262 So. 3d 26
Fla.2018Background
- Gerald Murray was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1990 killing of Alice Vest; after multiple trials his conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in Murray v. State, 3 So.3d 1108 (Fla. 2009).
- Key trial evidence: jailhouse informant confession (Anthony Smith), pubic hair microscopically matching Murray, jewelry linking Murray and co-defendant Steve Taylor, footprints and other circumstantial evidence, and incriminating statements to police.
- Murray filed multiple amended postconviction motions under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851; the circuit court granted only Hurst relief (new penalty phase) and denied other claims after evidentiary hearings; a successive 3.851 motion was summarily denied.
- Murray petitioned for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and other claims; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction and habeas relief while affirming the Hurst-based new penalty phase.
- The court rejected challenges based on alleged recantation/coercion of Smith, Brady/Giglio claims tied to DOJ reviews of hair-expert testimony, multiple ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims (expert witnesses, evidentiary objections), and a newly proffered affidavit implicating another suspect (James Dixon).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murray) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hurst entitlement to new penalty phase | Nonunanimous jury (11–1) requires new penalty phase under Hurst | Hurst relief should be limited | Court affirmed grant of new penalty phase due to nonunanimous recommendation and precedent granting Hurst relief post-Ring |
| Newly discovered evidence re: Anthony Smith (coercion/plea promises) | Smith's later statements/letter show coercion/Giglio/Brady; would impeach his testimony and likely produce acquittal | Smith recanted the recantation at evidentiary hearing; was credible at trial and was heavily impeached then | Denied: additional impeachment evidence not likely to produce acquittal; circuit court credibility findings supported |
| Failure to call hair/fiber expert (ineffective assistance) | Counsel was deficient for not calling a rebuttal microscopist | Counsel consulted an expert and strategically declined to call him; cross-examined State expert effectively | Denied: counsel's decision reasonable strategy and no Strickland prejudice shown |
| DOJ review of DiZinno hair testimony (newly discovered / Brady) | 2013 DOJ review shows DiZinno's trial testimony was false/misleading and would undermine conviction | Review did not discredit hair analysis in context; testimony was challenged at trial; errors did not create reasonable doubt | Denied: DOJ review insufficient to satisfy newly discovered evidence standard or produce acquittal |
| Failure to retain shoeprint expert (ineffective assistance) | A defense expert would show all prints from one shoe, undermining multi-perpetrator inference | Counsel relied on State expert statements and cross-examined him; material points were elicited without own expert | Denied: no deficiency or prejudice; cross-examination covered disputed points |
| Successive motion based on James Dixon affidavit (actual innocence) | Dixon affidavit implicates Walter Holton and provides newly discovered exculpatory evidence | Record evidence (hair match, Smith confession, jewelry, incriminating statements) refutes Dixon's affidavit | Denied summary relief: affidavit conclusively refuted by record |
| Habeas: ineffective appellate counsel—burglary "remaining in" instruction | Appellate counsel should have raised unpreserved fundamental error in burglary instruction | Instruction was surplusage under the facts; no fundamental error | Denied: no fundamental error so appellate counsel not ineffective |
| Habeas: ineffective appellate counsel—juror Vaccaro challenge | Counsel should have raised trial court abused discretion in denying for-cause challenge | Trial court reasonably found juror could follow law; great deference to trial judge | Denied: no manifest error; claim meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (impeachment agreements and nondisclosure)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (jury findings required for death sentence aggravators)
- Hurst v. State, 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016) (capital sentencing and jury role)
- Murray v. State, 3 So.3d 1108 (Fla. 2009) (direct-appeal opinion affirming conviction and sentence)
- Duckett v. State, 231 So.3d 393 (Fla. 2017) (rejecting newly discovered evidence/Brady claims based on DOJ hair-review)
- Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (newly discovered evidence test)