Those regularly following the capital case Lambrix v. State are only too familiar with how consistently this case has been treated by the Florida courts’ in a manner that conflicts with applicable law. It had been hoped that once the Lambrix case had progressed from the lower circuit up to the Florida Supreme Court, the case would receive a fair review and justice might yet prevail.

But this was not to be the case. As luck would have it, by the time Lambrix’s case reached the Florida Supreme Court, none other than Peggy Quince, the former Assistant Attorney General who prosecuted Lambrix’s original post-conviction appeal at the time Lambrix was facing actual execution, had risen through the politically corrupt judicial ranks (See, “Judicial Bias; Do as I say, not as I do.”) to become the current Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. The decision on whether justice might prevail in this case now would be decided by a court presided over by one of those who prosecuted the case.

Lambrix’s case continues to illustrate just how dysfunctional our judicial system is when it comes to capital cases. Following the final order denying post-conviction relief by Judge R. Thomas Corbin in late 2007, Lambrix’s case was transferred to the Florida Supreme Court for appellate review of Judge Corbin’s order. In January 2008 the case was docketed as Lambrix v. State, case #SC08-0064 and subsequently a “briefing schedule” was issued requiring Lambrix’s appointed counsel, the state funded “Office of Capital Collateral Regional Counsel” (known as “CCRC Counsel”) to file the “initial brief” no later than October 2008.

On the absolute last day of the filing deadline William Hennis of CCRC filed the “initial brief” with the Court. However, it soon came to Lambrix’s attention that the “initial brief” filed by Mr. Hennis was “fatally defective” as Mr. Hennis apparently did not specifically argue the necessary allegations of violations of applicable federal law that if not adequately presented to the Florida Supreme Court in this initial brief would subsequently result in Lambrix being procedurally barred from seeking federal review if the Florida Supreme Court denies relief in the pending appeal.

What this means is that if the Florida Supreme Court ultimately denied the now pending appeal – and Chief Justice Peggy Quince who was part of the prosecution team that zealously attempted to have Lambrix executed in late 1988 ~ Lambrix would have no other available means of appellate review and would face execution again. (Please read about Lambrix’s personal experiences facing execution at www.doinglifeondeathrow.blogspot.com)

Records before the Florida Supreme Court show that on January 5th, 2009 Lambrix then filed a “pro se” (on his own, without legal counsel) action entitled “Motion to Strike Fatally Defective Appeal Brief with Renewed Motion to Discharge Incompetent Post-conviction Counsel, and Waive Further Post-conviction Representation, with Request For Leave to File Corrected Appeal Brief.” (Click here to read this motion in its entirety.)

In this detailed motion, Lambrix argued that applicable law requires that all claims of violation of federal law be adequately presented in the appeal now before the Court, and CCRC counsel did not do so. Lambrix argued that the Court must comply with the statutory mandate of Florida Statutes, Chapter 27.711(12), which requires the Court to receive and consider any action relevant to the quality and performance of counsel appointed in capital cases, and Mr. Hennis’s failure to adequately argue the deprivations of federal rights amounted to incompetent post-conviction representation, requiring the removal of CCRC counsel.

Mr. Lambrix specifically argued that he wished to “unequivocally discharge” post-conviction counsel, and exercise his right to represent himself; see, Durocher v. Singletary, 623 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1993). So that Lambrix could submit a corrected brief to the Court.

Incredibly, on January 30th, 2009 the Florida Supreme Court “struck” Lambrix’s pro se motion from the record without making any attempt to address the merits of the motion, or Lambrix’s clearly asserted right to discharge appointed post-conviction counsel and exercise self representation. No explanation as to why the Court refused to accept Lambrix’s properly filed motion was given.

On the same day, the Florida Supreme Court granted CCRC counsel’s own motion for leave to file an “Amended Corrected Initial Brief” even though this “corrected” brief actually was not in any material way different from the original initial brief filed by CCRC counsel in October 2008.

Thus, in January 2009 the “Amended Corrected Initial Brief” was filed and accepted by the Florida Supreme Court. (Please read the corrected brief in its entirety here.)

In this appellate brief CCRC counsel specifically argues five (5) claims they assert require the Court to vacate Lambrix’s convictions upon, including specifically that Mr. Lambrix is actually innocent of the crime of premeditated murder, and that the collective weight of the newly discovered evidence conclusively shows that the wholly circumstantial case of (two contemporaneous counts) capital murder was deliberately fabricated by the key witness Frances Smith and the local State Attorney’s Office.

