BREAKING NEWS: Execution Stayed for Michael Lambrix!!

Breaking news: The Florida Supreme Court has issued an indefinite Stay of Execution for Michael Lambrix. Mike was to be executed on Thursday, February 11. The order came hours after the court heard oral arguments that focused on the impact of a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this month that struck down the state’s death-penalty sentencing system. Read more:

Michael Lambrix #482053
Florida State Prison
PO Box 800
Raiford FL 32083

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Death Watch Journal (part 22)

Imagine being condemned to death for a crime you did not commit, and then finding yourself under an active death warrant, facing imminent execution - and having to basically defend yourself against the relatively infinate resources of the state...not even Hollywood can come up with such a bizarre plot.

But that's the reality I've found myself in these past months. It's now over 9 months (November 30, 2015) since Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a death warrant scheduling my execution for February 11, 2016 and over 6 months since, only days before my scheduled execution, the Florida Supreme Court granted a temporary stay of execution as they decide whether the January 2016 US Supreme Court decision in Hurst v Florida (which declared that Florida's practise of having the judge ultimately determine whether to impose death sentence rather than the jury renders Florida's death penalty unconstitutional) effectively makes my death sentence illegal... a decision will most likely be delayed until after the November elections as when it comes down to it, the death penalty is about politics, not justice.

During this period of time as I remained under this still-active death warrant, I've begged and pleaded with my state assigned legal counsel to work on developping new appeals, but when it comes down to it, they've refused to do anything. Maybe they are so confident that the Florida Supreme Court will throw out my death sentence that they just don't see any point in doing anymore work... but what if they are wrong and the Florida Supreme Court rules against me, as id that is the case then under Florida law the governor is mandted to to reschedule my execution within 10 days of when the court rules against me and I'd again be facing imminent execution.

If there's one thing I'm absolutely certain of after all these years, it's that if I were to sit back and let my life depend on the state assigned lawyers to fight this fight on their own, I would had undoubtedly been dead many years ago and it almost killed me in 1988 when I came within hours of being executed and so I make it a point to become personally involved with my own appeals - and if that means bumping heads with the lawyers assigned to represend me, then so be it! - I already know how hard-headed I am, so I can take it!

So, for 7 months now I've done all I could to try to get my assigned lawyers to do something, but all I get is a lot of talk. They do cover their own butt, though - almost every week they'll communicate with me and always in a manner that leaves no written record so that if I claim that they've effectively abandoned me, they can show that they did a 30 minute legal phone call or whatever each week.

My problem is that unlike my lawyer, I am not waiting on the Florida Supreme Court to rule on whether the Florida death penalty is unconstitutional. Even assuming they did rule favorably on that issue, the most it would do is reduce my death sentence to life in prison, and as Pope Francis put it so well, a "life" sentence is effectively a slow death sentence.

Rather, from the day I was arested on that crime I have always and unequivocally maintained my innocence, adamantly insisting that the key witness and the prosecutor deliberately fabricated this wholly circumstantial ( i.e., no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidense, no confessions, etc) theory of alleged premeditated murder - the key witness (Frances Smith) was desperate to do anything to get immunity and the local small-town prosecutor was as equally desperate to make a name for's not merely a coincidence that this same prosecutor has already had two others in unrelated cases subsequently exonorated and released from Florida's death row after the Florida Supreme Court recognized that this prosecutor crossed the line with overzealous prosecution (John Ballard and Bradley Scott were both set free due to prosecutional misconduct)

I am, and always have been, fighting for my freedom and so even if the florida Supreme Court did reduce my current death sentence to life, that would be a "hollow" victory. My state assigned lawyers would celebrate that "victory", but I would not...only my freedom is a real victory.

But of the state assigned lawyers controlling my case have effectively given up, then what am I to do? The vast majority of those sentenced to death simply do not have the intellectual capacity to understand the complexities of the law and are basically helpless. But I'm not your average death sentenced prisoner, and I'm not going to just lay down and give up....I didn't fight this fight for 33 years to quit now.


So, I did the only thing I could do....I wrote up my own appeal and recently filed it in the US Supreme Court, explaining to the court that both the State of Florida and lower courts have unfairly stacked the deck not only against me, but against many of Florida's death sentenced prisoners, by assigning US state agency lawyers who under Florida law are strictly prohibited from pursueing any form of "civil" action challenging our conviction and sentence of death...and I am asking the Supreme Court to exercise their jurisdiction by expeditiously ordering the appointment of new legal counsel that can represent me in what must be pursued.

Specifically, for over 25 years the prosecutor deliberately concealed forensic evidence in my case that conclusively shows that the Florida (FDLE) crime lab found several hairs on the alleged murder weapon that they determined in 1983 did not match me or either of the victims. These only recently exposed crime lab records also conclusively show that when the crime lab told the prosecutor about this unexpected discovery, the prosecutor instructed the crime lab to return all this evidence to his office - and he then hid the evidence until it was accidently revealed in 2009.

But when my state assigned lawyers filed a new appeal in 2009 argueing that this blatant act of deliberate prosecutional misconduct required the court to throw out my conviction and allow a new trial, suddenly my case was reassigned to Judge Christine Greider - a local former prosecutor who previously  worked with prosecutor Randall McGruther and in fact, was appointed to the bench while McGruther himself was on the 20th Circuit Judicial nominating committee.

Not surprisingly, Judge Greider summarily denied the appeal even after the Asst Attorney General representing the state conceded that the previously undisclosed hairs most likely were the key witnesses hair and that they never did disclose this evidence.

A motion to have this previously undisclosed forensic evidence subjected to DNA testing was filed - by me, but was also summarily denied by Judge Greider. The Florida Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the summary denial, rejecting our arguements that under well established law it was per se reversible error to deny this "new evidence/actual innocence" appeal and request for DNA testing without providing any form of evidentiary process necessary to establish the materiality of this deliberately concealed evidence.

My only recourse at that point would be to file a federal civil action under Skinner v. Switzer S.Ct. 1289 (2011) as a means to challenge the denial of DNA testing necessary to establish my actual innocence as "arbitrary and unfair" but under Florida law my assigned state counsel is categorically prohibited from representing death sentenced prisoners in civil actions.

