Trepal v. State
Decision Date | 06 March 2003 |
Docket Number | No. SC89710, No. SC01-2267. |
Citation | 846 So.2d 405 |
Parties | George James TREPAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. George James Trepal, Petitioner, v. James V. Crosby, Jr., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Neal Andre Dupree, Capital Collateral Regional Counsel-South, Fort Lauderdale, and Tod G. Scher, Special Assistant CCRC-South, Miami, for Appellant/Petitioner.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Carol M. Dittmar, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee/Respondent.
George James Trepal appeals two orders of the circuit court denying his first and second motions for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 following evidentiary hearings on both motions. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm. Trepal also has filed in this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(9), Fla. Const. We deny the petition.
The facts of the underlying crime are set forth fully in this Court's opinion on direct appeal, which provides as follows in relevant part:
The evidence at trial showed that Trepal is extremely intelligent, and has a highly developed knowledge of chemistry. Evidence also was presented that thallium is a by-product of amphetamine production and Trepal was the chemist for an amphetamine laboratory in the 1970s. Thallium is a poison so toxic that it has been banned by the Food and Drug Administration since 1982. Because of its toxicity, its sale and distribution are controlled and recorded, and it is not available to the general public, but only to universities and research centers. A bottle of thallium was found in Trepal's garage in Alturas. A hand-assembled journal, bearing Trepal's prints and containing information on poisons, including thallium, and data on the autopsy detection of poisons, was found in Trepal's Sebring home. A great many chemicals were found there, along with chemical equipment. The Agatha Christie novel, Pale Horse, dealing with murder by introducing thallium into a household, also was found there.
Evidence was presented that of the chemical forms of thallium that exist, only one form can be introduced into Coca-Cola without producing noticeable changes in the drink. Evidence was presented that the bottle caps had been pried off the Coca-Cola bottles. Evidence was introduced that worldwide, Coca-Cola found no other incidences of tampering with the product, and received no ransom note after the poisoning. Evidence also was presented that a bottle-capping machine was seen among the items in the Trepals' garage when they moved into their Alturas home.
Trepal v. State, 621 So.2d 1361, 1363-65 (Fla.1993) (footnotes omitted).
The jury recommended death by a nine-to-three vote, and the judge imposed a sentence of death based on three aggravating circumstances,1 one statutory mitigating circumstance,2 and several nonstatutory mitigating circumstances.3 Trepal raised seven issues on appeal.4 We affirmed. On June 16, 1995, Trepal filed in circuit court an initial rule 3.850 motion and on March 21, 1996, an amended motion,5 raising thirty claims.6 The circuit court on October 7-11, 1996, conducted an evidentiary hearing on several claims and denied relief. Trepal appealed and, while the appeal was pending in this Court, the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Justice ("OIG") issued a report on April 15, 1997, that was highly critical of the work performed by the FBI Crime Laboratory in Washington, D.C., in certain cases, including the present case.7
This Court consequently remanded this case to the circuit court to give Trepal an opportunity to peruse the OIG report and file a second rule 3.850 motion. Trepal on September 1, 1998, filed a second amended rule 3.850 motion, raising twenty-one claims relating to tests conducted at the FBI Crime Laboratory.8 The circuit court held a bifurcated evidentiary hearing in 1999,9 and denied relief. Trepal appeals, raising six claims10 relating to issues raised in both his first and second rule 3.850 motions. Trepal also has filed in this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising two claims.11
As noted above, Trepal raises six claims in his present appeal of the circuit court's orders denying rule 3.850 relief. The claims relate to both his first and second rule 3.850 motions and contain numerous subclaims. The bulk of Trepal's postconviction appellate argument focuses on the first claim: no adversarial testing of the issues in the guilt phase of the trial. This claim is divided into three subclaims: (a) false and inadmissible scientific testimony, (b) ineffectiveness of trial counsel, and (c) other exculpatory evidence. Most of his argument on this claim focuses on the first subclaim, which concerns improprieties in the testing procedures at the FBI lab. This subclaim was the focus of the second evidentiary hearing and is the heart of his present appeal. Accordingly, we discuss this subclaim at length.
While the first subclaim pertains exclusively to Trepal's second rule 3.850 motion, the second and third subclaims pertain to his first rule 3.850 motion and were addressed at the first evidentiary hearing. We also discuss these latter two subclaims. Finally, we discuss Trepal's fifth claim (ineffectiveness of penalty phase counsel), which also pertains to his first rule 3.850 motion and was addressed at length at the first evidentiary hearing.
In his first subclaim, Trepal asserts that the trial testimony of FBI specialist Roger Martz was false and inadmissible, that his testimony impermissibly tainted the trial, and that he (Trepal) thus is entitled to a new trial. This subclaim was the focus of the second evidentiary hearing below and the parties presented extensive testimony on this issue.
The circuit court, in its order denying relief, summarized the factual history of the case relating to this subclaim:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hannon v. State
...trial counsel was ineffective in the penalty phase for failing to argue lingering doubt as a mitigating circumstance, see Trepal v. State, 846 So.2d 405, 434 (Fla.2003), it has never expressly determined that trial counsel is per se ineffective for pursuing the practical impact that charact......
-
Hannon v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
...trial counsel was ineffective in the penalty phase for failing to argue lingering doubt as a mitigating circumstance, see Trepal v. State, 846 So.2d 405, 434 (Fla.2003), it has never expressly determined that trial counsel is per se ineffective for pursuing the practical impact that charact......
-
Trepal v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...Supreme Court, the OIG Report issued. Among other things, the OIG Report criticized some of Martz's testimony about Q1, Q2, and Q3 in the Trepal case. The OIG's main criticism was that Martz's testimony as to Q1 through Q3 was “stronger than his analytical results would support.” The OIG Re......
-
Guzman v. State
...determining whether the State withheld `material' in violation of Brady." In reliance on Rose, the trial court's order that we approved in Trepal erroneously stated that in addressing a Giglio claim "[t]he materiality prong is the same as that used in Brady." Trepal v. State, 846 So.2d 405,......