Further, Lambrix’s appeal argues that Lambrix’s convictions must be vacated under the “Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice” doctrine, as the substantial wealth of newly discovered evidence, as detailed in the “Amended Corrected Initial Brief,” establish a “colorable claim of innocence,” especially in light of the fact that under applicable Florida law, the State’s wholly circumstantial case of premeditated murder was legally insufficient to support the convictions.

On this point, what is of special significance here is that under Florida law a person cannot be convicted and condemned to death for the crime of premeditated murder unless the wholly circumstantial evidence not only proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but also excludes “any reasonable hypotheses of innocence” beyond a reasonable doubt. As Florida law has long recognized; as stated in Ballard v. State, 923 So.2d 475, 482 (Fla. 2006), quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1956):

“It is the actual exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence which clothes circumstantial evidence with the force of proof sufficient to convict. Circumstantial evidence which leaves uncertain several hypotheses, any of which may be sound and some of which may be entirely consistent with innocence, is not adequate to sustain a verdict of guilt. Even though the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a probability of guilt, it is not there by adequate to support a conviction if it is likewise consistent with a hypothesis of innocence.”

What this doctrine of law comes down to in the context of the Lambrix case is this. Since Lambrix has specifically asserted that he was involuntarily compelled to act in self defense when unexpectedly attacked by Moore/Lamberson, and that it was Moore/Lamberson who had assaulted and killed the female Aleisha Bryant, under Florida law the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Lambrix’s claims are not true.

As the record plainly shows, the state has never provided any evidence to discredit Lambrix’s consistently pled claims. In fact, when Lambrix testified in April 2004 before the lower Circuit Court, the state did not provide any evidence to dispute Lambrix’s claims. (The full transcript of Lambrix’s April 2004 testimony can be read in its entirety here.)

Even more troubling is the indisputable fact that although the Florida Supreme Court has reviewed Lambrix’s case numerous times, not even once has the Florida Supreme Court fulfilled its own independent constitutional responsibility to review the sufficiency of evidence in this case.

Quite simply, under a reasonably objective interpretation of applicable Florida law, Lambrix is “legally” innocent of capital premeditated murder, and these convictions should have been thrown out on direct appeal over 20 years ago. Even though Lambrix’s appointed lawyers inexcusably failed to raise a sufficiency of evidence claim, the Florida Supreme Court was obligated to independently review the sufficiency of evidence ~ but it did not.

On February 09, 2009 the state, again represented by Assistant Attorney General Carol M. Dittmar (Please see, “Florida Bar Complaints” on this website.), filed a comprehensive “Answer Brief of Appellee” in which the state argued that Lambrix has failed to produce any substantial newly discovered evidence warranting relief from these convictions. Representing the state, Ms. Dittmar argued that even if the alleged newly discovered evidence was credible, it is not legally sufficient to allow the Florida Supreme Court to vacate the convictions.

Essentially Ms. Dittmar relies upon applicable law that requires the Florida Supreme Court to accept the credibility findings of the lower circuit court, unless it can be shown that the lower courts factual findings are clearly erroneous. Of course, in the lower court Judge R. Thomas Corbin adopted, verbatim, the states own interpretation of the facts and evidence.

As to Lambrix’s “fundamental miscarriage of justice” claim, Ms. Dittmar argues that based upon her own subjective interpretation of U.S. Supreme Court law, absent conclusive scientific evidence, such as DNA evidence, the court cannot grant relief. The state’s argument conveniently ignores the fact that the states own case was based upon wholly circumstantial evidence – there were no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, and no confessions. If the state itself can arguably convict and condemn a man on nothing more than specious wholly circumstantial evidence based primarily upon the testimony of a single key witness (Frances Smith), who the state concedes is a habitual liar and even failed a polygraph test, then why would a person subsequently have to produce “reliable scientific evidence” to prove their innocence?

What this comes down to is that the state is arguing that a wrongfully convicted and condemned defendant must actually produce even stronger evidence than what the state used to convict, in order to prove their innocence. Common sense dictates that if the state relied upon wholly circumstantial evidence to convict a person, then any evidence that undermines confidence in the reliability of that circumstantial evidence relied upon by the state should be sufficient to require that the conviction be vacated. See, “Answer Brief.”

On April 13, 2009 CCRC council William Hennis and Craig Trocino (former co-director of the Florida Innocence Initiative) filed a “Reply Brief of Appellant” responding to the states arguments. This action is limited by law to only 35 pages, but adequately provides a response to the state’s argument, showing that the state (Carol Dittmar) twisted both law and fact to support her argument, and that applicable law clearly requires that the convictions against Lambrix be thrown out. (Please read, “Reply Brief of Appellant.”)

