DOCSLIB.ORG

ERIC SCOTT BRANCH, Petitioner, V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ERIC SCOTT BRANCH, Petitioner, V Filing # 68107654 E-Filed 02/16/2018 05:45:45 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA NO. SC-_________ ______________________________________________ ERIC SCOTT BRANCH, Petitioner, v. JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent. ______________________________________________ EMERGENCY PETITION TO INVOKE THIS COURT’S ALL WRITS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO PROVIDE ATTORNEY ACCESS PRIOR TO AND DURING THE EXECUTION ______________________________________________ Stacy Biggart Billy H. Nolas Florida Bar No. 89388 Florida Bar No. 806821 Kathleen Pafford Chief, Capital Habeas Unit Florida Bar No. 99527 Kimberly Sharkey Assistant Capital Collateral Florida Bar No. 505978 Regional Counsel – North Attorney, Capital Habeas Unit Office of the Capital Collateral Office of the Federal Public Defender Regional Counsel – North 227 N. Bronough Street, Suite 4200 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301-1300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (850) 942-8818 RECEIVED, 02/16/201805:48:30 PM,Clerk,Supreme Court (850) 487-0922 billy_nolas@fd.org Stacy.Biggart@ccrc-north.org kimberly_sharkey@fd.org Kathleen.Pafford@ccrc-north.org Counsel for Appellant PRELIMINARY STATEMENT An Appendix is attached to this Petition. The following symbol will be used to designate references to the Appendix: “A. ___”. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to the Florida Constitution Article V § 3(b)(7)-(8). Article V § 3(b)(7) gives this Court the authority to “issue writs of prohibition to courts and all writs necessary to complete the exercise of its jurisdiction.” In Williams v. State, 913 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 2005), this Court stated that the “all writs provision . operates as an aid to the Court in exercising its “ultimate jurisdiction,”’ as opposed to operating as a separate and distinct source of jurisdiction. Additionally, this Court has the authority to “issue writs of mandamus and quo warranto to state officers and state agencies.” Fla. Const. Art. V § 3(b)(8). This court has construed a writ of mandamus to be the “appropriate vehicle for addressing claims of unconstitutionality ‘where the functions of government will be adversely affected without an immediate determination.”’ Allen v. Butterworth, 756 So. 2d 52, 54-55 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Division of Bond Finance v. Smathers, 337 So. 2d 805, 807 (Fla. 1976). The Department of Corrections (DOC) is substantially inhibiting the functions of government by denying Petitioner’s limited and specific requests related to his pending execution. These unjustified denials adversely affect the functions of government and risk allowing Petitioner’s execution to proceed in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Since Petitioner is scheduled to be executed at 6:00 p.m. on February 22, 2018, it is necessary for this Court to issue an immediate determination. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The DOC’s refusal to allow Petitioner safeguards to ensure his execution is carried out in a manner that complies with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment substantially affects his ability to enforce his Constitutional rights. Petitioner requests oral argument on this Petition to allow for a full discussion of this issue. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Eric Branch’s execution is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on February 22, 2018. On February 1, 2018, counsel for Petitioner sent a letter to Warden Barry Reddish, warden of Florida State Prison, requesting the following: 1) that Petitioner’s designated legal witness be allowed access to a writing pad and pen during Petitioner’s execution; 2) that Petitioner’s designated legal witness be allowed access to a telephone before and during the execution process;1 3) that Petitioner be 1 Petitioner made clear that the requested telephone need not physically be with the witness, only that the witness be able to access the telephone in the event the execution went awry. 2 afforded a second witness to his execution; and 4) that one of Petitioner’s witnesses be allowed to view the IV insertion process.2 (A. 001-002). On February 6, 2018, counsel for Petitioner sent Warden Reddish a follow-up e-mail, informing him that Petitioner’s spiritual advisor would not be attending Petitioner’s execution, thereby opening a witness chair. Petitioner requested again that a second witness from his legal team be able to occupy this seat. (A. 003). On February 15, 2018, counsel for Petitioner received a letter from the DOC, granting Petitioner’s request that his designated witness be allowed access to writing implements and denying all other requests. The DOC provided no basis for its decision, legal or otherwise. (A. 004-005).3 This Writ follows. ARGUMENT This Court should direct DOC to comply with Petitioner’s three remaining requests: 1) allow for a second witness to observe his execution, 2) allow at least one of the witnesses access to a telephone, and 3) allow at least one of the witnesses to observe the IV insertion process. Failure to do so amounts to a denial of due process and access to the Courts, preventing Branch, and other similarly situated inmates, from raising and proving that his execution procedure violates the Eighth 2 Counsel for Petitioner suggested to DOC a way in which this could be done, yet still protect the identity of the execution team members. 