The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Melvin Roberts, was born on July 14, 1967. He was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on March 1, 1993, and was issued correctional certificate numbered 151525. Respondent has been employed as a certified correctional officer with the Florida Department of Corrections since January 29, 1993. On October 28, 1994, Officer Elise Dillard-Gonzalez of the Miami-Dade Police Department was working as part of an undercover prostitution sting at Southwest 8th Street and 69 Avenue. At approximately 11:10 p.m., Respondent, who was alone, pulled over to the curb and motioned to her to approach his vehicle. When she did, he requested a "fuck for $20." She signaled to the undercover officers across the street, and Respondent was arrested for soliciting prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. On November 10, 1994, Officer Sonja Crespo of the City of Miami Police Department was working as part of an undercover prostitution sting at Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 73rd Street in Miami. Respondent, who was alone, approached her and gestured at her by placing a finger on one hand through a circle made by the fingers on his other hand. When she went over to Respondent's vehicle, he offered her $20 for a "fuck." She signaled to other near-by police officers, and Respondent was arrested for soliciting prostitution, in violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes. Rather than going forward on the charges for the two arrests, the State Attorney's Office agreed to place Respondent in some type of pre-trial diversionary program. Respondent was suspended from his employment with the Florida Department of Corrections for 10 consecutive days beginning April 17, 1995, for failing to report his arrests to his employer within 3 days and for being arrested, conduct unbecoming a correctional officer. Other than the October and November 1994 arrests, Respondent has not been arrested. Other than the disciplinary action imposed in April 1995, Respondent has had no disciplinary action taken against him as a correctional officer for the State of Florida. The superintendent at the Dade Correctional Institution where Respondent is employed considers Respondent to be a good employee and would like to continue Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, finding mitigating factors to be present, and suspending Respondent's certification as a correctional officer for 20 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. R. Bishop, Jr., Esquire 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The Issue for consideration is this matter is whether the Respondent, Kinnett Dairies, Inc., should be placed on the State of Florida's convicted vendors list because of its conviction on January 9, 1990 for "making false statements to a federal agency."
Findings Of Fact The Department of General Services is the state agency required, pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(d), Florida Statutes, to maintain a list of the names and addresses of those persons who have been disqualified from the public contracting and purchasing process under that section. On May 16, 1991, Kinnett, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State of Georgia, entered a plea of nolo contendere to a one count felony charge brought under Section 16-10-22, Official Code of Georgia for conspiracy in restraint of trade. On July 31, 1991, Kinnett was convicted in federal court of a one count felony charge brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, for a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids. Pursuant to the requirements of the Florida statute in issue here, Kinnett made timely notification of those convictions to the Florida Department of General Services. Thereafter, based on those convictions, the Department concluded it was in the public interest to place Kinnett on the convicted vendors list. The parties have stipulated that concurrently with and as a part of the agreement for the entry of the plea of nolo contendere to the state charge, Kinnett entered into an agreement with the State of Georgia whereby it paid a fine of $10,000.00 and costs of an additional $10,000.00. It also cooperated fully with the investigation of the Attorney General of the State of Georgia which led up to the charge. On the same date, May 16, 1991, Kinnett also entered into an agreement with the United States Department of Justice whereby it plead guilt to one felony count, as alleged in the information, and agreed to pay criminal penalties of $300,000.00 over a four year period and $25,000.00 in civil damages to the United States. On July 19, 1989, Kinnett entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Florida regarding possible bid rigging of school requirements contracts in Florida by various dairies and paid settlement sums of $150,000.00. All penalties and civil liabilities due to the federal and state governments have been paid. Kinnett fully cooperated with both Florida and Georgia in connection with their investigations into its activities. It also cooperated with the federal Grand Jury investigating its activities, a matter which was confirmed in an October 8, 1991 letter from the federal prosecutor to the Department. No Kinnett employees were indicted as a result of the investigations by the federal and state governments as noted. No member of Kinnett's top management had knowledge of the alleged conduct of the four employees who were implicated in the misconduct involved herein. None of those four employees are still associated with Kinnett. Kinnett has implemented an active antitrust and ethics compliance program developed with the advice and assistance of experienced antitrust counsel. Inherent in this program is the adoption of a Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct regarding antitrust matters; establishment of an ethics committee to monitor compliance; establishment of a reporting "hotline"; adoption of new bidding procedures bringing upper management into the pricing process; implementation of a training program for all personnel; and adoption of a policy and procedure review program to oversee both internal and external review of company ethics, policies and procedures. Going beyond the minimal requirements, Kinnett has arranged for outside accountants to perform a yearly, in-depth audit of all company books and accounting and pricing practices and has retained an expert in ethics to review existing policies and procedures and make recommendations for improvement. Kinnett has maintained its long-standing involvement in both civic and charitable activities in and around the Columbus, Georgia area and employs disabled veterans and military retirees, who currently make up 38% of its workers, when possible. It was recognized by the Georgia Department of Labor for its efforts in this area. Kinnett was one of the first companies in the Columbus, Georgia area to test both employees and job applicants for drug use, and has endorsed the Mayor's Task Force for Drug Free Columbus and consistent therewith has been instrumental in assisting other companies to establish programs to address substance abuse. Its officers are active as leaders in various civic organizations and it has given generously to numerous public, civic and charitable organizations. No matters in aggravation, other than the existence of the pleas, the convictions, and the penalties involved herein was presented by the Department. No evidence was presented relating to a conviction in January, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent as a law enforcement officer and issued him certificate number 02-31445 on March 26, 1982. At all times material to this proceeding, the Virginia Gardens Police Department, Virginia Gardens, Florida, employed Respondent as a reserve or part- time police officer. During the ten years that he had