betsy benson jnc

8/18/2019 Betsy Benson JNC

1/82

APPLICATION FOR NOM INATION TO THE COUN TY COURT

(Please attach additional pages as needed to respond fully to questions.)D AT E : November 5, 2015 Florida Bar No.: 0434280

fr

G E N E R A L : Social Security No.:1. N a m e Betsy B^nson E-nnaii: _BetsyB_ensonEsg^maiLcom

Date Adm itted to Practice in Florida: October 17, 1984IVS.-^M^tu

.Ai

Date Admitted to Practice in other States: N/A

2. State current employer and title, including professional position and any public orjudicial office.

How ard Finketstein, Esq. Public Defender, Se yenteenth _Jydicial Circuit^-

th3. Business address: 201 SE 6m Street, Suite3872

City Fort Lauderdale County JBrpward State FL ZIP 33301

Telephone (954) 831-8672 F A X (954)831-88664. Residential address:

,-f^lwMf,,^Itm/^,

City County _BR State FL ZIP

Since November 27,1997 Telephoneff/^^WM^v

5. Place of birth: Miami, Florida

Date of birth: May 14, 1959 Age: 56II.ULIU.T

6a. Length of residence in State of Florida: J-ifelong resident

6b, Are you a registered voter? [X] Yes D No

If so, in what county are you registered? B reward

7. Marital status: siasiev.w.v.^u^

If married: Spouse's name N/A

Date of marriage N/A"- - ~ff --.-^"^^-^ ^ *'/.--

Spouse's occupation N/A.-/tlM^F.U.WWA'A-AM^

If ever divorced give for each ma rriage nam e(s) of spouse(s), current address for eachformer spouse, date and place of divorce, court and case number for each divorce.N /A

Rev. l00209-OGC


2/82

^*>*

Rt I '^ n,' e;.r- fc^f dh


3/82

8. Children

Name(s) Age(s) Occupation(s) Residential address(es)9 N/A S a m e

9. Military Service (including Reserves)Service Branch Highest Rank DatesN /A N/A N/A N /A

Rank at time of d ischarge N /AType of discharge -.^.-.-.-.nT--L-Awards o r citations

HEALTH:

10' ^^^ê?^J??Ste?-t( .-°/-lep?nf ®,nt .upon..the, use of "arcotics, drugs, orintoxicating beverages? If yes, state the details, including the date(s).No.

Ha, During _the^last ten years have you been hospitalized or have you consulted a£rofess;,onaL°r ha''ôureceived trea'mentor a d'^n"^ from a professional for^ o-fLhl;.fo?owmgi..K eptomama- patholo9ical ".- Compulsive Gambling: "PedophiExhibitionismorVoyeurism?Yes D N o

lf,y^l.a.rl8w^rj :y_es^pleas? direct®ach.such professional, hospital afumish. thl chaH"pereon.of the commis,sion' any information' the" Commission" mayûeslwth-:,espe,c'to. -y-h^pital.zation, consultation, treatment ord,agno£r;pr°fesston.al"jncludes ,a phVsiclan. PSVChia^. Psychologist, Psychothe7a°pi,to rMental Health Counselor.]

Please describe such treatment or diagnosis.N /A

11 b. In the past ten years have any of the following occurred to you whichyour ability to work in a com petent and professional manner?

Experiencing periods of no sleep for 2 or 3 nights

Experiencing periods of hyperactivity

Spending money profusely with extremely poor judgmentSuffered from extreme loss of appetitet

2Rev. I0020.9-OGC


4/82

Issuing checks without sufficient funds

Defaulting on a loan

Experiencing frequent mood swings

Uncontrollable tiredness

Falling asleep without warning in the.middle of an activity

Yes N o

If yes, please explain.

12a. Do you currently have a physical or mental impairment which in any way limits yourability or fitness to properly exercise your duties as a member of the Judiciary in a

competent and professional manner?Yes D N o

12b. If your answer to the question above is Yes, are the limitations or impairments caused byyour physical or mental health impairment reduced or ameliorated because you receiveongoing treatment (with or without medication) or participate in a monitoring orcounseling program?

Ye s D N o D

Describe such problem and any treatment or program of monitoring or counseling.

13. During the last ten years, have you ever been declared legally incompetent or have youor your property been placed under any guardianship, conservatorship or committee? Ifyes, give full details as to court, date and circumstances.

No.

14. During the last ten years, have you unlawfully used controlled substances, narcoticdrugs or dangerous drugs as defined by Federal or State laws? If your answer is "Yes,"explain in detail. (Unlawful use includes the use of one or more drugs and/or theunlawful possession or distribution of drugs. It does not include the use of drugs takenunder supen/ision of a licensed health care professional or other uses authorized byFederal law provisions.)

No.

3Rev. 100209-OGC


5/82

15 . in the past ten years, have you ever been reprimanded, demoted, disciplined, placed onprobation, suspended, cautioned or terminated by an employer as result of your allegedconsumption of alcohol, prescription drugs or illegal use of drugs? If so, please state thecircumstances under which such action was taken, the name(s) of any persons who tooksuch action, and the background and resolution of such action.No.

16, Have you ever refused to submit to a test to determine whether you had consumedand/or were under the influence of alcohol or drugs? If so, please state the date youwere requested to su bmit to such a test, the type of test required, the nam e of the entityrequesting that you submit to the test, the outcome of your refusal and the reason whyyou refused to submit to such a test.

No.

17. In the past ten years, have you suffered memory loss or impaired judgment for anyreason? If so, please explain in full.

No.

E DUCAT ION:

18a. Secondary schools, colleges and law schools attended.Schools C/ass Standing Dates of Attendance Degree

Archbishop CurteyHigh School, Miami, no info High SchoolF L available 1973-1977 Diploma

University of Florida 1977-1978

Rotlins College 1978-1981 Bachelor of Arts

Nova SoutheasternUniversity 1981-1984 Juris Doctorate

18b, List and describe academic scholarships earned, honor societies or other awards.

Senior Class President, Archbishop Curley High School

N O N - L E G A L E M P L O Y M E N T:

19. List all previous full-time non-legal jobs or positions held since 21 in chronological orderand briefly describe them.

Date Pos/Y/bn Employer Address

1993-1994 Owner/Editor OutPages, Inc. no longer in business1989-1991 O w n e r Big Bang no longer in business

4

Rev. 100209-OGC


6/82

P R O F E S S IO N A L A D M IS S I O N S :

20. List all courts (including state bar admissions) and administrative bodies having specialadmission requirements to which you have ever been admitted to practice, giving thedates of admission, and if applicable, state whether you have been suspended orresigned.

Court or Administrative Body Date of Admission

Federal Bar 1992

LAW PRACTICE: (If you are a sitting judge, answer questions 21 through 26 with referenceto the years before you became a judge.)

21. State the names, dates and addresses for all firms with which you have been associatedin practice, governmental agencies or private business organizations by which you havebeen employed, periods you have practiced as a sole practitioner, law clerkships andother prior employment;Position Name of Firm Address Dates

Please seeattached.

t

22. Describe the general nature of your current practice including any certifications whichyou possess; additionally, if your practice is substantially different from your priorpractice or if you are not now practicing law, give details of prior practice. Describe yourtypical clients or former clients and the problems for which they sought your semces.Please see attached.

23. What percentage of your appearance in courts in the last five years or last five years ofpractice (include the dates) was in:

Court Area of Practice

Federal Appellate % Civil %

Federal Trial % Criminai %

Federal Other % Family %

State Appellate % Probate %

State Trial 100 % Other %

State Administrative %

State Other %

5Rev. 100209-OGC


7/82

Answer to Question 21 - LAW PRACTICE

Position Name of Firm Address Dates

Law Clerk Benson, Ray and May 1 Fin'l Plaza #1600, FTL, 33301 1981-1984

Certified Legal Intern, State Attorney's Office; Broward County Courthouse 1984

Asst. Public Defender, Alan H.SGhrejber, P.O. Broward County Courthouse 10/84-12/88

Asst. Public Defender, Jo


8/82

Q.uestion 22: Describe the general nature of your current practice, including any certificationswhich you p ossess. Add itionally, if your curren t practice is substantially different from your priorpractice, or if you are not now practicing law, give details of your prior practice. Describe yourtypical clients, or former clients and the problems for which they sought your s ervices.

Since 2011,1 have handled death penalty cases exclusively on behalf of Mr. Finkelstein's office.am certified to try death penalty cases pursuant to the Supreme Court's guidelines as codified

in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. These cases are very involved on many levels,namely: fact investigation in discovery, research into scientific issues, the vetting, use, andexamination of experts, and myriad legal issues involving admissibility of evidence, the

constitutionality of Florida's death penalty scheme and its application to my client's case, andthe State's evidence to support it. The cases are time intensive in and out of the courtroom.Our defense team is the last advocate of our client.

From 2009 to 20111 handled 'direct file' cases for Mr. Finkelstein. All children who were

charged as adults and could not afford counsel were defended by myself and Ms. NadineGirault. I challenged the State's decision to charge children in adult court on numerousoccasions. I also worked with Maria Schneider, Chief Assistant State Attorney, to avoid directfiling my client's cases through juvenile sanctions, placement in programs, and other alternativeresolutions. I tried several juvenile cases in adult court. I also worked with the Department of

Juvenile Justice in hopes of redirecting children into other programs.