So, last year (before my death warrant was signed) I asked the Federal court to appoint Federal counsel to my case as is statutorily mandated under applicable Federal law (18 U.S.C. 3599), only to have the Federal Court refuse to do so, leaving me with only the state assigned counsel. I appealed this to the Eleventh Circuit court of appeals in January, while facing imminent execution, but Chief Judge Edward Cornes has refused to allow the case to be docketed - as he has done in other similar capital cases (Judge Cornes and his Alabama cronies are knwon for their fanatical support for the death penalty and overzealous pursuit of executions)

With few remaining options - obviously I simply don't have the ability to hire a lawyer to represent me and contrary to popular myth there are no lawyers willing to volunteer to help an innocent man avoid execution - my only remanining option was to write up the appeal myself and file it with the Supreme Court, which I did on August 17, 2016.

If you like to read this 32 page appeal asking the Supreme Court for help in getting legal representation so I can prove my innocence, you can read it in HERE (note: will soon be available) . You can follow the progress of this appeal on the Supreme Court's website at  and pull up the case, docketed as In re: Cary Michael Lambrix, Case No. 16-5715 ( )

What does it say about our legal system that a poor and uneducated man facing imminent execution for a crime he did not commit must write up and file hos won appeals? The reality of it is that in capital cases, the appointment of legal representation is most often a total pretene intended to project the appearance of fairness in an inherently unfair process. - Mike Lambrix

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Democratic Party Adopts Resolution to Abolish Death Penalty

I have to admit that if anyone had asked me even if you years ago whether I thought I'd ever see the day when a major political party in the United States would openly advocate for the abolishment of the death penalty, I would have laughed and asked: "Are you nuts?".

Let's face it...America loves the death penalty. By conveniently subjective interpretation of circumstances, it morally justifies that basic primitive need for vengeance. In fact, most who demand nothing less than death will only too eagerly quote the Bible "An eye for an eye" arguing that therefore this measure of justice is sanctioned by none other than God himself. So what if the inconvenient truth is that this same chapter of the Bible also dictates that those who disrespect their parents "shall be put to death" (Exodus 20:17) and those who commit adultery must be put to death, and other crimes too. But our society wouldn't advocate that, so this part is ignored.

Then there's what the Bible says in Deuteronomy 19:15-20, clearly stating that if an innocent man is condemned to death by false testimony, those responsible for this injustice must be put to death so that others will know that condemning an innocent person will not be tolerated. In recent years hundreds of innocent people have been conclusively exonorated through DNA evidence, yet neither the witnesses that gave false testimony or the prosecutors who only too often do know the person was innocent and prosecuted him or her anyway have never - not even once - been held accountable.

When it comes to capital punishment, truth and justice mean nothing as often deciding whether the state will deliberately take the life of a person under the pretense of administering justice has very little to do with the crime the defendant has been accused of. Rather, it is about the politics of death and a particular prosecutor's own political ambitions. Nobody can credibly argue that only the "worst of the worst" get the death penalty. Rather, the overwhelming weight of the objective evidence shows that the primary elements applicable in deciding who will live and who will die is socio-economic...only the poorest of the poor will face the death penalty - and even then, they will only face actual execution if the victim was white as our legal process eagerly facilities racial discrimination - black lives do not matter when the victim was black, and they know this.

After over a generation of fanatical support for the death penalty and repeatedly seeing all honorable and morally ethical politicians all but publically burned at the stake when they voiced their opposition to the death penalty, I was flabbergasted recently to learn that the Democratic Party (Hillary Clinton) has now publically declared its intent to campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty.

But they're still many in the Democratic party who are not happy - some will even abandon the party in protest. Still, I just never thought I'd see the day when any political candidate, much less a major political party, would call to have the death penalty abolished.


How did this come about? Perhaps the Democratic party is merely exploring society's own views towards the death penalty as it becomes increasingly unpopular among voters who have seen a legal system corrupted by deliberate imperfection and a growing consensus that our legal system is only too willing to execute innocent people.

Myself, I certainly do not credit Hillary Clinton with the adoption of this resolution to abolish the death penalty. Although I do respect Hillary for many things, I cannot ignore the fact that Bill Clinton single-handedly is responsible for more innocent men and women facing execution than any other person.

I'm glad you asked how I could say, that will explain. It was in 1996 that then President Bill Clinton signed into effect what is known as the "Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act" (AEDPA) which was primarily intended to expedite executions by eliminating any meaningful Federal court review of State imposed convictions and death sentences. By signing the AEDPA into law, Bill Clinton made it only too easy for the states to carry out executions - in fact, under the 1996 AEDPA it even made it impossible to prove your innocence with new evidence. Although technically the AEDPA did allow for "successive" federal court review if new evidence of innocence could be presented, in the past 20 years since Bill Clinton signed the law into effect, not a single death sentenced prisoner has been allowed to prove their innocence under this law.

To be honest, having Hillary Clinton as president scares the crap out of me -  but not quite as much as Trump. Those of us who have been around awhile know that when Bill Clinton was questioned about his position on the death penalty while running for president in 1992, his response was to rush back to Arkansas, where he was still the state Governor, and ordered the execution of a mentally incompetent prisoner - to prove he was more than willing to kill.

What if Hillary Clinton proves to be cut of the same cloth? Although the Democratic party has now formally adopted a resolution to campaign against the death penalty, this resolution would have no binding effect on Hillary Clinton's exercise of executive power once she's in office.  When the time comes to nominate federal judges to the bench, will she choose judges who oppose or support the death penalty? When the time comes to preside over the execution of a federal prisoner, will she give the go-ahead while shrugging her shoulders and claiming that she's just doing her job?

But they say that "Hope Springs Eternal" - and what I would like to think is that at the end of the day it's not 1996 anymore. And we are not the same society we were then. When Bill Clinton was President America's support for the death penalty was at an all-time high, and for better or worse, Bill Clinton was a quintessential politician and if he had to send a thousand innocent people to their death to win office he would. And in 1996 nobody really cared.

If Hillary Clinton wins the election, she will come into office at a time when both society's support for the death penalty is at the almost historic low and the United States Supreme Court is receptive to throwing the dath penalty out once and for all.  This is why the Democratic party has now decided to oppose the death penalty - it's all about the politics. Maybe there really is hope that the end of the death penalty is within sight. The fact that a major political party campaigning for the presidency is willing to adopt a resolution to abolish the death penalty does suggest the politics of death may have finally shifted.

