Opinion ID: 1133717
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timothy Keesee's Statements

Text: Ponticelli also alleges that the State violated Brady by failing to disclose evidence that Timothy Keesee had reported to the prosecutor and to the state investigator that he saw Ponticelli use cocaine at the Grandinettis' trailer on the night of the homicides. This claim is based upon the prosecutor's note following an interview with Keesee in which Keesee described the events taking place when he arrived at the Grandinettis' trailer on the night of the homicides. The note stated: Owed them $300. R and N wanted it. Not physical. No threats. He was making calls to sell coke, collect money, doing cocaine. At the evidentiary hearing, the prosecutor testified that `R and N' was Ralph and Nick [Grandinetti], but she was not sure which of the five persons Keesee claimed were present at the Grandinettis' trailer on the night of the homicides (i.e., Ralph Grandinetti, Nick Grandinetti, Keesee, Ponticelli, or Keesee's brother) was doing cocaine. Keesee also reported the same information to the state investigator, who included it in a December 1987 supplemental report. This report was provided to the defense before trial. It stated that Keesee left the Grandinettis' trailer on the night of the homicides because of cocaine usage taking place there and because of a cocaine deal that was in process between Nick, Ralph, and a white male identified as Tony. In its November 1, 2002, order, the trial court determined that while the prosecutor's note may have provided additional information of Keesee's knowledge of Ponticelli's drug use prior to the murders, it was neither exculpatory nor material. The trial court held that [t]here is no way of knowing whether Trial Counsel would have gathered from [the note] that Defendant was using cocaine at the trailer on the night of the murders, and given the overwhelming evidence of Ponticelli's guilt, no reasonable probability exists that the evidence regarding drug usage found in . . . [the] Prosecutor['s] interview notes would have changed the outcome of the guilt or penalty phase of [Ponticelli's] trial. We affirm the trial court's denial of this claim. The note does not clearly indicate that Ponticelli was the person Keesee witnessed using cocaine on the night of the murders. Furthermore, even if defense counsel could have surmised from this note that Keesee told the prosecutor he saw Ponticelli using cocaine, we find no reasonable probability that the undisclosed evidence would have produced a different verdict. Guzman, 868 So.2d at 506 (citing Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281 n. 20, 119 S.Ct. 1936). Defense counsel knew Keesee was an important witness in regard to this claim; counsel extensively questioned Keesee on this issue at trial; and counsel had the opportunity to confront Keesee with at least one document from the State that contained substantially the same information as the prosecutor's note. We find no reasonable probability that confronting Keesee with this note would have led Keesee to change his trial testimony; therefore, our confidence in the outcome is not undermined and we deny this claim.