IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUN)''y

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 201OCF005829AMB JUDGE JEFFREY COLBATH

v.
JOHN GOODMAN, Defendant. NOTICE OF HEARING
__

",

.

TO:

Ellen Roberts, ASA West Palm Beach SAO 401 North Dixie Hwy. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 The Defendant, JOHN GOODMAN, through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Florida Rule

of Criminal Procedure 3.060, hereby serves notice upon the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office that this case will be called up on Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue, before the Honorable Jeffrey Colbath, Circuit Court Judge, at the Main Judicial Complex, 205 North Dixie Hwy., West Palm Beach, F133401, Courtroom lIF, on Monday, February 27, 2012, at 3:30 p.m. PLEASE BE GOVERNED ACCORDINGLY. DATED at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of January, 2012. Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for John Goodman
Black. Srebnlck, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 S_Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131• Phone: 305-371-6421· Fax: 305-358-2006

• www.RoyBlack.com

',..(

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY

STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff,

CASENo. 201OCF005829AMB JUDGE JEFFREY COLBATH

v.
JOHN GOODMAN, Defendant.

On January 13,2012, the Sate of Florida filed a motion seeking ajury vie~ of the two vehicles involved in the February 12, 2010 collision which resulted in the death of Scott Wilson. John Goodman objects to the State's motion because its purpose and rational for seeking the Court's approval is inconsistent with Florida Statute 918.05, as well as the Florida decisions relied upon. Mr. Goodman also objects because permitting a jury view of the vehicles at the police impound yard would be unfairly prejudicial to Mr. Goodman under Florida Statute 90.403. Finally, given the breadth of evidence in addition to the numerous well-documented and detailed police photographs of the vehicles, ajury view of the vehicles is an unnecessary waste of time and an improper cumulative presentation of evidence. Florida Statue 918.05. View by Jury The prosecutor's motion to transport the jury to the Palm Beach County Sheriffs impound yard is inconsistent with the language and intent of §918.05 of the Florida Statutes. Section 918.05 provides that:
Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300· Miami. Florida 33131- Phone: 305-371-6421· Fax: 305-358-2006· www.RoyBlack.com

"When a court determines that it is proper for the jury to view a place where the offense may have been committed or other material events may have occurred, it may order the jury to be conducted in a body to the place, in custody of a proper officer. The court shall admonish the officer that no person, including the officer, shall be allowed to communicate with the jury about any subject connected with the trial. .. " (emphasis added). The State's motion seeks to bring the jury to the police impound lot to view evidence, rather than having the evidence brought to court. Under no circumstance does this scenario fall within the intent and express language of§918.05. The language and intent of the statute is obvious on its face and clearly permits ajury view of the crime scene or some other place where material events may have occurred. Using the statute to have a jury view ofa piece of evidence, at some unrelated place simply for convenience of either party, is not contemplated by this law, and the State's motion must be denied. It is conceded that bringing the vehicles into the courtroom is not possible. But as will be argued below, neither is it necessary under the facts and circumstances of this case. Moreover, should this Court grant the State's motion notwithstanding the plain meaning of §918.05, Mr. Goodman will be irreparably and unfairly prejudiced. Unfair Prejudice and §90.403 The State's motion says that the vehicles are in police custody at the "Palm Beach County Sheriffs secured impound yard." In this case, it is misleading to characterize the location simply as an "impound yard". In reality, the Sheriffs Office maintains two separate impound yards at one general location. One of the yards contains automobiles towed there for any number of reasons that are non-criminal in nature. Most, if not all, are vehicle which
-2Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131· Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlack,com

have not been damaged in a collision. The other yard, where the subject vehicles are stored, is segregated from the first because each of the vehicles kept there have been involved in criminal and non-criminal traffic fatalities. The collection of dozens upon dozens of automobiles, motorcycles and bicycles, are a frightening and tragic mass of twisted metal and broken glass that negatively impacts anyone seeing it. As the lead police investigator once told defense counsel during an inspections of the automobiles, "Each one of these wrecks represents at least one dead person". So total is the destruction of most of the vehicles that one need not hear from a traffic homicide investigator that at least one of the occupants in each, perished. From the burnt out frames of some cars engulfed in firey crashes, to the crushed mini-vans associated closely to the transporting of whole families and young children, the traffic homicide/fatality impound yard is a deeply moving, frightening and profoundly sad place.
It is not reasonable to believe that a jury viewing of these vehicles, in those

surroundings of death and destruction, in a case involving a traffic homicide, would not unfairly prejudice the jury against Mr. Goodman. If the Court determines that it is proper for the jury to have a live viewing of the vehicles, the automobiles should be brought to the courthouse parking lot or some other benign location. The State's motion should also be denied because a jury view of the vehicles is not necessary in order to prove the matters the State asserts as a basis for its motion.

-3Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300· Miami. Florida 33131· Phone: 305-371-6421· Fax: 305-358-2006'

wWw.RoyBlack.com

The State's reason for requesting ajury view under §91S.05 is set out in paragraphs six of the motion. Paragraphs four and five have been included for context, as fol1ows: 4) ... The speed at which the Defendant was traveling is relevant to the DUI Manslaughter charge as well as thy Vehicular Homicide charge. 5) The significant damage sustained by both vehicles is relevant to show the corresponding pre-impact approach angles and post impact departure angles, which in turn are used to determine the speed of the Defendant's vehicle at impact. This information is vital in determining not only the impact speed of the Defendant's vehicle but also the dynamics of the actual crash. 6) It is difficult and ineffective to attempt to explain only through oral testimony and non-three dimensional photographs about the force necessary to cause this significant damage to both vehicles and the resulting outcome. Photographs lack the necessary depth to allow the jury to assess the true damage to both of these vehicles. While a photograph is worth a thousand words, it does little to reveal the actual damage to both the Defendant's vehicle and Scott Wilson's. Section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code provides that: Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the anger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The State suggests that unless its motion is granted, the jury will not easily be able to "assess the true damage to both of the vehicles." The State contends that being ale to assess the true damage to the vehicles is necessary in order to prove the matters contained in paragraphs four and five. The State's position is not credible in light of the abundance of evidence produced in the State's Discovery Exhibits. For example, some of the State's Discovery materials include: 1) Numerous and meticulously detailed police photographs of the vehicles taken

-4Black. Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300· Miami. Florida 33131· Phone: 305-371-6421' Fax: 305-358-2006·

www.RoyBlack.com

at the scene and at the Sheriffs 2)

impound yard.'

