Switch to ADA Accessible Website
Orlando Criminal Lawyer

Florida Supreme Court Overturns Murder Convictions Due To Improper Deposition Format

CourtZoom2

There are strict rules governing the admission of testimony in a Florida criminal trial. Both the prosecution and the defense need to follow these rules. And if testimony is admitted in violation of the rules, it can taint the outcome of the trial.

Even a seemingly small deviation from the rules of evidence can have a significant impact. Take this recent decision from the Florida Supreme Court, Avsenew v. State. In this case, the Supreme Court overturned a capital murder conviction on what might seem like a technicality–the defendant could not see his mother while she gave a deposition.

Here is the background. Prosecutors charged the defendant with two counts of first-degree murder. The victims were found dead in their home. The defendant knew both of the victims and had briefly lived with them. But he denied committing the murders, although he admitted to discovering their bodies and taking their stuff before leaving.

The state’s key witness against the defendant was his own mother. The mother claimed her son made a number of incriminating statements to her about the murders. She also described her son’s visit following the killings when he was seen in possession of the victims’ SUV.

Due to the mother’s poor health, she was unable to travel to court to give in-person testimony at trial. The prosecution therefore moved to “perpetuate” her testimony. This basically means that the mother’s testimony was taken in a pretrial deposition, a procedure permitted by Florida’s Rules of Criminal Procedure. The mother testified remotely from Polk County while the prosecutors, judge, and defendant were located in a courtroom in Broward County.

Under the Rules, when a deposition is taken in this manner the defendant must be kept “in the presence of the witness during the examination.” In other words, the defendant and the witness must be able to see one another at all times during the deposition. In this case, however, that rule was not followed. The mother was not able to see the defendant while she testified. The trial judge was aware of this but took no action to comply with the rule. Indeed, the Supreme Court later observed that the court’s “sheer indifference” constituted a clear violation of the rules.

And that violation was sufficient to throw out the defendant’s ultimate conviction. Under the circumstances, the testimony was not admissible. And the mother’s testimony was essential in contributing to the jury’s verdict. As such, the only proper legal remedy was to order a new trial.

Contact Orlando Criminal Defense Attorney Jose Baez Today

Small details can make a big difference when it comes to a criminal trial. An experienced Orlando murder defense lawyer can help ensure that prosecutors and judges follow the rules when you are on trial for your life. Contact the Baez Law Firm today to schedule a consultation with a member of our Florida criminal defense team.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6509836140307853595

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Miami

Miami Office

1200 Brickell Avenue #1410
Miami, FL 33131
Office: 305-999-5100
Fax: 305-999-5111
Orlando

Orlando Office

23 South Osceola Avenue
Orlando, FL 32801
Office: 407-705-2626
Fax: 407-705-2625

Email Us

Fields Marked * Are required

DISCLAIMER: Completing and submitting this form or otherwise merely contacting The Baez Law Firm or any individual at the firm will not establish an attorney/client relationship. Our firm cannot represent you until we determine that there would be no conflict of interest and that we are otherwise able to accept representation of your case. Please do not send any information or documents until a formal attorney/client relationship has been established through an interview with an attorney and you have been given authorization in the form of an engagement letter with The Baez Law Firm. Any information or documents sent via this form or otherwise prior to your receipt of an engagement letter will not be treated as confidences, secrets, or protected information of any nature. Submitting information regarding your potential case will not bar The Baez Law Firm from representing or continuing to represent a person or entity whose interest are adverse to your in condition with your case.

protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms
Please review the highlighted fields. They are required.
DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
MileMark Media - Practice Growth Solutions

© 2015 - 2022 Baez Law Firm. All rights reserved.
This law firm website and legal marketing are managed by MileMark Media.

Contact Form Tab Contact Form Tab