From 2005 to 2009 I trained new hires for Mr. Finkelstein. I worked with young lawyers ondiscovery, motion practice, trial preparation, client relationships, and trial. I helped younglawyers prepare and argue motions to suppress, dismiss, compel, participated in many hearingsand trials with young attorneys and consulted on attorney promotions and placements.

From 2004-2005 I partnered with attorney Amy McGrotty in a firm focusing on real estatetransactions, mainly foreclosures, evictions and closings. I worked with clients to close real

estate transactions, review and approve real estate documents, advocate on behalf of clients

regarding fees and costs for closing, resolve title issues, and explain complex mortgage andbank transactions. I handled commercial and residential evictions in Dade and Broward courts.

From 1993 to 2004 I worked for Public Defender Alan S. Schreiber as a trial attorney in severalfelony divisions and as the supervisor of the domestic violence divisions. I appeared beforeJudge Geoffrey Cohen/ Judge Lee J. Seidman and Judge Robert Lee on a regular basis. I advisedand supervised felony and misdemeanor lawyers on their caseloads. I went to trial regularlyand co counseled with lawyers at trial. I handled major crimes in the division while workingwith young lawyers.


9/82

From 1991-1993 I was a staff attorney for Legal Aid of Broward County. My focus was on

obtaining social security and unemployment benefits for those who had been denied benefits.researched the effects of disabilities and the treatments and medications for them, theavailability of work o r retraining in tight of the client's age and limitations, and prepa red forhearing on behalf of the client. I also researched unemployment issues and prepared witnessesand clients for administrative hearings on these claims.

From 1989-19911 was a division lawyer and was before several Orange County Circuit Judgeson behalf of Joe DuRocher, Public Defender in the Ninth Circuit.

From 1984-1989 I was a trial attorney in several misdemeanor divisions and in the felony

division of Judge Harry Hinckley and Judge Mark E. Polen here in Broward as an assistant to Mr.Schreiber, the Public Defender in Broward County.


10/82

F

%

1 0 0 %T O TA L 1 0 0 % T O TA L

24. In your lifetime, how many (number) of the cases you have tried to verdict or judgmentw e r e :

2Jury? approx. 91 Non-jury? ^-.^-A"."

Arbitration? 0 Administrative Bodies? 10

25. Within the last ten years, have you ever been formally reprimanded, sanctioneddemoted: disciplined, placed on probation, suspended or terminated by an employer ortnbunaTbefo7elwhJch you have appeared? If so, please state the circumstances underwhich~such action was taken, the date(s) such action was taken, the ^name(s) of anypersons who took such action, and the background and resolution of such action.No.

26. In the last ten years, have you failed to meet_any_ deadline imposed by court order orreceived'notice that you have not complied with substantive requirements of anybusiness or contractuai arrangement? If so, please explain in full.

No.

(Questions 27 through 30 are optional for sitting judges who have served 5 yearsor more.)

27a. For your last 6 cases, which were tried to verdict before a juryor arblioVdgmentbefo.eaiudge, list the names and telephone numbers of trial counsel on allsides and court case numbers (include appe llate cases).

Case No. 10-000170CF10A Def: Bruce Price, Assistant State Attorney: JohnCountryman, Esq. (954) 831-6955Case No. 07-23026CF10A Def: Ronald Smith Assistant State Attorney: Peter Holden,Esq. (954) 831-6955Case No. 08-22027CF10A Def: Terrance Taylor, Assistant State Attorney: Neva Smith,Esq. (954) 831-6955Case no. 09-18637CF10A State vs. Elton Walters, Assistant State Attorneys: StevenZaccor, Esq. and Thomas Coleman, Esq. (954) 831-6955Case No. 11-10935CF10A State vs. Leroi Morris, Assistant State Attorney: GregRossman, Esq. (954) 424-3306

Case No. 14-8623CF10A State vs. Kirk Nelson Tang Yuk, Assistant State Attorney:Michael Horowitz, Esq. (954) 831-6955

27b. For your last 6 cases, which we re settled in mediation or settled wlthout mediation ortrial,''list the names and telephone numbers of trial counsel on all sides and court casenumbers (include appellate cases).

6

Rev. 100209-OGC


11/82

State of Florida vs. Stanley Beasley 11-14361CF10A Assistant State Attorney AlbertoRibas, Esq, (954)831-6955

State of Florida vs. Patricia Brennan 14-7488CF10A Assistant State Attorney ThomasColeman (954) 831-6955

State of Florida vs. Cecil Weekes 09-14395CF10A Assistant State Attorney Sherry Tate(954) 831-6955

(I have no other cases that have settled without trial in the last five years. I havesucceeded in obtaining death waivers and then gone to trial on a life maximum).

27c. During the last five years, how frequently have you appeared at administrative hearings?0 average times per month

27d.During the last five years, how frequently have you appeared in Court?

20 average times per month27e, During the last five years, if your practice was substantially personal injury, what

percentage of your work was in representation of plaintiffs? N/A% Defendants?%

28. If during any prior period you have appeared in court with greater frequency than duringthe last five years, indicate the period during which this was so and give for such priorperiods a succinct statement of the part you played in the litigation, numbers of casesand whether jury or non-jury.

Same frequency.29. For the cases you have tried to award in arbitration, during each of the past five years,

indicate whether you were sole, associate or chief counsel. Give citations of anyreported cases.

N/A

30. List and describe the six most significant cases which you personally litigated givingcase style, number and citation to reported decisions, if any. Identify your client anddescribe the nature of your participation in the case and the reason you believe it to besignificant. Give the name of the court and judge, the date tried and names of otherattorneys involved.

Please see attached.

31. Attach at least one example of legal writing which you personally wrote. If you have notpersonally written any legal documents recently, you may attach writing for which youhad substantial responsibility. Please describe your degree of involvement in preparingthe writing you attached.

I wrote the attached Mo tion.

PRIOR JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE O R PUBLIC O FFICE:

32a. Have you ever held judicial office or been a candidate for judicial office? If so, state thecourt(s) involved and the dates of service or dates of candidacy.

-I/

Rev. 100209-OGC


12/82

am currently a candidate for the office of County Court Judge, Group 13.32b. List any prior quasi-judicial sen/ice:

Dates Name of Agency Position Held

Types of issues heard:

32c. Have you ever held or been a candidate for any other public office? If solocation and dates of sen/ice or candidacy.

N/A

32d. f you have had prior judicial or quasi-judiciai experienceList the names, phone numbers and addresses of six attorneys who appeared)before you on m atters of substance.

N/A

Describe the approximate number and nature of the cases you have handled .(ii)during your judicial or quasi-judicial tenure.

N/A

(iii) List citations of any opinions which have been published.

N/A

List citations or styles and describe the five most significant caseiv)or'heard/ldentify the parties, describe the cases and tell why you believe them tobe significant. Give dates tried and names of attorneys involved.

N/A

(V) Has a complaint about you ever been made to the Judicial QualificationsCommission? If so, give date, describe complaint, whether or noUherewas_a

fmd'ing'"of"'probabie "cause, whether or not you have appeared before theCommission, and its resolution.N /A

(VI) Have you ever held an attorney in contempt? If so, for each iof attorney, approximate date and circumstances*

N/A

(vii) If you are a quasi-judicial officer (ALJ, Ma9istrate-General,Mastebeen disciplined or reprimanded by a sitting judge? If so, describe.

N/A

8

Rev. 100209-OGC


13/82

Case: State of Florida vs. Terrence Taylor

Case No. 08-22027CF10A

First Degree Murder

Hon. Martin Bidwill, Trial Judge

Assistant State Attorney: Ms. Neva Smith, Esq.

Defense Team: Assistant Public Defenders George Reres,Esq., Melisa McNeili, Esq. and myself

Jury Trial May30-June 15, 2012

Mr. Taylor was charged with bludgeoning a friend to death in furtherance of the crime o frobbery. The State sought death in this case. Our mitigation investigation revealed thatTerrence was the son of a drug addicted mother and an absentee father. Terrence was one ofseveral children, all of whom were in and out of foster care. Terrence's one stable home, thatof his Aunt Mozie was taken from him when his mother regained custody, oniy to lose him tothe justice system. Terrence was arrested at age 15 for aggravated battery. We found the'victim' in this case who said that the incident was mutual combat between two school boys,not a second degree felony. No one had consulted the victim when Terrence was committed tothe juvenile justice system. Shortly after his release from commitment, Terrence was arrested

for purse snatching. At sixteen years old, he was filed on as an adult and sentence to ten yearsprison. Within a ye ar of his release, Terrence was arrested in this case. We made apresentation to the State Attorney's office that outlined the life of our client. Just one month

before our trial was to commence, the State Attorney agreed that the death penalty was notappropriate in Mr. Taylor's case. The day we told our client that his life was not in jeopardy wasunforgettable.

The trial raised numerous issues regarding the reliability of cell site evidence/ the credibility of acase based entirely on circumstantial evidence/ and other evidentiary issues.

The jury found Mr. Tayior guilty as charged and he was sentence to life in prison without thepossibility of parole. This case is presently on appeal.