Police photographs showing both vehicles placed in the position believed at the time of impact. Photographs are taken from every possible angle on the

ground as well as from an elevated position above the vehicles in order to show a bird's-eye view of the collision point. 3) A state-of-the-art, digitally produced, three dimensional animated re-enactment of the accident, taken from four different perspectives demonstrating the preimpact approach angles and post impact departure angles. This video

accomplishes exactly what the State's purported reason is for the jury view in its motion. The video re-enactment leaves no detail to the imagination of

anyone viewing it, regarding the pre or post-impact approach angles of the vehicles. 4) An accident reconstruction diagram, produced to scale, by the State's accident reconstruction expert, detailing the pre-impact approach angles and post

impact departure angles. 5) An opinion given by the State's accident reconstruction expert as to what the relative speeds of each vehicle was at the moment of impact based upon industry accepted accident reconstruction and algebraic computations. models, geometric measurements

'Photographs at impound yard do not show automobiles from unrelated collisions.
-5Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300· Miami. Florida 33131• Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlack.com

Given all of this, it is inconceivable how this collection of exhibits and testimony could be viewed by the State as being insufficient to "allow thejury to assess the true damage to both of these vehicles," absent a live viewing. The State claims that "the vehicles are in the same condition as they were upon final rest at the scene of the crash" and that" a picture is worth a thousands words". If this is the case, then moving jurors, Judge, bailiff, courtroom staff, attorneys and police evidence custodians to view what has already been meticulously documented, is not only an unnecessary waste of time and resources, but an improper and needless cumulative presentation of evidence. Moreover, and contrary to the State's assertion, the vehicle have not been "well preserved nor undisturbed other than by experts from both parties." In fact, both vehicle have been left outside, uncovered and exposed to the sun, wind and rain for two years. Additionally, both vehicle have been moved more than once by police to different locations within the yard. Given their condition after the accident, it is unknown the extent to which the significant moving and handling of the vehicles by police investigators has resulted in parts falling or braking from the cars. Both cars are badly rusted and each have excessive mold and mildew in the interiors. The fact is, both vehicles do not look as they did on the night of the accident. They look worse, and the prosecution team is directly and entirely responsible for this. The State has willfully failed to properly store and preserve this evidence. The result
I

-6Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300· Miami. Florida 33131· Phone: 305-371-6421- Fax: 305-358-2006· www.RoyBlack.com

is that any jury viewing of the vehicles is unfairly prejudicial to Mr. Goodman, in that the severity in the appearance of each is unfairly enhanced, and will be imputed to the defendant. In light of these facts, it is the Defendant's prosecutions belief that the only advantage to the

case in conducting the jury view, is for the purpose of gaining an unfair

advantage by prejudicing the jury against Mr. Goodman. The displaying of visually tragic evidence in an environment littered with the tragedy of destroyed vehicles of unrelated traffic fatalities, would be grossly unfair.

The Case Law Sited
The State's motion sites to three Florida cases, none of which support the motion that a jury view pursuant to §918.0S may occur at the Sheriff's Office impound yard. In fact, for strict

each of the cases sited involve jury views at crime scenes and the requirement compliance with the parameters of §918.0S.

Billie v. State, 863 So.2d 323 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003).
In Billie, the Defense and prosecution stipulated to ajury view of the crime scene. The purpose for the jury view of the outdoor scene, was to permit the jury to "appreciate the darkness in the vehicle on the evening in question." id. at 333. The issue on appeal was not whether the jury view was proper, but whether alternate scenarios of the crime scene presented during the jury view, was proper. Of the three cases sited in the State's motion,

the Billie case is perhaps the best example of the proper application of §918.0S. That is, a viewing of a crime scene for the specific purpose of assisting the jury in applying evidence

-7Black. Srebnkk. Kornspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 - Miami. Florida 33131• Phone: 305-371-6421- Fax: 305-358-2006 - www.RoyBlack.com

presented at trial to the conditions present at the crime scene viewed.

Washington v. State, 98So.2d 605 (Fla 1924).
In Washington, it was the defendant who moved the Court to permit ajury view of the crime scene in his homicide trial. The issue on appeal was whether the defendant's absence from the viewing violated his right to be present under the applicable statute then in force. While the appeal was denied on this issue, given the defendant's failure to request to be

present, the Court went on to advise that strict adherence to the law's parameters must otherwise be met.

Thomas v. State, 748 So.2d 970 (Fla. 1999).
In Thomas, the appellant claimed that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a jury view of the crime scene. The trial court denied his motion after it determined that "it would serve no useful purpose because the scene could not be substantially duplicated."id. at 983. Here again, the prosecutions authority reaffirms that a jury view under §918.05

applies to the crime scene itself, or some other location where material events may have occurred.

Conclusion
Neither §918.05, nor any of the cases relied upon by the State, support a jury view of the vehicles. The Sheriffs Office impound yard has no material connection to the events

in this case and permitting a jury to view the vehicles in the environment described, can only be calculated to unfairly prejudice the jury against Mr. Goodman, contrary to §90.403.

-8Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131• Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlack.com

,

.

WHEREFORE and for the foregoing reasons, the Defendant, John Goodman, respectfully requests that the State's Motion For Jury View of the Vehicles be denied. Respectfully submitted,
BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSP AN & STUMPF, P .A.

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Office (305) 371- 21 - Fax 305) 358-2006

Counsel for John Goodman

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 24, 2012, my office Federal Expressed a true copy of the

foregoing to: Ellen Roberts Assistant State Attorney West Palm Beach State Attorney's Office Traffic Homicide Unit 401 North Dixie Hwy. West Palm Beach, FL 33401

-9Black. Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300· Miami. Florida 33131· Phone: 305-371-6421' Fax: 305-358-2006· \\WW.RoyBlack.com

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. STATE OF FLORIDA, CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502010CF005829AXXXMB

v.

JOHN B. GOODMAN, Defendant.

~ :t. ;;P", c.- " '-'cP° '..~ nrr.z.: .:;z: ."

~'~; :~'
Y

9...... -;:0-.'

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ~("")g .~.~. O. DEFENDANT'S SWORN MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENU.i~~:~~>,
J;o' ....... ~ ., ••

-~~.",

1:-'

.

