|
|
|
[UPDATE 19/01/2015 - The 11th Circuit of appeal denied Michael Lambrix's appeal. Ruling here]
December 22nd, 2014
Litigation Director CCRC-South William M.Hennis III urges the court:
this is the extraordinary case in which a prima facie case of
actual innocence has been established
Michael Lambrix, when young and free -
He has spent over 30 years on death row.
He has spent over 30 years on death row.
As the case of Michael Lambrix's clemency review is in process, his non-clemency layer has just filed a 101 pages application to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit asking for permission to file a new federal petition for relief.
Background
Michael Lambrix was indicted on 2 counts of first degree murder on March 29, 1983 on Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant outside his home. Clarence Moore was a 35-year-old career criminal, and a known associate of South Florida drug smugglers, while Bryant was a 19-year-old local waitress who had just met Moore. Clarence Moore had also a record of violence towards women.
He has always maintained his complete innocence in the murder of Aleisha Bryant, and that he was compelled to act in in self-defense when he killed Clarence Moore, attempting to stop the violent assault of Clarence Moore upon Aleisha Bryant.
At his first trial, the Glades County jury ended with the declaration of a mistrial on December 17, 1983, when the jury failed to reach a verdict after deliberating for 11 hours.
Lambrix then refused to plead guilty to lesser charges. The retrial jury found M. Lambrix on both counts of indictment and sentenced him to death on February 24, 1984.
Lambrix grew up serving as a Catholic altar boy, participated in Boy Scouts, joined the ROTC program in high school and enlisted as a volunteer in the US Army at age 18. He has no prior criminal record of violence.
Key points of the new appeal filed in the Eleventh Circuit include:
1) Circumstancial case
The State of Florida has conceded that the whole case is circumstancial i.e. no eyewitnesses to the crimes, no physical, nor forensic evidence identifying M. Lambrix as the murderer, and no confession by M. Lambrix.
2) Issues of credibility of key witnesses
Witness 1: Frances S
The alleged premeditated murders of Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant rested entirely upon the statement and credibility of one key state witness Frances S. As the State clearly acknowledged in state court proceedings: "Clearly that State's case was built on Frances S. The entire case, premeditation and everything is proven in her testimony. And there has never been any question about that".
When pressed by the State to provide a motive for the killings of Bryant and Moore, Frances S. stated that she had witnessed Lambrix searching the pockets of the victims for valuables, and that she saw Lambrix remove a gold necklace from Moore's neck.
However, upon recovery of the two bodies, the medical examiner found both cash and jewelry in the personal effects of Moore and Bryant. This finding impeached Frances S's account of Lambrix removing valuables from the victims.
She also admitted of a sexual relationship with the state attorney investigator on the case.
Witness 2: Deborah H
Deborah H provided a statement that Lambrix told her that he killed Moore and Bryant in order to gain possession of Moore's vehicle. During post conviction proceedings , Deborah H recanted this information and claimed she had been coerced into testifying falsely at trial in order to bolster France S's testimony. In 1998, she provided under oath that Lambrix never told her that he had killed anyone.
3) Newly discovered evidence the jury at trial never saw
. Intentionally concealed FDLE crime lab reports
. Previously undisclosed hairs found on the alleged murder weapon, according to a state lab report did not match either the victims' or Lambrix
.The jury that convicted Lambrix never knew that the pretrial investigation had uncovered facts about Moore that indicated that he was a 35 years old criminal with a history of violent assaults against women, while intoxicated.
In addition, fingernail scrapings of Bryant that could have confirmed Moore or Lambrix on her assailant disappeared before there was any analysis.
4) Implausible State theory
The appeal states: "The State theory of the crime is implausible. Lambrix would have had to physically overpower and kill both Moore and Bryant simultaneously in completely different ways. At the time of arrest, Lambrix weighed about 140 pounds, Moore weighed 195 pounds, and Bryant 185 pounds." However, the key witness Frances S. was certain that Lambrix did not exhibit "any scratches or bruises" (p90)
5) Prejudiced judge
The same trial court judge that had presided over Lambrix's second capital trial was found to have substantial and constitutionally prejudicial bias against capital defendants. Thus it became public knowledge, based on depositions and evidentiary process before the state court that judge S. had provided under oath statements that he always carried a sawed-off machine gun while on the bench and that he believed that he should have been allowed to "shoot [the] capital defendants between the eyes" rather than having to sentence them to death.
Michael Radelet says: Over the years I have met probably 300 death row inmates in prisons in a dozen states. I sincerely believe that Lambrix's case is unique -- there were errors and mistakes made at several points along the way, and his life today has a tremendous amount of value to others. (...) The purpose of a Clemency Board Is to intervene in cases precisely like this. (Clemency letter)
Litigation Director CCRC-South William M.Hennis III says:
This is the extraordinary case in which a prima facie case of actual innocence has been established. Pursuant to the intent of Congress, Lambrix is entitled to a grant of leave to pursue a second or successive habeas corpus petition in the district court.
