& SC15-2005 Nelson Serrano v. State of Florida and Nelson Serrano v. Julie L. Jones, etc.
225 So. 3d 737
| Fla. | 2017Background
- Nelson Serrano was convicted of four counts of first‑degree murder (murders at Erie Manufacturing, Dec. 3, 1997) and sentenced to death; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in 2011.
- State’s case: circumstantial evidence including travel/ticket records using aliases, a rental car timeline, shoe impression on a chair consistent with Serrano’s shoes, possession/knowledge of .22/.32 firearms, and witness identifications; no direct forensic link (no Serrano DNA/fingerprints at scene).
- Postconviction proceedings produced STR DNA testing of a plastic glove and cigarette butts, fingerprint comparisons, and an evidentiary hearing in 2014; the trial court denied relief and Serrano appealed and filed a habeas petition.
- Serrano raised multiple claims: Brady suppression (extradition/consul letters), ineffective assistance for various trial failures (closing objections, travel timeline investigation, failure to present shoe size, failure to challenge witness Purvis/Giglio issues, failure to seek DNA testing), newly discovered evidence, and appellate counsel ineffectiveness (new‑trial sufficiency, polygraph admissibility, gun evidence).
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed denial of all guilt‑phase postconviction claims and denied the habeas petition but held Serrano’s death sentences invalid under Hurst because the jury’s death recommendations were 9–3; death sentences vacated and remanded for a new penalty phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression of extradition/consul letters | Serrano: State failed to disclose letters indicating Ecuador would oppose/limit death penalty, which are favorable impeachment/exculpatory evidence | State: letters are not exculpatory or impeaching and would not undermine confidence in verdict | Denied — not Brady material; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance — prosecutorial closing remarks | Serrano: trial counsel should have objected to statements calling him "diabolical" and comments allegedly shifting burden/presumption | State: comments were not preserved; any error was not fundamental and jury instructions cured any minor error | Denied — prejudice not shown under Strickland; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Ineffective assistance — travel timeline investigation | Serrano: counsel failed to investigate/recreate timeline that would refute State's tight travel chronology | State: counsel investigated, argued timeline implausible to jury; strategy reasonable | Denied — counsel not deficient and no prejudice shown |
| Newly discovered DNA evidence / failure to seek STR testing | Serrano: postconviction STR results on glove/butts undermine guilt; counsel ineffective for not requesting testing earlier | State: STR results were inconclusive (could not exclude Serrano or produce acquittal probability); counsel reasonably avoided risk of creating a link | Denied — DNA inconclusive; no reasonable probability of acquittal; no Strickland prejudice |
| Giglio and counsel performance regarding witness John Purvis | Serrano: Purvis gave false testimony and counsel should have impeached/deposed or used post‑hypnosis materials | State: Purvis’s testimony not shown false; post‑hypnosis statements/composite are inadmissible; counsel’s tactical choices reasonable | Denied — no Giglio violation; counsel not deficient for failing to pursue inadmissible or strategically harmful lines |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Brady rule: prosecution must disclose material exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016) (jury unanimity and role in capital sentencing)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (prosecutor may not knowingly present false testimony)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless‑error analysis in Florida)
- Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (newly discovered evidence standard)
- Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1989) (inadmissibility of hypnotically refreshed testimony)