Friday, July 29, 2016

Death Watch Journal (part 21)

Is Florida about to crank up it's killing machine again? While executions have been on hold since the Florida Supreme Court granted me a stay of execution days beforeI was to be put to death in early February following a decision in Hurst v Florida (which declared the way Florida decides who is condemned to death unconstitutional) it would appear that this week's decision by the Florida Supreme Court in Mullens v State has now effectively cleared the path for some executions to proceed - but not mine, at least not yet.

There has been an assumption that since I was the next in line for execution, my case would decide whether any executions would proceed. But nothing is ever that predictable in the administration of death penalty law. To be honest, I wasn't too excited about having my case decidethis issue, but I didn't exactly have much of a choice.

If not for the January 2016 decision by the United States Supreme Court in Hurst v Florida it's almost certain that I would have been executed on February 11, 2016. In that Hurst case the USSC declared that Florida law that allowed a judge to determine whether a person was eligible for the death penalty was unconstitutional as under the sixth amendment only a jury can make the factual determinations necessary to impose death.

Using my own case as an example, as with most Florida cases, the jury heard evidence of both why death should be imposed (aggravating circumstances) and why it should not be imposed (mitigating circumstances) then merely made a "recommendation" that death should be imposed, which the judge then reviewed, and writing up his own "findings in support of sentence of death". On march 22, 1984 I was formally condemned to die.

Over 80 men and women have been executed in the state of Florida between 1979 and 2016 under this illegal process, the latest execution being Oscar Bolin on January 7, 2016 (please read: "Execution Day: Involuntary Witness to State Sanctioned Murder"). I was to follow Oscar Bolin into the death chamber on February 11, 2016, but just as I was preparing to go into "phase II" of the death watch process, I was granted a "temporary stay" as the Florida Supreme Court weighted whether this Hurst v Florida decision was retroactively applied to older case such as mine.

As I write this, it has been 145 days since I received that temporary stay of execution. Each and every day I would watch the news anxiously awaiting that decision as to whether I would live or die. I would follow every case that addressed the issue as a growing body of lawyers and judges called upon the Florida Supreme Court to do the right thing and reduce all death sentences to life.

Myself and many others around me speculated on just what the court will rule and debated whether having a death sentence is reduced to life would be doing us a favor or condemning us to have faith even worse than death.... to slowly rot away in the prison system until we inevitable die of old age.

Finally just this week the Florida Supreme Court gave us a glimpse into how the Hurst versus Florida decision might apply, or more accurately, how it would not apply. In the case of Khaddafi Mullens v State of Florida, the Florida Supreme Court declared that Hurst vs. Florida does not apply to Mullens because he waived his right to sentencing by jury. This is the first case to address application of Hurst and it's not a good sign.

The significance of this ruling is that it can now be used to exclude a larger number of Florida'd death sentenced prisoners from any relief under Hurst vs. Florida. Keep in mind that in Hurst, the US Supreme Court simply stated that only a jury can decide whether the elements necessary to justify a death sentence can be found. But under this same sixth amendment, it has long been recognised that the defendant can waive his right to have a jury decide his fate.

Although Mullens was on direct appeal, and his case would still have many more levels of appellate review before both the state and federal courts, there is actually a surprisingly large number of death sentenced prisoners who, like Mullens, waived their Sixth Amendment right to a jury at sentencing who have already exhausted their state and federal appeals and could now be targeted by Florida Governor Rick Scott for execution.

One might wonder why anyone facing the possibility of death would waive their fundamental constitutional right to have a jury decide their fate. But the truth is that many do. Some waive their right to jury determination because they feel having their case heard by only a judge would be preferable, while the majority of others waive their right to jury determination because they actually wanted to be sentenced to death and opposed presentation of any "mitigating" evidence.

This is something you rarely hear the courts or media talk about. There are many who actually wanted to be condemned to die, each for their own reasons. Some genuinely felt remorse for the victim and believed that justice could only be served if they were executed.  Others opposed any mitigation as they did not want to be sentenced to "life". They knew that they were only two choices in prison with no chance of ever being free, or death. And they choose death.

Some find that decision difficult to comprehend. For most, if asked whether they would like to live or die, the answer is no brainer as it is our natural instinct to want to live. But in all fairness, I think the question is more comparable to asking someone with a terminal disease whethey would prefer to be put to death, or die slowly, as either way they know they're not coming out of this alive.

Those familiar with the prison system know only too well what awaits them if they are sentenced to life. See, that's something you'll never get the pro death penalty proponents to understand - that if they really wanted to make "murderers" suffer, instead of putting them to death they should sentence them to "life" in prison, as it truly is a fate worse than death. And those who know it will often ask the court to sentence them to death.

When someone is sentenced to death, they are placed in continuous solitary confinement, leaving that six foot concrete crypt only for at most a few hours each week for recreation on an enclosed concrete "yard". Condemned prisoners are not allowed to work a prison job, or go to the dining hall for meals or even participate in church services. They are simply warehoused in that solitary crypt until the state gets around to killing them decades later. And it's not much of a life, and most go crazy in their own way. But at least there's that morbid hope that the nightmare will come to an end when they are executed.

In contrast, if sentenced to life they are cast down into what most amounts to a  jungle and forced to survive among both man and beast, only too often preyed upon, if they don't evolve into the predator themselves.

Doing life without any hope of being released truly is a long death sentence, as Pope Francis recognized when he visited the United States last year and called for not only the abolishment of the death penalty, but also of mandatory life sentences, which he referred to as a "slow death penalty".

Recently this was addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Atwell vs State (decision dated May, 2016). In that case, Angelo Atwell was 16 years old in 1990 when he committed a robbery and murder, and was subsequently sentenced to life on both counts. However, in 2010 the United States Supreme Court held in Graham vs Florida that sentencing juveniles to life with no possibility of release amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because juveniles are not as capable as adults.

Florida then tried to weasel out of it by saying that Atwell would be assigned an "objective" parole date of 2130, meaning that Atwell did have reason to believe he would be freed; all he had to do was live to be 156 years old. Florida claimed that since it did provide him a release date (at 156 years old) his life sentences were not in violation of Graham vs Florida.

