Opinion ID: 1684899
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Adequately Challenge the Jailhouse Informants

Text: Overton contends that counsel was ineffective for the failure to adequately challenge the jailhouse informants during the guilt phase of the trial. This claim fails on the merits because we conclude that Overton's counsel did sufficiently challenge the jailhouse informants during trial. With regard to Guy Green, Smith elicited on cross-examination that Green had lied in the past to receive benefits, attempted to elicit that Green would receive benefits for the testimony here, and elicited the disciplinary problems that resulted in Green's gain time being lost. With regard to Zientek (also referred to as Pesci), Smith elicited the following information on cross-examination: (1) Zientek had repeatedly lied in the past; (2) Zientek was receiving a benefit to testify in this case; (3) the MacIvor case was in the newspapers at the time Zientek was in jail; (4) Overton was a big fish in that he had the most serious charges pending while in the jail; (5) Zientek never disclosed to Overton the true facts of his case; (6) Zientek made additional assertions to law enforcement that he did not include in his initial statement; and (7) Zientek faced significant time on serious charges (i.e., sexual battery) if his case proceeded to trial. Overton's counsel also unsuccessfully attempted to elicit that Zientek was known for entering the cells of other prisoners to view their personal documents. With regard to the failure to reference specific issues on cross-examination, Overton's counsel possessed sound strategic reasons for not challenging the jailhouse informants on these various points. First, during the evidentiary hearing, both Smith and Garcia testified that an investigation was conducted with regard to whether anyone witnessed Zientek in Overton's cell, but nothing useful was produced by the investigation. Garcia testified that Overton provided the defense with a list of names of those who could supposedly corroborate that Zientek was in Overton's cell. After investigating all of these persons, Garcia recalled that none of them gave us [Zientek] in the cell. Consistent with Garcia's testimony, Smith testified that none of the persons identified by Overton as individuals who supposedly saw Zientek in Overton's cell could actually make such a statement upon being deposed. Smith testified that anyone who observed Zientek in Overton's cell would have been used as a witness. In addition to being unable to state that they saw Zientek in Overton's cell, none of these people could confirm that Overton's door was left open when Overton did not occupy his cell. Additionally, Jon Ellsworth, prosecutor for the State in this case, testified that upon being deposed, none of these people could corroborate Overton's story that Zientek had access to Overton's cell. Thus, Overton's counsel was not deficient for the failure to challenge Zientek with testimony that he was seen in Overton's cell. The testimony of Overton's counsel during the evidentiary hearing establishes that this avenue of challenging Zientek was investigated and reasonably rejected as a matter of strategy due to the lack of evidence. Second, the decision of Overton's counsel to not offer themselves as witnesses (they saw Overton's cell door open during their attorney visits with Overton) to contradict the testimony of Zientek during trial that he did not have access to Overton's cell (Zientek testified that the cell door was never left open) was reasonable, rather than deficient performance. Neither Garcia nor Smith ever actually saw Zientek in Overton's cell, but instead, only saw Zientek walking around the area in which Overton's cell was located. During the evidentiary hearing, Garcia recalled Zientek's testimony during trial that he did not have access to Overton's cell, but he (Garcia) did not believe Zientek's testimony made him a witness in the case to the extent that he needed to place his name on a witness list. Garcia did not consider himself a witness because when he saw Zientek, Zientek wasn't in the cell. Similarly, Smith testified that it never occurred to him that he should bring this to the trial court's attention. It was reasonable for Overton's counsel to conclude that because they never saw Zientek in Overton's cell, their knowledge that Overton's cell door was left open during attorney visits was fairly insignificant. Moreover, Overton's counsel elicited on cross-examination that Zientek had general access to Overton's cell due to Zientek's activities of sweeping and mopping in Cell Block A. Further, Ellsworth testified during the evidentiary hearing that he had witnesses (including several jailers who could testify that Overton's cell was always locked in accordance with the jail's rules) prepared to testify to rebut the allegation that Zientek could access Overton's cell. This would have negated any significance that the jury would have attached to any evidence that the cell door was left unlocked. See Jones v. State, 928 So.2d 1178, 1185 (Fla.2006) ([C]ounsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to present evidence that would open the door to damaging cross-examination and rebuttal evidence that would counter any value that might be gained from the evidence. (quoting Johnson v. State, 921 So.2d 490, 501 (Fla.2005))). Third, the decision of Overton's counsel to proceed no further with impeachment on Zientek's handwritten notes and the police report from which Zientek's notes appeared to have been copied directly was a reasonable strategic decision. During the evidentiary hearing, Garcia testified that a major goal of the defense was to keep from the jury the fact that Overton was a past suspect in other crimes. Consistent with this goal, Overton's counsel filed the Motion in Limine Regarding Other Offenses on January 20, 1999, which was granted by the trial court. Smith and Garcia decided against using this material for impeachment of Zientek because these documents also referenced uncharged and unsolved crimes for which Overton was a suspect and would have opened the door for the State to ask questions on this adverse topic. This strategy was discussed between counsel and it was also discussed with Overton. A motion in limine that was granted ensured that the jury would not learn that Overton was a convicted felon, and counsel did not want to reopen the door on the topic. Moreover, the State was prepared to go through the opened door by referencing the other crimes that appeared on these documents if Overton's counsel had used this material for impeachment. Contrary to Overton's argument, the fear of opening the door on this topic was legitimate as jury knowledge of Overton's past involvement with crimes would have negatively affected counsel's ability to defend on these more serious murder charges. Therefore, Overton's counsel was not deficient for the strategic decision not to impeach Zientek in this manner. See Jones, 928 So.2d at 1185. Fourth, the decision of Overton's counsel to not explore Zientek's relationship with Detective Daniels did not constitute deficient performance. The record supports that Zientek was not an agent of the State and also that there was a reasonable strategic reason for not questioning Zientek on his relationship with Daniels. Daniels became involved with Zientek only after the FBI contacted him (Daniels) about the fact that Zientek possessed information on the MacIvor murders. After Daniels received Zientek's statement with regard to Overton's confession, he advised Zientek to not solicit any further information from Overton. Moreover, Daniels testified that it was Zientek who initiated the contact, rather than Daniels attempting to find ways for Zientek to embellish his story (i.e., showing Zientek crime scene photos). This is inconsistent with the assertion that Zientek was an agent who worked for the State. There was also sound strategic reasoning for this decision. Overton also contends that Zientek should have been questioned on his involvement with Daniels on other matters to illustrate that Zientek worked as an agent for the State. This mode of impeachment was considered and rejected by Smith because it would have opened the door to bolstering Zientek's testimony if the information given to Daniels in subsequent cases was corroborated by Daniels as being truthful. See Jones, 928 So.2d at 1185. For all these reasons, the decision to not further explore the alleged relationship with Daniels was not deficient performance. Even if any of these failures were deemed to constitute deficient performance, there was no prejudice. Green provided similar testimony that supported the conviction here. See Whitfield v. State, 923 So.2d 375, 380 (Fla.2005) (holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence). Overton has failed to assert specific, additional actions that could have been taken by his counsel to challenge Green. [16] Notwithstanding the challenges to Green that were in fact accomplished during trial by Overton's counsel, Green provided damaging testimony that by itself would support the conviction here. During the evidentiary hearing, the State established the existence of a prosecutable case even before discovery of Zientek as a witness. Moreover, this Court has already determined on direct appeal that any error with regard to Zientek's testimony can only constitute harmless error because other evidence identified Overton as the perpetrator, which includes the testimony of Green. See Overton, 801 So.2d at 899.