'.rrn

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Defendant, John B.:Q~d~'s
. ,:;:t<:'

("Defendant"), Sworn Motion for a Change of Venue and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, filed on January 5, 2012. After carefully examining and considering the Defendant's Motion, the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion, and all other pertinent pleadings and relevant caselaw, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Defendant presents this Court with his motion for change of venue and attaches a large volume of exhibits documenting the publicity and attention paid to this criminal case since February of 2010 when the accident at issue occurred. Defendant argues that the Court should grant a motion for a change of venue to Miami-Dade County because it will be impossible for Defendant to receive a fair and impartial trial by jury in Palm Beach County. Voluminous documentary exhibits show that the media (and especially the Palm Beach Post) have published multiple articles and blog postings with regard to this case, the majority of which either reveal a negative portrayal of Defendant or contain negative comments by readers. As a result,

Defendant asks this Court to accept the proposition that a jury pool selected from Palm Beach County is presumptively tainted by this portrayal.

Although Defendant's primary concern is the negative publicity to which the people of Palm Beach County have allegedly already been exposed, this Court rejects the notion that it can accurately assess this issue without first attempting to empanel a jury. As recently as last year, the Florida Supreme Court noted that "(0Jrdinarily, absent an extreme or unusual situation, the need to change venue should not be determined until an attempt is made to select a jury." Serrano v. State, 64 So. 3d 93, 112 (Fla. 2011); Manning v. State, 378 So. 2d 274, 276 (Fla. 1979) ("The trial court may ... withhold making the determination until an attempt is made to

obtain impartial jurors to try the cause.") In fact, the two-pronged Supreme Court analysis when determining prejudice, and one adopted by courts in Florida, presupposes an attempt to empanel a jury: "a trial court must ... evaluat[ e]: (1) the extent and nature of any pretrial publicity; and (2) the difficulty encountered in actually selecting ajury." Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278,285

(Fla. 1997) (emphasis added) (citing Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975). Indeed, this Court is not convinced, despite the material presented by Defendant, that this case is so extreme or unusual that an attempt should not first be made to draw a jury from Palm Beach County. With a mind to the tremendous impact Mr. Wilson's death had on his family, friends, and the community at large, the Court notes that the Florida Supreme Court did not find the Rolling easel extreme or unusual enough to warrant a change in venue. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that a DUI manslaughter case would prove to be.more inflammatory or extreme to the public at large than the heinous acts committed in Rolling. As the Florida Supreme Court explained: "[k]nowledge of the incident because of its notoriety is not, in and of itself, grounds for a change of venue. The test for determining a change of venue is whether the general state of mind of the inhabitants of a community is so infected
1 Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278, 285 (Fla. 1997), involved the brutal assault and murder of five college students in Gainesville by Defendant Daniel Rolling. Rolling sexually assaulted his victims and mutilated their bodies and was later sentenced to death.

2

by knowledge of the incident and accompanying prejudice, bias, and preconceived opinions that jurors could not possibly put these matters out of their minds and try the case solely upon the evidence presented in the courtroom. McCaskill v. State, 344 So. 2d 1276, 1278 (Fla. 1977) (internal citation omitted.) Indeed, cases in which convictions were overturned or new trials were granted involve particularly egregious examples of corruption by the media. In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 727-28 (1961), after being exposed to media reports, eight of the twelve jurors admitted that that had "formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty before the trial began; some went so far as to say that it would take evidence to overcome their belief in his guilt." See Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 798

(1975). And again, in Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963), defendant's confession under police interrogation was broadcast three times in the community where the crime took place. In a population of approximately 150,000 people, the court determined that the confession had been broadcast to some 97,000 in the community over the course of three airings. In Manning v. State, 378 So. 2d 274, 276 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court, finding the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial, explained that "[e]very member of the prospective jury had knowledge of exparte statements of the evidence against the accused." The defendant in this case had murdered two sheriffs deputies in a rural community.
Manning, 378 So. 2d at 274. The court granted the request of the office of the public defender to

be dismissed from handling the case because of the friendships they had with the victims. Id. at 275. Further, the sheriffs department and state attorney's office made multiple inappropriate comments to the media, including the facts and circumstances of the shooting, names of witnesses and the substance of initial testimony. [d. Defendant would have the burden of showing, after a jury pool is pre-screened, that the trial will be "inherently prejudicial because of the general atmosphere and state of mind of the 3

inhabitants in the community ...

[and} evidence [that] reflects that the community is so

pervasively exposed to the circumstances of the incident that prejudice, bias, and preconceived opinions are the natural result." Serrano v. State, 64 So. 3d 93, 112 (Fla. 2011). Defendant would have to show more than mere pretrial publicity. In Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278, 285 (Fla. 1997), the Florida Supreme Court provided the following five factors to be considered: (1) the length of time that has passed from the crime to the trial and when, within this time, the publicity occurred, Oats v. State, 446 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla. 1984); (2) whether the publicity consisted of straight, factual news stories or inflammatory stories, [Provenzano v. State, 497 So. 2d 1177, 1182 (Fla. 1986)]; (3) whether the news stories consisted of the police or prosecutor's version of the offense to the exclusion of the defendant's version, Manning, 378 So. 2d at 275; (4) the size of the community in question, Copeland v. State, 457 So. 2d 1012, 1017 (Fla. 1984); and (5) whether the defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. Hoy v. State, 353 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 293, 58 L.Ed.2d 265 (1978). Perhaps the case most closely comparable to the case at bar, and one which applies these five factors, is a recent case out of Broward County. Hooks v. State, No. 4D08-4729, 2011 WL 2555387, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). A group of young men viciously beat three homeless men and ultimately killed one of them over the course of a drug-induced spree one evening. Hooks, 2011 WL 2555387, at *1. One of the attacks was caught on a surveillance camera. Id. at *1. Recognizing the media saturation surrounding the attacks and the public's easy access to the surveillance video, the trial court acknowledged that "the blogs are the most disconcerting thing for the Court. People have very, very strong opinions once they have seen this video." Id. at *2. In approving a denial of a motion for a change of venue, the Fourth District Court of Appeal explained how they applied the five factors of Rolling: first, although the publicity

around the case was significant when police first released the video to enable them to apprehend the suspects, more than two years had elapsed since the crimes were committed and voir dire began. Id. at *3. Likewise, in the case at bar, over two years will have elapsed since the night of
4