However, a majority of the Florida Supreme Court disagreed, finding that it was unreasonable to assume that Atwell would live to be 156 years old and a parole date in 2130 effectively amounted to a mandatory life sentence in violation of Graham v Florida.

In reaching this conclusion the Florida Supreme Court recognized that there are currently 4626 inmates in the prison system technically eligible for parole, but that in the fiscal year of 2013-14 only twenty-three of those 4626 inmates were actually granted parole. The conclusion is that for all practical purposes, parole doesn't exist in Florida and those serving a life sentence will die in prison.

This is why so many current death sentenced prisoners would rather not have their  death sentences reduced to life. It's not only those who waived a jury determination of sentence at trial, which are now precluded from relief under  Hurst v Florida, but also many more who now are demanding that their lawyers not raise claims of entitlement to relief under Hurst v Florida.

Myself, I have no intention of waiving anything. I do understand that like everything else in the Florida Criminal Justice system, the parole board haslong been politically corrupted and until they are forced to change there is no reasonable expectation of parole.  Assuming the parole system doesn't change, if those currently sentenced to death have their sentences reduced to life, they will still die in prison, only it will take longer and they'll have to survive in the jungle.

But the way I see it, this recent Atwell vs State case illustrates that not only is change  possible, but it's inevitable. There is a growing force of politicians andjudges who  want to see these mandatory life sentences abolished and the parole system modified to allow for reasonable release on parole.

For that reason I'm willing to fight to have my unconstitutionally imposed sentences of death reduced to life - if I am put to death, I obviously will not have any chance of proving my innocence and winning my freedom. But at least if I had my death sentence reduced to life, then there is still the hope that I can convince the courts to address my claim of innocence, and if not, then at least maybe in coming years what the Florida Supreme Court said in Atwell vs State about juveniles must be given a reasonable release date will extend to adults. If I know nothing else about the criminal justice system, it is that it evolves with society's ever-changing values. And change will come.

One of the guys who is insisting that he be executed rather than slowly die of old age in prison told me that I'm just afraid of dying and I immediately responded: "No, I'm not afraid to die - you're just afraid to live". And as long as I'm alive, I have hope of freedom. But nobody wins freedom from the grave.

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Death Watch Journal (part 20)

That gun to my head to remain fully cocked and ready to fire, but at least for now the safety is still on as the Florida Supreme Court continues to debate whether all Florida death sentences must be thrown out, or just some. as I watched the oral arguements in the most recent case before the Florida Supreme Court on June 7, 2016 I noticed that the justices went to great lengths not to reveal their position on whether Hurst v. Florida will be applied retroactively to all cases, or limited to only the most recent cases.

As I continue to struggle with the uncertainty of whether I will live or die, I thought some about where I was 16 years ago today - at that time convinced that within weeks I would walk out a free man. But it didn't happen. Instead, once again I learned a lesson we all learn about what the death penalty is really about... politics. I smile when I think about the epidemic of blissful ignorance - those who truly believe that our system is committed to that noble cause of administering justice and protecting the innocent. I suppose that's what they need to believe, as if they were to be forced to confront the truth that those responsible for convicted and condemning people to death under the pretense of administering justice only too often couldn't care less about whether the accused actually committed the crimes...all that really counts is winning the conviction, and too many prosecutors will do whatever is necessary to win as they don't get promoted by losing cases.

Too often I hear people speak of the "moral certainty of guilt" as the benchmark for ensuring that innocent men and women are not put to death.  But it's merely rhetoric - it makes a good sound bite on the evening news and provides an assumption that there truly is solid evidence supporting every capital case and no reasonable person would question the guilt of those put to death. This is the smoke and mirrors show prosecutors and politicians put on to distract away from the real truth - that only too often the alleged evidence used to convict and condemn us, at best, tainted and not at all what it seems.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm hardly objective when it comes to my own case. But then again, as I've always said to anyone who would listen, I'm not asking anyone to simply believe me - and they shouldn't believe the prosecutors either. Rather, all I have ever asked is that those who do feel that there must be a moral certainty of guilt, before the state takes a life under the pretense of administering justice, look at the evidence in my case themselves and then ask whether they can say that the collective evidence establishes my guilt - or does it show that the State of Florida is only too willing to execute the innocent?

The basic facts of my case are that in February 1983 while I was living with Frances Smith in a small rural farming community, she and I went to a local bar where by chance we met another couple, a 35 year old man who called himself Chip, who would later be identified as Clarence Moore, also known as Lawrence Lamberson, and a nineteen-year-old local waitress by the name of Alicia Bryant. The state's own investigation (unknown to the jury) revealed that Moore was a "career criminal" and known associate of south Florida drug smugglers, with the history of violently assaulting women when intoxicated.

It is not disputed that me and Frances Smith joined Moore and Bryant and the four of us then spent the evening of Sunday February 5th 1983, drinking at several local bars before the four of us then decided to go back to the trailer me and Smith shared, located on a ranch well outside of town. After arriving at the trailer, me, Moore and Bryant sat in the living room drinking whiskey while Smith was in the adjacent kitchen cooking a late night dinner. Smith would later testify that we were all "laughing teasing and playing around" just before me and Moore would go outside, leaving Smith and Bryant inside the trailer.

Fast forward to the following week. Frances Smith was arrested while in the exclusive possession of the car belonging to Moore. She was then intensely questioned by the police as to how she got the car, and gave the police one story after another, each proving false, before she was bonded out of jail. The following week Smith walked into the state attorney's office in Tampa, Florida and announced that she knew where the bodies are buried in rural Glades county and will lead the police to them - but she wanted full immunity from prosecution.

Smith then tells the prosecutor that after arriving at the trailer that night, I first went outside with Moore and then returned alone about 20 minutes later, at which time I "looked normal". I had no blood on me. Then I went outside with Alicia Bryant, but this time I was outside much longer and when I returned I was "covered in blood" and told her "they're death".

Smith has consistently said that although she repeatedly asked what happened, I wouldn't talk about it, and never said why. She claimed she was then "forced" to assist in superfacially concealing the bodies of Moore and Bryant, then left Glades county with me, and subsequently we parted ways with Smith keeping Moore's car until she was arrested on unrelated charges.