In addition to the above full “briefing” of this capital case before the Florida Supreme Court, on April 8th, 2009 Mr. Lambix submitted a comprehensive “pro se” brief entitled “Supplemental Pro Se Appeal Brief,” personally arguing that the Florida Supreme Court improperly rejected his (Lambrix’s) own pro se motion to discharge CCRC Counsel, and that the court must accept Lambrix’s own supplemental arguments.

A fair reading of the comprehensive supplemental brief submitted “pro se” by Mr. Lambrix provides greater insight to many of the arguments advanced by appointed CCRC counsel. Most significantly, although appointed CCRC counsel inexplicitly failed to address the details of the actual evidence supporting Lambrix’s claim of involuntary self defense, and why the collective weight of both the evidence the state itself presented at trial and the now revealed new evidence conclusively shows that Mr. Lambrix’s long pled claim of involuntary self defense is actually fully supported by the record itself.

In reading Lambrix’s own “Supplemental Pro Se Appeal Brief” it becomes clear that this is a case of indisputable actual innocence, and reveals how those acting in behalf of the state have unethically perpetrated this inconceivable injustice. Anyone looking at this case should fully read this comprehensive, hand written “Supplemental Pro Se Appeal Brief” in its entirety here.

On April 20th, 2009 ASA Carol Dittmar filed an “Appellee’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Pro Se Appeal Brief,” arguing that the Florida Supreme Court must reject and strike Lambrix’s comprehensive “Supplemental Pro Se Appeal Brief” as under Logan v. State, 846 So.2d 472 (Fla.2003) if an appellant is represented by appointed legal counsel, they are prohibited from submitting any pro se actions. (It should be noted that in Logan v. State, the court specifically excluded capital cases from this judicially created rule of law.)

On May 8th, 2009 the Florida Supreme Court summarily granted the states motion to strike (remove from the record) Lambrix’s own “Supplemental Pro Se Appeal Brief,” stating only that Asst. Attorney General Carol Dittmar’s Motion to strike was granted.

The case now remains before the Florida Supreme Court. Typically soon after the final “Reply Brief” is submitted to the Court, the case is then assigned to a specific Justice who will be responsible for managing the case and preparing the summary of the case to the other justices. The case is also scheduled for “oral arguments.” However as of this writing (June 10th 2009) The Florida Supreme Court has not scheduled Lambrix for oral arguments.

Once the oral arguments are scheduled, anyone can watch the oral arguments of this case live by going online at the website specifically established by “The Florida Channel” and Florida State University. Once the court schedules the oral arguments a notice will posted on this website so that anyone interested can watch live, or later in the recorded version.

***************************************

In Addition to the appeal now pending before the Florida Supreme Court, recently a third party independently researching this case has discovered numerous state records that collectively show that the State Attorney’s Office (Randall McGruther – please read “Anatomy of a Corrupt Prosecutor.”) had failed to disclose records originating from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) crime lab in the early stages of the case, prior to Lambrix’s trial.

Under applicable, long established law, the state is constitutionally required to provide a criminal defendant with all evidence of an exculpatory nature. This includes any information or evidence the state possesses that might undermine the credibility, or question the validity, of any witness or material evidence the state intends to present at trial.

At Mr. Lambrix’s trial, the state supported the testimony of key witness Frances Smith by producing a “tire iron” as the alleged murder weapon. According to the state, Frances Smith brought the State Attorney’s investigator Bob Daniels to a bridge over a small creek down the road from where the crime allegedly occurred, and Smith told Inv. Daniels ~ the same person that key witness Smith now claims she had an illicit relationship “of a sexual nature” with at the time ~ that Lambrix had wrapped the tire iron in a bloody t-shirt, then threw it into that creek.

At trial, Lee County Sheriffs Deputy Larry Bankert, a certified scuba diver, testified that at the direction of Frances Smith, he went into that creek and recovered a tire iron wrapped in a t-shirt, just as Frances Smith said it was. The jury was deliberately led to believe that this tire iron was, in fact, the murder weapon.

The recently discovered FDLE crime lab records reveal that this tire iron and t-shirt was not what the state had the jury believe. That in fact, upon examination of this tire iron and t-shirt, they found virtually no evidence to connect it to the alleged crime.

Even more troubling, these collective documents show that the t-shirt found with the tire iron was a size “small.” At the time in 1983 Lambrix was 5 foot 10 inches, and obviously couldn’t wear a size small t-shirt.

Additionally, these FDLE crime lab records show that the lab technician found several “blonde to blondish-brown hairs,” which were compared to both of the deceased and conclusively found to be inconsistent with either victim. According to these never before disclosed notes, the FDLE crime lab technician then contacted Asst. State Attorney Randall McGruther and advised him of the discovery of this “blonde to blondish-brown hair” ~ and Mr. McGruther immediately instructed the FDLE crime lab to stop all further testing and return the evidence to the State Attorney’s Office.

