Court Opinion

ID: 9479429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:18:22.848357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:02.249030
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the resolution of each claim discussed by the majority, except for the Brady claim and the Henry claim. With regard to those two claims, I respectfully dissent.
The procedural posture of this case is that Gerald Stano has had the benefit of an evidentiary hearing only on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, not on his other claims, including the two based on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). For the reasons that follow, I conclude that Stano is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on these two claims.
If there has been no evidentiary hearing in state court on an issue raised on habeas corpus, one is required if the petitioner alleges facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745, 757, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); Porter v. Wainwright, 805 F.2d 930, 933 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 918, 107 S.Ct. 3195, 96 L.Ed.2d 682 (1987). See also Agan v. Dugger, 835 F.2d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir.1987) (evidentiary hearing warranted where record inconclusive on face but allegations raise relevant issue).1 The petitioner will not be entitled to an evidentiary hearing when his claims are merely “eonclusory allegations unsupported by specifics” or “contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible.” See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). With these standards in mind, I will proceed to analyze the two claims.
I. BRADY CLAIM
The majority holds that there was no error in denying Stano an evidentiary hearing on his Brady claim. A Brady violation occurs where: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the defendant; and (3) the evidence was material to the issues at trial. See United States v. Burroughs, 830 F.2d 1574, 1577-78 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied sub nom. Rogers v. United States, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 1243, 99 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). Suppressed evidence is material when “there is a reasonable probability that ... the result of the proceeding would have been different” had the evidence been available to the defense. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).
*916Specifically, Stano has alleged that the prosecution suppressed evidence that Paul Crow, the main police investigator, Donald Jacobson, one of Stano’s defense attorneys, and Dr. Ann McMillan, the defense psychologist, colluded. The collusion was with the goal of exploiting Stano’s mental vulnerabilities in order to coerce murder confessions, including confessions to the Scharf killing. Stano alleges that Dr. McMillan, at Jacobson’s suggestion, gave Crow psychological information that would make his coercion more likely to succeed. He alleges that Jacobson assisted Crow in coercing the confessions, and that Crow used the information and assistance in his on-going eliciting of confessions.
Stano has proffered evidence which gives rise to the following reasonable inferences.2 Stano was arrested on his first murder charge in April, 1980. J.W. Gadberry, the officer who had first brought Stano in, participated in the early investigation, which was led by Sergeant Paul Crow. Soon after Stano’s arrest, Don Jacobson was appointed as Stano’s attorney, and he hired Dr. Ann McMillan as a defense psychologist. Both Crow and Jacobson were interested in producing books about their work with Stano, if he turned out to be a serial killer.3 There is evidence that Crow even hired a literary agent.4 Jacobson asked McMillan to find out if Stano was a serial killer and indicated that he was not interested in representing Stano unless he was. Jacobson instructed her to tell Crow how best to interrogate Stano in order to elicit confessions, by exploiting Stano’s mental vulnerabilities.5
Crow used that psychological information in interrogating Stano, as described below.6 He maintained close contact with Stano day after day and deprived him of contact with others. There were frequent long interrogation sessions at which Crow would not allow anyone else to be present.7 Crow stated to a freelance writer that he could lead Stano to the correct result and that he would rehearse confessions with him.8 Gadberry, the police detective, was with Stano at the time of the first murder confession, in another case, and stated that Crow led Stano to the body, not the reverse.9
Jacobson, an ex-FBI agent who also did some legal work for members of the police department, worked extensively with Crow and the state attorney. He often allowed members of the police investigatory team to interrogate Stano outside the presence of counsel.10 Jacobson helped formulate the questions Crow would address to Sta-no, and discussed with Crow telling Stano to confess to more killings in order to become eligible for an insanity defense.11 He *917also advised Stano’s parents to talk freely with Crow and Dr. McMillan.12