14/82

Case: State of Florida vs. Elton Walters

Case no. 09-18637CF10A

Charge: 1. First Degree Murder, 2. Armed Burglary, 3. Armed Robbery 4. Sexual Battery

Hon. Jeffrey Levenson, Trial Judge

Mr. Steven Zaccor, Esq., Mr. Thomas Coleman, Esq. Assistant State Attorneys

Asst. Public Defenders Melisa McNeill, Esq. and myself- Defense

th thOctober 14In - November 7, 2013 Jury Trial, March 5ln - March 13, 2013 Penalty Phase

This case involved a brutal murder where the State sought the death penalty. The case wasvery involved - we filed over 150 motions involving suppression of evidence; Florida's deathpenalty process and its constitutionality, the aggravators the State intended to present, and theevidence we sought to put before the jury during the guilt and penalty phases,

Mr. Walters was 62 years old at the time of the murder. He had led an exemplary life; 35 yearswith Amtrak, a pension, 3 children, two grandchildren, a wonderful reputation in the Caribbeancommunity in Dade County, and loving, close friendships from all over the United States and hishome country of Trinidad.

The victim was a 92 year old woman who lived in the townhomes that Mr. Walters worked in asa maintenance man. She lived independently. She was found by her granddaughter after callsto her went unanswered. The evidence against Mr. Walters was substantial; forensic evidenceplaced his DNA at the scene, the items stolen from the victim's home were in Mr. Walters'truck, and Mr. Walter's confession.

The jury found Mr. Walters guilty on two of the three counts.

The penalty phase in this case lasted over a week. We presented 34 character witnesses whotestified that Mr. Walters had changed their lives for the better, that he continued to be afundamental part of their lives, and that Mr. Walters' death would deeply affect them. Afterdeliberating for nine minutes, the jury unanimously recommended life without parole for Mr.Walters.

Case: State of Florida vs. Leroi Morris Case no. 11-1490CF10A First Degree Murder, Secondth thDegree Murder, Armed Robbery April 28ln through May 7ln, 2014

Judge Jeffrey Levenson, State Attorney Greg Rossman Co-counsel Melisa McNeill


15/82

^

These charges stem from a robbery during which Mr. Morris' codefendant and the victim werekilled. Our defense was that Mr. Morris did not know that a robbery was to take place. Weargued a motion to dismiss based on the lack of evidence that Mr. Morris knew of the robberyor the existence of a firearm, or his codefendant's intent to use the firearm. The Jury found Mr.Morris guilty as charged and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. This case is onappeal.


16/82

f

W ri ing sample


17/82

F I N A N C I A L H IS TO RY

1. State the amount of gross income you have earned, or losses you have incurred (beforededucting expenses and taxes) from the practice of law for the preceding three-yearperiod. This income figure should be stated on a year to year basis and include year todate information, and salary, if the nature of your employm ent is in a legal field.

Please see

attached

Employee

Earnings

Current year to date Statement

List Last 3 years 2012 attached 2013 attached 2014 attached- .

2. State the amount of net income you have earned, or losses you have incurred (afterdeducting expenses but not taxes) from the practice of law'for the preceding three-yearperiod. This income figure should be stated on a year to year basis and include year todate information, and sa lary, if the nature of your employment is in a legal field.

Current year to date

List Last 3 years-Wfr-^ ^rW.-.WW.WA-.-.-.v.

3. State the gross amount of income or loses incurred (before deducting expenses ortaxes) you have earned in the preceding three years on a year by year basis from allsources other than the practice of law, and generally describe the source of such incomeor losses.


List Last 3 years

4 State the amount of net income you have earned or losses incurred (after deductingexpenses) from all sources other than the practice of law for the preceding three-year

period on a year by year basis, and generally describe the sources of such income orlosses.


List Last 3 years

14Rev. 062414-OGC


18/82

I

?

; ». »v *^.l.:-^>< ^ ^v ^k

-^ .k Ia- .k I f rf ..«.tr..-. f s ?.I j . /?^ ^ ^ f < 9' .d frt. f 11 a f/ < y. -...e I ^ »n,t . # %J k

»'.-» » .I ^.i p tk >.*.< * ^~< 1 I* r >1^ . . ** r n I> rf.\ f'.;-' -- .It d t .. ^

r > > ^ - ^ t t-"*^

^'w^w row»w»-* 1f 'S, T( .^*»-*. »*W~^^S SSC ^SSSSXSCSS^^^ f.';, .t- REGULAR WAGES THIS PAYMENT ^ ~wr"'~'-'^'r-S~S~WSW~y^

b-A

A\ y/ v t-1',-t 1

;-WirHHOLQlNQ TAX', '1,138:561,^ ^ - \

) rf1 ^

488.81'-<^ < Jt.^

< f ^

OTHER re.OUCTIONsY -1,254.89' 4,88$;08<'i f

\ "4If "I

t 1 1< t 1 ^

^2,173,QO/t\ » F ^ t fr ^ fr f < 39SL35{ r \^< ^ftNET PAY---' . 5,493.50/r Jt < ^<


19/82

^

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FO RB R O W A R D C O U N T Y, F L O m D A

STATE OF FLORIDA,CASE NO . 11017904CF10A

PlaintiffJ U D G E : B O B E R

vs.

K E V IN P R AT T7

Defendant

S E C O N D A M E N D E D M O T I O N F O R T R A N S C R IP T O F G R A N D J U RPROCEEDINGS WITH SUPPORTING DOCUM ENTATION (CAP #2A)

The Accused, through the undersigned attorney, requests an Order authorizing the court

reporter to provide a transcript of the G rand Jury proceed ings resulting in the Indictment in this

case, and as grounds therefore states the following:

1. The Defense specifically demands a transcript of witness Camile Hamilton's

Grand Jury testimony.

2. Mr. Pratt will demonstrate a particularized need for the transcript of the testimony

based on the facts and law as set out in this motion and introduced at hearing in this matter.

3, Mr. Pratt is accused in the Indictment of three counts of 1st Degree Murder and 1

count of Attempted 1st Degree M urder. The State of Florida is seeking the death penalty.

4.The Office of the Public Defender has been appointed to represent Mr. Pratt.

5. On February 20, 2015, hearing was held on M r. Pratt's Motion For Grand Jury

Testimony ofCamile Hamilton. On that date, and on February 26, 2015, this Honorable Court

ordered that the State provide Mr. Pratt with the transcript of the Grand Jury testimony ofCam ile

Hamilton. On July 1, 2015, the Fourth District Court of Appeals ordered an in camera review of


20/82

/

the transcript ofCamile Hamilton's testimony before the grand jury that resulted in the

Indictment of Mr. Pratt.

FA C T S :

On or about August 17, 2009, Ms. Camile Ham ilton, Davion Bishop and Nekitta

Hamilton were approached by an individual at gunpoint in the driveway of 9581 Encino Street,

Miramar, Florida. Eventually the perpetrator forced those individual inside and upstairs to the

master bedroom of the home which was occupied by F aith Bisasor. The perpetrator shot each

of the four individuals in the head. Injuries sustained to Davion Bishop, Nekitta and Faith

Bisasor were fatal. Ms. Camile Hamilton survived the assault and when she became conscious

she went downstairs and contacted a neighbor who subsequently called 911. Ms. Camile

Hamilton was taken to M emorial Regional Hospital where she received medical care. Ms.

Camile Hamilton is the only surviving victim of this incident and the only eyewitness.

Over the course of this investigation and during case preparation (excluding grand jury

testimony) Ms. Camile Hamilton has given twelve (12) independent sworn statements, including

her deposition taken on April 4, 2014. Additionally, Detective Toyota advised in his sworn

deposition that he took several additional unrecorded statements from Ms. Camile Hamilton.

The documented statements were taken from August 16, 2009 until April 4, 2014.

During the course of an ongoing deposition, the defense has discovered countless

additional times that Ms. Hamilton has contacted law enforcement, been contacted by la\\.

enforcement, given additional information to law enforcement, or been given additional

information by law enforcement that were not recorded on audio or video, or documented in

reports.

2


21/82

The reports and transcripts reflect that Ms. Hamilton has given over 12 sworn statements

in this case. During those statemen ts that were made available to the defense, Ms. Ham ilton has

given materially inconsistent responses in the many areas. Florida Statutes Section 905.27(1 )(a)

provides for an exception to the normal secrecy provide grand jury testimony in order to

ascertain "whethe r it is consistent with the testimony given by the witness before the court.If

Because of the material inconsistencies in Ms. Hamilton's statements, this Court should order

Ms. Hamilton's grand jury testimony to be disclosed. Ms, Hamilton has been inconsistent in the

following areas:

L Camile Hamilton's Location During the Initial Confrontation.

a. Camile Hamilton stated to Detective Toyota that she was in the driveway saying

goodbye to Nekitta Hamilton and Davion Bishop when the perpetrator came up from

behind (Ex 1, p 1, par. 3).

b. On 8/17/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she was 'outside with him, taking some stuff

from the car' (Ex 2, p 1 (bottom).

c. On 8/22/09 Camile Hamilton stated that she was by the driver's door when the

perpetrator approached her (Ex 6, p 2),

d. On 8/26/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she was by the passenger side and trunk

when the perpetrator approached (Ex. 8, p. 18),

e. On 8/31/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not notice where the perpetrator

came from, and that the first time she noticed him was when he was next to the car (Ex.

9, pl).

f. On 8/17/09, Camile Hainilton stated that the perpetrator walked up to them with a gun

in his hand (Ex. 2, p 2),

3


22/82

g. On 9/9/09, Camile PIamilton stated that the perpetrator took the gun out while they

were outside (Ex. 10, p 3).

h. On 8/31/09 Cam ile Ham ilton stated that she was by the passenger side door wh en the

perpetrator approached (Ex. 9, p 1).

On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not remember if she closed the car1.

door before going inside, but was certain she did not lock the door (Ex. 10, pp 7,14).

