Brett A. Bogle v. State of Florida, 322 So.3d 44

In 1992 Brett A. Bogle was convicted of first‑degree murder, burglary with assault/battery, and witness retaliation; after a second penalty phase the jury recommended death and the sentence became final in 1995.
At trial FBI agent Michael Malone testified about microscopic hair comparison; Bogle later challenged that testimony in multiple postconviction proceedings.
Bogle’s initial 3.851 motion raised Brady issues about Malone’s bench notes; the claim was denied and affirmed on appeal (Bogle II). A later (2013) DOJ/FBI disclosure prompted a second successive motion raising reliability concerns about microscopic hair comparison; that motion was summarily denied and affirmed (Bogle III).
In 2017 Bogle filed a third successive 3.851 motion based on a 2017 Senate Judiciary Committee letter referencing internal FBI memoranda (alleged Brady/Giglio material), arguing it was newly discovered and undermined Malone’s testimony. The circuit court summarily denied relief as procedurally barred; Bogle appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found the 2017 letter did not present new or different grounds and would not likely produce an acquittal given overwhelming non‑hair evidence (motive, post‑murder observations, DNA and mitochondrial DNA linking Bogle), and affirmed the summary denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2017 Senate letter is "newly discovered evidence" supporting Brady/Giglio relief	The 2017 letter shows the FBI/State knew of limits to hair comparison and withheld/impeached evidence, warranting relief	The letter repeats information already raised/litigated and is not new; claim is successive and barred	Denied — the 2017 letter did not present new/different grounds and claim is procedurally barred under rule 3.851(e)(2)
Whether the alleged newly discovered evidence would likely produce an acquittal on retrial	Excluding Malone’s testimony would undermine confidence in the verdict and could change the outcome	Other evidence (motive, eyewitness observations, nuclear DNA, mitochondrial DNA) overwhelms Malone’s testimony; exclusion would not likely lead to acquittal	Denied — even without Malone’s testimony the other proof would sustain conviction; no reasonable likelihood of acquittal
Whether a successive 3.851 motion may relitigate issues that could have been raised earlier	A newly surfaced document (2017 letter) permits relitigation despite prior adjudication	Successive motions may not relitigate previously adjudicated claims unless they allege new and different grounds or meet exceptions	Denied — successive‑motion rule bars relitigation of issues already determined; 2017 letter does not meet exception

Bogle v. State, 655 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1995) (direct appeal affirming convictions and sentences)
Bogle v. State, 213 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 2017) (affirming denial of initial 3.851 motion challenging Malone’s testimony)
Bogle v. State, 288 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 2019) (affirming summary denial of second successive postconviction motion about hair‑analysis reliability)
Duckett v. State, 231 So. 3d 393 (Fla. 2017) (holding later review of Malone’s hair analysis did not constitute newly discovered evidence)
Schwab v. State, 969 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2007) (explaining restrictions on successive postconviction motions)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecution must disclose impeachment information and false testimony)