The information given by McMillan to Crow included Stano’s psychological vulnerabilities. There is psychological evidence that Stano was susceptible to strong authority figures who relied on manipulation and that he could not appreciate the consequences of his confessions. McMillan now admits to advising Crow to play on Stano’s “grandiosity”; other evidence is that Stano would likely confess in order to gain attention. Gadberry, who was present at the early stage of the investigation, felt that Stano had an abnormal need for attention and affection due to mental illness, and that Crow exploited this. Another detective, who worked with Crow on another Stano murder investigation approximately eight months before the first Scharf confession, believed that in making confessions Stano “got carried away by delusions of grandeur.” 13
There is also evidence that the coercion led to Stano confessing to murders that other jurisdictions refused to prosecute. Confessions obtained by Crow to murders committed in New Jersey, Tampa Bay and Titusville, Florida were not prosecuted, due to Crow’s interrogation techniques, lack of physical evidence, or the discovery of the bona fide offender.
Stano’s first murder confessions to Crow came in April and May of 1980. In May and June, 1980, Crow and Detective Lehman interviewed Stano in the Van Haddocks murder. The transcript of the interviews, at which counsel is not present, includes instances of promises,14 threats,15 and coaching.16 In March, 1981, Crow, Jacobson, and Dr. McMillan met with Stano’s father, whom Jacobson had advised to cooperate with Crow. They asked Mr. Stano *918to convince Stano to confess to more killings. He was told that more confessions were necessary to save Stano’s life, because if a pattern of insanity were established Stano would not be executed. Crow then gave Mr. Stano specific information relevant to various murders to use in asking Stano to confess. When Mr. Stano met with his son, Mr. Stano cried and begged Stano to confess, explaining the insanity theory to him and encouraging him to talk to Crow about other murders. Stano asked his father to contact Crow; a few days later, Stano gave his first confession to the Scharf killing.17
The evidence of collusion and coercion by Crow continues through the period of the second confession, which occurred on August 11 and 12, 1982. Crow had continued working with Stano on pending cases through late 1982. Detective Manis was contacted by Crow to the effect that one of Stano’s confessions matched Manis’ pending Scharf case. In January, 1982, Manis spoke to Stano, who denied committing the Scharf murder. Crow continued to visit Stano often at the prison during this period. In April, Crow initiated another meeting between Stano and Manis, but when Manis arrived, Crow had been inside and said that Stano would not talk. Also, Crow and Stano were still communicating personally: in June, Stano wrote to Crow and said he wanted to help by “telling you what you want to know about anything,” and asked for contact with Howard Pearl, a public defender. In July, Jacobson, no longer representing Stano, instructed him to make “a clean breast of everything” and that Crow was his best source; this letter had a covert copy to Crow.18 On August 10, Stano was transferred to Crow’s jail, and a memo was circulated restricting access to Stano to Crow only.19 On August, 11, Manis interviewed Stano for IV2 hours, with Crow present about half the time; on August 12, 1982, the second Scharf confession was taped.
As noted above, to establish a violation of Brady, the defendant must show the suppression of material, favorable evidence. The principal Brady evidence claimed by Stano relates to the alleged collusion between Crow, Jacobson and McMillan. This evidence includes of course Crow’s own knowledge of the collusion. Documentary evidence supporting the inference of collusion and coercion would include the covert copy of Jacobson’s letter and the tape of the prior confession revealing promises, threats and coaching. Portions of Gadberry’s recent affidavit suggests that a second detective in the prosecution team, i.e., Gadberry, had knowledge that Crow’s interrogation of Stano imper-missibly exploited his mental vulnerabilities.
It is clear that the foregoing evidence was suppressed by the prosecution. All of the material was in the prosecution’s possession. Crow knew the information, and his knowledge is imputed to the prosecution. See United States v. Antone, 603 F.2d 566, 569-70 (5th Cir.1979) (knowledge imputed between two sovereigns pooling investigative energies to become part of an investigative team); Schneider v. Estelle, 552 F.2d 593, 595 (5th Cir.1977) (state law enforcement officer is part of prosecution team and his knowledge is imputed to prosecution).20 Similarly, Gadberry’s knowl*919edge is imputed to the prosecution. Also, the prosecution would have had possession of the covert letter (through Crow) and the transcripts of the Crow interrogation. This was material that the prosecution had the duty to disclose.21 Also, the defense did not have equal access to the material. See United States v. McMahon, 715 F.2d 498 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1001, 104 S.Ct. 507, 78 L.Ed.2d 697 (1983). While the defense had some evidence that Stano was a pathological liar and that some jurisdictions had declined to prosecute him, the defense did not have access to crucial information. In particular, it is not reasonable to expect the defense to suspect the existence of collusion between Jacobson, Crow and McMillan and the coercion that allegedly took place.