been employed in that capacity, Respondent's certification had never been disciplined. Respondent also was part owner of the "Gun Doc", a gunsmith business in Dade County. On January 14, 1992, Respondent was working in his private capacity collecting weapons for repair and restoration from his customers. About 2:00 p.m., Respondent was enroute to his part-time business, traveling south on the Palmetto Expressway. He was driving his personal vehicle, a black convertible Mustang. The weather was clear, sunny, and dry. The Palmetto Expressway is a divided asphalt and concrete road which runs north and south with four (4) lanes in each direction in most places. On January 14, 1995, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Metro-Dade Police Department (MDPD) Sergeant John Petri was driving an unmarked undercover vehicle, a grey and white Chevolet Blazer, south on the Palmetto Expressway. Around the 102nd Street and the Palmetto Expressway intersection, the Respondent's vehicle approached Sergeant Petri from the rear at a high rate of speed that was substantially over the posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The traffic in the area was heavy at the time. Sergeant Petri braced himself for impact because he felt he would be hit by Respondent's vehicle. At the last moment, in a sudden move, Respondent's vehicle swerved around Sergeant Petri to the left. Sergeant Petri maintained visual contact with the Respondent's vehicle as it continued south on the Palmetto Expressway and through the intersection of South River Road. Respondent's vehicle was weaving in and out of traffic, cutting off cars, pulling behind others at a high rate of speed and slamming on his brakes. Respondent used the right shoulder of the road as a passing lane even though the traffic was flowing smoothly and there were no obstacles blocking the roadway. MDPD rules and regulations prohibit officers in unmarked cars from making traffic stops. Consequently, Sergeant Petri dispatched Respondent's vehicle tag number to the MDPD communication center and requested that a uniform unit or a trooper stop Respondent. Meanwhile, Respondent's vehicle came up behind Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent Pierre Charette at a high rate of speed. Special Agent Charette saw that Respondent's vehicle was being trailed by a Bronco/Blazer type vehicle. Special Agent Charette, driving an undercover DEA vehicle, thought he was going to be struck by the Respondent's vehicle but Respondent's vehicle suddenly swerved avoiding a collision. Next, Respondent's vehicle came over into Special Agent Charette's lane almost causing a collision with other cars. Respondent's vehicle and Sergeant Petri passed Special Agent Charette and continued southward on Palmetto Expressway. Around 74th Street, the traffic on Palmetto Expressway became more congested. At that point, Respondent's vehicle was in the right lane. A guardrail was to his right. Due to the approaching overpass, Respondent was forced to slow down. Sergeant Petri, driving in the right center lane, pulled up along the left side of the Respondent's vehicle. Both vehicles came to a rolling stop. The driver's window of Respondent's vehicle was down. Sergeant Petri put the passenger's window down on his undercover car. After showing his gold badge, Sergeant Petri identified himself as a police officer and told Respondent to slow down. Respondent made eye contact with Sergeant Petri but did not give a verbal response. Instead, Respondent made a gesture with his middle finger. Sergeant Petri did not get out of his vehicle. As Special Agent Charette drove past Respondent and Sergeant Petri, he noticed that the individual in a grey and white Chevolet Blazer was holding up what appeared to be law enforcement credentials. Believing that everything was under control, Special Agent Charette continued south on the Palmetto Expressway. When traffic in front of him began to move, Respondent began passing cars by pulling onto the right shoulder of the road. At one point, the rear end of Respondent's vehicle began to fishtail when he was on the grassy dirt area of the road's shoulder. Special Agent Charette noticed Respondent's vehicle approaching from the rear again. Respondent almost caused a collision with other cars when he cut in front of Special Agent Charette's vehicle. Between the 74th Street and 58th Street intersection, Special Agent Charette turned on his lights and siren and began to pursue Respondent. Respondent zigzagged in and out of traffic with Special Agent Charette following about two (2) car lengths behind. In response to Special Agent Charette's lights and siren, other cars moved out of the way. Respondent exited the Palmetto Expressway at the 58th Street intersection. He was aware that Special Agent Charette was behind him. Sergeant Petri lost visual contact with Respondent as he made the exit. Respondent headed west on 58th Street which is an asphalt and concrete roadway with a total of five (5) lanes; the center lane is a middle turning lane. Special Agent Charette followed Respondent at speeds of 50 to 80 miles per hour. Special Agent Charette and Sergeant Petri routinely use the 58th Street exit when traveling to their respective offices. Respondent zigzagged around traffic and ran a red traffic light at the intersection of 58th Street and 79th Avenue almost causing another accident. Special Agent Charette hesitated at that intersection to avoid colliding with other automobiles then followed Respondent at speeds of 45 to 50 miles per hour. Respondent turned south on 82nd Avenue and went into a warehouse area. He parked in the first space in front of his business, The Gun Doc. Special Agent Charette followed and blocked the entrance to The Gun Doc with his light and siren still activated. Respondent got out of his vehicle, looked at Special Agent Charette and started to go inside The Gun Doc. Special Agent Charette displayed his credentials and badge and identified himself verbally as a federal narcotics law enforcement agent. Special Agent Charette advised Respondent that Metro police were on the way. Respondent responded derogatorily and went into The Gun Doc. Special Agent Charette notified DEA dispatch of his exact location and need for backup from Metro police. He also requested a tag check on Respondent's vehicle. Meanwhile, DEA Special Agents Lewis Perry and John Fernandez were monitoring their DEA radio in close proximity to The Gun Doc. They asked Special Agent Charette whether he needed assistance and went to the scene in an unmarked government vehicle. When they arrived at the scene, the blue light on Special Agent Charette's dashboard was still on. After their arrival, Respondent came out of The Gun Doc and asked who they were. Special Agents Perry and Fernandez identified themselves as federal agents with DEA and at least one of them showed his credentials. Respondent again responded derogatorily and went back into his business. At approximately 2:00 p.m. on January 14, 1992, United States Marshal Lorenzo Menendez was traveling in his unmarked vehicle on the 836 Expressway heading toward the Palmetto area. He was returning to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) office in the Koger Executive Center. Marshal Menendez had two (2) radios in his vehicle and was scanning the DEA and MDPD radio frequencies. He heard Sergeant Petri requesting help. Later the Marshal heard that the subject vehicle had exited Palmetto Expressway at 58th Street. He also heard Special Agent Charette asking for help and learned the address of The Gun Doc as the address of the vehicle's owner. Marshal Menendez responded to the calls for help. When he arrived at The Gun Doc, Special Agents Charette, Perry and Fernandez were already there waiting outside next to their cars. When Respondent came out of his shop and approached his vehicle, Marshal Menendez walked up to Respondent's vehicle. With