On 1/04/10, Camile Hamilton stated that the trunk was closed, that she was on the

passenger side, and the door was in between the perpetrator and Camile Hamilton. She

further indicated that he door was c losed (Ex. 11, pp 250,252,271).

k. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that she was standing by the driver's side door

when the perpetrator approached (Ex. 13, pg. 32,11. 21, 25, pg. 33,11. 8-9).

1. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that she brought the groceries into the house

before she was confronted by the perpetrator (Ex. 13, p 30,1. 14).

II. Whether the Perpetrator Was Wearing a Mask.

Camile Hamilton stated to Detective Toyota that the perpetrator was not wearing.

a mask (Ex. l,p 2, par. 5).

b. On 8/17/09 Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing a mask (Ex.

3, p 3).

On 8/17/09, Camile Hamilton repeated that the perpetrator was wearing a mask.

(Ex. 4, pl).

d. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was not wearing a mask,

but something covering his mouth (Ex. 5, p 4).

On 8/18/09. Camiie Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was not wearing a m ask..

4


23/82

^

He was using his shirt and a piece o f cloth to cover his face (Ex. 5, p 4).

f. On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was not wearing a mask.

Camile Hamilton agreed that the perpetrator pulled his shirt up over his face (Ex. 7 , p 8).

g On 8/31/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was not wearing a m ask

(Ex. 9, p 3).

h. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was not wearing a mask,

except for in the very beginning (Ex. 10 , p 10).

III. Whether the Perpetrator's Face Was Concealed, and. If So, How.

a. On 8/17/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wea ring a hat (Ex. 3, p

3).

b. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator's face was covered (Ex. 5, p

4).

On 8/17/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator wore som ething covering just.

his mouth (Ex. 3, p 3, line 2).

d. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was not wearing a hat (Ex. 6,

P6).

On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator dropped his shirt from his.

mouth when he took the gun out (Ex. 10, p 7-8).

f. On 1/4/10, Camile Ham ilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing a stocking on his

head (Ex. 11,2.21).

g. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that she could not recall the perpetrator wearing a

hat or making the statement that the perpetrator wore a hat (Ex. 13, pg. 55, 11. 15-17).

h. On 4/4/14, Cam ile Ha milton stated that the perpetrator was wearing a hood ie (Ex. 1 3,

5


24/82

p 34,11. 18-23).

On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton gave a description to forensic sketch artist, John.

McMahon. The description did not include a hat, stocking or other head covering on

the perpetrator (Ex. 14, sketch).

On 8/26/09, when asked if the sketch was accurate, Camile Ham ilton replied, 'ofr

course' (Ex. 8, p 17).

IV. If and When the Perpetrator's Face Was Initially Exposed.

a. On 8/17/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not look at the perpetrator (Ex. 4, p

1).

b. Camile Hamilton gave a description of the perpetrator to Detective Toyota (Ex. 1, p

3, par. 5).

On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that the best look she got at the perpetrator was.

when he approached them outside (Ex. 11, p 288).d. On 1/4/10, Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator asked her 'is this the face you

would never forget?' and that she answered'yes' (Ex. 11, 1:31).

e. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that a couple of days after she participated in a

live lineup, (prior to her grand jury testimony), she pulled up Mr. Pratt's booking

photo online and viewed it (Ex. 13, p 127).

V. Whether the Perpetrator Used Vulgar Language, and, If So, What, andWhere the Statements Were Made

a. Camile Hamilton gave statements on 8/17/09, (two), and 8/18/09. Camile Hamilton

made no reference during those statements regarding the perpetrator saying anything (Ex.

2, 3, 4 and 5).

6


25/82

b. On 8/22/09, Camile Ham ilton slated that the perpetrator said: 'shut the fuck up,' 'get

the fuck upstairs,' 'where the fuck is your money,' 'get the fuck over here/ 'you have to

suck my penis, 'shut the fuck up,' and 'I am going to fuck you up' (Ex.6 pg. 2, 11 ,15-

18,23,29).

c. On 8 /24/09, Camile Ham ilton stated that the perpetrator said 'you fucking

something' after she shot at him (Ex.7, p. 3).

d. On 8/26/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator said 'What the fuck is that, get

the fuck inside' (Ex. 8, p 2).

e. On 8/31/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator said 'get the fuck inside, I

want money,' 'get the fuck upstairs, he would 'kill them all' because he 'wanted money/

'gonna kill you fuckers,' 'wanted her to suck his d ick and wa nted to fuck,' and 'you

fucking bitch' (Ex. 9, p 2,3,4).

f. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator said 'I'm gonna kill you fuck,

'cause I want money' (Ex 10, p 5).

g. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that she had earlier asserted that vulgar language

was used 'because of'her condition' (Ex. 13, p 87,11. 23-25, p 88,1.1).

VI. Whether Ms. Hamilton Looked at the Perpetrator.

On 8/17/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated that she did not look at the pe rpetrator (Ex. ^,, p.

92).

b. Cam ile Hamilton gave a description of the perpetrator to Detective Toyota (Ex. 1, p

3,, par. 5).

c. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton slated that the best look she got at the perpetrator was

when he approached them outside (Ex. 11, p 288).

7


26/82

d. On 9/8/11, After the live lineup, Det. Toyota asked Camile Hamilton, 'is this the face

you told me you would never forget?' She answered 'yes' (Ex. 12, p 2,11. 21-25).

On 4/4/14, Camiie Hamilton stated that a couple of days after she participated in a.

live lineup, (prior to her testimony before the grand jury), she pulled up Mr. Pratt's

booking photo online and viewed it (Ex. 13, p 127).

f. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that when she was asked to do the composite

picture, 'I was out of it" (Ex. 13, p 56,1. 4).

g. On 8/26/09, when asked if the sketch was accurate, Camile Hamilton replied, 'of

course'(Ex. 8, p 17).

VII. Whether the Perpetrator was Wearing Gloves

a. On 8/17/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not remember if the perpetrator was

wearing gloves (Ex . 4, p 1).

b. On 8/17/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing gloves. (Ex. 4

p.6)

Later in the 8/17/09 statement, Cam ile Hamilton agreed with Detective Toyota that.

the gloves were yellow (Ex , 4, p 6).

d. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing gloves (Ex. 5,

p6).

e. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not remember if the perpetrator was

wearing gloves (Ex. 6, p 7).

f. On 9/9/09, in response to Det. Toyota's question, 'I guess you're... 100 percent, you

said he wasn't wearing gloves right?' Camile Ham ilton. Responded, 'don't

remember h im wearing any gloves" (Ex. 10, p 8, 11).

8


27/82

g. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton had no response to Det. Toyota's question, 'Do you

ever mention anything about his hands?' (Ex. 10, p 8).

h. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated, 'His hand was shaky. His nails were a little bit

longer than these. And his hand was sweaty... (Ex.11, p 256,276,289).

*

Detective Toyota's rough notes reflect the following: "Camile Hamilton.

.. .remembers (perpetrator) not wearing gloves, she remembers b/c he tried to cover

fact {sic} with hood she could see fingemails" (Ex. 15, p 30).

J. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was not wearing gloves (Ex.

13, P 36,11. 14-16).

vm. Whether the Perpetrator Was Wearing a Hat.

a. On 8/17/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing a hat (Ex.3, p

3).

b. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator had on a blue cap (Ex. 5, p

7).

c. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was not wearing a hat (Ex.

6, p 6).

d. On 9/8/11, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing a stocking on

his head (Ex. 12,p3 11.7-9).

e. On. 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that she couid not recall the perpetrator wearing a

hat or making the statement that the perpetrator wore a hat (Ex. 13, p 55 11,15-17).

f. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing a hoodie (Ex.

13, p 341. 18-23).

g. On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton gave a description to forensic sketch artist, John

9


28/82

McM ahon. The description did not include a hat, stocking or other head covering

for the perpetrator (Ex. 24, p 60,1.20, Ex. 14, sketch).

h. On 8/26/09, when asked if the sketch was accurate, Camile Hamilton replied, 'of

course.' (Ex. 8, p. 17)

IX. Description of the Perpetrator's Clothing.

a. On 8 /17/09 Camile Ha milton stated that the color of the perpetrator's shirt was black

(Ex. 3, p 3).

b. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not know about the shirt (Ex. 1 L p

113).

c. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator's shirt was black (Ex. 6, p

6).

d. On 8/31/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator had on a second shirt and

that the top shirt was 'khaki shorts like.' (Ex. 9, p 4). She further stated that theundershirt was black. (Ex. 9, p 4).

e. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that the shirt was black (Ex. 13 p 34, 11. 12-13).

f. On 8/17/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing pants (Ex. 3, p

3).

g. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton staled that the perpetrator was wearing shorts. Camile

Hamilton further stated that tlie shorts were blue, denim type (Ex. 5, p 113).

h. On 8/22/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing khaki baggy

shorts that were worn low (Ex. 6, p 6).

On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing plaid shorts that1.

were -pretty baggie' (Ex. 11, pp 252, 289-290).

10


29/82

»

t

On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing black shorts

(Ex. 13, p 34 ,11. 5-8).

k. On 8/22/09 Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing a dark colored

jacket (Ex. 6, p 139).

1. On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator wore a hooded jacket (Ex.7,

p126).

m. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was wearing the hood when

he approached Camile Hamilton, Nekitta Hamilton, and Davion Bishop outside (Ex.