The Brady material is also favorable to the defense, the second prong of the test. The evidence supports inferences tending to show that Stano’s confessions in the Scharf case were not voluntary. The evidence raises an inference that collusion by Jacobson, McMillan and Crow enabled Crow to coerce confessions.22 The claimed *920Brady material which is directly relevant to collusion and coercion would be favorable on this ground. Under Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986), there must be state coercion to invalidate a statement on the ground of involuntariness — the lone fact of the defendant’s mental deficiencies will not establish coercion. Connelly, 107 S.Ct. at 520. However, the defendant’s mental vulnerability and whether the state is aware of the vulnerability and exploits it in the course of the coercion are relevant to establishing the validity of a confession. Id. at 520-21. Moreover, the claimed Brady evidence is favorable in that it is independently relevant as evidence to impeach the testimony of Crow and Manis, who testified about the circumstances of most of the confessions. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3380, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Brady requirement applies to impeachment material).
The Brady evidence is also material, the final prong of the test. The standard for materiality of Brady evidence is whether “there is a reasonable probability that ... the result of the proceeding would have been different” had the evidence been available to the defense. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Stano was convicted on the basis of three confessions: the confession to Sergeant Crow, the confession to Detective Manis, and the Zacke testimony.
The evidence described above supports Stano’s allegation that coercion and collusion occurred with respect to the first two confessions. During the period in which the first confession took place, there is evidence of Jacobson and McMillan’s collusion with Crow. There is also evidence that Stano was particularly vulnerable because of mental illness, that the purpose of the collusion was to take advantage of that, and that Crow in fact exploited it. There is other evidence that during this period that Crow used threats and promises in order to obtain confessions from Stano. During the period of the second confession, there is evidence that the collusion and coercion continued. Crow’s continued contact and correspondence with Stano raises an inference that he continued to be in a position to exploit Stano’s mental vulnerabilities. The circumstances of the Manis confession also support an inference that Crow “managed” the confession, only allowing it when he had sufficiently coached or coerced Stano. Finally, the letter from Jacobson to Stano, with its “covert” copy to Crow, raises an inference that the collusion was continuing. Thus, the evidence impeaches the validity of both confessions, due to the evidence of collusion and the evidence of Stano’s vulnerability to coercion resulting from that collusion. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163-64, 107 S.Ct. 515, 520, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986).
In terms of the essential factors in the trial’s outcome, this leaves the Zacke confession. As I discuss below, the Zacke confession is constitutionally suspect, and may be inadmissible as constituting a violation of United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). Even if the Zacke confession is not constitutionally infirm, Zacke was a convicted felon who had recently traded testimony for favorable treatment. His testimony was seriously weakened at trial by the defense’s cross-examination on these and related grounds. If the Brady material undermined the other two confessions and the prosecution was forced to rely primarily on Zacke’s testimony, the presence of the Brady material would be “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” of the trial. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985).
*921The majority also refers to the fact that Stano confessed to several murders at sentencing. However, all of the sentencing confessions relate to murders other than the Scharf killing.23 In fact, at sentencing Stano specifically denied that he had killed Scharf. Because the confessions at sentencing related to other murders, they cannot undermine the materiality of the Brady evidence.
I conclude that reasonable inferences from the proffered evidence satisfy all three prongs of Brady, and that Stano is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
II. HENRY CLAIM
Stano is also entitled to an evidentiary hearing with respect to his Henry claim. Under Henry, incriminating testimony elicited by an undisclosed government informant is inadmissible as violative of the right to counsel. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). The district court found no merit in Stano’s Henry claim, finding that it was speculative and unsupported in the record. The majority opinion agrees with the district court.
