The victim needs to come forward and tell the truth

The victim was shown a photographic array on May 18, 2011, which included Appellant’s photograph, but she did not identify anyone as the would-be robber. (T132-33,161, Vol II). However, she did identify Appellant in a second photographic lineup conducted on June 7, 2011.1 (T133, Vol II). She was 60 percent sure that he was the would-be robber at the time of the lineup and identified Appellant in court. (T133-34,145-46, Vol II). She explained that she was certain Appellant was the man who pointed a gun in her face. (T152, Vol II). At trial, almost 3 years later, she said she was 100% sure it was my son. When asked for specifics, she explained that while he looked a little bit older, and perhaps heavier, she could recognize his face, his cheeks, his nose, his eyebrows, and his forehead which was not smooth like a very young child. (T150-52, Vol II) His forehead was not smooth like a very young child???? What the crap does that mean?

My son contends that she was manipulated by the prosecutor. Our attorney never objected when any of this was being said.

Non-disclosure of changed testimony. Nondisclosure of the fact that a witness changes testimony constitutes a discovery violation requiring a Richardson hearing, the Florida Supreme Court said. She changed her testimony as evident on the original police report and 911 tape. To both the 911 operator and the officer at the scene, she said that she would be unable to identify the suspect.The State had not communicated to the defense counsel the change in Slater’s testimony. Defense could not properly prepare for the trial. Although our defense attorney never prepared for the trial in the first place.

The following is from state of Florida VS Bernard Evans Case no. 94, 673

III: 531). The Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years

imprisonment with a three year minimum mandatory term for the use

of a firearm and given credit for time served. (R. Vol. I: 88-90).

The Defendant filed a direct appeal in the Third District.

The Third District held that the trial court failed to conduct a

timely and adequate Richardson hearing and reversed the case for a

new trial. The Third District found that in failing to disclose

the testimony to the defense, the State failed to meet its

obligations under Rule 3.220(j). Thus, the Third District found

that the violation was substantial and undeniably had a negative

effect on defense counsel’s ability to properly prepare for trial.

(App. A).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s