his silver star badge hanging around his neck and his photo identification in his hand, Marshal Menendez verbally identified himself as a U.S. Marshal. Respondent told Marshal Menendez that he too was a police officer but refused to show his credentials. About the time that Marshal Menendez and Respondent began to converse, Sergeant Petri arrived at the scene. The MDPD dispatcher had given him the address of The Gun Doc as the address of the owner of the black convertible Mustang. Respondent objected when Marshal Menendez looked in Respondent's car. Without any threat or provocation, Respondent shoved Marshal Menendez by placing both hands on the Marshal's chest causing him to fall backwards. Marshal Menendez then advised Respondent that he was under arrest and attempted to handcuff him. Respondent reacted by refusing to obey the Marshal's commands and trying to break free. Special Agents Charette, Perry, and Fernandez assisted Marshal Menendez in subduing and handcuffing Respondent who resisted by kicking, jerking, and thrashing about. When the struggle was over, Respondent was handcuffed face down on the ground. Respondent again informed the officers that he was a policeman. One of the officers took Respondent's badge and identification from his rear pocket. Respondent's Chief of Police arrived at the scene and asked that Respondent be allowed to get up. At that time, Respondent was not bleeding. However, his face and neck was bruised in the struggle to subdue him. The federal agents intended to charge Respondent with assault on federal officers. However, an assistant United States Attorney deferred to state charges of reckless driving and battery. upon a police officer. Respondent testified that when he first encountered Sergeant Petri and Special Agent Charette on the Palmetto Expressway, they were traveling in a convoy with a third vehicle and driving recklessly. He claims he did not know they were law enforcement officers. Respondent asserts that he had to drive defensively to escape them because he feared they were attempting to hijack the weapons in his possession. Respondent's testimony in this regard is less persuasive than evidence indicating that Respondent was driving recklessly before he encountered Sergeant Petri and Special Agent Charette. After Sergeant Petri identified himself as a policeman and Special Agent Charette turned on his siren and blue light, Respondent endangered the lives of others in an attempt to avoid being stopped. Upon arrival at his place of business, Respondent called 911 seeking assistance from a uniform unit. He also called his Chief of Police to ask for advice. Respondent's brother, David Pruitt, was in the shop when these calls were made. After making these calls, Respondent testified that he was attempting to keep Marshal Menendez from entering his vehicle when Marshal Menendez suddenly lunged and grabbed Respondent by the throat. The criminal trial testimony of Respondent's brother and of another criminal trial witness, Maribel Aguirre, tend to corroborate Respondent's version of the facts leading up to the altercation with Marshal Menendez. However, the undersigned finds the testimony of Respondent, his brother and Ms. Aguirre less persuasive in this regard than the testimony of Marshal Menendez, Sergeant Petri, and Special Agents Perry and Fernandez, supported by the criminal trial testimony of Special Agent Charette. Clear and convincing record evidence indicates that Respondent was guilty of reckless driving and battery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's certification and the privilege of employment as a law enforcement officer for a period of two (2) years. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of April 1994. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.- 3 Accepted in paragraphs 1-2. 4 - 6 Accepted in paragraphs 3-4. 7 - 16 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 5-8. 17 - 22 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 9-12. 23 - 32 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 14-17. 33 - 39 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 19-22. 40 - 48 Accepted in paragraphs 23-27. 49 - 61 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 28-32. 62 - 75 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 33-37. 76 - 87 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 38-40. 88 - 93 Accepted in substance in paragraphs 41-46. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 - 4 Accepted as if incorporated in paragraphs 1-2. Accepted in part in paragraph 3. Reject last sentence as not supported by persuasive evidence. - 9 Rejected. No competent substantial persuasive evidence. Accept in part in paragraphs 26-27 but siren engaged before arrival at gun shop. - 12 Accept that Respondent made telephone calls in paragraph 44 but reject his reasons for doing so as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. 13 - 15 Accepted in substance as modified in paragraphs 31-36. First and last sentence rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. The rest is accepted in substance as modified in paragraph 36. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. Accepted as modified in paragraph 39; the other officers did not "join the attack." Rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. Accepted in paragraphs 39-40. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. See paragraph 42 re: criminal charges. Balance rejected as not supported by competent substantial persuasive evidence. Accept that Ms. Aguirre's criminal trial testimony tends to support Respondent but reject this testimony as less persuasive than the contrary testimony of the law enforcement officers. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Simmons Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 A. P. Walter, Jr., Esquire 235 Catalonia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Div of Crim. Just. Stds. & Trng. P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel P. O. Box 1489 Tallahahssee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1985, Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission and issued certificate no. 14-84-502-04. Respondent's work in law enforcement in Florida has been as a correctional officer. On the night of December 27, 1986, Respondent left his home to go to the American Legion in Lake City, Florida. On his way he met his friend Eddie Goodbread, Jr. Goodbread asked the Respondent if he could go with him to the American Legion Club. The Respondent agreed to have Goodbread come with him. Once at the American Legion the two men socialized. When they got ready to leave the club the Respondent left with his girlfriend. Goodbread took the Respondent's car and parked it on Myrtle Street. Goodbread then went with the Respondent and the Respondent's girlfriend and another person, which the Respondent describes as a girl, to the house of a friend other than Goodbread. At that point the Respondent and Goodbread split up again. Respondent was then with his girlfriend and Goodbread had the keys to Respondent's car. The Respondent came back later and met with Goodbread. Prior to the rendezvous, while Respondent had been with his girlfriend in her car, he had placed a .25 caliber automatic pistol in the glove box of that car. He had a license to carry this weapon issued by local authorities. The weapon was not contemplated as being a necessary item for his work as a correctional officer. When the Respondent got out of his girlfriend's car and approached Goodbread, the Respondent had the pistol in his coat pocket. Respondent told Goodbread that he was ready to go home because he had to go to work the next morning. Goodbread said, in kidding with the Respondent, that he did not have the car keys and that he had locked them in the car. Respondent recognized that he was joking with him. Nonetheless, Respondent looked in the car and saw that the keys