In Henry, the Supreme Court applied the principle articulated in Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964), to the situation of an inmate-informant. The Court held that the inmate-informant’s deliberate elicitation of incriminating testimony violated Massiah’s prohibition of state elicitation of incriminating information from a defendant in the absence of counsel. To establish a Henry violation, each of the following two tests must be satisfied: (1) the informant’s actions must be attributable to the state; and (2) the informant must be more than just a passive listener — he must “deliberately el-ict” the incriminating information from the defendant. Henry, 447 U.S. at 269-72, 100 S.Ct. at 2186-88.
Stano’s Henry claim is not so speculative that it does not merit an evidentiary hearing. As noted above, in the posture of this case, Stano is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he alleges facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief. The claim is not so devoid of factual content as to be impermissibly conclusory, nor does evidence in the record reveal Stano’s contentions to be wholly incredible. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). I will discuss in turn the evidence as it pertains to the state agency and the “deliberately elicit” prongs.
Stano alleges that Clarence Zacke was placed in the same jail to elicit incriminating testimony from Stano. With respect to the state agency requirement, the following evidence in the record supports Sta-no’s claim. Moxley, the prosecutor at Sta-no’s trial, was also Zacke’s prosecutor. The notes in the prosecutor’s file in the Zacke case indicate that Zacke was interviewed by Moxley’s office on April 15, 1983, and on April 26, 1983. At the time, Zacke was in the state prison. At the April 15 meeting, Zacke promised to help the prosecution any way he could in the future, and the prosecutor stated he would try *922reward Zacke in return.24 The prosecution file gives rise to an inference that the prosecution and Zacke agreed that Zacke would be returned to the Brevard County Jail and receive leniency in exchange for telling the police what he heard from prisoners about other murders.25 One of the notes in the prosecution file deals with setting up a plea date for Zacke. At the bottom of that page is the notation: “When G. Stano is moved, we can move C.Z. into his cell.” The proffered evidence also indicates that Zacke was in fact transferred to the Brevard Jail and placed in proximity to Stano. The evidence also shows that in July Zacke engaged in conversation with Stano > the jail exercise yard, resulting in Stano’s confession.
The foregoing evidence supports Stano’s allegation that Zacke was an agent of the state at the time he engaged Stano in conversation. The proffered evidence permits an inference that the state moved Zacke, placed him in proximity to Stano, and agreed to reward Zacke in exchange for his agreement to tell the police what he could learn from Stano. I conclude that Stano’s allegations are not merely conclusory nor wholly incredible in the face of the record, Blackledge, 431 U.S. at 74, 97 S.Ct. at 1629, and therefore Stano is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on this agency issue.
Neither does the record conclusively rebut the required showing that the informant “deliberately elicited” the incriminating statement. The incriminating statements were made in the jail’s exercise yard, during a llh hour conversation. Stano and Zacke were taken out together and were the only prisoners in the yard. It is unclear who initiated the conversation, which began with a discussion of cars, but it was Zacke who steered it specifically to murder.26 Stano volunteered that the police had torn his car apart looking for blood, but did not find any. Zacke then asked Stano why the police did not find blood and what made them think they were going to. In response to this question, Stano admitted having killed. Throughout the rest of the conversation, which focused on the Scharf murder, Zacke actively asked questions of Stano, moving the conversation along.27 This degree of involvement is at *923least as extensive as that at issue in Henry itself, where the informant had not initiated the conversation and had taken no more steps to elicit the evidence than to engage in conversation with Henry. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. at 270-74, 100 S.Ct. at 2187-88.
This evidence permits an inference that Zacke purposefully directed the conversation to incriminatory matters, i.e., that he “deliberately elicited” the confession from Stano. Thus, given my conclusion with respect to the state agency prong, neither one of the required showings is wholly incredible in light of the evidence, and thus Stano is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Henry claim.28
III. CONCLUSION
Stano has alleged facts which, if true, are sufficient to grant relief under Brady v. Maryland and United States v. Henry. These two claims are not mere conelusory allegations, and they are not wholly incredible in light of the record. Therefore, I conclude that Stano is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing on these two claims.