Relevant excerpts of the law quoted:
Davis v. State:
Even though the circumstancial evidence is sufficient to support a probability of guilt it is not thereby adequate to support a conviction if it is likewise consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence"
Heiney v. State
As Florida law has long held "where the only proof of premeditation is cIrcumstancial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable of innocence.
Background
Michael Lambrix was indicted on 2 counts of first degree murder on March 29, 1983 on Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant outside his home. Clarence Moore was a 35-year-old career criminal, and a known associate of South Florida drug smugglers, while Bryant was a 19-year-old local waitress who had just met Moore. Clarence Moore had also a record of violence towards women.
He has always maintained his complete innocence in the murder of Aleisha Bryant, and that he was compelled to act in in self-defense when he killed Clarence Moore, attempting to stop the violent assault of Clarence Moore upon Aleisha Bryant.
At his first trial, the Glades County jury ended with the declaration of a mistrial on December 17, 1983, when the jury failed to reach a verdict after deliberating for 11 hours.
Lambrix then refused to plead guilty to lesser charges. The retrial jury found M. Lambrix on both counts of indictment and sentenced him to death on February 24, 1984.
Lambrix grew up serving as a Catholic altar boy, participated in Boy Scouts, joined the ROTC program in high school and enlisted as a volunteer in the US Army at age 18. He has no prior criminal record of violence.
Key points of the new appeal filed in the Eleventh Circuit include:
1) Circumstancial case
The State of Florida has conceded that the whole case is circumstancial i.e. no eyewitnesses to the crimes, no physical, nor forensic evidence identifying M. Lambrix as the murderer, and no confession by M. Lambrix.
2) Issues of credibility of key witnesses
Witness 1: Frances S
The alleged premeditated murders of Clarence Moore and Aleisha Bryant rested entirely upon the statement and credibility of one key state witness Frances S. As the State clearly acknowledged in state court proceedings: "Clearly that State's case was built on Frances S. The entire case, premeditation and everything is proven in her testimony. And there has never been any question about that".
When pressed by the State to provide a motive for the killings of Bryant and Moore, Frances S. stated that she had witnessed Lambrix searching the pockets of the victims for valuables, and that she saw Lambrix remove a gold necklace from Moore's neck.
However, upon recovery of the two bodies, the medical examiner found both cash and jewelry in the personal effects of Moore and Bryant. This finding impeached Frances S's account of Lambrix removing valuables from the victims.
She also admitted of a sexual relationship with the state attorney investigator on the case.
Witness 2: Deborah H
Deborah H provided a statement that Lambrix told her that he killed Moore and Bryant in order to gain possession of Moore's vehicle. During post conviction proceedings , Deborah H recanted this information and claimed she had been coerced into testifying falsely at trial in order to bolster France S's testimony. In 1998, she provided under oath that Lambrix never told her that he had killed anyone.
3) Newly discovered evidence the jury at trial never saw
. Intentionally concealed FDLE crime lab reports
. Previously undisclosed hairs found on the alleged murder weapon, according to a state lab report did not match either the victims' or Lambrix
.The jury that convicted Lambrix never knew that the pretrial investigation had uncovered facts about Moore that indicated that he was a 35 years old criminal with a history of violent assaults against women, while intoxicated.
In addition, fingernail scrapings of Bryant that could have confirmed Moore or Lambrix on her assailant disappeared before there was any analysis.
4) Implausible State theory
The appeal states: "The State theory of the crime is implausible. Lambrix would have had to physically overpower and kill both Moore and Bryant simultaneously in completely different ways. At the time of arrest, Lambrix weighed about 140 pounds, Moore weighed 195 pounds, and Bryant 185 pounds." However, the key witness Frances S. was certain that Lambrix did not exhibit "any scratches or bruises" (p90)
5) Prejudiced judge
The same trial court judge that had presided over Lambrix's second capital trial was found to have substantial and constitutionally prejudicial bias against capital defendants. Thus it became public knowledge, based on depositions and evidentiary process before the state court that judge S. had provided under oath statements that he always carried a sawed-off machine gun while on the bench and that he believed that he should have been allowed to "shoot [the] capital defendants between the eyes" rather than having to sentence them to death.
Michael Radelet says: Over the years I have met probably 300 death row inmates in prisons in a dozen states. I sincerely believe that Lambrix's case is unique -- there were errors and mistakes made at several points along the way, and his life today has a tremendous amount of value to others. (...) The purpose of a Clemency Board Is to intervene in cases precisely like this. (Clemency letter)
Litigation Director CCRC-South William M.Hennis III says:
This is the extraordinary case in which a prima facie case of actual innocence has been established. Pursuant to the intent of Congress, Lambrix is entitled to a grant of leave to pursue a second or successive habeas corpus petition in the district court.
Relevant excerpts of the law quoted:
Davis v. State:
Even though the circumstancial evidence is sufficient to support a probability of guilt it is not thereby adequate to support a conviction if it is likewise consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence"
Heiney v. State
As Florida law has long held "where the only proof of premeditation is cIrcumstancial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable of innocence.
. Contact: Emmanuelle Purdon T. (+44) 751 535 71 49
| 2014_12_19_lambrix_11th_circuit_appeal.pdf |