the accident (February of 2010) and the start of voir dire (March of 2012). Further, during voir dire, at least one hundred and seventy of the four hundred potential jurors called, claimed to have little to no knowledge about the case, including five of the jurors who were eventually selected to serve. Id. Second, the trial court noted that much of the publicity centered on the video of the attack which was admitted into evidence and published to the jury. Id. Likewise, there is a potential that many of the hot-button issues that have been written about in this case (i.e. bloodalcohol level) will also be admitted into evidence. Third, the court also determined that much of the community reaction to the crime alternated between condemning the defendants and reminding the public that the defendants should not be tried in the media. Id. While the majority of exhibits submitted by the Defendant condemn his purported actions, some of the reaction, especially right after the accident, was a call to allow the police to do their job and to wait to form an opinion about Defendant until all the facts came to light. The fourth factor the District Court considered was the sheer size of Broward County. Noting that Broward County was the second largest in the State of Florida, the court determined that a tainted jury was potentially a much smaller risk than it would be in rural or less populous community. Id. Likewise, Palm Beach County falls just behind Broward as the third mostThe odds of the whole of Palm

populous county in Florida with around 1.3 million people.i

Beach County having knowledge of this case is far less likely than it would be in a much smaller community. Finally, the court noted that the Defendant had exhausted his peremptory

challenges, the final factor to be considered after voir dire is conducted in this case as well. Id. This Court intends to facilitate an in-depth, thorough voir dire process to ensure the elimination of any potential juror who cannot apply the law to the facts of the case. The Fourth
U.S. Census Bureau, State & County http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfdJstates!12/12099.htmi QuickFacts, Palm Beach
\

County,

Florida,

5

District summarized the Hooks case in the following manner: [w]e live in a day and age where news is instantaneous and pervasive. Within minutes, we are alerted to happenings from around the world . . ., Access to media is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. And the list of commentators expressing their opinions on every aspect of our lives is endless. Virtually no high profile case is immune to vast exposure on the electronic waves of today's communication devices. We must rely on our justice system and those that toil within if to ensure the protection of our constitutional guarantees. Id. at *4. Likewise, this Court is committed to the process of a fair trial by jury for Defendant and for any defendant that appears before it. Defendant is welcome to renew his Motion for Change of Venue after a jury pool from Palm Beach County has been pre-screened should he believe grounds exist for such a renewal. premature. At this time, however, Defendant's Motion is

Accordingly, Defendant's Sworn Motion to for a Change of Venue is hereby

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this

1::2 day of January 2012.

Copy provided to: Roy Black, Esq. & Mark A.J. Shapiro, Esq., Black, Srebnick, Kornspan, & Stumpf, P.A., 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300, Miami, Florida 33131 Ellen Roberts, Esq., Assistant State Attorney, West Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, Traffic Homicide Unit, 401 North Dixie+Iighway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY CASE NO. 2010CF005829AMB STATE OF FLORIDA,
.,;:'

Plaintiff,

.\'

-0 Vt .... P'::;:'

t:i~.,:;;P'
~
C-.

v.
JOHN B. GOODMAN, Defendant.

~:;:%J
-

1'7."..

O':II!' f?~:x. .;~,'

.:,~'al,,~..,.~. .~ ..' 0 . ,.~.
I
OF VENUE
';0 "

S'P" :D1"oJ:.-i

.-.n.. . ,.' '.

c» ;"~."-: -o~:s' '..'0· ;;c. ..

-P-LA-I-N-T-IF-F-'S-R-E-S-P-O-N-S-E---'TO DEFENDANT'S SWORN MOTION FOR A ~~G~ .~

•....

Plaintiff, the State of Florida, by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully responds if! opposition to Defendant John B. Goodman's Sworn Motion for a Change of Venue, and states as follows: 1. Defendant has filed a 92 page Motion for a Change of Venue and

Memorandum of Law consisting basically of four parts: Part I - Change of Venue Standards and Factors; Part" - The Media Blitzkrieg; Part III - The Public Opinion

Survey; and Part IV - Prejudice Should Now Be Presumed and a Change of Venue Ordered. Plaintiff responds by first noting that Part I and Part IV are intertwined as a

legal analysis on the law concerning change of venue, and that Part II and Part III combine publicity issues. Plaintiff believes that Defendant's basis for his motion (1) just does not rise to the level of inflammatory pretrial publicity warranting a change of venue, as can be seen by going to the facts actually u.nderlying the cases cited by Defendant, and (2) is premature without the benefit of voir dire, as is the posture in almost all the cases cited by Defendant. .

2.

Defendant's

contention

in Part IV of his Memorandum

that "the

community passion surrounding Mr. Goodman's prosecution has been as dramatic as any in Florida criminal trial history" to be an extreme exaggeration. See page 80,

Memorandum of Defendant. Not surprisingly, none of the cases cited by Defendant in support of his motion are used for an analogy to their underlying facts. as the underlying facts in those cases mainly consist of facts so offensive and severe that they cannot in any reasonable manner be compared in substance to the case herein. 3. For instance, Defendant uses the very famous Sheppard case and states

that "the local media launched a Post-like editorial artillery against a doctor accused of murdering his wife". See page 83 of Memorandum of Defendant, ciiting Sheppard v. Maxwell, 304 U.S. 333 (1966). The new blitz was indeed incredible in that case, but incredible only because of the underlying facts. The Sheppard opinion from the

Supreme Court of the United States actually begins with the line "Marilyn Sheppard, petitioner's pregnant wife, was bludgeoned to death in the upstairs bedroom of their lakeshore home in Bay Village, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland." The Court opinion says
bludgeoned,

not murdered.