6, p 7).

n. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that perpetrator's hood was down when he

approached Camile Hamilton, Nekitta Hamilton and Davion Bishop (Ex. 11, p 289).

X. Physical Description of the Perpetrator's Height, Skin Tone, Mouth, Facial Hair.

1. Description of the Perpetrator's Heighta. On 8/17/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was around 5'6" (Ex. 3, p 3).

b. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was 5' 10" (Ex. 5, p 157-

158).

c. On 4/4/14, Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator was 6' tail (Ex. 13, p. 56, 11.

7-18).

d. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that a couple of days after she participated in a

ive lineup, (prior to her testimony before the grand jury), she pulled up M r. Pratt's

booking photo online and viewed it. The booking information contains height and

weight (Kx. 13, p. 127).

e. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated, 'you know, I forgot him 'cause I see people on

11


30/82

/

the road, and 1 look at them . I don't know how I'm alive' (Ex. 10, p 9).

2. Description of the Perpetrator's Skin Tone

a. On 8 /17/09, Camile PIamiiton described the pe rpetrator alternatively as black,

American black and dark skinned (Ex. 3, pp.3, 6).

b. On 8/18/09, Cam ile Hamilton described the perpetrator as black and dark skinned

(Ex.5, p 110,112,115).

On 8/22/09, Cam ile Hamilton described the perpetrator as black, medium to dark.

skinned (Ex. 6, p 5).

d. On 8/31/09, Camile Hamilton described the perpetrator as dark skinned (Ex. 9, p 5).

e. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton described the perpetrator as dark skinned (Ex . 10, p 9).

3. Perpetrator's Mouth

a. On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton worked with forensic sketch artist John Smith over

several hours to create a composite sketch of the perpetrator. Camile Hamilton

agreed with the result. When asked whether the sketch was accurate, Camile

Hamilton complained about the mouth, stating it did not look right. She had no

complaints regarding the lack of facial hair in the sketch (Ex. 11,p.285).

b. On 8/26/09, when asked if the sketch was accurate, Camile Hamilton replied, 'of

course' (Ex. 8, p 17).

4. Facial Hair

a. Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator had a light mustache (Ex. 1, pp. 3, 5).

b. The attached F lorida Identification photo show s Mr. Pratt with a full beard on

9/24/09 Just 39 days after the incident (Ex. 16, Florida Identification card photo).

c. On 8/24/09, Cam ile Hamilton worked with forensic sketch artist John Sm ith over

12


31/82

»

several hours to create a composite sketch of the perpetrator. Camile Hamilton

agreed with the result. When. asked whether the sketch was accurate, Camile

Hamilton complained about the mouth, stating it did not look right. She had no

complaints regarding the lack of facial hair in the sketch (Ex. 24, p 60,1.20, Ex . 14,

Ex. 11 p 285).

d. On 8/26/09, when asked if the sketch was accurate, Cam ile Hamilton replied, 'of

course' (Ex. 8, p. 17).

e. The compos ite sketch generated in this case shows a thin mustache (Ex. 14).

f. On 8/16/09, the day of this incident, Mr. Pratt was stopped by Off. Gomez of the

Miami Dade Police Department. A field interview report was generated. Under

'physical description/ for the sub category FACE, Ofc. Gomez noted, BearcHGoatee.

(Ex. 17).

g. On 8/23/09, Mr. Pratt was stopped by Ofc. Sanjay Raja of the West Palm BeachPolice Department. A field interview card noted hair factaKfall .beard (Ex 18).

h. On 9/1/09, Mr. Pratt was stopped by Ofc, Vertefeuille of the West Palm Beach Police

Department. A field interview card indicated hair facial/ full beard (Ex. 19).

»

1. On 5/1/09, Mr. Pratt was stopped by Ofc. C. Tomas of the West Palm Beach Police

Department. A field contact card was generated which reflects hair facial, full beard

(Ex.20).

j. On 5/4/09, Mr. Pratt was stopped by Ofc. Sanjay Raja of the West Palm Beach Police

Department. A field contact card was generated which reflects hair facial, full beard

and bald head with upper and lower gold teeth (Ex. 21).

k. On 5/10/09, Mr. Pratt was arrested by Ofc, Christian Tomas of the W est Palm Beach.'

13


32/82

Police Department. Ofc. Tomas states in his report, 'I immediately recognized the

individual who I trespass warned a week ago. Mr. Pratt's booking photo and report

from the incident is attached (Ex. 22).

On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that a couple of days after she participated in a

live lineup, (prior to her testimony before the grand jury), she viewed Mr, Pratt's

booking photo online (Ex. 13, p. 12 7).

XI. Whether Ms. Hamilton was Sexually Assaulted by the Perpetrator, the Type of

Assauit and the Location of the Assault.

a. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator 'wanted to rape me' and that

he 'took his penis out.' Detective Toyota asked if the perpetrator removed Camile

Hamilton's clothes, to which she responded in the affirmative. Later in her statement

Camile Hamilton reiterated that the perpetrator 'took out his penis' while in Faith

Bisasor's bedroom. She later indicated that she is not sure if she was raped and that

the perpetrator 'put his penis away' (Ex. 5, pp 112-15).

b. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator took out his penis, and told

her to remove her drawers, which made her believe he wanted to rape her. Camile

Hamilton further stated that she was unable to remove her drawers because of the

tape, so the perpetrator removed them. Her panties were removed prior to Faith

Bisasor being taped up. Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator told her he was

going to put his penis in her mouth (Ex. 6, pp 14, 18-20).

On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that she had no memory of telling the police that.

the perpetrator removed her parities (Ex. 13,1. 14).

d. On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator unzipped his pants (Ex. 7,

p.122).

14


33/82

^

<

On 8/2.6/09, Camile H amilton stated that when the perpetrator asked Faith Bisasor for.

money, he was saying 'nasty stuff to Camile Hamilton in front of Faith Bisasor.

Camile Hamilton stated that she told the perpetrator that they were not going to have

sex. At that point, Ms. Hamilton states the perpetrator took out his penis, Ms.

Hamilton reiterated that they would not have sex, to which the perpetrator put his

penis in his pants and taped up Faith Bisasor (Ex. 8, p 186).

f. On 8/31/09, Camile Hamilton stated that after all four victims had been taped up, the

perpetrator took out his penis and put it in her face, stating that he wanted her to suck

his penis and to have sex with him (Ex. 9, p 3).

g. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator grabbed her by the hair, took

out his penis, and stated he would rape her and then kill them all. When she said no,

he shot her (Ex.10,p 5).

h. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator dragged her into the bedroom,

unzipped his pants and said he would rape her. She told the perpetrator that she was

'on her period/ he put his penis in his pants (Ex. 11, p 249).

i. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that at no time did the perpetrator say he wanted

to have sex with her or rape her (Ex. 13, p 78)

XII. Whether the Perpetrator Took Money During the Incident.

a. On 8/31/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator took $20.00 from Nekitta

Hamilton. Later in this statement Camile Hamilton said that Nekitta Hamilton gave

$20.00 to the perpetrator (Ex. 9, pp 2, 11).

b. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that Nekitta Hamilton had $20.00 in her hand,

and the perpetrator took it (Ex. 10, p 3).

15


34/82

On 1/4/10, Cam ilc Hamilton stated that she gave $20.00 to Nekitta Hamilton, then.

Camile Hamilton took the $20,00 back and handed the money to the perpetrator.

Later Cam ile Hamilton said that the perpetrator took the $20.00 from Nekitta

Hamilton after Camile Ham ilton gave the money to her daughter. Later she stated

that the perpetrator took her daughter's money (Ex. 11, pp 253, 272,287,290).

d. On 4/4/14, Camilc Ham ilton stated that the perpetrator took $40.00 from Nekitta

Hamilton during the initial confrontation at the car, and then stated that Nekitta

Hamilton gave her money to the perpetrator (Ex. 13, pp 37,38).

XIII. Whether the Perpetrator Took Money From Ms. Hamilton's Purse.

On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that Faith Bisasor told the perpetrator that she.

had no money at home; it was all in the bank (Ex. 6, p 12).

b. On 8/26/09 Camile Hamilton stated that Faith Bisasor gave money to the perpetrator

after Faith Bisasor was ordered to the ground by the perpetrator (Ex. 8, p 180).

c. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that Faith Bisasor handed over money to the

perpetrator, who ordered Faith Bisasor to tape up the other victims (Ex. 10, p 4).

d. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that Faith Bisasor emptied her purse onto the bed.

Camile Hamilton stated that Faith Bisasor told the perpetrator that she would take

him to her bank, and that Camilc Hamilton urged the perpetrator to take Faith Bisasor

to the bank (Ex. 13,50,23-25).

On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that she went into her purse and gave the.

perpetrator money (Ex. 13, p 45,1.5).

16


35/82

XIV. Whether the Perpetrator Had the Gun in His Right or Left Hand.

a. On 8/17/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator held the gun in his left hand

(Ex.4,pp 103-04).

b. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator held the gun in his right hand

(Ex. 5, pp 112,115).

c. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the peipetrator took the gun out of his

pocket with his right hand (E x. 6, p 3).

d. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator had the gun in his right hand

and his penis in his left hand while he w as grabbing her ha ir. (Ex. 11, p 251).

e. On 4/4/14, Cam ile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator held the gun in his right hand

(Ex. 13, pp 10-12).

