Bill Paul Marquardt v. State of Florida
156 So. 3d 464
| Fla. | 2015Background
- In March 2000 two women (Margarita Ruiz and Esperanza “Hope” Wells) were shot and stabbed in their Sumter County, Florida home; two young children survived. DNA, firearms, and other physical evidence later tied Bill Paul Marquardt to the scene.
- Key forensic links: mixed DNA from Ruiz and Wells on clothing/knife recovered from Marquardt in Wisconsin; victims’ blood on Marquardt’s car and shoe; the murder weapon found in Marquardt’s Wisconsin cabin with matching casings/bullets.
- Marquardt was indicted in Florida after Wisconsin testing connected him; he elected to represent himself at trial (Faretta), with standby counsel appointed.
- He was convicted (October 2011) of two counts of first-degree murder and burglary with a firearm; he waived a jury penalty recommendation and declined to present mitigation evidence.
- Trial court nevertheless appointed standby counsel and Marquardt’s investigators to present mitigation per Muhammad v. State; the court found multiple aggravators (HAC, CCP, felony burglary during commission, prior violent felony) and limited mitigation, and imposed two death sentences.
- On appeal Marquardt raised issues including suppression (challenges to Wisconsin warrants/evidence), trial-court conduct toward a pro se defendant, prosecutor remarks, sufficiency of evidence, aggravators (CCP/HAC), and alleged attorney-client privilege violations from using standby counsel to present mitigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Marquardt) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Wisconsin evidence / motion to suppress | Warrant was invalid; Franks hearing required; Florida court should hold evidentiary hearing rather than rely on Wisconsin rulings | Evidence was lawfully admitted in Wisconsin under Leon/equivalent state law; Echols permits use in Florida; no relitigation needed | Denied relief; evidence admissible—Florida court may rely on Wisconsin decisions; collateral estoppel not applicable but "tipsy coachman" affirms denial (Echols applies) |
| Trial court conduct toward pro se defendant | Court’s questioning and comments created threatening atmosphere and impeded Faretta rights, warranting new trial | Court merely managed proceedings, ensured relevance and order, did not prevent defense or intrude on neutrality | No fundamental error; court remained neutral and did not deprive Marquardt of self-representation |
| Prosecutor’s on-the-record comment implying defendant caused the autopsy photos | Comment improperly expressed belief of guilt, causing fundamental error | Comment acknowledged State must prove guilt and was permissible as context for admitting evidence | No fundamental error; comment did not improperly vouch and was within permissible advocacy |
| Use of standby counsel/investigators to present mitigation (attorney-client privilege) | Appointment violated attorney-client privilege and created conflict; requires new penalty phase or new judge | Trial court followed Muhammad; presentation did not disclose privileged communications and served public interest in ensuring mitigation considered | No reversible error; Muhammad procedures followed but Court prospectively modifies Muhammad to require appointment of independent, special counsel (not standby counsel) to present mitigation when defendant waives mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Muhammad v. State, 782 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2001) (authorizes court action to ensure mitigation considered when defendant waives presentation)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (entitles defendant to hearing if affidavit contains material falsehoods made knowingly or recklessly)
- Echols v. State, 484 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1985) (evidence lawfully obtained in another state is admissible in Florida)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (standards for protecting rights of pro se defendant while permitting court control of proceedings)
- Lynch v. State, 841 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2003) (elements required to establish cold, calculated, and premeditated aggravator)