3 The letter also references DOC’s denial of Mr. Branch’s request to waive an autopsy, but Mr. Branch is not challenging that refusal at this time. 3 Amendment. DOC’s refusal of these requests denies Branch a fair opportunity to protect his Eighth Amendment rights because it deprives him of the necessary information and access to challenge whether his execution is constitutional. As such, he is being denied a “basic ingredient of due process.”: “an opportunity to be allowed to substantiate a claim before it is rejected.” See Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 414 106 S. Ct. 2595, 2604(1986)(plurality opinion)(internal quotation marks omitted). This Court recently denied Mr. Branch’s public records requests relating to the expiration dates of the lethal chemicals stating that it “will presume ‘the DOC will act in accordance with its protocol and carry out its duties properly. This same presumption would extend to presume that the DOC will obtain viable versions of the drugs it intends to use and confirm before use that the drugs are still viable, as the protocol requires.’” Branch v. State, --- So.3d. ---, 2018 WL 879079 (Fla.)(emphasis in original)(citing to Muhammad v. State, 132 So.3d at 206). Affording DOC this presumption while at the same time granting DOC unfettered discretion to limit attorney access and decrease transparency of the execution process poses an unacceptable and unconstitutional risk of an execution that runs afoul of the Eighth Amendment. As this Court is aware, Florida has a troubled history with botched executions, from a repeatedly malfunctioning electric chair to the 34 minute execution of Angel 4 Diaz in 2006, which “raised legitimate concerns about the adequacy of Florida's lethal injection procedures and the ability of the DOC to implement them.” Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So.2d 326, 345 (Fla. 2007). Florida has been through numerous protocol changes since the Diaz botch, and instead of increasing transparency in the pre-execution and execution process, DOC has taken active steps to reduce transparency. In 2013, the first inmate executed using the Midazolam Protocol was William Happ. Shortly after the administration of midazolam, which was supposed to have anesthetized him such that he would not feel the excruciating pain that was about to follow from the second and third drugs, DOC performed the “consciousness check” required by their Protocol to ensure that he was unconscious. However, witnesses observed movement by Mr. Happ after the consciousness check. These movements evidence insufficient anesthetic depth before the administration of the painful second and third drugs. (A. 006 - 017). As a result, and according to Dr. Lubarsky, “the worst possible death experience was delivered – the paralytic effectively burying the patient alive, whose agony at being aware but unable to draw a breath was only brought to a horrendous end through the agonizing delivery of a caustic chemical surging through his body.” (A. 014). Specifically, after Mr. Happ’s execution Warden Cannon decided to tweak the Midazolam Protocol by adding the trapezius pinch to ensure the inmate was unconscious. (A. 067). 5 The trapezius pinch involves gripping and pinching the trapezius muscle in the inmate’s shoulder. (A. 060). Aware of the shortcomings of midazolam as an anesthetizing agent, DOC then adopted measures designed to actually prevent the inmate from moving, which would evidence lack of consciousness and/or prevent witnesses from observing any movement by the inmate. Specifically, during the execution of Mr. Darius Kimbrough on November 12, 2013, which was the first execution after Mr. Happ, DOC covered him from his shoulders to his feet with a white sheet that appeared to be tented over his body instead of just draped, such that witnesses could not observe any movement of Mr. Kimbrough under the sheet. (A. 084-087). This was different from the previous executions where the sheet was merely draped over the inmate and witnesses could see the chest of the individual rising and falling during the execution. DOC further tweaked its actual execution procedures, though made no changes to the written protocol, by beginning to tightly bandage the hands of the inmates. (A. 084-087). DOC changed its protocol again in January of 2017, using a completely new three-drug protocol, the Etomidate Protocol. The execution of Michael Lambrix was carried out using the Etomidate Protocol, and that is the same protocol expected to be used for the execution of Eric Branch. 6 Though it is unclear precisely when, at some point since the Diaz execution, DOC has altered the position of the body of the prisoner in the execution chamber.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grossman Executed for Killing Wildlife Officer 25 Years Ago
    Grossman executed for killing wildlife officer 25 years ago Religious leaders asked for a 60-day stay of execution, but were unsuccessful. Aaron E. Daye/Staff photographer Peggy Park, left, and Betsy Park, right, the mother and sister of Margaret “Peggy” Park, speak following the execution of Martin Grossman who was put to Tuesday death for the murder of the younger Peggy 25 years ago, across from the Florida State Prison in Raiford. By Nathan Crabbe Staff writer Published: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 6:01 a.m. Last Modified: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 11:26 p.m. RAIFORD - Despite the pleas of religious leaders from Florida rabbis to the pope, Martin Grossman was executed Tuesday for murdering a wildlife officer more than 25 years ago. Grossman, 45, was executed by lethal injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. As his last words, he expressed remorse for the killing before saying a Jewish prayer. "I would like to extend my heartfelt remorse to the victim's family," he said. "I fully regret everything that occurred that night, for everything that was done, whether I remember it or not." He was sentenced to death for shooting wildlife officer Margaret "Peggy" Park, 26, in December 1985 after she found him with a stolen gun in a wooded area of Pinellas County. Park's sister Betsy, who witnessed the execution with her mother and brother, said Grossman's apology was "long overdue" and she was glad to hear it. "We came here today hoping for closure and an end to the years of reminders of how Peggy died overshadowing the memories of how she lived," she said.