. The Supreme Court has noted the importance of an opportunity for factual development of a habeas claim: "Because detention so obtained is intolerable, the opportunity for redress, which presupposes the opportunity to be heard, must never be totally foreclosed ... It is the typical, not the rare, case in which constitutional claims turn upon the resolution of contested factual issues.” Townsend, 372 U.S. at 312, 83 S.Ct. at 756.

. Not all of the following evidence is claimed by Stano to be Brady material. However, it is useful to view the Brady material in the context of all relevant proffered evidence which supports the need for an evidentiary hearing. As indicated in the text below, the principal Brady evidence claimed by Stano relates to the collusion between detective Crow and the defense attorney and psychologist.

. Appendix 19, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Lissa Gardner re Ecker conversation); Appendix 100, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Virginia Shubert re Detective Lehman conversation).

. Appendix 19, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Lissa Gardner re Ecker conversation).

. The above information is from a statement made by McMillan. Appendix 20, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Scharlette Holdman re McMillan conversation).

. Id.; Appendix 16, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Gadberry Affidavit).

. Appendix 16, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Gadberry Affidavit); Appendix 19, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Lissa Gardner re Ecker conversation). See also Pet. Exhibits 3-5 (interrogation with only Stano, Crow and Lehman present).

. Appendix 19, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Lissa Gardner re Ecker conversation).

. Appendix 16, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Gadberry Affidavit).

. See, e.g., Pet. Exhibits 3-5 (interrogation with only Stano, Crow and Lehman present).

. Appendix 19, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Lissa Gardner re Ecker conversation); Pet. Exhibit 4 at 14 *917(Crow-Lehman interrogation); Appendix 29, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Eugene Stano).

. Appendix 29, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Eugene Stano); Appendix 20, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Scharlette Hold-man re McMillan conversation).

. Appendix 100, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Affidavit of Virginia Shubert re Detective Lehman conversation).

. Two examples follow:
Crow: Gerald, the more you can come across with, we’re gonna be able to take you out of this thing and put you in an isolated situation. Get you to ...
Stano: What do you mean by that?
Crow: Out from the groups.
Stano: No, I don’t want no damned single cell.
Lehman: You’re gonna want, Gerald, believe me ... there’s a few people out here that are out to slit your ... throat.
Lehman: And we don’t want to see you get in that chair. We’re keepin’, we’re trying to keep your ass out of it ... as hard as we can.
Appendix 64, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

. The following are several examples from the interrogation:
Crow: Now they can take you out of here, take you back up north....
Lehman: You ever see a Governor's warrant?. ... It comes through with goddamned ribbons and doilies on it and it's like a goddamned skull. And it says you’re gone whether you like it or not....
Crow: We gotta get some clout so we can keep you in the state.
Crow: You got problems.
Stano: Thanks.
Crow: More problems than you think. Because two bodies is not going to make you eligible for insanity.
Appendix 66, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Lehman: [T]he angle that you struck them with it, why that blade didn't break. And part of the way we’re going to keep you down here is just like Sergeant Crow said — Pennsylvania and Jersey, man, they’re chompin' at the bit.
Stano: They think I did ...
Lehman: I don’t want to see you get the chair. There’s a guy coming up to get the chair next week up in Georgia ... I can’t help but think that somewhere along the line you got the answers for us.
Appendix 67, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

.This is one of many examples:
Lehman: Done a little research into this knife you’re talking about, a retractable blade. The bone to the skull on Haddocks and the breast plate on Maher don’t jive up with what you’re telling us what you used on them....
Crow: You had to use a stronger blade than that, Gerald.
Appendix 67, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

. The affidavit of Stano’s father, Eugene Stano, provides the information regarding this episode. Appendix 29, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

. The draft of the letter reads, in relevant part: "Your best source is still Sergeant Paul Crowe [sic] (send Paul a covert copy of this letter— have Paul stop by and pick this up and read it and throw it in the wastebasket)." Pet. Exhibit 7.