The following month I was arrested and charged with capital murder of both Moore and Bryant. Based solely on Smith's statements, I was indicted on premeditated murder and the state announced it would seek the death penalty. At arraignment, I pled not guilty.

The prosecutor knew that is wholly circumstantial case was weak, and that unless additional evidence could be developed there was a really good chance that the jury would reject Smith's testimony and acquit me. But then another witness came forward. The girlfriend of Smith's own cousin (Deborah Hanzel) conveniently corroborated Smith's otherwise unsupported testimony by claiming that she too had talked to me and that I admitted to killing the man, apparently motivated by an intent to steal his car.

Suddenly this wholly circumstantial case had substance and with the threat of the death penalty hanging over my head the local prosecutor tried to coerce me into pleading guilty for a more lenient sentence, but I refused. In December 1983 the case went to trial, but that first jury refused to convict me of any charges - they could not reach an unanimous verdict ("hung jury")

The case was rescheduled for trial and the local prosecutor vowed to convict, but shortly before trial again attempted to coerce me into pleading guilty to lesser charges of (second-degree murder) in exchange for what would had been a sentence of 17 to 22 years - I would have been out within 10 to 15 years. But again, I refused, insisting that I would not plead guilty for something I didn't do.

On the very day that the re-trial began, for reasons never explained, the original presiding judge (Richard Adams) was abrubtly removed and replaced by another judge, (Richard Stanley) - a local career prosecutor who  was later quoted by various newspapers as saying that he always carried a"sawed off machine gun" while on the bench and that if he had it his way, he would have shot capital defendants "between the eyes" in his courtroom rather than going through the expense of convicting and condemning them to death.

I knew I was in trouble just as soon as they started to pick the jury and the court stacked the deck with at least 4 jurors related to members of the small town local sheriff's department - and it only got worse from there. Judge Stanley then prohibited the jury from knowing that key witness Smith actually gave numerous conflicting stories prior to coming up with the one she testified to - and that even then, Smith failed a state administered polygraph test.

Then the court prohibited me from testifying, even though I was the only person who could have disputed Smith's claims and allowed the jury to know what really happened outside. I was not allowed to testify for no other reason but my appointed lawyer - who never previously represented a capital defendant - felt that my testimony was not necessary as he felt the state could not prove the case.

Not surprisingly it took less than an hour for the jury to convict me on both counts of capital premeditated murder, and I was subsequently sentenced to death, joining the ranks of the condemned in March 1984.

It would take another 20 years before I was finally given the opportunity to testify in court as to what really happened that night. Most people are blissfully ignorant of how our legal system really works - they think that the Courts review every case and address innocence on every appeal - and that's just not true.

As the US Supreme Court plainly stated, innocent is not an issue. Rather, the courts are limited to reviewing only specifically pled claims of substantial error, and such claims must be presented within the very narrow parameter of procedural rules - if not properly presented, even the strongest claims of error are "procedurally defaulted".

In 1997 my primary appeals before both the state and federal courts were concluded when in Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 US, 51B (1997) by a marginal 5 to 4 decision the United States Supreme Court ruled that although I was illegally sentenced to death, because my lawyers failed to timely present the claim, I was procedurally barred from relief.

Florida Governor Lawton Chiles appointed clemency counsel and I entered into the pre-death warrant stage - no Florida death row prisoner has been granted clemency since 1986,nor would any.

But then unexpectedly the only witness that corroborated Francis Smith's trial testimony came forward and admitted that her trial testimony was not true. Deborah Hanzel then testified under oath that key witness Smith and the prosecutor's lead investigator Miles "Bob" Daniels had coerced her to provide the false testimony, telling her if she didn't, then her children would be harmed.

Deborah Hanzel also testified in 2003 that Frances Smith told her that her own testimony was not true, and that - just as I had consistently claimed for the past thirty three years, Moore had physically assaulted Bryant and when I tried to stop the fatal assault, Moore turned on me, forcing me to act in self-defense (link to video). As Hanzel testified about how Smith and the prosecutor's lead investigator worked together to coerce her false testimony, Smith's own recently divorced husband contacted my lawyers and advised them that Smith had often "bragged" about how she was having an affair with the prosecutor's lead investigator "Bob", and that he had protected her from prosecution.

The court ordered Frances Smith to respond to these allegations under oath, and although at first she swore she didn't know the investigator "Bob" Daniels, she then reluctantly admitted that it was true - that he did have a sexual relationship with the prosecutor's lead investigator during the case. Both Smith and investigator Daniels were then compelled ro reluctantly admit that just before testifying they were seen talking in the hall. But Daniels insisted he never had sex with Smith - but then conceded that even if it was true, he wouldn't admit it as it would jeopardize his state pension and cause problems in his marriage.

As all this was pending, it came out that the prosecutor, Randall McGrunther, had deliberately concealed evidence prior to trial. From the very beginning of the case the prosecutors claimed that no physical and forensic evidence was recovered in the case. But in 2009 it was revealed for the first time that in 1983 the State Crime Lab actually did find numerous hairs on the alleged "murder weapon" that they found did not match either victim, or me - and that when the crime lab brought this unexpected discovery to the attention of Randall McGrunther, he ordered all the evidence to be returned to his office - then he concealed this evidence until it was accidentally recovered at the state records respository.

Confronted with the probability that based upon this collective "new evidence" that the jury never heard my convictions would be thrown out, suddenly I was offered yet another opportunity to negogiate a plea for a reduced sentence. This time I was willing to plea "no contest" to reduced sentence of 30 years on a plea of second-degree murder. At the time I already had 22 years in and was entitled to another seven years of time off for "good behavior". Agreeing to this "plea bargain" (as it is commonly called) meant that I would be released within months.

Judge R. Thomas Corbin postponed any other hearings to allow both parties to reach an agreement, but then all of a sudden the prosecutor decided that they would not allow a reduced conviction - but if I would formally abandon any further claim of innocence, that would reduce my death sentence to life. It seemed simple enough -  all I had to do was waive any further review of my consistently claim of innocence and the State of Florida that would let me live - I didn't have to die.