    [Show full text]
  • SC10-118 Merits Initial Brief
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-118 MARTIN GROSSMAN Death Warrant Signed: Execution Scheduled For February 16, 2010 6:00 pm Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT Richard E. Kiley Florida Bar No. 0558893 Assistant CCRC-Middle CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL MIDDLE REGION 3801 Corporex Park Drive Suite 210 Tampa, FL 33619 (813) 740-3544 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................i v STANDARD OF REVIEW ....................................................................................... 1 REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................................................................................... 1 THE LOWER COURT’S ORDER ............................................................................ 4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS .................................................................... 14 ARGUMENT I THE POST-CONVICTION COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. GROSSMAN AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING FOR HIS SUCCESSOR MOTION. AS A RESULT, MR. GROSSMAN WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CORRESPONDING
    [Show full text]
  • No. 68,096 MARTIN GROSSMAN, Appellant, STATE of FLORIDA
    No. 68,096 MARTIN GROSSMAN, Appellant, VS . STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 18, 19881 PER CURIAM. Appellant Martin Grossman appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and his sentence of death. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Q 3(b)(l), Fla. Const. We affirm the conviction and sentence. The facts surrounding the case are as follows. Appellant and a companion, Taylor, drove to a wooded area of Pinellas County on the night of December 13, 1984, to shoot a handgun which appellant had recently obtained by burglarizing a home. Appellant lived in neighboring Pasco County at his mother's home and was on probation following a recent prison term. Wildlife Officer Margaret Park, patrolling the area in her vehicle, came upon the two men and became suspicious. She left her vehicle with the motor, lights, and flashers on, and took possession of appellant's weapon and driver's license. Appellant pleaded with her not to turn him in as having a weapon in his possession and being outside of Pasco County would cause him to return to prison for violation of probation. Officer Park refused the plea, opened the driver's door to her vehicle and picked up the radio microphone to call the sheriff's office. Appellant then grabbed the officer's large flashlight and struck her repeatedly on the head and shoulders, forcing her upper body into the vehicle. Officer Park reported "I'm hit" over the radio and screamed. Appellant continued the attack, and called for help from Taylor, who joined in the assault. Officer Park managed to draw her weapon, a .357 magnum, and fired a wild shot within the vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Florida Case No. Sc05-1688
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1688 MARTIN GROSSMAN Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT RICHARD E. KILEY Fla. Bar No. 0558893 STAFF ATTORNEY JAMES VIGGIANO, JR. Fla. Bar No. 0715336 CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL MIDDLE REGION 3801 Corporex Park Drive, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 (813) 740-3544 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...............................................................................ii REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS......................................................1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................1 II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS ............................................................3 ARGUMENT The lower court erred in denying Mr. Grossman an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his sentence of death violates the United States and Florida Constitutional requirement of due process and prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment in light of newly discovered evidence and the United States Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons. The lower court should have granted Mr. Grossman an evidentiary hearing. Newly discovered evidence demonstrates that Mr. Grossman’s mental state was under that of an 18
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Aid Was Produced Using Archivesspace on September 28, 2021
    Bonowitz, Abraham J.; Papers This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on September 28, 2021. M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections & Archives Bonowitz, Abraham J.; Papers Table of Contents Summary Information .................................................................................................................................... 3 Biographical History ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Scope and Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Arrangement of the Collection ...................................................................................................................... 5 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................ 5 Controlled Access Headings .......................................................................................................................... 6 Collection Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Communications .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Inmate Correspondence and Research .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN MAREK, Appellant, V. STATE OF