. The memo states that “under “NO" circumstances is this inmate to talk to ANY DETECTIVE-POLICE OFFICER-FEDERAL AGENT-STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE or ANY ATTORNEY. All appointments for this inmate to speak to ANY person will be arranged and handled by Sergeant Paul Crow, “ONLY." Sergeant Crow will handle all telephone calls, visitors, etc. He will have NO contact with anyone, except jail personnel, in the normal course of security checks.” Appendix 47, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

.These cases were decided prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981, and are binding precedent under Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981).

. The majority states that the Gadberry information need not have been disclosed because it was “preliminary, challenged or speculative information.” See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 109 n. 16, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2400, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976) (quoting Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66, 98, 87 S.Ct. 793, 809, 17 L.Ed.2d 737 (1967) (Fortas, J., concurring)). While I agree that Gadberry’s difference of opinion with the other members of the police as to Stano’s responsibility for one of the other murders may be the kind of speculative preliminary police work that the prosecution would have no obligation to disclose, the Gadberry information is more extensive than that. The Gadberry information proffered by Stano is relevant to the allegations of collusion and to Stano’s mental state and its exploitation by Crow’s interrogation techniques.

. I note that the majority assumes that the proffered evidence of collusion and coercion relates only to confessions to murders other than the Scharf murder. My discussion of the evidence demonstrates that the collusion continued and tainted the Scharf confessions also. See Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) (evidence surrounding the making of a confession bears on its credibility and voluntariness and must be admitted, especially in a case with no physical evidence).
On the basis of its erroneous factual assumption, the majority then suggests that certain evi-dentiary rules would render inadmissible any evidence challenging or explaining any of the previous convictions or the confessions on which such prior convictions were based. I doubt that the majority has correctly applied the evidentiary rules.
Under Florida law, a court must admit evidence tending to explain the defendant’s previous convictions. Francois v. State, 407 So.2d 885, 890 (Fla. 1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1122, 102 S.Ct. 3511, 73 L.Ed.2d 1384 (1982); see also Elledge v. State, 346 So.2d 998, 1001 (Fla.1977) (no error in admission of circumstances leading to conviction to aid analysis of defendant’s character), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 981, 103 S.Ct. 316, 74 L.Ed.2d 293 (1982). The Florida supreme court stated in Francois that "a defendant must be allowed to present evidence pertaining to the degree of his or her involvement in and the circumstances of the events upon which the previous convictions are based.” The court held that there was no error in the case because the defendant had made no proffer, but specifically stated that “it would be a different case if the court had excluded evidence proffered by the defendant rebutting the state's evidence of aggravation or relative to any matter in mitigation.” Id.; see also Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89, 95 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (dicta stating that evidence that a previous crime was not actually committed by the defendant would have been required to be admitted in his capital sentencing proceeding). But see Buford v. State, 403 So.2d 943, 953 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1164, 102 S.Ct. 1039, 71 L.Ed.2d 320 (1982). Therefore, the evidence of the circumstances of Sta-no’s previous confessions would be admissible under Florida law.
It bears underscoring that Stano does not seek to introduce evidence legally attacking his prior confessions and guilty pleas. The values of economy and finality are not implicated by the purposes for which Stano proffers his evidence: regardless of the extent to which Stano uses evidence which implicitly impeaches the previous confessions to explain the circumstances of the Scharf confessions, the previous confessions’ legal validity will stand unimpaired, unless they themselves are attacked in a direct or collateral proceeding. In contrast, the cases cited by the majority describe the legal consequences of a guilty plea with respect to a later direct or collateral legal attack on that conviction. See, e.g., McCoy v. Wainwright, 804 F.2d 1196 (11th Cir.1986).
Also, I note that even were such evidence not admissible under Florida law, it would be admissible as a matter of Federal constitutional law. According to the line of cases following Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), a capital defendant may not be precluded from offering as a mitigating factor any aspect of his character or record. See also Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 2-6, 106 S.Ct. 1669, 1670-71 (1986); Perry v. State, 395 So.2d 170, 174 (Fla.1980) (following *920Lockett). Evidence of the circumstances of Sta-no's previous convictions would speak directly to his record.
Finally, it appears that two of the prior convictions relied upon at sentencing in this case have been challenged collaterally, and those challenges are now pending in this court. Stano v. Dugger, No. 88-3375. If one or both of those prior convictions are invalidated, the instant death sentence might have to be vacated. Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 108 S.Ct. 1981, 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988).