X V . How Each Victim Was Tied Up and By Whom

a. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that when the perpetrator asked Faith Bisasor

for her purse, the victims were already taped up. Later in this statement, Camiie

Hamilton asserted that she, Nekitta Hamilton, and Damion Bishop, were already tied

up when the perpetrator demanded money from Faith Bisasor (Ex. 6, pp 9,10,13).

b. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not see Faith Bisasor tie up Nekitta

Hamilton and/or Davion Bishop because she was knocked out by the perpetrator and

that when she regained consciousness, the other three were tied up (Ex. 11, p 57, L

16-20).

c. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator tied her up at the same time

as Nekjtta Hamilton, then demanded money from Faith Bisasor. Later in the

statement Camile Hamilton asserted that the perpetrator ordered Faith Bisasor to tie

17


36/82

up Nekitta Hamilton and Davion Bishop. When the other three were taped up, the

perpetrator taped up Faith Bisasor. Later in the same statement, Camile Hamilton

said that the perpetrator taped up Faith Bisasor and herself, and then had Faith tape

Davion Bishop and Nekitta Hamilton (Ex. 6, pp. 9-12).

d. On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton stated that Faith Bisasor was ordered to tape Davion

Bishop and Niketta Hamilton, and then the perpetrator taped up Faith Bisasor.

Camile Hamilton remained untaped. Camile Hamilton staled that her feet were then

taped up by Faith Bisasor (Ex. 7, p 120),

e. On 8/26/09, Camile Hamilton stated that Davion Bishop was taped up first by Faith/

Bisasor, followed by Nekitta Hamilton and lastly herself (Ex. 10, p 181).

f. On 8/31/09, Camile Ham ilton stated that the perpetrator ordered Faith Bisasor to

tape up Nekitta Hamilton and Davion Bishop first. Davion Bishop was taped up,

then Nekitta Hamilton, and then Cam ile. The perpetrator taped up Faith Bisasor.

Later in the statement, Camile Hamilton asserts that Faith Bisasor tied up Davion,

then Nekitta Hamilton and then Camile Hamilton, after which Faith taped up Davion

Bishop's and Nekitta Hamilton's feet (Ex. 9, pp 2-3, 8).

g. On 9/9/09; Camile Hamilton stated that Faith Bisasor was ordered to tape everyone

up. Camile Ham ilton could not remember if Faith taped up Davion Bishop or

Nekitta Hamilton first (Ex. 10, pp 4-5).

h. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator handed Faith Bisasor the tape

and ordered her to tape up Nekitta Hamilton, Davion Bishop, and herself. Camile

Hamilton cannot remember if she got hit, but when she regained consciousness she

was taped up, and saw the perpetrator taping Faith Bisasor. Camile Hamilton later

18


37/82

-

asserts that Faith Bisasor taped Nekitta Hamilton first, then Davion B ishop. Camile

Hamilton stated that the perpetrator ordered Faith Bisasor to tape them up. Camile

Hamilton stated that Faith Bisasor taped Nekitta Hamilton, then Davion Bishop (Ex.

11, pp 260-61,264-65,277,282,283,287).

1. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that she does not remember when everyone was

taped, only that she was pistol whipped, passed out, and that when she regained

consciousness everyone w as taped up, and the perpetrator was just finishing taping

up Faith Bisasor (Ex. 13, p 58 ,11. 23-25).

XVI. Origin Of The Tape Used To Tie Up The Victims

a. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the tape came from Faith Bisasor's home

(Ex. 5, p 114).

b. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not remember where the tape came

from (Ex. 6, p 157).

c. On 8/26/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not know where the perpetrator got

the duct tape. Camile Hamilton did not know if there was duct tape in Vivian

Lassman's car (Ex. 10, p 189).

d. On 8/31/0, Camile Hamilton stated that the duct tape came from the perpetrator's

pocket (Ex. 9, p 2-3,7).

e. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator removed duct tape from his

pocket (Ex. 10, p 4).

f. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that she was not sure whether the tape came from

Faith Bisasor's home or from the perpetrator's pocket. She further stated that there

was always gray tape in Faith Bisasor's home. Camiie Hamilton stated that she was

19


38/82

not sure if the tape came from the table, the room, or the peq)etrator (Ex. 11, p 254,

273,276,283).

g. On 4/4/14, Camile Ham ilton stated, 'I was scream ing and yelling and saying don't

tape them up' (Ex. 13, pp 57-58,1.1).

XVII. Color of the Gun

a. On 8/18/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she did not remember what color the gun

was (Ex. 5,p 116).

b. On 8/22/09, Camile Ham ilton stated that the gun was black (Ex. 6, p 3).

On 9/9/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated that she thought the gun w as black (Ex. 10, p 11)..

d. On 4/4/14, Cam ile Ham ilton stated that she did not remember what color the gun w as

(Ex. 13, p 40,11. 18-20).

XVIII. When and How the Perpetrator Dropped the Gun and Camile HamiltonTook Possession of the Gun

a. On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she got the gun when the perpetrator

dropped it. Later in the statement she asserted that she got the gun while the

perpetrator was taping up Faith Bisasor. Still later Camile Hamilton stated that the

gun dropped while the perpetrator was takin out his penis (Ex. 6, pp 15-16, 18, 19).

b. On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the gun dropped when the perpetrator

unzipped his pants (Ex. 7, p 122).

c. On 8/26/09, Camile Hamilton stated that while the perpetrator was taping Faith

Bisasor, the gun dropped. Cam ilc Hamilton picked up the gun and ran into the other

room (Ex. 10,p 183).

20


39/82

d. On 8/31/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator dropped the gun when he

was re-taping Faith Bisasor's hands. Cam ile Hamilton picked up the gun and crawled

into another room with the gun (Ex. 9, p 3).

e. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that she crawled and ran into another room with

the gun after the perpetrator dropped it (Ex. 10, p 5).

f. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that when the perpetrator was over her, and taping

Faith Bisasor, he dropped the gun. She took it and crawled into the next room (Ex.

11,261,277,287,283).

On 4/4/14^ Cam ile Hamilton stated that the gun fell out of the perpetrator/s pants..

She picked up the gun with both hands, and drug on her knees into the next bedroom

(Ex. 13, pp 60, 65, 69, 70).

XIX. Location of Camile Hamilton and the PerpetratorWhen She D ischarged the Gun

a. On 8/22/09, Camile Ham ilton stated that she was not in a separate room from the

others, and that she was in the master bedroom when she shot at the perpetrator. Later

in the statement, Camile Hamilton asserted that she may have been in the guest room

when sh e shot at the perpetrator (Ex. 6, pp 15-19).

b, On 8/26/09, Cam ile HamiUon stated that the perpetrator finished taping Faith Bisasor

and then entered the room when she fired two shots. She restated that she was in the

guest room when she fired two shots (Ex. 10, pp 183-184,185).

On 8/22/09, Camile Hamilton stated, 'Did you find, did you find out that I fire a.

shot?... Did you check my hand?' (referring to the gun shot residue test) (Ex. 6, p 17).

d. On 8/31/09, Camite Ham ilton stated that she fired two sh ots at the perpetrator from

the guestroom (Ex. 9, p 3).

21


40/82

e. On 9/9/09, Camilc Hamilton stated that she thought she fired two shots while in the

guest room (Ex. 10, p 5).

f. On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that when she reached the other bedroom, the

perpetrator was in front of her, and she fired one shot, then another, and the gun

dropped (Ex. 11, p 261-262, 277,283).

g. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that they were in the other bedroom and the

perpetrator was standing by the door when she shot at him (Ex 13, p 74).

X X . Whether, How, and Where the Perpetrator DraggedCamile Ham ilton

a. On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator drug her out on her knees

(Ex. 7, p 120).

b. On 8/26/09, Camile Hamilton stated that after she fired the gun, the perpetrator

grabbed her by her hair and dragged her. She later asserted that the perpetrator

grabbed her with one hand and held the gun in the other (Ex. 10, pp 214, 217).

c. On 8/31/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator drug her back inside (Ex. 9, p

3).

d. On 9/9/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator grabbed her by her hair and

dragged her back in the room. Camile Hamilton stated that she did not try to grab his

hands as he dmg her by her hair into the room (Ex. 10, pp 7, 10).

On 1/4/10, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator grabbed her in the back of the.

head and drug her into the bedroom at the end of the bed. Later she states that the

perpetrator grabbed her by her hair and took her back in the room (Ex. 11, pp

262,277,278,287).

22


41/82

f. On 4/4/14, Cainile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator dragged her back to F aith

Bisasor's room after she shot at him. She further stated that the perpetrator grabbed

her by the hair and drug her back into the other room (Ex. 13, p 76-77).

g. On 8/24/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator dragged her out of Faith

Bisasor's room and into the guest room (Ex. 7, p 121).

h. On 8/26/09, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator dragged her into the room

where Faith Bisasor, Nekitta Hamilton and Davion Bishop were located (Ex.10, p

185).

XXI. Whether the Perpetrator Demanded or Attempted to Take Jewelry orValuables

a. On 8/22/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated that she had a gold ch ain, bracelet, and two rings

that night that broke off and fell to the ground. Camile Hamilton did not remember

how this happened. W hen the Detective refreshed her recollection with a previous

statement, she indicated that she was sure that the peq)etrator pulled off the jewelry

and threw it to the ground (Ex. 6, p 13).

b. On 8/31/09 Camile Hamilton stated that she took off the bracelet and two rings and

placed them under the bed. She stated that the gold chain fell off (Ex. 9, p. 6).

c. On 4 /4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that the perpetrator never asked for jewelry, that

she removed it and placed it under the bed. She stated she did not recall telling law

enforcement that the perpetrator removed her jewelry and threw it on the floor (Ex.

