3 ms·

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: http

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/...

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/...