And then goes on for nine pages to describe the most

egregious pretrial publicity imaginable. That case occurred in 1954, with a local media consisting of three newspapers and three television stations. Undeniably, it was the biggest news event of the decade in the Cleveland area, and even reached an unparalleled dimension in the national news media. A simple review of the Supreme Court's recitation of the Sheppard investigation and trial demonstrates that the facts are so far outside the level of pretrial publicity in this case that any comparison would be futile. That is precisely why

2of11

the case is cited by the Defendant for its legal rulings, and precisely why its facts are not discussed in any detail. 4. Defendant also cites Irwin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961), and states that in

that case the defendant was charged with six murders in a small Indiana town, but does not discuss the fact that the venire was from a rural county which was also quite small. Not surprisingly in the atmosphere described, the jury venire was found to be undeniably prejudiced. Defendant goes on to state that "In Irvin, the defendant was charged with six murders in a small Indiana town, and police press releases announcing Irwin's confessionfunctionally equivalent to the Wilson family attorneys' fomenting of publicity about Mr. Goodman's refusal to testify in a civil deposition because it might incriminate him - were intensively publicized." See Memorandum of Defendant, page 81. To compare the

Defendant's case to the small town murder of six people in a rural county in 1955 is like comparing apples and oranges. 5. As noted above in Part I and Part IV of his Memorandum, Defendant

discusses the legal standards governing a change of venue and the presumption of juror prejudice. As to Florida law, Defendant cites, inter alia, the cases of Serrano v. State, 64 SO.2d 93 (Fla. 2011). ROiling v. State, 695 So.2d 278 (Fla.1997), and Hooks v. State. No. 4008-4729 (Fla. 4th DCA June 29, 2011),36 Fla. l. Weekly 01382. However. Defendant does not explain any of the underlying facts of those cases. 6. Serrano gives a limited rendition of the law in Florida as to a change of

venue for inflammatory pretrial publicity, but importantly recited the Florida Supreme Court's long standing policy that "Ordinarily, absent an extreme or unusual situation, the need to change venue should not be determined until an attempt is made to select a
30f11

,

.

/

jury." Serrano v. State, 64 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2011). Moreover, the salient facts behind the Serrano decision involved the murder by Serrano of four individuals, three business associates and a woman who accidently came upon the scene of the murders. All four were shot multiple times in the head by Serrano, and evidence showed a detailed and planned killing worthy of a crime drama. Even with the pretrial publicity inherent in such .a case, the Florida Supreme Court still found no error in the trial court's decision to maintain venue. 7. Defendant also cites Rolling v. State, 695 So.2d 278 (Fla.1997), a

terrifyingly gruesome and sad case involving the murders by serial killer Danny Rolling of five college students, including four young women. The murders are outlined in

bloody detail in the opinion, explicitly describing each of the five murders and the sexual assault on three of the victims. Nevertheless, after examining the underlying facts and law, the Court still affirmed the trial court's denial for a change of venue. 8. Legally speaking, the Florida Supreme Court wrote extensively in Rolling Its recitation begins with the concept that

on the law concerning change of venue.

"pretrial publicity is normal and expected in certain kinds of cases, like this one (Rolling], and that fact standing alone will not require a change of venue". The Court went on to state that "In exercising its discretion, a trial court must make a two-pronged analysis, evaluating: (1) the extent and nature of any pretrial publicity; and (2) the difficulty encountered in actually selecting a jury. Rolling, 695 So.2d at 285. As in almost every case cited by Defendant, the Court was presented with a case where voir dire had already begun or been completed.
.4 of 11

9.

The Rolling Court noted five factors in evaluating the nature and effect of

any pretrial publicity on the knowledge and impartiality of prospective jurors, including factors such as (1) the length of time that has passed from the crime to the trial and when, within this time, the publicity occurred; (2) whether the publicity was consisted of straight, factual news stories or inflammatory stories; (3) whether the news stories consisted of the police or prosecutor's version of the offense to the exclusion of the defendant's version; (4) the size of the community in question; and (5) whether the defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. 10. ROiling, 695 So.2d at 285.

Most notably, the Fourth DCA case of Hooks is cited in Defendant's

Memorandum but not explained. The Hooks court recited the tests espoused in Rolling, and found that the trial court had not abused its discretion in finding against a change in venue. Hooks involved the highly publicized case of four young men beating several sleeping homeless victims with baseball bats in Ft. Lauderdale. One of the attacks was caught on videotape and received constant airplay locally and nationally. Many

similarities with Defendant's case are noteworthy. As in Defendant's case, the publicity made by the video began immediately after the attacks and continued for the two years before voir dire began. The trial court also noted that Broward County is the second

largest in the State. The trial court further received praise from the Fourth DCA for its significant time and patience in selecting a jury. The trial court mentioned how

disconcerting the blogs were, and noted in closing that news today is instantaneous and pervasive. It is hard to imagine a more pointed case to analogize with the Defendant's pretrial publicity, and in fact, it is once again undeniable that the Hooks case involved much more inflammatory public sentiment than Defendant's.
50f11

Nonetheless, the Hooks

·.

decision found that the trial court was still able to select a fair and impartial jury, and indicated that the large population of Broward County helped male it possible to achieve such a just result.

11;

Part IV of Defendant's Memorandum discusses a Public Opinion Survey

conducted on behalf of the Defendant; involving 400 individual residents of Palm Beach County. See, Memorandum of Defendant, pages 74-80. From that selection, the

Survey makes an evaluation of the entire citizenry of Palm Beach County and concludes that the citizenry is so tainted that the court need not take pause to even examine the screening process or questionnaires, a conclusion made even more difficult to fathom in light of the actual population of Palm Beach County, which the U.S. census estimates at 1,320,134.

12.

To put any legal certainty in a statistical analysis of 400 people in

populous Palm Beach County that finds that the entire jury pool has been tainted is incredibly far reaching. and premature without the benefit of voir dire. Not surprisingly, the case precedent cited by Defendant for the use of such a survey in court proceedings regarding a change of venue is well beyond sparse; and only includes 4 cases. See· Defendant's Memorandum, pages 74-75, footnote 117. The percentage of the 400

residents polled in the survey divided by the actual population equals a decimal percentage of .000303, or approximately 3 ten thousandths of the entire population. With such a population base, the results of the Survey are unfair and give very little credit to the citizens of Palm Beach County or the current methodology employed by the court system to select a jury in voir dire.
60f11