But I couldn't do it. As was published in the Ft MyersNews Press in July 2006, I would not enter a plea to a crime I knew I didn't commit.

Judge Corbin then denied all relief, finding that every witness that testified for me was not credible while every witness to testify for the state was telling nothing but the truth.

Not long after Judge Corbin made the absurd and  self-contradictory ruling, it was revealed that the local state attorney had established a powerful "political action committee" (AAC) with the assistance of a convicted money launderer associated with Colombian drug cartels and through this  AAC all but controlled local elections and circuit courts judges and judge Corbin was up for reelection.  Motions to disqualify Judge Corbin and reopen the case were summarily denied.

The case proceeded to appellate review before the Florida Supreme Court and it was argued at length that Judge Corbin's denial of relief was contrary to the evidence and "dubious at best". Further, legal counsel argued that judge Corbin improperly refused to allow of wealth of readily available evidence that would substantiate the pled allegations that the key witness Frances Smith and the prosecutor's office deliberately fabricated the case of alleged premeditated murder and that they knew that it was a case of legally justified self-defense.

But as luck would have it, by the time I finish made it back up to the Florida Supreme Court, none other then Peggy Quince was the politically appointed Chief Justice. Notably, prior to being appointed to the state's highest court, Peggy Quince was part of the prosecution team in my case during the post-conviction proceedings when the evidence at issue was deliberately concealed. To grand me relief, the Florida Supreme Court would now have to recognize that Chief Justice Peggy Quince engaged in prosecutional misconduct that resulted in sending an innocent man to death row.

Motions to disqualify the court and allowed the case to be heard by a panel of Judges not associated with Chief Justice Peggy Quince were denied. A formal civil rights action was then filed seeking to expose this denial of fair and impartial review, but that was dismissed for no other reason but a technical error, see

In unprecidented hastily presumablyattributable to the Florida Supreme Court's desire to protect their chief justice Peggy Quince from allegations of prosecutional misconduct, the court affirmed denial of relief - categorically refusing to even address the readily available evidence substantiating my consistently maintained claim of innocence.

Under the 1996 "Anti-terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act" (AEDPA) my federal court review was limited and effectively unavailable.  My legal counsel filed a "petition for writ of habeas corpus" with the United States Supreme Court argueing that absent extraordinary intervention the State of Florida would proceed to put an innocent man to death, specifically arguing that neither the state or federal courts have allowed any opportunity for the readily available evidence substantiating my innocence to be heard and asking the Supreme Court to order a full hearing on the evidence.

On the morning of November 30, 2015 the Supreme Court denied review. Not more than 2 hours later Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a death warrant formally scheduling my execution for February 11, 2016. (check out: "Execution day: Involuntary witness to murder" )

Within days of that scheduled execution I received a stay of execution pending a review of application of Hurst vs. Florida. I continue to remain under an active death warrant and my execution could be rescheduled soon.

As I know quite literally stand in the shadow of death, do I regret not accepting the states offer to reduce my sentence to life if I will abandon my claim of innocence? No, I do not. I thought this fight to prove my innocence for 33 years now, and never once wavered. I'd rather die with my integrity intact than weasel out of it a coward. If the State of Florida is willing to execute an innocent man, then so be it. But as Socrates said to the tribunal that wrongly condemned him to death so long ago, "to which of us go the worst fate, you or I?"

Sunday, May 22, 2016

Death Watch Journal (part 19)

What I really want to do is use my limited forum to write an open letter to England's Prince Harry, but it wouldn't do any good ashe'd never read it and even if he did it's all but certain that he wouldn't care about what I have to say.

See here's the I write this Prince Harry is in Orlando, Florida hosting the Invictus Games, which is an organization he founded with what I'm sure was and is the best of intentions. What they do is provide a forum arguably comparable to the Olympics but limited to allowing disabled veterans from various nations to compete against each other in sporting competitions. I'm told by the media that Invictus means "unconquered"and it's an honorable thing to support those disabled veterans, although those eligible to compete do not necessarily have to be disabled during combat, but only be physically disabled, and a veteran.

As Prince Harry said to the media, the Invictus Games is intended to provide "a platform for those who served". And as much as I admire those who do try to help disabled veterans, I found it contemptable that those who claim to be reaching out to support disabled veterans deliberately turn a blind eye to the thousands of disabled veterans that are not politically and socially acceptable.

For all the bravado of Prince Harry's event held in Orlando, Florida there was absolutely no mention whatever of those honorably discharged disabled veterans incarcerated in state and federal prisons -  and you won't hear anyone speaking out in support of those disabled veterans.

Is it alright to pick and choose which disabled veterans are worthy of recognition? If you're going to turn a blind eye to any disabled veteran for no reason but that individual is not socially acceptable, then you clearly do not respect any veterans. This is especially true given the indisputable fact that many of the disabled veterans imprisoned in America - and there are thousands - are there for conviction of a crime that would not have happened if not for the physical or mental trauma they suffered while serving their country.

Florida likes the project this image of supporting veterans. But what nobody talked about is that the State of Florida also has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, and has a long history of keeping thousands upon thousands of those prisoners in long-term solitary confinement under physically and mentally oppressive conditions.

More importantly, Florida has a well-documented history of deliberately denying prisoners basic medical care, including the thousands of disabled veterans held in Florida prisons. In recent years even both the state and federal law enforcement applied have conducted investigations into the systematic denial of basic medical care - but as is only two common, they actually did nothing.

My own care illustrates what is widespread throughout the Florida prison system. When I was 18 years old and married, I voluntarily enlisted in the Army in the hopes of building a life for my new family. But while on duty I suffered an accident that left me hospitalized, then honerably discharged. When I left the Army I was thrown back out into the real world, and permanently physically disabled, with no medical care and unable to work.Back then in the post-Vietnam America, disabled veterans were extended the same measure of respect typically reserved for mangy dogs and considered outcasts or lepers.

As with so many other disabled veterans, I was left to fend for myself. And I was married, with a child on the way. As indisputable court records reflect, without meaningful access to medical care, I turned to alcohol and illegal drugs to manage my chronic pain I experienced. It wasn't long before the marriage ended, I lost custody of my children, and I ended up in prison.