. Stano also made a confession regarding Scharf in 1983 to Doctor Mussenden, a psychologist. This confession, which was not relied upon at trial, should not prevent Stano from being entitled to an evidentiary hearing. It is impossible to tell from the record the circumstances of the statement; thus, it cannot conclusively rebut Stano’s other evidence. Also, a statement of this type made to an examining psychologist would be inadmissible to show guilt or innocence. See Fla.Stat.Ann. 90.503(4) (1979); McMunn v. State, 264 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1972) (applying predecessor statute). See also Alvord v. Wainwright, 725 F.2d 1282, 1294 (11th Cir.), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 956, 105 S.Ct. 355, 83 L.Ed.2d 291 (1984) (discussing Florida patient-psychotherapist eviden-tiary privilege). It therefore would not have changed the outcome at trial.
The majority also suggests that Stano’s sentencing confessions rebut the allegations of improper influence. However, the record contains several types of evidence showing that Stano is mentally ill in a manner that leads him to falsely confess to crimes. Given this propensity, any collusion that convinced Stano that he would obtain life if he confessed to many murders, and Crow's exploitation of Stano’s mental vulnerabilities, could very well have a continuing effect; under this reasoning, the circumstances of the sentencing confessions would not conclusively rebut the continuing taint of the demonstrated earlier improprieties.

. At the meeting, Zacke said, "if there's anyway I can help, law enforcement, I will help. And not just specifically relate to the cars ... I will cooperate, to the best of my knowledge, with anything else ya’ll want to know, that I may know anything about. Regardless of what it is." A moment later, the prosecutor responded, "Now Mr. Zacke, the other things that I’m sure you’ve got information on after this case gets further down the road, I’m gonna’ put a price tag on um’ and the more you do ..., the more I’m going to try and do for you.” Appendix 127, Appendix to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Statement of Clarence Albert Zacke).

. This inference is supported by the fact that Zacke had previously traded information for leniency, that the above-described language from the Zacke interview includes Zacke’s promise to reveal additional information and the prosecutor’s promise that he would try reward it, and the notes indicating that Zacke would be put in proximity to Stano when brought back to the Brevard County Jail.

. Zacke testified that the conversation began in the following manner:
We also talked — he had seen my truck and my Cadillac and was talking about them, too, that had been confiscated.... Then he told me that they tore the whole interior out of his Trans Am ... searching for blood in his Trans Am.... We talked about how fast Trans Ams were and stuff like that.
Then I asked him, I said how come they did not find no blood in your car? What made them think they were going to? He said they think I am dumb enough to kill girls in my car and leave blood ... He said when I kill them, I don’t splatter blood all over my car ... I said yes, I read the paper. I said you killed thirty nine or forty of them. He said no, I have killed a hundred.
Deposition of Clarence Zacke, 34-35 (emphasis added).

.After having asked why Stano killed, Zacke’s participation moved the conversation to the details of the Scharf murder:
Then he says Cathy was a tramp, a pure tramp. I said who is Cathy?_ He told me, he says the girl that he is on trial is here in Brevard County for killing....
He said he took his time with her ... I said how is that? He said well, I stabbed her a few times, but he said I did not stab her very deep ... I said is that how you killed her? He said no....
I said don’t you feel anything about it? He said no.
Deposition of Clarence Zacke, 35-38.

. The majority addresses the merits of Stano’s Henry claim without addressing the state’s argument that the claim is procedurally barred. Accordingly, I also will not address the procedural issue. In any event, "cause.” would probably be established by the state’s suppression of the relevant Brady evidence, i.e., evidence from the prosecutor’s file of the arrangement between the state and Zacke that Zacke would receive leniency and Zacke would be transferred close to Stano and would tell the police what he learned from Stano. The "prejudice” prong is obviously established.