13. Moreover, Defendant's Memorandum cites Skilling v. U.S., 130 S.Ct. 2896, at 2915 n. 15 (2010) to give some credence to a statistic gleaned from the Survey. See Defendant's Memorandum, page 76. However, the footnote cited is pure dicta and

clearly shows that different questions were asked in each poll. Furthermore, of the 400 residents polled in the Goodman's Survey, it is extremely important to note that only 13% of those 400 residents who were asked the initial question of whether they affirmatively. It is only after further

had ever heard of John Goodman responded

questioning and divulging information on the case that the statistics grow higher in Goodman's favor. Finally, the United States Supreme Court in Skilling gave no weight to the Skilling survey in any event. 14. Skilling tackles the presumption of prejudice by noting several differences between Skilling (the famous Enron case) and three other major Supreme Court cases where prejudice was found: Rideau v. Louisiana, 83 S.Ct 1417 (1963); Estes v. Texas, 538 S.Ct. 1628 (1965); and Sheppard v. Maxwell, 86 S.Ct. 1507 (1966). The Court initially stated that the three cases being compared were all overturned because a conviction was obtained in those cases in a trial atmosphere that was utterly corrupted by press coverage. Skilling, 130 S.Ct. at 2914. 15. Skilling went on to state that the Supreme Court's decisions in those three cases "cannot be made to stand for the proposition that juror exposure to news accounts of the crime alone presumptively deprives the defendant of due process. Skilling, 130 S.Ct. at 2914. produce The Court continued: "Prominence does not necessarily

prejudice, and juror impartiality, we have reiterated, does not require
70f11

ignorance ... Scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case ... Every case of public interest is almost, as

a matter of necessity,

brought to the attention of all the intelligent people in

the vicinity, and scarcely anyone can be found among those best fitted for jurors who has not read or heard of it, and who has not some impression or some opinion in respect to its merits. A presumption of prejudice, our decisions indicate attends only the extreme case." Skilling, 130 S.Ct. at 2914-2915 (emphasis added) (internal

quotation marks omitted). 16. Lastly, the Skilling Court heavily emphasized the size and characteristics of the community in which the crime occurred, and stated that there was a reduced likelihood of prejudice where the venire was drawn from a pool of over 600,000 individuals. Skilling, 130 S.Ct. at 2915 (quoting from Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, Plaintiff cannot stress enough that the sheer size of Palm

111 S.Ct. 2720 (1991).

Beach County makes it highly probable that a fair and impartial jury could be selected if time and patience is used in voir dire and the court strictly controls all aspects of publicity from the beginning. The court herein has already begun that process and

Plaintiff believes that a jury can be selected from the proper venue, and that the Defendant's due process rights 'can be steadfastly protected. 18. Another noteworthy case is U.S. v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2006), wherein the 11th Circuit found a pretrial survey insufficient to establish pervasive community prejudice for a number of reasons, including an inadequate sampling size of 300 residents in a Miami-Dade County case. The case is instructive and again shows
80f11

the inherent difficulty with allowing such surveys in large' populated area. Campa, 459
F.3d at 1131.

17.

The blogoshere also makes up a large part in Defendant's argument for a Defendant's listing of every article and blog is certainly

presumption of prejudice.

noteworthy, but is overkill in today's media and the advent of the information super highway. As noted by Rolling, "pretrial publicity is normal and expected in certain kinds of cases". Blogs cannot be viewed as credible news sources and no information in

Defendant's vast Memorandum indicates that they are. It is common knowledge that blogs are a comment section for anyone who wishes to anonymously express themselves. Nothing profound in Defendant's Memorandum indicates that the general

public now considers blogs anything more than just that. Neither can anyone say with any certainty the origination of a blog. It could come from anywhere by anybody. As

noted, blogs are anonymous for a reason, suggesting that a person may write anything they feel without repercussions for libelous or false statements. and innuendo. 18. Finally, the Hooks decision described above, the most recent of all cases They invite hearsay

and authoritative in this district, did not find blogs to rise to a level where the court found that a change in venue was warranted, even though the court did find the blogs written on the underlying material as being very disconcerting. That case undeniably received more damaging press coverage than any "media blitzkrieg" in this case. Although

Hooks is now being appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida and may address the use of blogs, Hooks is still the single most factually analogous authority with the case
90f11

herein. As noted above, the sheer size of Broward County in itself played a pivotal role in the Fourth DCA's analysis In Hooks and the success of voir dire by the trial court in that case. Palm Beach County's population and the trial court's strict oversight of the entire jury selection process bring about the same result here. Plaintiff is confident that the lessons learned from past cases and their applicability herein make it abundantly clear that a fair trial can be had in Palm Beach County, and that the jury selection process can be played out in a fair and conscientious manner. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the

Defendant's Motion for a Change of Venue and continue to trial as scheduled. Respectfully submitted,

Ellen Roberts Assistant State Attorney 401 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 355-7008 Facsimile: (561) 355-7126, and

::tocUj_

MICHAEL M. MCAULIFFE

By:~/~ Robert Knabe, Bar No. 6509900 Assistant State Attorney 401 N. Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 355-7064 Facsimile: (561) 355-7281 rknabe@sa 15.state.f1. s u
10 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response has been delivered by

U. S.~

I

to Roy Black, Esq. and Mark Shapiro, Esq.,

Counsel for John Goodman, at 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300, Miami, Florida 33131, Tel: (305) 371-6421, Fax: (305) 358-2006, this January, 2012.

20

/~A

day of

ROBERT KNABE, Esq.

11 of 11

.. _ JT

"Co

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY

STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN GOODMAN, Defendant.

CASENo. 2010CF005829AMB
::.:::

JUrDGEJEFFREY COLBATH

AMENDED DEFENSE EXHIBIT

pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b), files this Amended Discovery
,,

Exhibit to include two CD's witlrimage~~i.de~tifie<i·:(,l~JMQ00242 through IMG00249, and 1: f:~;·L~~r '.' c: j·'.i\ :;:;~:' :. \:' f l .. images identified as IMG 1703 through IM9 r882.· .ThesetwoCl)' s are corrections to the CD earlier provided in item # 18:~_fDefe~dan~'sDiscovery Exhibit provided on December
....

8,2011. Respectfully submitted,
BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN & STUMPF, P.A.

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Office (305) 3 -(5421(305) 358-2006

I

••

1 .~ .... '

'/

'

~ • .'

'; f ) _' t

.

, . •. Black. Srebnick. K~rnspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131- Prone: 305-371-6421- Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlack.com

I
I

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 26, 2012, 1hfd delivered a true copy of the foregoing to:
I

I

Ellen Roberts, Assistant State Attorney West Palm Beach State Attorney's Office Traffic Homicide Unit 401 North Dixie Hwy. West Palm Beach, FL 33401

I
!