13, pp. 47, 48).

Furthermore, the specific facts of this case create a particularized need for this testimony.

Florida Statutes Section 905.27(l)(c) provides for the disclosure of grand jury testimony in order

to further justice. Human memory is a complex process. Research "has refuted the notion that

23


42/82

*

mem ory is like a video recording, and that a witness need only replay the tape to rememb er what

happened." SttUe v. Hsnderson, 208 N .J. 208, 245 (N.J. 2011). Memory is a constructive,dynamic, and selective process. There are three stages in mem ory: "acquisition-the perception

of the original event; retention-the period of time that passes between the event and the

eventual recollection of a particular piece of information; and retrieval-the stage during which a

person recalls stored information." Id. (internal citations omitted) (citing to Elizabeth F. Loftus,

Eyewitness Testimony 21 (2d cd. 1996). Hum an vision does not capture a perfect, error-free

"trace" of a witnessed event. At each stage of the memory process, mem ory can be distorted,

contaminated, and even falsely imagined.

Trauma effects the accuracy of memory, and Camile Hamilton's head injury renders her

incapable of recalling these horrific events accurately. Camiie Hamilton suffered a gunshot

wound to her head, requiring hospitalization and subsequent operations and treatment. Detective

Toyota stated in his deposition that the reason he immediately took a statement from Camile

Hamilton was because her treating physicians did not expect her to live (Ex. 24, p 11, 11. 5-7).

The other victims in the case were Davion Bishop, a young man with whom Camile Hamilton

was intimately acquainted, Faith Bisasor, a friend, and Nekitta Hamilton, the daughter ofCam ile

Hamilton. The events that Camile Hamilton endured were nothing short of traumatizing and life

shattermg.

At times, even Ms. Hamilton has acknowledged her difficulty with remembering these

events. On 8/22/09, Cam ile Hamilton stated, 'Did you find, did you find out that I fire a

shot?...Did you check my hand?' (referring to the gun shot residue test) (Ex. 6, p 17). On 9/9/09,

Camile Ham ilton stated, 'you know, I forgot him 'cause I see people on the road, and I look at

them. I don't know how I'm alive' (Ex. 10, p 9). On 4/4/14, Camile Ham ilton stated that she

24


43/82

was unable to recall making an earlier statement because 'I was in trauma' (Ex. 13, p 55,1.17).

On 4/4/14, in explaining why there were inconsistencies in her prior statements, CamileHamilton indicated, 'well I was in the hospital, and my jaw was wired shut, so they could not

understand what I was saying' (Ex. 13, p 84,11. 6-25). On 4/4/14, in explaining why she had

previously asserted that the perpetrator wore a mask, Camile Hamilton said, 'I was under

anesthesia' (Ex- 13, p 1 10,1. 14). On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton stated that she has no memory of

being loaded into the ambulance or taken to the hospital. (Ex. 13, p 124,}. 7).

The known inconsistencies between Ms. Hamilton's accounts and the known potential

causes of Ms. Hamilton's faulty memory increase the need for disclosure of all of her statements.

It is particularly problematic in this case that Detective Toyota failed to record or fully

memorialize all of the statements he obtained from Ms. Hamilton. On 4/4/14, Camile Hamilton

stated that there were several times when she w ould cali Detective Toyota (Ex. 13, p 90,1. 18, pp

95-96). On 4/4/14, Caraile Hamilton stated that there were times when Detective Toyota called

her (Ex. 13, p9. 93-94, II. 22-5). On 4/10/15, Detective Toyota stated that he had a conversation

with Camile Hamilton regarding a live lineup, but that he does not remember where or when this

conversation occurred (Ex. 23, p 134,1. 12). On 4/10/15, Detective Steven Toyota stated that a

conversation with Camile Ham ilton occurred after a live lineup was conducted. There is no

recording, notes or mention of this conversation in any discovery provided by the State (Ex. 23,

p 147,1. 19). On 4/10/15, Detective Toyota attributed statements to Camile Hamilton that appearin no recording, written note, or transcript (Ex. 23, p 161,1. 21, pg. 162, 1. 5). On 4/19/15,

Detective Steven Toyota gave previously unknown infoi-mation regarding a conversation he had

with Camile Hamilton that was not included in his report of the conversation (Ex. 23, p 167,1.4).

Detective Toyota's rough notes reflect that on Oct. 18, 2009, Camile Hamilton and Detective

25


44/82

Toyota spent the day together. There is no recording or reference to this in any report (Ex. 15, p

52).

Some of the factors that can affect eyewitness memory are beyond law enforcement

control. These estimator variables relate to the environmental conditions at the time of the crime

and the characteristics of the witness and the perpetrator. However, some factors that affect

eyewitness memory are under the control of law enforcements. These system variables are the

characteristics of the procedures and practices used by Saw enforcement while trying to obtain an

identification. Based on the reported contents of some of the unrecorded conversations with law

enforcement, it is clear that Detective Toyota and Ms. Hamilton discussed many issues that relate

to her memory of the event and perpetrator. Detective Toyota's rough notes reflect that Camile

Ham ilton described her dreams to Detective Toyota (Ex. 15, p 40). Detective Toyota's rough

notes reflect that Camile Hamilton picked out a different suspect (Ex. 15, p 47). On 11/6/14,

Detective Toyota stated that Camile Hamilton was shown crime scene photos, but that he is not

sure when she was shown the photos, or which photos she was shown (Ex. 25, p. 39,11. 6-10, pg.

40,11.1-4).

Even Detective Toyota does not recall some o f the statemen ts he has obtained from Ms.*/

Hamilton. On 11/6/14, Detective Toyota stated his rough notes contained a statement from

Camile Ham ilton that 'would have been taken from her that is unrecorded and w e have never

seen before' (Ex. 25, p. 8,1.22-25, p. 9,1,1). On 11/6/14, Detective Toyota explained an entry in

his rough notes regarding Camile Hamilton, stating, 'I'm assuming I made contact with her but I

don't have any notes of that conversation" (Ex. 25, p 10, 11. 22-24). On 11/6/14, Detective

Toyota was asked; 'And that looks like it would have been another statement between 4 and 5, is

that right?' to which he responded, -Correct' (Ex. 25, p 14,11. 20-22). On 11/6/14, Detective

26


45/82

Toyota stated, "Is it possible that I made contact (with Camile Hamilton)? Yes, but I didn't sec

any documented contacts in my notes..." (Ex, 25, P 19, 11. 20-21). On 11/6/14, Detective Toyota

was asked, '.. .and others of your contact (with Camile Hamilton) were not recorded? 'to which

he answered, 'Yes' (Ex. 25, p 21,11. 23-24). On 11/6/14, Detective Toyota had the following

exchange with defense counsel, ". . .do you recail if you had any communications with her

(Camile Hamilton) between statement 5 and 6 that is not recorded?' Ans. "No." Q. "Okay. You

do not recall or you did not?" A: "I do not recall" (Ex. 25, p. 26,11. 14-19). On 1 1/6/14,

Detective Toyota stated that he did not recall whether he had contact with Camile Hamilton

between the statements she gave on Aug. 24 and Aug. 26, 2009. Detective Toyota's report does

not reflect any contact, however, his rough notes and testimony at deposition reflect numerous

contacts omitted in his report(s) (Ex. 25, p 3 8,11. 6-11, Ex. 1, Ex. 15). On 11/6/14, Detective

Toyota stated that prior to recording Camile Hamilton's statement on 8/24/09, he had

conversation with Cam ile Ham ilton, but does not remem ber what the conversation was about and

took no notes of the conversation. There is no mention of this conversation in Det. Toyota's

report(s) (Ex. 25, pp. 33, 11. 24-25 and p. 34, 11 1-13, Ex. 1),

The defense acknow ledges that Grand Jury testimony and evidence is not routinely

provided to the defense, however, the unusually high number of inconsistencies and the

progression of Mrs. Hamilton's testimony mandate that this witness' testimony be provided to

Mr. Pratt in its entirety. The detriment to the State is minimal when compared to Mr, Pratt's

right to confront the witness and to fully investigate the capital accusations against him. The

attached article, 'Secret Grand Jury Testimony From Ethel Rosenberg's Brother Is Released,'

which ran in the New York Times just two weeks ago, is illustrative, to say the least. (Ex. 26).

27


46/82

In addition due to the severity and irrevocable nature of the death penalty, the United

States Supreme Court has held that "the Eight Amendment requires a greater degree of accuracyand fact-finding than would be true in a noncapital case" in all phases of a capital trial. Gilmore

v. Taylor, 508 US 333, 342 (1983). Accord Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 US 280, 305

(1976); Beck, supra, 447 U.S. at 637-638; Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578, 584-90 (1998).

The heightened degree of reliability demanded in capital cases affords additional protections

against inaccurate or unconstitutionally unreliable verdicts about and beyond the basic due

process protections applicable in all criminal cases.

M E M O R A N D U M O F L AW A N D A E . U M E N T

Ms. Hamilton's testimony and any physical evidence upon which the grand jury relied in

returning its Indictment against Mr. Pratt should be provided to undersigned counsel for the

following reasons:

(a) To ascertain whether Ms. Hamilton's grand jury testimony agrees with other

testimony and evidence given by the witness during the investigation, depositions,

hearings and/or trial.

