3 ms·

Tampa Bay Times has a completely different take. Here's a few paragraphs from the article (warning: it's quite graphic): "Shelly, her twin sister Stacy and fr

Tampa Bay Times has a completely different take. Here's a few paragraphs from the article (warning: it's quite graphic): "Shelly, her twin sister Stacy and friend Stephanie Forsythe were hitchhiking near St. Petersburg the night of May 5, 1985, according to news reports. Shelly was seen dancing at a bar with Dailey and Jack Pearcy. Dailey was from Kansas, an Air Force veteran who served three tours in Vietnam. He and Pearcy were roommates, and news reports said they all went back to the men’s house. Stacy and the friend left. Shelly stayed behind. At trial, the prosecution told jurors the two men drove Shelly to a secluded area under the bridge, intent on raping her. The 14-year-old fiercely resisted them. The medical examiner said she had 18 defensive wounds on her hands. Dailey was soaking wet and missing his shirt when he and Pearcy returned home the morning after the murder, Pearcy’s pregnant girlfriend told investigators. Dailey said they had to leave the state right then. He was captured in California and extradited back to Florida, news reports said." [1] https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2019/09/27/pinellas-girl-14-lived-a-short-hard-life-her-killer-is-set-to-die/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2019/09/27/pinellas-girl...

Nicksil 7y ago
It's not a different take. They outline the information from the trial as most outlets have. Here's the NYT/Pro-Publica report on the jailhouse informant: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/magazine/jailhouse-informant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/magazine/jailhouse-inform... That alone ought to be enough to give this man another trial.
- credit_guy 7y ago
  > That alone ought to be enough to give this man another trial. This was actually brought up by Daily's defense team [1]. The Supreme Court of the State of Florida [2] opined on this (and a few other points raised by the defense) and dismissed the arguments as meritless. The relevant paragraphs are: "-10 -774 (Fla. 2013)). “Moreover, we have ‘repeatedly held that claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel are not cognizable.’ ” Id. (quoting Howell, 109 So. 3d at 774). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief.3. Evidence discrediting Paul Skalnik’s testimonyDailey next argues that the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing his claim that newly discovered evidence discredits the testimony of Paul Skalnik, an inmate who testified against Dailey at trial. We review a circuit court’s summary rejection of a postconviction claim de novo, “accepting the movant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record, and affirming the ruling if the record conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief.” Pardo v. State, 108 So. 3d 558, 561 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Gore v. State, 91 So. 3d 769, 774 (Fla. 2012)). In support of his claim, Dailey relies on documents allegedly demonstrating that: Skalnik had made false allegations against correctional officers; Skalnik had been described by a probation officer as manipulative; Skalnik’s trial testimony about his criminal history was incomplete; and that the State was considering offering him a reduced sentenced in exchange for testifying against Dailey, even though Skalnik claimed at trial that he had not made a deal with the State. Finally, Dailey claimed that Skalnik’s former attorney would testify that Skalnik had received preferential treatment from the State. -11 -The circuit court found that the claim was untimely. We agree. As recognized by the circuit court, all evidence presented by Dailey “could have been discovered earlier through due diligence.” The date on each document supporting this claim reflected that it was created in the 1980s. And information about any arrangement Skalnik had with the State “would have also been discoverable through due diligence around 1987,” when Dailey was tried and sentenced. Dailey neglects to explain why this information could not have been discovered earlier. Instead, he argues that his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to previously discover it and contends that any untimeliness should be excused under Martinez and Trevino. Because this argument is meritless, we affirm the circuit court’s summary dismissal of the instant claim." [1] https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2018/557/2018-557_Brief_129233_INITIAL20BRIEF2DMERITS.pdf https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2018/557/... [2] https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/557/2018-557_disposition_147540_d05.pdf https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/557/...

Nicksil 7y ago

It's not a different take. They outline the information from the trial as most outlets have. Here's the NYT/Pro-Publica report on the jailhouse informant: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/magazine/jailhouse-informant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/magazine/jailhouse-inform... That alone ought to be enough to give this man another trial.

credit_guy 7y ago
> That alone ought to be enough to give this man another trial. This was actually brought up by Daily's defense team [1]. The Supreme Court of the State of Florida [2] opined on this (and a few other points raised by the defense) and dismissed the arguments as meritless. The relevant paragraphs are: "-10 -774 (Fla. 2013)). “Moreover, we have ‘repeatedly held that claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel are not cognizable.’ ” Id. (quoting Howell, 109 So. 3d at 774). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of relief.3. Evidence discrediting Paul Skalnik’s testimonyDailey next argues that the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing his claim that newly discovered evidence discredits the testimony of Paul Skalnik, an inmate who testified against Dailey at trial. We review a circuit court’s summary rejection of a postconviction claim de novo, “accepting the movant’s factual allegations as true to the extent they are not refuted by the record, and affirming the ruling if the record conclusively shows that the movant is entitled to no relief.” Pardo v. State, 108 So. 3d 558, 561 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Gore v. State, 91 So. 3d 769, 774 (Fla. 2012)). In support of his claim, Dailey relies on documents allegedly demonstrating that: Skalnik had made false allegations against correctional officers; Skalnik had been described by a probation officer as manipulative; Skalnik’s trial testimony about his criminal history was incomplete; and that the State was considering offering him a reduced sentenced in exchange for testifying against Dailey, even though Skalnik claimed at trial that he had not made a deal with the State. Finally, Dailey claimed that Skalnik’s former attorney would testify that Skalnik had received preferential treatment from the State. -11 -The circuit court found that the claim was untimely. We agree. As recognized by the circuit court, all evidence presented by Dailey “could have been discovered earlier through due diligence.” The date on each document supporting this claim reflected that it was created in the 1980s. And information about any arrangement Skalnik had with the State “would have also been discoverable through due diligence around 1987,” when Dailey was tried and sentenced. Dailey neglects to explain why this information could not have been discovered earlier. Instead, he argues that his postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to previously discover it and contends that any untimeliness should be excused under Martinez and Trevino. Because this argument is meritless, we affirm the circuit court’s summary dismissal of the instant claim." [1] https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2018/557/2018-557_Brief_129233_INITIAL20BRIEF2DMERITS.pdf https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2018/557/... [2] https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/557/2018-557_disposition_147540_d05.pdf https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/557/...