Page 2:of 2
Black. Srebnick. kornspan & Stumpf 20t S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300· Miami. Florida 33131·Prone: 305-371-6421- Fax: 305-358-2006· www.RoyBlack.com

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY

STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff,

CASENo. 20 IOCF005829AMB JUDGE JEFFREY COLBATH

v.
JOHN GOODMAN, Defendant. ........................... AMENDED DEFENSE EXHIBIT
-(i<P

~~>~:
-~. ~::t:.~
:x> 0
-

.~'

~~~~.-n
orn~
C-:;J
,(')

,-.

\ u)_
,-,

--e rn 0
.~:

\

0

DEFENDANT, JOHN GOODMAN, by and through his undersigned~~e~'

-:J=.

'V...{f"'''

r-. ?)

cP

pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b), files this Amended Dis;6~ery Exhibit to include: • A copy of Mark Ganzi's White Horse Tavern receipt request and receipt for February 11,2010.

Respectfully submitted,
BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNS PAN & STUMPF,P.A.

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 3313 Office (305) 37 1-

Counsel for John Goodman

Black. Srebnkk, kornspan & Stumpf 201 S, Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131• Phone: 305-371-6421· Fax: 305-358-2006

• www.RoyBlack.com

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 27,2012, a true copy of the foregoing was mailed to:

Ellen Roberts, Assistant State Attorney West Palm Beach State Attorney's Office Traffic Homicide Unit 401 North Dixie Hwy. West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Page 2 of 2
Black. Srebnkk. Komspan & Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131• Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlack.com

GLOBAL TOWER PARTNER
5619950321 BRQCaJ138263

10/05/2011

15:45

_

DATE. TIME FAX NO. I NAME ~TION

PAGE (5)
RESULT
tIODE

FAX
- To: From; I\e:
Pages:

,
Fax: 561.333.3924 Date: e8.99.2811

'1---------------------------------1
Anushl(a Fromer on behalf' of Marc C. Gam:1
Request fOt

White Horse Tavern - Billing Department

Dining Receipt

I 0 . ()(o .

20 II

2
C For Review

• Urgent

t:I Please COmment

C Please Replv

0 Please Rayc;le

,',Dear SIr or Madam, Marc and Melissa Ganzi hosted a dinner at the White Horse Tavern on Thursday, February 11, 2010 and would like to request a copy of their dIning receipt. The dinner was charged to Mr. Ganzr's American Express card (see following page for transaction details). ,:Could you please email or fax the full dining receipt to my attention earliest convenience? Below is my contact InformatIon: at your.

Anushka Fromer Executive Assistant to Marc C. Gan2i Global Tower Partners 750 Park of Commerce Boulevard
«:; •• it'CI
~(\n

,

.,

TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME NAME FAX TEL SER.» GLOBAL TOWER PARTNER 5619950321 BROC0J138263
08/09/2011 16:15

DATE,TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE(S> RESULT MODE

To: From; Roe: Pages:
• Urgent

White Horse Tavern - Billing Department

Fax; Date:

561.333.3924 08.09.2011

Anushka Fromer on behalf of Marc C. Ganzi Request for Dining Receipt

:2
Q

For

Review

Q Please Comment

[J Please Reply

[J Please Recycle

Dear Sir or Madam,

Marc and Melissa Ganz; hosted a dinner at the White Horse Tavern on Thursday, February 11, 2010 and would like to request a copy of their .dining receipt, The dinner was charged to Mr. Ganzi's American Express card (see following page for transactIon details). Could you please email or fax the full dining receipt to my attention at your earliest convenience? Below is my contact information: Anushka Fromer Executive Assistant to Marc C. Ganzi Global Tower Partners 750 Park of Commerce Boulevard
"",

..
"

.. --"

To:

White Horse Tavern - Billing Department Anushka Fromer on behalf of Marc C. Ganzi Request for Dining Receipt 2

Fax: Date:

561.333.3924 ee.99.2Bl1

From:

I O· (){.p .

20

a

For Review

a Please

Comment

a

Please Reply

a Please

Recycle

Sir or Madam, Marc and Melissa Ganzi hosted a dinner at the White Horse Tavern on Thursday, February 11, 2010 and would like to, request a copy of their dining receipt. The dinner was charged to Mr. Ganzi's American Express card (see following . page for transaction details). Could you please email or fax the full dining receipt to my attention . earliest convenience? Below is my contact information: at your

Anushka Fromer Executive Assistant to Marc C. Ganzi Global Tower Partners 750 Park of Commerce Boulevard Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-3612 afromer@gtpsites.com o 561.886.5897 M 561.213.8944 F 561.982.7030

Thank you very much!

7\Q..AA.~Q_

S~

+k_'\c,

f~?t

~

?a=-n~ b\CL',

lk (M.;\.lc..

TransactIon Dato:

0211112010 Thu
WHfrEHORSETAVEflNROVAL RfStAURI\NT PALMSE

TransaCtion Dilscrlptlon;

FOOOIBEV~GE TlP Catdmember Amount $:, Doing Bu6In88& As: Merchant Addreaa: Nama: W,RCCGANlI 672.91 WHrT'E HORSE TAVERN

512.97 100.00

3401 EQUESTRIAN QUB AD
WaL.NGTON

A. WEST PALM BEACH
33414-6823
UNffB)STATES

Rlference Number:' Category:

Raslaurant- Restaurant

CASE NO.

O{'O, DC ECJQ61{cX9'A DIVISION:

STATE OF FLORIDA

VS.

G-ODnm AN I

cro 1=1 rJ .

-ra
DATE:

CAN CEL from the following calendar:

~;//Ql.-.::
ADD to the following calendar:

TIME:

_::_;IS~:-=c..3::;__o

_

o
DATE:

TIME:

_

o
FROM:

CHANGE:

-------------------

TO:

__

COMMENTS:

REQUESTED BY: Marilyn Cartwright,

J.A.

DATE:

---f4-T-"l;/;~._!./___;:;;_;;L;--__

-

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CRIMINAL DIVISION IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 201OCF005829AMB DIVISION "W" STATE OF FLORIDA vs.