were not there. Respondent returned to Goodbread and told Goodbread to give him his keys. Goodbread again told Respondent that the keys were locked in the car. Respondent told Goodbread that he was starting to go home. Goodbread's reaction to this remark was to get in the car and say "let's go." Goodbread then jumped out of the car and said that he was not ready to go. Respondent told him to come on and give him his keys. Respondent told Goodbread "come on man. Let's go." Goodbread told Respondent that he wasn't ready to go that he wanted to talk to some girl. Respondent said "come on let's go." Respondent took the gun out and said "you are going to make me put this on you. Come on let's go." Goodbread grabbed the gun unexpectedly and the gun discharged and killed Goodbread. Respondent never intended to injure Goodbread in his display of the pistol. Eight or ten witnesses saw the incident. It was investigated by the Lake City Police Department and Respondent cooperated in that endeavor to include turning over the pistol to the police and giving a voluntary statement about the incident. Respondent was charged through the Grand Jury of Columbia County, Florida, with the exhibition of the handgun in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense and contrary to Section 790.10, Florida Statutes. A copy of that indictment may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. As set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, Respondent plead guilty to the offense and was fined $176. The firearm was forfeited to the state, he received 11 days in jail and a condition was placed upon him not to possess a firearm for one year. Respondent claims that as a consequence of the incident with his friend Goodbread he began to drink more than he had before. There being no frame of reference to compare his drinking habits before and after the incident, this comment has little utility in understanding his motivation to drink and drive. It has been established that on September 13, 1987, in the early morning hours of that day, specifically around 1:30 a.m., the Respondent was observed by Deputy Sheriff Charles R. Tate of the Columbia County, Florida Sheriff's office, driving in a reckless manner. In this incident the Respondent pulled out of Church Street onto Bay Avenue in Lake City, Florida, in a reckless manner. The officer speeded up in his attempt to stop the Respondent and engaged the emergency equipment in the officer's car. Respondent went west bound on Bay and turned south on Marion Street which is U.S. 41. In the course of this pursuit Respondent accelerated to speeds up to 65 miles per hour. Respondent finally pulled over around the intersection of Marion Street and Grandview Avenue. Respondent cooperated with Officer Tate in the investigation of the driving offense. This included the officer noting that the Respondent had the smell of alcohol about his person. As a consequence, the Respondent was asked to perform certain activities associated with a field sobriety test to ascertain if Respondent was capable of operating his motor vehicle. When the Respondent tried to perform the finger to nose test which is given with each hand, he was unable to do that with either hand. In trying to perform the walking test Respondent staggered and when he made the return trip in the walking test he nearly fell over and had to support himself. From the observations of the Respondent Officer Tate believed that the Respondent was driving under the influence when the stop was made. He arrested the Respondent for that offense and took him to the Florida Highway Patrol station where Robert Bellamy, a trained breathalyzer operator, administered a breathalyzer test to the Respondent. The results show that the Respondent was registering at .16 at 2:25 a.m., and registering at .15 at 2:27 a.m. with .10 being the legal presumption for impairment. Respondent was then taken to the Columbia County Jail. While at the jail correctional officer Jacklyn Yvonne Jones- Holland attempted to fingerprint his right hand. Ms. Holland knew of the Respondent before this evening but had had no opportunity before to speak to the Respondent. In the course of the fingerprinting Respondent took his left hand and rubbed it on the side of the officer's leg in the area of her groin. The first time he did this she stepped back on the chance that the Respondent was unaware of what he was doing at the time. However, when she moved the Respondent again put his hand on her leg in the area of her groin. Based upon the facts of this case in which Officer Tate describes the quality of the Respondent's impairment on a scale of 1 to 10, as being a 5 and Ms. Holland describes this impairment to be 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, Respondent is not found to be so under the influence that he did not realize what he was doing when inappropriately touching Ms. Holland in two instances. When he touched her the second time Ms. Holland went to another part of the building and made out a complaint against the Respondent for his assault and he was arrested for that offense. An Officer Myers read the Respondent his rights related to the assault during which conversation Respondent said, "I'm drunk. Oh yeah, that's what I'm here for. I'm drunk." There was no verbal exchange between the Respondent and Ms. Holland during the inappropriate touching. Ms. Holland had not invited those actions by the Respondent. The Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3 constitutes the Florida Uniform Traffic Citation for the offense of driving under the influence and the disposition of that case in which the Respondent was fined $411, had his license suspended for six months, and attended school for persons who have driven under the influence. He also attended Alcoholics Anonymous and received other counseling contemplated for persons who may have drinking problems. Respondent says that he does not drink at present and no evidence was offered which would refute that claim. Respondent was charged under information with the unlawful, intentional and knowing touching or striking of Jacklyn Yvonne Jones-Holland and plead guilty to battery. He received a period of probation of one year for that offense. Certified copies of the information and order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing the defendant on probation can be found as exhibit numbers 5 and 4 respectively. The reckless display of the firearm leading to the death of his friend, and the battery committed on Ms. Holland are all indications of a lack of good moral character and are events for which the Respondent has no acceptable explanation or excuse. Driving under the influence is reprehensible but does not show a lack of good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered suspending the certificate of the Respondent for a period of six months. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3816 The facts as presented by the Respondent are commented on as follows: Paragraphs 1-5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is not accepted to the extent that it argues that the incident involving the death of Mr. Goodbread is directly responsible for the fact that the Respondent was driving under the influence on the night in question and committed the battery on Ms. Holland. Furthermore, the suggestion that the Respondent was too under the influence to understand the fact of his battery against Ms. Holland is rejected. His testimony that he does not have a recollection of touching Ms. Holland runs contrary to the impression of the facts, that impression being that the act of the Respondent was volitional. The idea of his cooperation with Trooper Bellamy in the administration of the breathalyzer examination and the efforts to comply with what was expected of him in responding to the circumstance of the driving under influence offense is recognized as mitigation, but does not explain away the offense. The suggestion in Paragraph 7 that the death of the friend and the driving under the influence are interrelated is not accepted. Respondent did indicate that he was emotionally upset over the death of his friend, this would be expected but it is not clear to what extent his drinking increased following the death of the friend as compared to his drinking habits before that time. Respondent's suggestion that he is free from the effects of alcohol problems at present was not refuted. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that he presently has any problem with alcohol abuse. Reference to other traffic violations and his service record as a correctional officer leaves a neutral impression of the Respondent which is neither to his advantage or that of the Petitioner. Consequently, the facts of those prior events have not been reported in the fact-finding set forth in the Recommended Order. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1792 Lake City, Florida 32056-1792 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On or about October 1, 1990, in Case No. 90-233 CF, pending in the Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit, in and for Sumter County, Florida, the Petitioner pled nolo contendere to: one count of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, a second degree felony under Section 784.045(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes; one count of battery on a law enforcement officer, a second degree felony under Section 784.07, Florida Statutes; and one count of resisting arrest with violence, a third degree felony under Section 843.01, Florida Statutes. On the same day, the Petitioner also was adjudicated guilty on all three charges. Sentence was withheld, and the Petitioner was placed in an adult community control program for two years subject to certain conditions. The Petitioner's nolo plea was entered notwithstanding a June 26, 1990, "No Information" filed in the case stating that the State Attorney's Office had taken testimony under oath at a State Attorney's investigation and that the facts and circumstances revealed did not warrant prosecution at the time. On July 28, 1991, the Petitioner was arrested for alleged spouse battery. As a result, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with violation of his community control conditions. On September 19, 1991, a "No Information" was filed in the battery case stating that the State Attorney's Office had taken testimony under oath at a State Attorney's investigation and that the facts and circumstances revealed did not warrant prosecution at the time. Nonetheless, an Order of Modification of Community Control was entered on October 28, 1991, adding a condition that the Petitioner attend and successfully complete marriage/family counseling. On or about April 19, 1992, the Petitioner again was arrested for alleged spouse battery. On July 21, 1992, a "No Information" was filed in the case stating that the State Attorney's Office had taken testimony under oath at a State Attorney's investigation and that the facts and circumstances revealed did not warrant prosecution at the time. Notwithstanding the April 19, 1992, arrest, there was no evidence that the Petitioner's community control program was further modified, and the Petitioner successfully completed the two-year program, as previously modified on October 28, 1991. On April 29, 1993, the Petitioner's civil rights, other than the right to possess and carry a firearm, were restored by Executive Order of the Office of Executive Clemency of the State of Florida. On or about October 4, 1993, the Petitioner again was arrested for alleged battery. (The record is not clear as to the identity of the alleged victim.) On November 29, 1993, a "No Information" was filed in the case stating that the State Attorney's Office had taken testimony under oath at a State Attorney's investigation and that the facts and circumstances revealed did not warrant prosecution at the time. There was no evidence of any other criminal arrests or convictions after October 4, 1993. The undisputed testimony of the Petitioner and his character witnesses was that there have been none. The Petitioner and his character witnesses also testified persuasively and without contradiction that, with the passage of time, the Petitioner has rehabilitated himself and that he is now a person of high character and integrity. The Petitioner now understands the importance of avoiding the circumstances that can lead to violations of the criminal law, he appears to have learned how to avoid them, and he appears to be determined to avoid them. Meanwhile, he also has proven himself to be a responsible and caring single father for his children and has made valuable contributions to his community as an adult volunteer, especially in community children's programs. It is found that, with the passage of time, the Petitioner has rehabilitated himself and that he is now a person of high character and approved integrity so as to qualify for licensure as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order granting the Petitioner's application for licensure as a limited surety agent (bail bondsman). DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Alvie Edwards, pro se 1544 Bay Street Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioner had filed applications for Class "A" and Class "C" licenses and was qualified except for the failure to demonstrate good moral character. The bases for the dispute over Petitioner's character were: Petitioner's arrest record; Petitioner's alleged falsification of his applications as to his employment with the Pittsburgh Police Department; and Petitioner's check for the application fee was dishonored for insufficient funds.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner duly filed applications with the Department of State, Division of Licensing for Class "A" and Class "C" licenses. Except for matters related to Petitioner's good moral character, Petitioner is qualified for licensure. Petitioner's application reflects that he answered the question whether he had been arrested affirmatively with the following comment: The Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in all five cases from 1965 to 1974 - ruled that as a Police Officer, I acted within the scope of my authority - These cases stem from being an undercover Narcotics Officer. The Petitioner's arrest records as maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation reveal several juvenile offenses, not considered by the Department and not at issue. This record also reveals the following arrests of Petitioner as an adult: Date Place Charge Disposition 06/09/66* Pittsburgh VDD & CA Not guilty 08/15/66* Pittsburgh VUFA Not guilty 08/20/66* Allegheny County VDDCA 06/24/67* Allegheny County VUFA Unavailable per contra 06/30/70 *Only one offense with different charges made on different dates 09/05/74 Allegheny County Theft, VUFA Discharged 09/23/74 05/07/75 Allegheny County Fraud - imper- sonating a public servant 12/19/79 Office of Provost No charge No charge Martial Petitioner presented testimony and supporting documentary evidence that the arrests reported on the FBI criminal history for the dates 06/09/66 through 06/24/67 were all related to the same offense, and that these charges were resolved in favor of the Petitioner by a verdict of not guilty. See Petitioner's Exhibit #1. The judge arrested judgment of the two years' probation for the charge of 05/07/75. See Respondent's Exhibit #2. Petitioner stated that based upon his status as a capital police officer he was not guilty of fraud or impersonation of a public servant. The Petitioner's remaining arrest was on 09/05/74, and was discharged. Petitioner's explanation of these arrests is not consistent with the explanation stated on his application form. According to the resume accompanying his application, Petitioner was employed on the indicated dates in the following positions: Date Position 1963 to 1965 Globe Security 1965 to 1970 Pittsburgh Police Department, special patrolman 1970 to 1973 NAACP special investigator and Bucci Detective Agency 1972 to 1976 Commonwealth Property Police with State of Pennsylvania 1973 to 1974 Part-time security guard in addition to employment listed above May, 1976 January, 1977 Federal Civil Service guard March, 1977 September, 1977 Part-time security guard with A&S Security December, 1978 Sears, Roebuck and Company as to June, 1980 undercover security investigator February, 1979 Security guard to June, 1980 September, 1979 VA, guard at VA Hospital GS5 to June, 1980 June, 1980 Came to Florida Petitioner stated that his check for the application fee bounced because of his travel back and forth to Pennsylvania to try to develop the data to support his application, which depleted his bank account. He has since made the check good and paid the fees by money order.
