza’s “difficult childhood.” Wax disputed the State’s suggestion that Mendoza’s drug addiction was not severe. Wax asked the jury to consider these non-statutory mitigating circumstances: (1) “family background”; (2) “alcohol and drug use or abuse”; (3) “mental problems”; (4) “the circumstances of the offense itself”; and (5) the noncapital sentences received by Mendoza’s co-defendants. As to Ms. Mendoza’s not finding drugs other than marijuana in Mendoza’s room, Wax pointed out, “[p]arents many times are the last to know.” As for Mendoza’s failure to seek treatment in the United States, Wax explained, “that is the hallmark of any addict.” Challenging the State’s contention that Dr. Toomer was biased, Wax emphasized that Dr. Toomer had many years of experience and was previously qualified as an expert. Dr. Toomer’s preliminary tests showed “evidence of brain 24 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 25 of 58 damage,” as well as “a major chemical dependency.” Wax pointed out that the State did not rebut Dr. Toomer’s psychological conclusions. Rather, the State’s expert, Dr. Castiello, evaluated Mendoza only once and only for competency to stand trial.
By a vote of seven to five, the jury recommended the death penalty. VI. FINAL PENALTY HEARING BEFORE STATE TRIAL COURT Before the final penalty hearing, two more mental health experts examined Mendoza: Dr. Hyman Eisenstein, at defense counsel’s request, and Dr. Gisela Puentes, at the State’s request. 12 During the hearing, trial counsel Wax presented Dr. Eisenstein’s report and called Ms. Mendoza to testify again. The State called only Dr. Puentes. We review that evidence. A. Dr. Eisenstein’s Report and Deposition Dr. Eisenstein, a neuropsychologist, examined Mendoza six times between March and May of 1994. Prior to meeting Mendoza, Dr. Eisenstein reviewed: Dr. Toomer’s report, Dr. Haber’s report, Mendoza’s post-arrest records, and Mendoza’s school records. 12 There is an inconsistency in the record as to whether the doctor’s surname is “Puentes” or “Fuentes.” The record shows that the doctor signed her report “Puentes,” and thus we use that name. 25 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 26 of 58 Dr. Eisenstein conducted his examinations of Mendoza in English. He testified that “clinically, it wouldn’t make a difference” whether the tests were conducted in English or Spanish. Dr. Eisenstein’s report, dated May 12, 1994, contained background facts, obtained from Mendoza, including: (1) at age 5, Mendoza had “sleep disturbances” and “night terrors,” and he “‘was scared to sleep by [himself] and slept with [his] parents’”; (2) Mendoza told Dr. Eisenstein, “‘I had a double personality and paranoid schizophrenia’”; (3) Mendoza started using marijuana, alcohol, and crack cocaine upon coming to the United States and used crack cocaine the night before he killed Calderon; and (4) in 1989, Mendoza was shot in the back and suffered a blood clot in his right leg. Mendoza “was cooperative with the examination,” and the “results [were] considered a valid indication of current neuropsychological functioning.” After conducting six general types of neurological tests, 13 Dr. Eisenstein concluded that: (1) “Mendoza present[ed] with mild neuropsychological deficits with greater left hemispheric language related impairment”; (2) “[t]he neuropsychological examination was conducted in English and the left hemisphere 13 These tests were: (1) motor measure tests; (2) sensory perceptual tests; (3) speech/language tests; (4) the Wide Range Achievement Test and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, both to test academic achievement; (5) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised to test intellectual/cognitive functioning; (6) the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised to test memory; and (7) the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Measures to test neuropsychological functioning. 26 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 27 of 58 language skills is [Mendoza’s] greatest area of cognitive compromise”; and (3) Mendoza demonstrated “mild impairment of complex information processing skills which [would] lead to impaired judgment and problem solving skills.” Dr. Eisenstein added, “Of course, under conditions of both psychological stress as well as drug and alcohol intoxication, his judgment and reasoning skills [would] be further compromised.” Dr. Eisenstein acknowledged that his testing uncovered only a “mild” neuropsychological impairment and that this finding did not rise to the level of the statutory mitigating circumstance of “extreme” mental or emotional disturbance. See Fla. Stat. § 921.141(6)(b). Dr. Eisenstein added that “organic brain damage” was not something that a person either had or did not have, stating “[i]t’s not like 100 percent you do and 100 percent you don’t.” His testing looked at “from a cognitive brain behavior function what you can and cannot do,” and could establish only “mild neuropsychological deficits.” B. Dr. Gisela Puentes The State called Dr. Puentes, a neuropsychologist, who also examined Mendoza after the jury’s verdict. Dr. Puentes’s report, admitted into evidence, stated that Mendoza was not then taking medication and that Mendoza “denie[d] auditory, visual, olfactory, or tactile hallucinations.” During the evaluation, Mendoza’s “mood was full and his affect was appropriate.” Mendoza’s “attention 27 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 28 of 58 span and level of concentration were within normal limits, and he exhibited no difficulty understanding or following verbal instructions.” Mendoza’s “speech was fluent and clear” and his “thinking was local, coherent, and goal oriented.” Thus, Dr. Puentes considered the results of the evaluation valid. Nevertheless, Dr. Puentes believed that Mendoza may have been motivated to artificially lower the results of some of the neurological tests she administered. Dr. Puentes administered eight tests, all in Spanish.14 The vocabulary tests classified Mendoza in the “Average range.” Dr. Puentes noted that, compared to earlier testing, Mendoza showed “a marked improvement.” Mendoza demonstrated “Low Average abstract reasoning skills” and “Average Verbal Intellectual capacities.” Dr. Puentes speculated that Mendoza’s scores improved significantly because “previous tests were administered in English.” Dr. Puentes concluded that “[t]here was no evidence of Left Hemisphere Brain Damage.” Dr. Puentes also reviewed Dr. Eisenstein’s finding of mild impairment and decided to redo in Spanish some tests Dr. Eisenstein had done. Dr. Puentes felt that there were inconsistencies in Dr. Eisenstein’s report and believed that “some of the tests would have very easily been influenced by the fact that the tests were 14 The tests were: (1) the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised; (2) the Boston Naming Test; (3) the Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test; (4) the Spanish Memory Paragraphs Test; (5) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised; (6) Finger Tapping and Grip Strength Tests; (7) the Portland Digit Recognition Test; and (8) a structured interview. 28 Case: 13-14968 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 29 of 58 administered in English,” given that Mendoza was a non-native speaker who had only been in the United States for ten years. Dr. Puentes spoke with Mendoza exclusively in Spanish. Based on her testing, Dr. Puentes concluded that “[n]one of the findings that [Dr. Eisenstein] was alleging that existed were actually there when Mr. Mendoza answered the test in Spanish.” Dr. Puentes concluded that Mendoza was “moderately impaired” and “simply a language barrier was interfering with his understanding . . . [and] his ability to express himself in English, and therefore, he was going to look like he was impaired.”