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC09-____ JOHN MAREK, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT/NOTICE OF APPEAL MARTIN J. MCCLAIN Florida Bar No. 0754773 McClain & McDermott, P.A. Attorneys at Law 141 N.E. 30th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33334 (305) 984-8344 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This proceeding involves the appeal of the circuit court's summary denial of post-conviction relief. The following symbols will be used to designate references to the record in this appeal: “R." -- record on direct appeal; “1PC-R.” -- record on first Rule 3.850 appeal; “1PC-T.” -- hearing transcripts on prior Rule 3.850 appeal; “2PC-R." -- record on second 3.851 appeal; “2PC-T.” -- hearing transcripts on instant Rule 3.850 appeal; “Supp. 2PC-R.” -- supplemental record on instant 3.850 appeal; “3PC-R.” –- record on third 3.851 appeal; “4PC-R.” -- record on fourth 3.851 appeal; “5PC-R.” -- record on appeal after remand “WR.” -- record from the trial of Wigley, Mr. Marek’s co- defendant. i REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Mr. Marek has been sentenced to death. The resolution of the issues involved in this action will therefore determine whether he lives or dies. This Court has not hesitated to allow oral argument in other capital cases in a similar procedural posture. Lightbourne v. State, 742 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1999); Mills v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 2001) Swafford v.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Florida Martin Grossman
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARTIN GROSSMAN, Appellant, v. Case No. SC05-1688 Lower Tribunal CRC84-11698CFANO STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ___________________________/ ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE CHARLES J. CRIST, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL CAROL M. DITTMAR SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Florida Bar No. 0503843 Concourse Center 4 3507 East Frontage Road, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33607-7013 Telephone: (813) 287-7910 Facsimile: (813) 281-5501 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS............................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................... 5 ARGUMENT..................................................... 6 WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED GROSSMAN’S SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF. CONCLUSION.................................................. 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................... 15 CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE............................... 15 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Commonwealth v. LaFave, 714 N.E.2d 805 (Mass. 1999) ................................. 8 Foster v. State, 810 So. 2d 910 (Fla.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 990 (2002) ................................. 6 Grossman v. Crosby, 359 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (M.D. Fla. 2005) ....................... 3 Grossman v. Crosby, 880 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 2004) ................................. 3 Grossman v. Dugger, 708 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1997).................................. 3 Grossman v. State, 525 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071 (1989)................................ 1 Hill v. State, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 8 (Fla. Jan. 17, 2006) .................. 7, 11 Hodges v. State, 912 So. 2d 730 (Miss. 2005), cert. denied, 74 U.S.L.W. 3322 (Nov. 28, 2005) ................... 12 Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1040 (1998)...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion 05-11150
    [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT October 16, 2006 No. 05-11150 THOMAS K. KAHN ________________________ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 98-01929-CV-T-17MSS MARTIN E. GROSSMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus JAMES MCDONOUGH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, CHARLIE CRIST, Attorney General of the State of Florida, Respondents-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (October 16, 2006) Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. MARCUS, Circuit Judge: In this death case Martin E. Grossman appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claims that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the state trial court refused to sever his case from his co-defendant, whose confession -- which also implicated Grossman -- was introduced at trial, albeit against only the co-defendant. Grossman also maintains that the state impermissibly withheld Brady material concerning three prosecution witnesses, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase of his capital trial. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal and affirmed the denial of his post-conviction requests for collateral relief. After thorough review, we affirm. I. Grossman was convicted of first-degree murder by a state-court jury in Pinellas County, Florida, after he shot and killed Margaret Park, a wildlife officer employed by the Florida Game & Fish Commission, while she was engaged in the lawful performance of her duties.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Florida Case No. Sc08-564
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-564 MARTIN GROSSMAN Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT Ali A. Shakoor Florida Bar No. 669830 Assistant CCRC-Middle CAPITAL COLLATERAL REGIONAL COUNSEL MIDDLE REGION 3801 Corporex Park Drive Suite 210 Tampa, FL 33619 (813) 740-3544 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii STANDARD OF REVIEW ....................................................................................... 1 REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS ...................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT I NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE PROVES EXECUTION BY LETHAL INJECTION VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND THEREFOR MR. GROSSMAN=S SENTENCE OF DEATH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ................................................................................ 4 ARGUMENT II THE FLORIDA STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITS MR. GROSSMAN=S COUNSEL FROM FILING A SECTION 1983 CLAIM ON HIS BEHALF DEPRIVES MR. GROSSMAN OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
