Case Update January, 2015
Death by default continues to be the judicial creed in Florida, with strict adherence to politically manufactured "procedural bars" all but fanatically enforced by both the state and federal courts. Recently this practice was the subject of a lengthy two-part article written by Ken Armstrong of the Marshall Project in conjunction with the Washington Post (see "Death by Deadline," https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/15/death-by-deadline-part-one and https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/16/death-by-deadline-part-two ), which detailed the chronic problems plaguing Florida’s capital post-conviction review process, attributable to the systemic assignment of grossly incompetent lawyers in capital cases. As provided in this must-read article, of the 80-plus cases nationwide in which death-row prisoners were completely deprived of any Federal review of their capital convictions, almost half were in Florida alone.
If any capital case illustrates the inherent evils of blind attachment of these procedural bars, it is this case (Lambrix v State), as despite numerous attempts to compel both the Florida and Federal courts to simply allow a fair and meaningful review of the substantial evidence supporting Lambrix’s consistently pled claim of actual innocence, review has been methodically thwarted by the courts’ uncompromising attachment of these procedural bars.
Recently, a comprehensive new Federal appeal was filed in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, again arguing that constitutionally applicable concepts of "fundamental fairness" and "due process" require the Eleventh Circuit Court to grant leave for Lambrix to pursue and have heard a "second" Federal habeas. This is technically only available under stringent procedural rules adopted by Congress in 1996 and known as the "Anti Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act" (AEDPA).
The AEDPA was passed by Congress in response to the 1996 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and was intended to expedite executions by severely limiting secondary appeals, as well as adopting draconian time limits to the filing of initial Federal appeals. These AEDPA provisions assume that everyone convicted and condemned to death is guilty despite the overwhelming evidence that wrongful convictions are only too common in capital cases. In fact, Florida alone has had almost 30 capital cases subsequently exonerated upon judicial recognition of wrongful conviction.
But Congress also recognized that there must be a "safety net" to allow Federal courts to review state convictions if and when new evidence establishing a "colorable claim of innocence" is brought to light after the initial Federal habeas has been concluded. However, by statutory mandate, this secondary review is only available if the Federal Court of Appeals first recognizes that a "prima facie" entitlement to relief is established.
For this reason, before a "second" or "successive" Federal appeal can be pursued, the appellant must first submit an "Application for Leave to Pursue Successive Habeas in the Eleventh Circuit Court. Then the Eleventh Court has 30 days to either grant or deny leave to fully file the requested habeas petition in the lower court. However, since the AEDPA went into effect in 1996, the Eleventh Circuit has not granted even one capital defendant /appellant leave to pursue a second/successive Federal habeas, which arguably questions whether the practice and procedure effectively amounts to an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
On December 17, 2014, Lambrix’s assigned counsel formally submitted this required "Application for Leave to Pursue Second/Successive Federal Habeas" specifically arguing that the state of Florida (i.e.., prosecutor Randall McGruther) deliberately concealed critical exculpatory evidence, which was not discovered until 2009. This undisclosed evidence consisted of several hairs that the state crime lab (FDLE) found on the alleged murder weapon which comparative analysis concluded did not match either the victims or Lambrix. The undisclosed evidence indisputably shows that upon this unexpected discovery the FDLE crime lab notified the prosecutor, who then ordered the FDLE lab to return this evidence to his office - and this evidence was then deliberately concealed.
Lambrix originally brought this evidence to the state courts (as required by law), but the Florida courts summarily denied relief. What made the Florida courts’ denial of relief especially troubling was that once the undisclosed evidence was finally revealed, the lower state court abruptly removed the original presiding judge and assigned the case to none other than Judge Christine Greider who, prior to her recent political appointment to the lower court bench worked as a prosecutor for at least nine years alongside the same prosecutor (Randall Mcgruther) who deliberately concealed this crucial exculpatory evidence.
It came as no surprise that Judge Greider first denied disqualification due to her own long standing relationship with McGruther, then summarily denied the substantial claim of constitutional violation. As is only too common, upon subsequent review by the Florida Supreme Court, this lower court ruling was affirmed.
