Opinion ID: 1863013
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Henry,[5]Giglio,[6] and Brady Error

Text: Johnson claims that the State withheld material and exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady. Johnson claims that the State withheld the fact that it used another jail inmate, James Leon Smith, to obtain information from Johnson in violation of Henry and withheld the fact that it presented the false testimony of Smith in violation of Giglio. The basis of these claims rests on Smith's recantation testimony, which was presented during the rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing. The circuit court found with regard to Smith's testimony as follows: James Leon Smith's [sic] testified at all three of the defendant's trials. He was deposed in 1981 and 1987 and testified at a motion to suppress [hearing] in 1981. His testimony, from 1981 through 1988, was substantially the same. There were minor differences in his testimony, which can be expected because Mr. Smith had to try to recall events that occurred almost seven years ago. Mr. Smith's 1988 trial testimony is summarized below: Mr. Smith met the defendant in the Polk County jail in 1981. Between February and March of 1981, Mr. Smith had several conversations with the defendant. The defendant admitted to three murders. He said that he had killed a cabdriver and burned the cab because his fingerprints were in it, that he had shot Mr. Beasley and stole $100.00, and that he had struggled with a deputy and that the deputy was shot twice. While in jail, Mr. Smith met with law enforcement officers and told them that the defendant had made the statements. No one made any promises to Mr. Smith for providing this information. The only assistance he received from the state came in the form of a letter written by the prosecutor in 1981 to a judge considering a motion to mitigate sentence. The mitigation motion was granted and the defendant's sentence was reduced to one year of probation. Mr. Smith testified because it's something that had to be done. No one suggested that Mr. Smith do anything but tell the truth. On cross-examination, Mr. Smith provided the following additional information: There was nothing promised to him for coming forward with information about the defendant. Law enforcement officers did not outright encourage him to go get more information from the defendant. While in the jail, Mr. Smith read the defendant's discovery materials to him because the defendant told Mr. Smith that he could not read. During their conversations, the defendant told him that he was pretty high when the murders occurred and that he could not remember certain details. The defendant also stated that he had done so many drugs that he lost control of himself and started flipping out. On re-direct examination, Mr. Smith testified that the defendant said that he could play like he was crazy and they would send him to the crazyhouse for a few years and that would be it. The court has reviewed the numerous transcripts that contain Mr. Smith's testimony. In every court proceeding, Mr. Smith's testimony was essentially the same as that presented to the Alachua County jury in 1988. At the evidentiary hearing on March 4, 1997, James Leon Smith testified that much of his previous testimony was untrue. On direct examination, Mr. Smith testified that Polk County Sheriffs Office Detective Wilkerson specifically told him what to ask the defendant. Mr. Smith also alleged that law enforcement told him to testify in court that law enforcement had not instructed him to speak with the defendant. Law enforcement also allegedly promised Mr. Smith that they would go speak to the judge and seek a reduction of his sentence, but that he should not tell the jury about this promise. According to Mr. Smith, the defendant never stated that he would play crazy. Mr. Smith stated that he received most of the information that he originally testified about from either law enforcement or the defendant's discovery materials. On cross-examination, Mr. Smith's testimony became very vague. He admitted that the defendant may have actually admitted to several of the crimes and provided some details about the crimes to him. However, in general Mr. Smith's memory was not that accurate as to where he received the information about the crimes. He also stated that he had suffered retribution, both in prison and in his hometown, for his prior testimony incriminating the defendant. Mr. Smith could not explain why his testimony had been consistent in numerous court proceedings and had suddenly changed. He alluded to the fact that he did not want someone to die because of his untrue testimony. However, Mr. Smith never came forward after the defendant was originally convicted and sentenced to death in 1981. In Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1085, 115 S.Ct. 1799, 131 L.Ed.2d 726 (1995), the Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed the proposition that [r]ecantation by a witness called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessarily entitle a defendant to a new trial. Brown v. State, 381 So.2d 690 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1118, 101 S.Ct. 931, 66 L.Ed.2d 847 (1981); Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704 (Fla.1956). This court must make two findings. First, the court must determine whether Mr. Smith's recantation is true. If so, the court then must determine whether Mr. Smith's new testimony would probably result in a different verdict at a new trial. Glendening v. State, 604 So.2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). As to the first issue, the court finds that Mr. Smith's testimony is not credible. In general, recanting testimony is exceedingly unreliable. Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704, 705 (Fla.1956). Numerous factors indicate that James Smith's recantation is likewise unreliable. Lee Atkinson, the man who prosecuted the defendant in 1988, testified at the evidentiary hearing. After his appointment to the case in 1987, Mr. Atkinson prepared for the re-trial by reviewing the case file and the 1981 trial transcripts, reading the Supreme Court opinion and meeting with law enforcement. He then arranged a meeting with James Smith so that he could determine whether he wanted to use Mr. Smith as a witness. Mr. Atkinson testified that he told Mr. Smith that he wanted him to tell the truth and to tell the jury about any deals or promises he may have received in exchange for his testimony. The prosecutor specifically told Mr. Smith that he did not need his testimony to convict the defendant. Mr. Atkinson then asked Mr. Smith if his prior testimony was true. Mr. Smith said that it was. When asked about the defendant's allegations that Mr. Smith was a state agent and was promised specific assistance from law enforcement for his testimony, Mr. Smith denied all the allegations and reaffirmed that he was coming forward voluntarily. Mr. Atkinson also told Mr. Smith that he would not prosecute him for perjury if he said that he lied in 1981, but that Mr. Smith had to tell him about it right now. Mr. Smith replied that everything he testified to was the truth. The prosecutor also stated that if it was within his power, he would prosecute Mr. Smith for perjury if he came forward ten years later and said that he had lied. As it turned out, Mr. Smith did not wait the full ten years before coming forward with a new story. Looking to jury instruction 2.04 on the credibility of witnesses as a framework for analysis: (a) Did James Smith seem to have an accurate memory? On direct examination, Mr. Smith appeared to be able to answer many of CCR's leading questions. However, on cross-examination by the state attorney, Mr. Smith's memory faltered numerous times and he had difficulties answering questions. Many of his answers became less and less specific and Mr. Smith appeared to have trouble remembering certain details and events. (b) Was James Smith honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions? See, analysis under (a), above. (c) Did James Smith have some interest in how the case should be decided or had any pressure or threat been used against James Smith that affected the truth of his testimony? As noted, Mr. Smith testified that he had suffered because of his original testimony. Apparently, it was well known in prison and on the street that he had testified against the defendant. By changing his story now, the state argued that Mr. Smith would no longer be a snitch in the eyes of the defendant's friends and others. (d) Did James Smith at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he gave in court? As noted, Mr. Smith gave at least six prior (and consistent with each other) sworn statements that are inconsistent with his testimony given at the evidentiary hearing. (e) Was it proved that James Smith had been convicted of a crime? It was undisputed that Mr. Smith had been convicted at least six times in the past. Based upon the court's experience, common sense and personal observations of James Smith, the court is satisfied that his new testimony is false. Simply put, after listening to Mr. Smith, watching his demeanor and analyzing his testimony, the court does not believe his present testimony. Mr. Smith's testimony was consistent throughout the defendant's three trials, a period spanning over seven years. Mr. Smith never came forward with any allegations that his testimony was untruthful until 16 years after his first meeting with the defendant. Even if the court were to accept Mr. Smith's testimony as being true, the court is confident that the verdict would not have been different. Evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming. At trial, the state presented eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence and evidence of the defendant's conduct which indicated the defendant committed the crimes and that he was not insane at the time of the offenses. Furthermore, Lee Atkinson testified that the result of the trial would have been the same had Mr. Smith never testified. This allegation was not challenged by the defendant during the evidentiary hearing. In conclusion, the court finds that the testimony of James Smith presented at the evidentiary hearing is false. Furthermore, even if the court were to accept the testimony, the court finds that the result of the trial would not have changed. Therefore, there were no violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). There has been no competent evidence presented of either prosecutorial misconduct or improper and unconstitutional police practices. Finally, there has been no showing that trial counsel was ineffective in any way related to the testimony of James Smith. State v. Johnson order at 6-10 (citations omitted). Our review of the record demonstrates that the trial court's finding that Smith's testimony was not believable is supported by competent substantial evidence. This Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on issues of credibility. See Demps v. State, 462 So.2d 1074 (Fla.1984). We approve the trial court's denial of this claim.