    [Show full text]
  • Death-Penalty Executions Drop Nationwide Florida Had One Execution in 2010
    Death-penalty executions drop nationwide Florida had one execution in 2010 By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel 4:55 p.m. EST, December 21, 2010 Florida is following a national trend of executing fewer death row prisoners, according to a year- end report released today by the Death Penalty Information Center. Executions nationwide dropped 12 percent during 2010 compared to 2009, according to the report. And as usual, Texas led the nation with 17 executions this year, down from 24 the year before. Florida had one execution this year and two in 2009. Meanwhile, the DPIC estimates 114 new death sentences nationwide during 2010, close to last year's total of 112, which the organization said was the lowest since reinstatement of the death penalty in this country back in 1976. The estimate considers a few potential death sentences still playing out at year's end. Officials with the Washington, D.C.-based group attributed the numbers to a host of factors, including concerns about executing those who may be wrongly convicted. "Whether it's concerns about the high costs of the death penalty at a time when budgets are being slashed, the risks of executing the innocent, unfairness, or other reasons, the nation continued to move away from the death penalty in 2010," said Richard Dieter, DPIC's executive director. While the numbers clearly show a decrease in executions, William Cervone, president of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, said that doesn't necessarily mean there is a political or public move away from support for capital punishment. "The debate is alive and well and I don't think there's any national consensus that the death penalty should be done away with," said Cervone, State Attorney in the 8th Circuit in Gainesville.
    [Show full text]
  • SC03-1413 Grossman V. Crosby
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MARTIN GROSSMAN, Petitioner, VS. Case No. SC03-1413 JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., Respondent. ___________________________/ RESPONSE TO SUCCESSIVE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS COMES NOW, Respondent, James V. Crosby, Jr., by and through the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, and hereby responds to the successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed herein, pursuant to this Court’s Order of August 28, 2003. Respondent respectfully submits that the petition should be dismissed as procedurally barred; alternatively, the petition should be denied as meritless. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner Grossman is again seeking extraordinary relief from the murder conviction and sentence of death entered against him in 1985. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Grossman v. State, 525 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071 (1989). The facts of the case are summarized in this Court’s opinion: Appellant and a companion, Taylor, drove to a wooded area of Pinellas County on the night of December 13, 1984, to shoot a handgun which appellant had recently obtained by burglarizing a home. Appellant lived in neighboring Pasco County at his mother’s home and was on probation following a recent prison term. Wildlife Officer Margaret Park, patrolling the area in her vehicle, came upon the two men and became suspicious. She left her vehicle with the motor, lights, and flashers on, and took possession of appellant’s weapon and driver’s license. Appellant pleaded with her not to turn him in as having a weapon in his possession and being outside of Pasco County would cause him to return to prison for violation of probation.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Florida
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN RE: MARTIN GROSSMAN, Case No.: SC10-118 Appellant, L.T. Case No.: 84-11698 CFANO v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _________________________/ EDWARD WERNER, Petitioner PETITIONER’S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT’S BRIEF COMES NOW the Petitioner, Edward Werner, and hereby files this Amicus Curiae Brief in support of Appellant Martin Grossman‟s Brief before this Honorable Court, and hereby moves this Honorable Court to stay the Appellant‟s pending execution. In support thereof, Petitioner states the following: I. PETITIONER’S STANDING Petitioner is a citizen of the State of Florida. The execution is purported to be done in the name of the People of Florida. Petitioner therefore claims standing as one of the People of Florida to argue against said execution. II. FACTS OF THE CASE The facts of this case are well-known to this Court through the trial record and record on appeal. In December 1984, at the age of 19, and with no prior criminal record save for a burglary, the Appellant was with another teenage friend shooting a stolen gun in the woods of Pinellas County. Officer Margaret Parks of the Florida Freshwater Fish and Game Commission came upon the Appellant and confronted him for shooting the gun on public property. The Appellant, being on probation for the aforementioned burglary, and being in violation of said probation by being within Pinellas County, and being outside neighboring Pasco County, pleaded with Officer Parks not to report the Appellant for being there and for shooting the gun. Officer Parks, however, proceeded to repeatedly taunt the Appellant, then a 19 year old, with an IQ of 77, that he was going to prison.
    [Show full text]