Why would a prosecutor instruct a state crime lab not to test forensic evidence found on an alleged murder weapon? The answer to that is simple ~ once Mr. McGruther was advised the hairs found did not match either victim, McGruther knew that there was only one person this “blonde to blondish-brown hair” could have come from ~ key witness Frances Smith.

Further, Asst. State Attorney McGruther knew that Smith had already stated under oath that she did not touch the alleged murder weapon. Now suddenly the FDLE crime lab was telling McGruther that the tire iron was wrapped in a size small t-shirt (which could not be Lambrix’s) and apparently only Smith’s own hair was found on the alleged murder weapon.

Add to this the fact that the state crime lab could find virtually no forensic evidence whatsoever on either the t-shirt of the tire iron to show it was used as the alleged murder weapon, and collectively these facts lead to only one logical conclusion ~ sometime between the time of the alleged crime (Saturday February 6th, 183) and the time Frances Smith “voluntarily” went to the state attorney’s office on February 14th, 1983. Frances Smith planted this tire iron/t-shirt to falsely support her own already incredible story.

Alternatively, at some time after Frances Smith came forward and began working with the state attorney’s investigator Robert “Bob” Daniels, who in April 2004 Frances Smith admitted she had a sexual relationship with “during the prosecution of this case.” Both Frances Smith and Inv. Daniels worked together to “fabricate” this material evidence.

Why would they have done this? As the state concedes, the entire case rested upon testimony of Frances Smith, who had already shown “signs of deception” on a polygraph (lie detector) test administered by the state attorney’s office. Frances Smith had to produce evidence to support her story. As former state witness Deborah Hanzel testified in February 2004 during this time both Frances Smith and Inv. Daniels coerced her to provide false testimony to corroborate Smith’s own otherwise unsupported testimony.

In light of Hanzel’s claim that Smith and Inv Daniels worked together to coerce her to proved false testimony, is it that inconceivable to now conclude that Smith and Daniels also worked together to fabricate this alleged murder weapon introduced into evidence at trial?

Collectively these recently discovered FDLE records show that the state attorney’s office deliberately concealed these notes/records from the defense, as Mr. McGruther had to know that if Lambrix’s trial counsel became aware of these records, then they would have used them not only to suppress the alleged murder weapon itself, but also show the jury that in fact the only forensic evidence found was that of Frances Smith ~ not Mr. Lambrix.

But what becomes even more troubling is that the records in this case also show that in addition to illegally concealing these records from Mr. Lambrix trial counsel ion 1983-84, after Lambrix was wrongfully convicted and condemned to death, in 1988 Mr. Lambrix’s original post-conviction counsel has specifically requested production of all state attorney and FDLE Crime Lab records, and the files were turned over ~ but again these recently discovered records were deliberately withheld.

The significance of this is that in late 1988 Mr. Lambrix had his “death warrant” signed and was facing imminent execution. At the time in addition to the local State Attorney’s Office (Randall McGruther) working the case, the Attorney General’s Office became part of the prosecution team.

Records show that both Robert J. Kraus and Peggy A, Quince were the Asst. Attorney General’s assigned to prosecute the post-conviction appeal and specifically seek the then scheduled execution of Lambrix. Both were intimately involved in all actions relevant to this case ~ including turning over the public records.

What there collective facts strongly imply is that Peggy A. Quince, now Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, was personally complicit in deliberately concealing exculpatory evidence in a capital case at a time that the defendant (Lambrix) was facing imminent execution for a crime he claim to be innocent of.

When the corruption of prosecutorial misconduct reaches up to the highest levels of the state judiciary, can truth and justice prevail? Perhaps the recent revelation of this newly discovered evidence now explains why the Florida Supreme Court is refusing to accept Lambrix’s own actions in direct contradiction to applicable law. Could it be possible that Chief Justice Peggy Quince, herself previously part of the prosecution team that deliberately concealed exculpatory evidence at a time Lambrix faced imminent execution, is now unethically using her influence as Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court to obstruct Lambrix from proving his actual innocence?

Under applicable law Lambrix must now file a new post-conviction appeal that presents this new evidence to the state courts. Additionally, Lambrix continues to push for the immediate removal of CCRC counsel, and with in the next month Lambrix will be filing a comprehensive federal civil action specifically challenging the constitutionality of Florida’s Capital (death penalty) post-conviction process, arguing that the collective process is “fundamentally unfair” and violates the procedural and substantive components of constitutional due process.

Please continue to check back at this website for further case updates and the blogs linked to this website. Lambrix also maintains his own blog at www.deathrowjournals.blogspot.com and www.doinglifeondeathrow.blogspot.com.