Recommendation The Petitioner has failed to establish that he has the requisite good character for licensure; therefore, it is recommended that the Petitioner's applications for Class "A" and Class "C" licensure be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Barnett 758 Woodville Road Milton, Florida 32570 James V. Antista, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing R. A. Gray Building, Room 106 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1982. George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner James Joseph Richardson has met his burden of proving actual innocence, thereby entitling him to compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act.
Findings Of Fact On October 25, 1967, Petitioner's wife prepared a breakfast of grits for their seven children. In a separate pot she prepared the children's lunch of beans, gravy, rice, and hogs head meat. She also fried some fresh chicken which she used to make sandwiches for her and Petitioner's lunch. She and Petitioner then left to get a ride to the grove where they worked picking fruit. It was their routine for Petitioner's wife to cook the food. The eldest child, eleven-year-old Betty Jean Bryant, would later serve it to all the children after the Richardsons left for work. It is not clear whether the children actually ate their breakfast grits that day. The school-age children went to school while the younger children remained at home. It was the routine for Petitioner's neighbor Betsy Reese to look after them. Petitioner's family and Betsy Reese and her children lived in the same structure, assumedly similar to a duplex. There was a common porch across the front. There was also a shed in the back yard. The school-age children returned to the home at lunchtime. Reese divided the food in the second pot into seven equal portions, and the children ate lunch. Right after the children returned to school after lunch, they began exhibiting terrible symptoms, such as leaking from their orifices, twitching, and rigidity. Teachers began grabbing the Richardson children and rushing them to the hospital. One of the teachers, knowing there were younger children at home, drove to the Richardson home. Those children were on the shared porch, displaying the same symptoms. Reese was sitting on the porch, holding one of the children. The teacher took them to the hospital. Petitioner and his wife were summoned to the hospital. Six of the children died that same day, and the seventh child died early the next morning. At the hospital, medical personnel did not know what substance was causing the illness and deaths. Sheriff Frank Cline went to the Richardson home and conducted several searches of the home and the shed attempting to find what had poisoned the children. When Petitioner and his wife arrived at the hospital, Cline obtained from Petitioner the key to the refrigerator and searched again. The next morning Reese and Charlie Smith, who was described as the town drunk, found a bag of parathion, a highly- toxic insecticide, in the shed behind the house. Cline and his deputies had searched the shed approximately four times during the day the children became sick and Cline had searched the shed by himself late that night, and no bag of parathion had been seen by them. It was determined that parathion was present in the pot the grits were cooked in, the pot the lunch was cooked in, the frying pan the chicken may have been cooked in, flour, corn meal, sugar, and other substances found in the refrigerator. It was also determined that parathion is what killed the children. Petitioner had a key to the refrigerator as did his wife. Indications are that a third key was left on the refrigerator for the babysitter's use. Petitioner was tried for the first degree murder of the eldest child Betty Jean Bryant and was convicted. The jury did not recommend mercy, and he was sentenced to death. His conviction was reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida. Richardson v. State, 247 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1971). Petitioner's death sentence was commuted to life when Florida's death penalty was held to be unconstitutional the following year. In October 1988, 21 years after the seven children were murdered, the official file, which had been stolen ten years earlier from the office of the assistant state attorney who had prosecuted Petitioner, appeared in the office of the Governor of the State of Florida. Governor Bob Martinez ordered the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to investigate the disappearance and re-appearance of the file and accompanying information. That investigation resulted in new information and admissions surrounding the circumstances leading to the arrest and conviction of Petitioner. The Governor entered an Executive Order on July 31, 1989, appointing Janet Reno, State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, to provide prosecutorial assistance to FDLE. That Executive Order further directed FDLE to continue its investigation into all statements and evidence concerning Petitioner's arrest and conviction and to also investigate any violations of the criminal laws or misconduct by public officials relative to the events surrounding the deaths of the children and the arrest and conviction of Petitioner. On February 13, 1989, another Executive Order, amending the first, was signed by the Governor assigning State Attorney Reno to the Twelfth and Twentieth Judicial Circuits to discharge the duties of the State Attorneys in those Circuits relating to the investigation and prosecution of Petitioner's case. On March 31, 1989, a third Executive Order was signed. It amended the first two and recited that Reno and FDLE had reported their findings to the Governor and that Reno had also advised the Governor that Petitioner had filed a motion for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit. The Executive Order directed Reno to assume and discharge the duties of the State Attorney relating to any post-conviction proceedings involving Petitioner. A fourth Executive Order was then entered amending the first three by adding to Reno's duties consideration of any further prosecution of Petitioner. As a result of the extensive investigations conducted by Reno and FDLE, Reno joined in Petitioner's pending motion for post-conviction relief. Petitioner's request that his conviction and sentence be vacated was granted, and Petitioner was released from prison. Reno also made the decision that Petitioner would not be re-tried for the murder of Betty Jean Bryant and would not be prosecuted for the murders of the six other children. On May 5, 1989, Reno issued a 35-page Nolle Prosse Memorandum explaining in detail the evidence she had reviewed, the conflicting evidence she had considered, the apparent- perjured testimony that had been given at Petitioner's trial, and the conflicting witness statements which the