Williamson v. State
123 So. 3d 1060
Fla.2013Background
- Williamson was convicted of first-degree murder and multiple related charges, sentenced to death and lengthy prison terms; direct appeal affirmed but some charges were later vacated.
- Panoyan, the State’s key witness, identified Williamson after approximately three years, claiming fear of Williamson due to threats to his family.
- Dr. Richard Ofshe testified for the State about Panoyan’s delay reflecting terror and credible threats; trial counsel did not voir dire Ofshe, seek a Frye hearing, or request a curative instruction.
- Williamson moved for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance; the circuit court denied relief, and the Florida Supreme Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the Ofshe Frye issue.
- After the evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court denied relief; Williamson appealed, challenging two theories of ineffective assistance related to Ofshe.
- The Florida Supreme Court ultimately affirmed denial of postconviction relief, holding no prejudice under Strickland, with a dissent arguing the decision should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to voir dire for Frye testing prejudices Williamson | Williamson | Williamson | No prejudice; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether failure to seek a curative instruction after Ofshe’s testimony was prejudicial | Williamson | Williamson | No prejudice; evidence viewed in totality still supports guilt |
| Whether Ofshe’s testimony required Frye testing and admissibility | Williamson | State | Frye testing required; admissibility under Frye was not satisfied; evidentiary hearing required |
| Whether admission of Ofshe’s testimony undermined confidence in the verdict | Williamson | State | No prejudice; totality of evidence supports guilt |
| Whether trial counsel’s performance, viewed cumulatively, deprived Williamson of a fair proceeding | Williamson | State | Not satisfied; prejudice not proven under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong prejudice/performance standard)
- Frye v. United States, 293 F.2d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (general acceptance test for scientific evidence)
- Flanagan v. State, 625 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1993) ( Frye-type analysis for certain expert testimony)
- Hadden v. State, 690 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1997) (syndrome testimony requires Frye evaluation)
- Brown v. State, 846 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2003) (attack on credibility evidence within trial record)
- Williamson I, 681 So.2d 688 (Fla. 1996) (direct appeal; Panoyan credibility material but not sole issue)
- Williamson II, 994 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2008) (remand for Frye-related evidentiary hearing; prejudice analysis)
- Sochor v. State, 883 So.2d 766 (Fla. 2004) (mixed standard of review for appellate vs. trial court factual findings)
- Pagan v. State, 29 So.3d 938 (Fla. 2009) (parallel citation for mixed-issue postconviction review)
- Robinson v. State, 770 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 2000) (prejudice standard related to newly discovered evidence claims)
- Porter v. McCollum, 559 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2010) (prejudice standard in Strickland as applied to death-penalty cases)