In this recently submitted Federal action, Lambrix now argues that this state court ruling denying relief was "objectively unreasonable" and contrary to clearly established Federal constitutional law. This comprehensive Federal action details the considerable evidence substantiating Lambrix’s innocence. If you wish to read this action in its entirety, click HERE (In Re: Cary Michael Lambrix, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 14-15617)
Also in early December, following Florida Governor Rick Scott’s assignment of clemency counsel, a formal request for a full clemency review has been submitted to the Florida Commission on Offender Review (previously known as the Florida Parole and Probation Commission).
The significance of this action is that under the recently enacted "Timely Justice Act," (please read "The List"), once clemency consideration has been completed under this process, which includes the summary denial of any further clemency review, a "death warrant" scheduling Lambrix’s execution can be signed at any time. In Florida, executions are not automatically scheduled as they are in other states such as Texas. But once a death warrant is signed by the governor, this warrant then stays in indefinite effect until either the execution is carried out or judicial relief is provided by the courts.
It should be noted that since Governor Scott took office in January 2011, he has signed 21 death warrants - and not even one person has survived, making Governor Scott the most proficient executioner in Florida’s history. However, Governor Scott has been selective in choosing those he has signed death warrants on, mostly those convicted of sex crimes, murders, and the killing of law enforcement officers. In all the cases signed by Governor Scott the evidence supporting guilt was arguably strong - so far. Governor Scott has not signed a death warrant on any case in which a strong showing of innocence was made.
But that doesn’t mean Governor Scott won’t, and your help is needed in support of compelling a full and fair clemency review. You can personally sign a petition requesting full clemency review. Click HERE.
In conclusion, it is also noted that a media outlet is currently in the process of conducting an investigation into Lambrix’s claim of innocence, with a feature article to be published in the near future.
NOTE: January 14, 2015 - The Federal Appeal filed in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-15617 has been denied - http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201415617order.pdf
Death by default continues to be the judicial creed in Florida, with strict adherence to politically manufactured "procedural bars" all but fanatically enforced by both the state and federal courts. Recently this practice was the subject of a lengthy two-part article written by Ken Armstrong of the Marshall Project in conjunction with the Washington Post (see "Death by Deadline," https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/15/death-by-deadline-part-one and https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/11/16/death-by-deadline-part-two ), which detailed the chronic problems plaguing Florida’s capital post-conviction review process, attributable to the systemic assignment of grossly incompetent lawyers in capital cases. As provided in this must-read article, of the 80-plus cases nationwide in which death-row prisoners were completely deprived of any Federal review of their capital convictions, almost half were in Florida alone.
If any capital case illustrates the inherent evils of blind attachment of these procedural bars, it is this case (Lambrix v State), as despite numerous attempts to compel both the Florida and Federal courts to simply allow a fair and meaningful review of the substantial evidence supporting Lambrix’s consistently pled claim of actual innocence, review has been methodically thwarted by the courts’ uncompromising attachment of these procedural bars.
Recently, a comprehensive new Federal appeal was filed in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, again arguing that constitutionally applicable concepts of "fundamental fairness" and "due process" require the Eleventh Circuit Court to grant leave for Lambrix to pursue and have heard a "second" Federal habeas. This is technically only available under stringent procedural rules adopted by Congress in 1996 and known as the "Anti Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act" (AEDPA).
The AEDPA was passed by Congress in response to the 1996 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and was intended to expedite executions by severely limiting secondary appeals, as well as adopting draconian time limits to the filing of initial Federal appeals. These AEDPA provisions assume that everyone convicted and condemned to death is guilty despite the overwhelming evidence that wrongful convictions are only too common in capital cases. In fact, Florida alone has had almost 30 capital cases subsequently exonerated upon judicial recognition of wrongful conviction.