State had before trial but had not disclosed to Petitioner's attorneys despite a court order to do so. The Memorandum discussed additional problems she had encountered because the physical evidence from the trial 21 years earlier had been misplaced or destroyed, a witness had later recanted his trial testimony, and key witnesses had died since the trial had taken place. Further, as a result of the publicity surrounding her investigation a number of persons had come forward claiming to have evidence, but they had never come forward during the initial investigation. Reno and the two Assistant State Attorneys who worked with her on her investigation determined that in evaluating whether Petitioner should be given post-conviction relief and whether Petitioner should be re-tried, they would only consider the files, records, and evidence that existed at the time that Petitioner was tried. They considered the evidence that had not been disclosed to anyone for 21 years to be unreliable. Some of it was also conflicting. She signed the Nolle Prosse Memorandum as did the two Assistant State Attorneys Don L. Horn and Richard L. Shiffrin. At the final hearing in this cause Don Horn testified extensively as to the contents of the Memorandum. Although he, Shiffrin, and Reno had discussed the misconduct they discovered on the part of the Sheriff and the prosecuting attorneys, they knew that the statute of limitations prevented taking action against those public officials, so the Memorandum did not discuss any action to be taken against them. It only considered the evidence against Petitioner. The Memorandum concluded that a "totally inadequate and incomplete investigation" into the deaths of the seven children had been conducted. Obvious leads had not been pursued, inconsistencies were not resolved, and standard investigative procedures had not been followed. The Memorandum further opined that at the time that Petitioner was charged with murder, the State did not have sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. The Memorandum concluded that Petitioner "was probably wrongfully accused" based upon the evidence that existed at the time. Three years later a 260-page Memorandum Opinion prepared by United States Attorney Robert Merkle and indicating a need for further investigation into the 1968 prosecution of Petitioner was presented to the Treasurer of Florida. The Opinion, which was not admitted in evidence, was described as a "scathing indictment" of Reno's investigation. As a result, Governor Lawton Chiles issued a confidential Executive Order on October 16, 1992, appointing State Attorney Reno to further investigate all matters pertaining to or arising from the issues raised in the Opinion involving Petitioner's prosecution. On October 30, 1992, the Governor issued a second Executive Order deleting the provisions of his prior Order requiring that it be sealed and confidential. Assistant State Attorney Richard L. Shiffrin, who participated in Reno's first investigation, and Gertrude M. Novicki, Reno's Chief Assistant for Special Prosecutions, were assigned to conduct this investigation. Both of those Assistant State Attorneys signed the Response of the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The Response is not dated but a word-processing notation suggests it may have been issued on or about April 30, 1993. At the final hearing, Novicki testified regarding her Response. Rather than responding to or explaining each of the details set forth in Merkle's Memorandum Opinion, Novicki and Shiffrin re-examined the propriety of both the vacating of the original judgment of guilty and the decision to enter a nolle prosse. In doing so, they reviewed the original prosecution in light of the evidence at trial and of the law as it existed in 1968 and also reviewed the ability to re-prosecute Petitioner in light of the evidence currently available and admissible. The Response concluded that the Order granting Petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence was supported by the facts and the law and that the decision to enter a nolle prosse reached in 1989 was proper. The Response's summary states that the physical evidence against Petitioner did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the testimonial evidence as to Petitioner's admissions of culpability were of dubious admissibility and value, the evidence of motive was equivocal at best, and the decision to enter a nolle prosse was unquestionably correct. The summary ends as follows: "Whether or not [Petitioner] is guilty of this horrible crime is uncertain. What is certain is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt is lacking." The prior proceedings involving Petitioner and the prior reviews of those proceedings have focused on the criminal law standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard, however, is not applicable to this proceeding. In this proceeding wherein Petitioner is seeking monetary compensation for his wrongful incarceration, Section 961.03, Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he committed neither the act nor the offense that served as the basis for the conviction and incarceration and that he did not aid, abet, or act as an accomplice to a person who committed the act or offense. Further, he must prove his actual innocence by verifiable and substantial evidence in order to meet the definition of wrongfully incarcerated person. Petitioner testified that he did not poison his children, that he did not kill his children, and that he never told anyone that he did. He also testified that he did not aid or assist anyone in poisoning or killing his children. In order to provide verifiable and substantial evidence in support of his testimony that he is innocent, Petitioner has taken two approaches. The first is by relying on the investigation detailed in the 1989 Nolle Prosse Memorandum and the testimony of Don Horn, one of the authors. (In its defense, the State offered the 1993 Response and the testimony of Gertrude Novicki, one of its authors.) In so doing, Petitioner has offered clear and convincing evidence that the investigation leading up to Petitioner’s prosecution and conviction was incomplete. The investigation revealed conflicting evidence about whether Petitioner had obtained life insurance policies on his children the night before they were murdered, which he had not, and whether Petitioner believed that he had. The investigation did not determine how the parathion got into the pots and skillet and various food products in the refrigerator or when. The investigation appeared to focus only on Petitioner as a suspect and not also on others whose involvement was suspicious. Toward the end of the investigation and prior to Petitioner’s criminal trial, the prosecutors wrote memos expressing concern about the weakness of their case and their possible inability to present even a prima facie case. After those memos were written, the Sheriff produced three jailhouse informants to testify that Petitioner admitted to them his crimes. They also gave statements that Petitioner said he thought that Reese did it and gave details of different motives she might have had. Rather than resolving the conflicting statements, the prosecution withheld the conflicting statements from the defense. The Nolle Prosse Memorandum discusses these statements and informants and finds that one of the jailhouse informants recanted his testimony after Petitioner’s trial and one was drunk when he testified. The third one, whose statements were given under circumstances that made them highly doubtful, died before the trial, and his testimony given at the preliminary hearing was given to the jury in the form of five witnesses who testified as to their recollections of his testimony. The informants were not the only ones to provide perjured testimony at Petitioner’s trial; the Sheriff also appears to have done so. A review of the