But I wasn't a career criminal. What sent me to prison for 2 years was my first and only criminal conviction - a "bounced check", because I had insufficient funds in my own bank account to cover the check I wrote, I was convicted of a felony and sent to prison for 2 years.

Fast forward to where I am today...for 32 years now I've been on Florida's death row now, held continuously in solitary confinement. Florida has the highest date of wrongful convictions in capital cases in the country and undoubtedly will not hesitate to execute innocent men and women, as is evidenced by my own case - neither the Florida courts or Governor Rick Scott will allow that readily available evidence substantiating my innocence to be heard. (see and )

Like myself, if you're a disabled veteran in the Florida prison system, you will not receive any meaningful medical care. Even if you suffer from extreme physical pain due to your military induced physical disability, the Florida prison system will not provide the care necessary to mitigate that pain.

And this is why it's bothers me when I see people like Prince Harry showboating his hand-picked disabled veterans in Florida, of all places. Do you think even one person involved in these Invictus games took even a moment to ask how disabled veterans in the Florida prison system are treated? Of course they didn't, that wouldn't fit into their image.

For the past 3 months now, since I was given a stay of execution, I have been denied even basic medication necessary to manage my extreme physical pain. I have done everything possible to try to get help, but nobody will listen. In fact, although there are countless organization all but competing against each other to perpetuate this politically popular image of taking care of disabled veterans, you will not even find one state or national organization willing to help incarcerated disabled veterans.

You know, I kind of like Prince Harry - he seems like the kind of guy that I would hang out with and have fun. But when a person uses their public image to advocate for disabled veterans, it shouldn't be just those hand-picked few that project an image they find appealing.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Death Watch Journal (part 18)

As I write this, it's been about 3 months since, only days before my then scheduled execution, the Florida Supreme Court issued a temporary stay of execution in light of the January 2016 United States Supreme Court decision in Hurst vs State (which for those who do not already know, declared that the process that Florida has utilised to sentence people to death was unconstitutional) as they debate whether Hurst must apply to all cases, including my case - what is technically called "retroactive application".

This issue remains as yet undecided, and even some of the best legal minds continue to be confused. Common Sense would seem to dictate that if the highest court in the country has declared the Florida process to be illegal then anyone sentenced under this process has been illegally sentenced to death and the only logical conclusion is that an illegally obtained sentence of death must be vacated.

But we're talking about the death penalty which exists primarily to appease societies thirst for vengeance not the more noble pursuit of justice, so basic principle of common sense simply don't apply.

If the average citizen does something illegal, they call it a crime and impose consequences. But if the legal system commits an act that is shown to be illegal then it is conveniently labeled a "technicality" and the courts will debate whether or not the consequences are necessary under their own interpretation of the "interest of justice". I guess it's just anotherperverse twist of that saying "do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do".

What all this comes down to is in this past generation of America's "war on crime" our legal system has devised its own set of politically motivated rules to protect this corrupt legal system from accountability. In this fanatical pursuit of vengeance the ends justify the means and the objective is to expedite executions not struggle with "technicalities" that might stand in the way.

The state of Florida has taken the position that the Supreme Court's ruling in Hurst does not affect any capital cases. In the numerous cases already addressed by the Florida Supreme Court, including my own, the state has categorically insisted that Hurst cannot apply. Bottom line, Florida would have the courts believe that the Hurst decision was merely a rhetorical refinement of technical statutory construction even though on March 7th, 2016 the Florida legislature itself rewrote Florida's death penalty laws, recognizing that the previous statute authorizing imposition of death as a punishment was invalid.

What the courts continue to struggle with is whether  this Hurst v Florida decision must be "retroactively" applied - meaning whether it must be applied to capital cases in which the sentence of death has already previously been affirmed on appeal, such as my own case.

Why would this be complicated? Because our courts have adopted technical rules that prohibit retroactive application of "new law" under applicable Federal law as specifically set forth in Summerlin vs. Schiro (2003), the Hurst decision (which is itself an extension of Ring versus Arizona) cannot be applied retroactively because by a marginal majority of 5 to 4 in Summerlin the Supreme Court declared that Ring/Hurst is a procedural refinement as opposed to announcement of substantive law.

However, in my case, and all others already heard, the argument is that this Federal law prohibiting retroactive application under Summerlin cannot apply as long established law recognizes that Federal constitutional law merely establishes what is minimally required and each state is constitutionally entitled to establish its own laws providing even greater protections....and Florida law has exercised that perogative by established the Witt v State standard of law defining when a new rule of law must be retroactively applied.

As evidenced by the legal briefs filed, and the May 5 "oral arguements" held before the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Attorney General has reluctantly accepted that whether or not Hurst versus Florida is retroactively applied will be decided under Florida's own law and not federal law..and that under applicable state law it is almost certain that the Hurst vs. Florida decision will be retroactively applied to all Florida cases.

So, now the Florida Attorney General has focused its argument on why the Florida Supreme Court should not grant relief to any case. Their argument now insists that rather than vacate even one death sentence, the Court should instead conduct its own "harmless error analysis" to determine, based upon subjective speculation that each and every jury that previously sentenced every person on death row to death
would have found at least one statutorily defined "aggravator" required before a person is eligible for death so any failure to comply with constitutional law is "harmless".

But we do kill people based on speculation, or is something more then what amounts to a guessing game required? It would appear that a majority of the Florida Supreme Court is inclined to reject any such "harmless error" analysis.

But even that is speculation as during the height of the death penalty popularity when politicians won elected office by completing to see who would kill more people Florida (and most other states, as well as the federal government) passed laws significantly expanding the stationary defined "aggravating circumstances" that makes a capital defendant eligible for death to now include almost every conceivable circumstance any murder is committed.

My own case will undoubtedly address this issue - because there were two victims, under Florida law the "aggravating circumstance" of "previously convicted of a violent felony"was applied that the Florida Attorney General now argues makes Hurst versus Florida inapplicable to my case because by finding me guilty of both alleged "murders" in the guild face, the jury implicitly found this aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, even though in my case during the penalty phase my jury was actually instructed that this particular aggravator did not apply as it was never previously convicted of any violent crime, but only the sentencing judge subsequently applied this aggravator by finding that each count justified application to both counts, hence making one statutarily eligible for death.