(b) In furtherance of justice and due process

(c) To enable meaningful and intelligent enforcement and review of the right to a grand

jury indictment guaranteed by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and article I, section 15(a) of the Florida Constitution.

There is no justification for continued secrecy of the grand jury proceeding; any

justification advanced by the State is minimal when weighed against the due process rights of

Mr. Pratt. A defendant charged with a capital crime is entitled to State and Federal constitutional

28


47/82

right to disclosure of what transpired during the Grand Jury proceeding under these.

circumstances.

The disclosure of the above material is essential to ensure compliance with the Federal

guarantee of due process and indictment under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution and Florida's Constitution and statutes.

Disclosure of the above material is appropriate under Florida Statute § 905.27.

Disclosure of the above material is necessary to provide effective assistance of counsel,

obtain meaningful appellate review, and to otherwise fully protect the Accused's constitutional

rights under article I, sections 2, 9, 15(a), 16, 17 and 22 of the Florida Constitution.

The disclosure of the above material is necessary provide effective assistance of counsel,

obtain meaningful appellate review, Due Process of Law and to otherwise fully protect the rights

guaranteed by Amendments V, VI, VIII and XIV to the United States Constitution.

In general, trial courts have the discretion to order the disclosure of grand jury

proceedings. Seefi?Mv^tom, 918 So.2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (not an ab

in a non-capital case where defendant found guilty of second degree murder to fail

disclosure of grand jury proceedings). The testimony that was presented at the gran

accessible because Florida now requires that "testimony in grand jury proceedings shall be

reported by a court reporter, but shall not be transcribed unless required by order

Other parts of grand jury proceedings, including deliberations and voting, shall nFla-RJud.Admin. 2.535(h)(6). The testimony and evidence presented during a grand jury

proceeding can be property admitted under section 90.801 (2)(a) as substantive

Green, 667 So.2d 756, 759 (Fla. 1995); Moore v. Stale. 452 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1984). In that

regard, the State of Florida has unfettered access to grand jury proceedings and is r

29


48/82

use grand jury testimony to impeach witnesses whose grand jury testimony differs from that

presented at trial. Rg, Barv^tgte, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006) (prosecutor allowed toimpeach witness with testimony and photograph presented during grand jury proceedings). This

gives an unfair advan tage to the state.

Mr. Pratt's interests in enforcing the state and federal right to indictment for a

capital crime and to prepare a meaningful defense to imposition of capital punishment otherwise

outweigh the State's interest in concealing what transpired during the grand jury hearing

In Bwtterwwtfi.v. Smith, (110 S.Ct. 1376) Judge Rehnquist delivered the opinion for a

unanimous Court, holding Florida a statute prohibiting a grand jury witness from ever disclosing

his testimony violated the First Amendment insofar as it prohibits a witness from disclosing his

own testimony after grand jury's term has ended. Although the Court was dealing with a very

narrow issue of grand jury witness testimony and the 1st Amendment, Judge Rehnquist's opinion

undermines the State's assertion as to the necessity for secrecy in grand jury proceedings. Judge

Rehnquist cites to Unites Slater v. Prociec & CjwnNfCo., an opinion that had stood for the

State's assertion. (356 U.S 677, 78 S.Ct. 983 (1958)). The Court in that case noted that several

distinct interests are served by safeguarding the confidently of grand jury proceedings,

specifically:

1. If pre-indictment proceedings were public, many prospective witnesses would be

hesitant to come forward voluntarily, knowing that those against whom they testify

would be. aware of that testimony. Moreover, witnesses would be less likely to testify»*

fully and frankly.

2. There is the risk that those about to be indicted would flee. or would try to influence

individual grand jurors lo vote against indictment.

30


49/82

^

3, Protection for the person that is accused but exonerated by the grand jury will not be

leld up to public ridicule. Dw&laiOitCo^afrMlfgrmavJ'etroiStoMMll^^

441 US 211, 218-219 (1979).

Florida relies on the interest in preserving grand jury secrecy as outlined by the Qouglas,

Court. But as the Supreme Court held in the BuUerworth case, the Justices did not believe those

interests warrant a permanent ban on the disclosure by a witness of his own testimony once the

grand jury has been discharged. Some of those interests are not served at all by a F

disclosure, and those that are served are not sufficient to sustain the statute, Id., at 632.(emphasis added).

The safeguards that Florida places on the release of grand jury testimony as referred to

above are simply not relevant in Mr. Pratt's case and are distinguished as follows:

1. The secrecy safeguard that would protect testifying witnesses does not apply in this

case as Cam ile Hamilton has been listed as a state witness since November 13,2011.

Additionally, Mr. Pratt actually had direct face to face contact with her pre indictment

when law enforcement arranged for Ms, Hamilton to confront Mr. Pratt. The issue of

protecting the witness identity does not apply here. Additmall}^ the Defense is not

requesting the identification of the grand jurors.<

2. Pre-indictment concerns regarding flight do not apply in this case. Mr. Pratt remains

in maximum security at the Broward County Main Jail and has no bond.

3. Finally, concerns for the un-indicted is inapplicable as Mr. Pratt has been in

this case.

Florida courts resist requiring the disclosure of grand jury proceedings unless Defendants

can show a special need for the material. The Defendant respectfully submits that a special

31


50/82

.

here exists for the testimony of Ms. Camile Hamilton that was presented to the grand jury. In

Miritmv, Siate, the Florida Supreme Court granted Certiorari because there was an apparent

conflict between the decision of the District Court of Appeal and tlie decision of the Suprem e

Court in TrafficaMe v. State, 92 So.2d 811 (1957) involving the rights of the defendant in a

criminal case to inspect the grand jury testimony of a state's witness for the purpose of laying the

foundation for impeaching the trial testimony. 113 So.2d 361 (1959). In Minton, the Defense

both filed a written motion and orally moved for an order requiring the State to make available to

the defendant and his attorney all portions of the grand jury report. The motion was sworn to by

counsel for defendant 'upon information, knowledge and belief... .so that I can determine

whether he is testifying to the same thing at this time as he did then" id. at 362. Essentially

defense counsel wanted to see if the witness' Grand Jury- testimony would be consistent with his

trial testimony. Defense counsel did not show a particularized need for the testimony and merely

surmised and speculated that the Grand Jury testimony would conflict with the trial testimony

and the Court properly denied both motions.

In J'fnfncante v-Sleite, the Florida Supreme Court, allowed release of a witness' grand

jury testimony because counsel had been able to demonstrated a particularized need for the

testimony. 92 So.2d 811 (1957). In Tmfficgnte, the Florida Supreme Court held that it was error

for the trial judge to deny a sworn application for subpoena duces tecuin directing the official

court reporter to bring the transcript on one of the. states witness given before the grand jury in

order that it might be utilized in cross-examination of the witness for the purpose of laying the

foundation for impeachment of the witness' direct testimony without first examining same to

determine its 'materiality'. The appellate court affirmed the trial courts finding holding that no

proper predicate, was made by the defendant sufficient to require a preliminary examination of

32


51/82

the Grand Jury testimony of witness Thomas. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the appellate

court's ruling and found that counsel had in fact laid the proper predict and had demonstrated a

particularizes need for the testimony.

Under oath, counsel for Trafljcante stated that an examination of the grand jury

transcripts of a specific witness (Sergeant Dietrich) was warranted as it was material and relevant

to, and in conflict with, Sgt. Dietrich's testimony on direct examination. In order to show the

court this conflict, defense counsel proffered the testimony of the official grand jury court

reporter, who stated that Sergeant Dietrich testified before the grand jury concerning some or all

of the matters and transactions abou t which he testified at trial. Counsel also dem onstrated that

Sergeant Dietrich's testimony was in direct conflict with other testimony. It was crystal clear to

the Florida Supreme Court that something more than mere surmise or speculation that a witness'

testimony at trial is inconsistent his grand jury testimony and that Trafficante has shown the

proper predicate and had demonstrated a particularized need for disclosure.

Mr. Pratt's case is s imilar to the Trafficante case in that Mr. Pratt has illustrated a

particularized need for disclosure of Ms. Hamilton's grand jury testimony. Mr, Pratt does not

speculate or surmise that Ms. PIamilton has previously given inconsistent statement relating to

material aspects of his case. Mr. Pratt has illustrated in this motion that Ms. Hamilton has given

at least 12 previous sworn statements and in those 12 statements she has given conflicting

responses. It is therefore necessary to disclose her testimony in order for the defense to prepare

for impeachment as well as to insure that justice is served.

Because heightened procedural due process attends imposition of capital punishment,

disclosure of the basis of the prosecution is required to enable meaningfuj appellate review and

effective assistance of counse l. The interests of reliable fact finding and heightened procedure

33


52/82

due process that accompany imposition of capital punishment far outweigh any interest in the

continued secrecy of grand jury proceedings in this case,.

Section 905.27(1), Florida Statute, allows disclosure of grand jury testimony to ascertain

whether it is consistent with testimony in court, to determine whether the witness is guilty of

perjury, and for die purpose of "furthering justice." Justice is furthered by insurin

jury proceedings resulting in the indictment of a person for a capital offensc was

conducted in accordance with ethical concerns and the laws of the State of Florida.

The secrecy that once cloaked Florida grand jury proceedings now gives way to scrutiny

when a valid interest is served.

The constitutional rights that are fundamental to the case at bar are as substan

first amendment rights of the w itness in Buttemorlh v. Smith. Initially, the defendan

against arbitrary application of the

betsy benson jnc

Documents