Nolle Prosse Memorandum and the detailed evidence it discusses makes it clear that Petitioner was wrongfully accused based upon the evidence and lack of evidence the prosecution had gathered. It is further clear that Petitioner’s conviction and sentence based upon that insufficient evidence should have been vacated, and they were. It is further clear that re-trying Petitioner would be fruitless because the evidence available 21 years after the murders was insufficient: the physical evidence was missing or destroyed, many of the key witnesses were dead, and the evidence that might have been admissible for a re-trial was conflicting. However, the inability of the State to prove Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not prove that Petitioner is actually innocent of committing the murders or aiding in the commission. Petitioner’s second approach to providing verifiable and substantial evidence of his actual innocence is attempting to show that Reese, not the Petitioner, murdered the children. The 1989 investigation showed that, at the time the Richardson children were poisoned, Reese was on parole for killing her second husband with a gun. Although there was also a rumor that she had poisoned her first husband, no evidence was found to support that rumor. Parenthetically, there was also a rumor that Petitioner killed his three other children in Jacksonville, but that was also untrue. Similarly, there was a rumor that Sheriff Cline fathered Reese’s granddaughter and that was why he steered the investigation away from her. The blood tests of all concerned done as part of the 1989 investigation proved that rumor also untrue. Petitioner relies also upon the facts that Reese was the last person in the Richardson home on the day in question, the person who served the children the poisoned lunch, and the person who found the parathion in the shed. Her unconcerned behavior while the Richardson toddlers were exhibiting horrible symptoms on her porch and her lack of concern about whether her children who were playing there might be at risk from whatever was making the Richardson children so sick are suggested to be evidence that she knew why the Richardson children were sick and why her children would not be. It was also suggested that she must have been the murderer since her third husband had gone to Jacksonville with Petitioner and his wife but they had returned without Reese’s husband who never did return to her. Petitioner relies heavily on evidence which he suggests constitutes admissions of her guilt by Reese. The 1988 investigation considered an affidavit by one certified nursing assistant and a taped interview of another, both of whom worked at a nursing home where Reese became a patient in 1986. The affidavit by Belinda Romeo asserts that Romeo asked Reese on more than 100 separate occasions if she killed the seven Richardson children, that Reese replied that she did, and that Reese was competent at the times Romeo asked that question. On the other hand, the transcript of a taped interview of Doris Harris, who was present several times when Romeo questioned Reese, is clearly contrary to that affidavit. Harris states that by the time Reese was admitted to the nursing home, she was incontinent, unable to walk, unable to feed herself, only “half way aware,” unable to say what day or year it was, "back to a child's state," and suffering from Alzheimer’s. When Romeo would ask if she killed the children, she would say that she killed them, say the name Charlie, and then lapse into incoherent mumbling. Harris believed that Reese was saying she killed them because she was the one who fed them the poisoned food, and not because she was the one who put the poison in the food. Reese’s “admissions” are, therefore, ambiguous and not trustworthy. Petitioner also introduced into evidence a 1988 affidavit of Richard H. Barnard, the Chief of Police who began an investigation into the children’s deaths. After he got Reese to admit she was in the Richardson home that day and served the children their lunch, he was removed from the investigation by the “Governor’s office” in a phone call which he believes Sheriff Cline instigated. His affidavit undermines the statements of the jailhouse informants, expresses his concern that Sheriff Cline may have tampered with the jury, and states his opinion that Sheriff Cline framed Petitioner. He concludes with his opinion that Petitioner was innocent and Reese was guilty. The hearsay evidence and suggestions that Reese was guilty of the murders do not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner’s innocence. Opinion testimony does not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner's innocence. The Nolle Prosse Memorandum and the Response do not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner’s innocence. The testimony of Horn and Novicki as to what they considered during their investigations does not constitute verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner’s innocence. Lastly, Petitioner’s own testimony denying his guilt is not verifiable and substantial evidence of his innocence. Simply put, the evidence in this proceeding does not establish Petitioner’s actual innocence. Since Chapter 961, Florida Statutes, does not provide a definition of “actual innocence,” Petitioner argues that the definition should be that based upon the evidence it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him. That definition is found in Supreme Court of the United States and Supreme Court of Florida cases. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995); Tompkins v. State, 994 So. 2d 1072 (Fla. 2008); Mills v. State, 786 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2001). Petitioner’s argument is not persuasive. All of those cases involved motions for post-conviction relief, not claims for money damages. That definition of actual innocence was likely utilized when Petitioner was granted post-conviction relief by having his conviction and sentence vacated and being released from prison, which is the relief which results from meeting that definition. That definition of actual innocence tests the legal sufficiency of evidence. The Statute regulating this proceeding does not consider legal sufficiency; rather, it considers factual sufficiency by requiring the undersigned to make findings of fact as to Petitioner’s actual innocence if proven by verifiable and substantial evidence. In other words, proof of factual innocence is required. Perhaps the reason the Statute does not contain its own definition of actual innocence is that the Legislature intended the words to have their plain, ordinary meaning. A review of the two investigations of Petitioner’s prosecution clearly shows an absence of evidence proving Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, a review of the two investigations does not show that Petitioner is actually innocent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence and, thus, has failed to establish that he is a wrongfully incarcerated person eligible for compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION Based on the record in this proceeding and the above Findings of Fact, it is RECOMMENDED that an order be entered by the Circuit Judge determining that Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, denying Petitioner’s claim for compensation, and dismissing his Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert I. Barrar, Esquire Law Offices of Ellis Rubin & Robert I. Barrar 6619 South Dixie Highway, No. 311 Miami, Florida 33143 Raul C. De La Heria, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite 500 Miami, Florida 33145 Dennis Nales, Esquire Office of the State Attorney 2071 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 400 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Earl Moreland, Esquire Office of the State Attorney 2071 Ringling Boulevard, Suite 400 Sarasota, Florida 34237