If the Florida Supreme Court adopts this arguement that my case and most others will be denied relief. And not only those cases like mine that in which the question of retroactive application was the determinative factor, but many of even the most recent cases - for example, the majority of capital cases are prosecuted under the theory of "felony murder" not actually premeditated intent to kill. What this means is that the victim died as a result of actions or events attributable to the commission of an underlying felony such as robbery, burglary, arson - or other.

So, if during the guilt phase of the trial the jury finds the defendant guilty of felony murder and a crime enumerated by statute, then the Attorney General insists that Hurst v Florida cannot apply, even if the jury did not subsequently recommend a sentence of death by unaminous vote, or specifically identify any of the statutorily defined aggravating circumstances required to be found before a sentence of death can be imposed.

If the Florida Supreme Court adopts this arguement, then the Hurst v Florida would apply to very few cases and Florida's machinery of death will continue to grind it's gears on the bones and flesh of those illegally condemned to death - the ends justify the means and it's about appeasing societies thirst for vengeance, not administering justice.

Finally, assuming that Hurst v Florida must apply retroactively to all Florida cases, as it would appear that it must, and a majority of the Florida Supreme Court rejects the Attorney General arguements that the Court can simply conduct its won subjective speculation as to "harmless error" and categorically deny application of Hurst v Florida to cases which a statutory aggravator was implicitly found by virtue of the jury's finding of guilt, then the final question is whether those entitled to relief under Hurst v Florida are entitled to an automatic reduction of death sentence, to life, or the case must be remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing trial so that a new jury can determine whether a sentence of death is appropriate under the new 2016 statutes.

But that then generated debate by the Court as to whether Florida's recently adopted law allowing for a sentence of death to be imposed by merely a 10-2 jury vote ("super majority") is even itself unconstitutional - the vast majority of states allowing the death penalty require no less than an unanimous jusry vote before a death sentence can be imposed.

Because the question of whether Florida's recently adopted 10-2 law is itself constitutional now that it will impact those entitled to new sentencing under Hurst v Florida, it is unlikely the Florida Supreme Court will decide any of these cases until it first addresses that issue - and it has already scheduled "oral arguements" on that issue for next month (June). If this 10-2 law is found to be unconstitutional, then all of this could easily drag out until at least next year, as the Florida legislature would be required to yet again rewrite Florida's death penalty laws....and then the subsequent challenge to the newly rewritten laws.

In conclusion, it would appear that this issue will not be resolved anytime soon but will continue to drag out for at least a few more months and possibly even years. Until that time I will remain on "death watch" and under that uncertainty of whether I will live or die.

You can watch video interviews of me with various recent media sources here, not only addresing the Hurst v Florida issue, but addressing my substantiated claim of innocence, too. The videos are also available to watch at the right side of this blog.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Death Watch Journal (part 17)

One thing about death row is that not much changes around here through the years, other than the receding hairlines and a few faces from time to time. Maybe that's why being on death row throws us off so much as it's a complete change of environment and as the weeks pass and your date with death draws closer, it sinks in that you're down there waiting to die.

Just as you resolve yourself to that reality that you will be next to die, changes come again when the court grants a temporary stay of execution as they consider a legal issue that will ultimately decide whether you will live or die, as they did in my case almost three months ago. But that change of location from being down in that cell immediately next to the execution chamber to being moved back to the regular death row wing doesn't really seem like that much of a change as I'm still technically under an active death warrant and anytime now the court could rule against me and lift this stay of execution, sending me a right back down to that same cell next to the execution chamber.

This week we received a memo advising all of us that effective immediately the mailing address for Florida State Prison as been changed (new address at the end of this post) and although the address has changed I don't feel like I've gone anywhere.

Why would they change the mailing address for the prison? That's the first question I asked as obviously the prison didn't move anywhere. I was told that the Florida Department of Corrections Secretary's office has decided that the regional mail centers, where mail coming to all the area prisons was processed, proved to be a waste of time and money so that they decided to put the mail room back in the prisons.

They never really took the mail rooms out of each prison when they came up with this idea of saving money by creating a regional mail center as although the mail first was processed by this original center, it still had to then be sent to the individual prison and distributed to the housing areas. Maybe by now eliminating that extra step and allowing our mail to come directly to the prison it will mean that our mail will get to us quicker so maybe his address change will prove to be a good thing...time will tell, I guess.

Other changes are also in the works. In the 32 years that I've been on Florida's death row we have been prohibited from making social phone calls to family and friends, unless there was an emergency to an immediate family member such as death. But even then it was hard to get a phone call.

Recently the Florida Department of Corrections decided that allowing death-row inmates to make phone calls would be acceptable and after almost a year of figuring out how this would be implemented, the FDOC came out with rules that will now allow each death row prisoners to make only a 15-minute phone call per month,  and only to those on a pre-approved phone list.

Why only 15 minutes phone call a month? Prisoners in the general population can make at least one phone call a day and even prisoners who are placed in close management, because they committed violations of prison rules, are allowed more than that, so how does it make any sense that those on death row will only be allowed one phone call per month?

The only informal response I got to that question was that one phone call per month is a lot more than none at all, so it should be glad that we would be allowed that.

But then there's the process we must go through in order to even get anyone on out "approved" phone list. Each person who wants to be placed on our list must first provide a verifiable copy of their phone contract and billing information. This is required under the pretense of allowing the prison to verify that the phone number is to that person and at the address where that person lives.

Which begs the question..if you're willing to write to a prisoner would you be comfortable mailing that prisoner your confidential information, especially into a prison where it could be "accidentally" given to the wrong inmate who does who knows what with it?

Prison is what it is, and there's no doubt that the multi-billion dollar industry that American prisons have become today are nothing less than bureaucracy's, and it's the nature of any bureaucracy to create unnecessary obstructions that really serve no purpose but to justify the necessity of creating this bureaucracy in the first place.

In closing, I again remind you that effective immediately the mailing addres has changed.  All mail sent to the old address will be forwarded for up to 30 days to the new address, which is:
Florida State Prison
P.O. Box 800
Raiford, Florida 32083
Thanks also to all people who left comments, sent cards or letters. I do receive them all and appreciate them, it means a lot to me. 

Innocent and Executed - please read