But Congress also recognized that there must be a "safety net" to allow Federal courts to review state convictions if and when new evidence establishing a "colorable claim of innocence" is brought to light after the initial Federal habeas has been concluded. However, by statutory mandate, this secondary review is only available if the Federal Court of Appeals first recognizes that a "prima facie" entitlement to relief is established.
For this reason, before a "second" or "successive" Federal appeal can be pursued, the appellant must first submit an "Application for Leave to Pursue Successive Habeas in the Eleventh Circuit Court. Then the Eleventh Court has 30 days to either grant or deny leave to fully file the requested habeas petition in the lower court. However, since the AEDPA went into effect in 1996, the Eleventh Circuit has not granted even one capital defendant /appellant leave to pursue a second/successive Federal habeas, which arguably questions whether the practice and procedure effectively amounts to an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
On December 17, 2014, Lambrix’s assigned counsel formally submitted this required "Application for Leave to Pursue Second/Successive Federal Habeas" specifically arguing that the state of Florida (i.e.., prosecutor Randall McGruther) deliberately concealed critical exculpatory evidence, which was not discovered until 2009. This undisclosed evidence consisted of several hairs that the state crime lab (FDLE) found on the alleged murder weapon which comparative analysis concluded did not match either the victims or Lambrix. The undisclosed evidence indisputably shows that upon this unexpected discovery the FDLE crime lab notified the prosecutor, who then ordered the FDLE lab to return this evidence to his office - and this evidence was then deliberately concealed.
Lambrix originally brought this evidence to the state courts (as required by law), but the Florida courts summarily denied relief. What made the Florida courts’ denial of relief especially troubling was that once the undisclosed evidence was finally revealed, the lower state court abruptly removed the original presiding judge and assigned the case to none other than Judge Christine Greider who, prior to her recent political appointment to the lower court bench worked as a prosecutor for at least nine years alongside the same prosecutor (Randall Mcgruther) who deliberately concealed this crucial exculpatory evidence.
It came as no surprise that Judge Greider first denied disqualification due to her own long standing relationship with McGruther, then summarily denied the substantial claim of constitutional violation. As is only too common, upon subsequent review by the Florida Supreme Court, this lower court ruling was affirmed.
In this recently submitted Federal action, Lambrix now argues that this state court ruling denying relief was "objectively unreasonable" and contrary to clearly established Federal constitutional law. This comprehensive Federal action details the considerable evidence substantiating Lambrix’s innocence. If you wish to read this action in its entirety, click HERE (In Re: Cary Michael Lambrix, Eleventh Circuit Case No. 14-15617)
Also in early December, following Florida Governor Rick Scott’s assignment of clemency counsel, a formal request for a full clemency review has been submitted to the Florida Commission on Offender Review (previously known as the Florida Parole and Probation Commission).
The significance of this action is that under the recently enacted "Timely Justice Act," (please read "The List"), once clemency consideration has been completed under this process, which includes the summary denial of any further clemency review, a "death warrant" scheduling Lambrix’s execution can be signed at any time. In Florida, executions are not automatically scheduled as they are in other states such as Texas. But once a death warrant is signed by the governor, this warrant then stays in indefinite effect until either the execution is carried out or judicial relief is provided by the courts.
It should be noted that since Governor Scott took office in January 2011, he has signed 21 death warrants - and not even one person has survived, making Governor Scott the most proficient executioner in Florida’s history. However, Governor Scott has been selective in choosing those he has signed death warrants on, mostly those convicted of sex crimes, murders, and the killing of law enforcement officers. In all the cases signed by Governor Scott the evidence supporting guilt was arguably strong - so far. Governor Scott has not signed a death warrant on any case in which a strong showing of innocence was made.
But that doesn’t mean Governor Scott won’t, and your help is needed in support of compelling a full and fair clemency review. You can personally sign a petition requesting full clemency review. Click HERE.
In conclusion, it is also noted that a media outlet is currently in the process of conducting an investigation into Lambrix’s claim of innocence, with a feature article to be published in the near future.
NOTE: January 14, 2015 - The Federal Appeal filed in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-15617 has been denied - http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201415617order.pdf