.

",.'

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon the Moii~n for Jury View of the Vehicles and the agreement of the parties; it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the vehicles involved in this case will be transported to an area adjacent to the Courthouse and,the jury will be permitted to view them in the presence of the parties and the Court.

the

n

DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of January, 2012.

copies furnished to: ELLEN D. ROBERTS ROY BLACK, ESQ., 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD., SUITE l300, MIAMI, FL 33133*

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE F1FI'EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRlMINAL DMSION ''W''
TO: DR. ,MICHAEL BELL

MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFlCE.;PALM BEACH COUNTY DISTRICT 15 - PALM BEACH COUNTY 3126 GUN CLUB RD.
WEST PALM BEAC~ FL 33406-3005

ct.

, CASE NO. 2010CF005829AMB

Police Case No 01-10-037896 ME. No.10-0164

PAlM BEACH STAlE O;FFLORIDA
VB.

JOHN OOODMAN

0: DECEASIID, SCOTT WILSON, AUTOPSY* 10-8164 4 WEEK DOCKET - REMAIN ON CALL

V:0II are ~ODlm8Dded to appear at the Palm Beach COIIllty Courth.OIISe, liS North DlDe HIghway, COURTROOM I1F, West Paba Beam, Florida, begimdDg at 9:30 am., 011. 03/86/%012. PJeaseeall (561) 3SS-716Swheayoa receive this suhp OeD. a AND thewoddq daylteforetriaJ after Z:OO)lg8.to vaifytiJlle of trial.

Fai~ure to ~ar

will subject you to contempt of Court. This subpoena is
IS closed.
,
'~~

until the ease

bindinS day to ~d
'

....,

~

~

~
~
, NI ,~
",

to week

~~YL--.
'JR......,

ELLEN D.ROBERTS Assistant Stlte Attcmey

~.

0"

fO:
,.,.,.

:501

U) (A)

PIa Bar NO.0607827 Janu 26 2012 PLEASE CALL UPON RECEIPT -DO NOT COME IN WITHOUT FIRST CALLING TO FIND OUT YOUR DATE AND TIME OF TESTIMONY • I received,this su~a on the;; 7 day of :fCt t'\ .2012. in Palm Beach County, Florida

••• *********** •• ***************.****

,2012, and executed the s.~j9Il1.~~·~

•• ***.**~

JIt3

JQ/k

>

"

1>3 3f'~

SHERIFF,PALMB

If you are a persoo with a disability whoneeJs any a~odation in ~ to participate in this proceeding, }IOU are entitled, at no COlt to you, to the provision of CErtain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator inthe Administrative Office of the Court, Palm BeachCCl.U'lty CourthoUse; lOS North Dixie Highway, Room .5.2500,Wea Palm B~ Flaida. 33401; telephone number (561) 3.55-4380 within two (2) w<ri:ing days of yrur receipt of this notice; if y<ll are hearing or y oice impaired, call 1-800-955-8771,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFI'EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CRIMlNAL DMSION"W"

TO:EMTSCOTICMOCK PALM BEACH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE 40.5 PIKE ROAD WEST PALM BEAC~ FL 33411
PALMBEACB

STATE OF FLORIDA
Vi.

JOHN GOODMAN

RE:TRAmCFATAL11YON~lQMAT THE INTERSECTION OF LAD WoF.JtRD AND 12OI'BA VE SOUTH-SMEf·l·ED AN ODOR OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMINGFROMTBl£ DEI'., OBSERVED SLtJRRED SPEECH. SLOW GA.rI', THE DEF STA.TED TO BlMTHA T HE HAD STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGNAT 1201"BAND WBENBE POLI..ED OUT BE BIT THE OTBER. CAR WHO HAD NO LIGHTS ON, DEFREJ'USED IV & REFUSED BLOOD GLUCOSE. 4 WEEK DOCICET - REMAIN ON CALL

Y 011are eODlDl8Dded to appear at the Palm Beach County C&arth01lse, 205 North DIxie mghway, COURTROOM IIF, West Palm Beach, J1orid~ 'egiJmblg at 9:38 &Ill., .. 83/861Z81Z. PJease taU (561) 355-7168 ,nea you rec:eive this subpoeD8 AND the workiBg d.ay before trial after 2:08 p.m. to vaify time
oftrisl.

g

Failure to appew will subject you to oontempt of Court. This subpoena is binding day to day and week taeek ~ until the case is closed. ~ "1J ~

c:

,"'_'
~

ELLEN D. ROBERTS AssistaDt Stae Attmley
Fla. Bar No.0607827 Janu 26 2012 PLEASE CALL UPON RECEIPT -DO NOT COME IN WImOUT YOUR DATE AND TIME or TESTIMONY.

fbD~

~OJ

00'1

~

~o ~ o·
:<

C?
(J'\

v>

FIRST CALUNG TO FIND OUT

** •••• *******.*****~**********!**.**.*****.
I :c:ved this ~bpoena on the day, of' _~'=;"::=..lIol....f _" 2012, in Palm Beach County. Florida.

L

J~,

"

2012. and executed the same on the

U? day of

,

If you are a PErSon with a disability who needs any acccmmodaticn in erda:' to participate in this proceeding. yeu are entitled. at no cos: to yw, to the provisioo of certain assistance. Pie-ase contact. the ADA COCC"dlnata"n the Administrative Office of the Court, i Palm Beadl County Courthwse, 205 North Dixie Highway. Room. 5,2500, WeB. Palm Beach. Florida. 33401~telephone number (561) 355-4380 within two (2) waking days of yoor receipt of this notice; if yru are hearing or ..oiee impaired, call 1·800-9S5·8n1.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNfYt FLORIDA
CRIMlNAL DMSION "W"

TO: MEDIC ROBERT STEVEN PERRAULT PALM BEACH COUNTY FIRE RESCUE 40S PIKE'ROAD ROYAL PALM BEACH, PI.. 33411

V

PALMBEACB

STATE OF FLORIDA
VB.

•. ?Ji-.,

JOHN OOODMAN

. 3:18AM AT TBlINTERSECDON OF LAKlf WORTH RD AND 120TH AVE SOUTB..;,ASSESMENT OF DIF, OBSERVED SLUDID SPEBCH, WALK WAS SLOW NOT A NORMAL GAIT, APPIABBD INTOXICATBD, HlAllD A DEPUTY ASKDIF D HI BAD BlBN D1llNKING, THE DBF STATED YES, HI HAD A COlJPLl GLASSIS OF WI.NI • .. WEIKDOCKIT - REMAIN ON CAll..

ltI: TRAFJ!IC fATALITY ON 211211''',

You .. e eommanded to appear at the Palm Beach County COurthODSe, 205 North Dixie mgbway, COURTROOM IlF t West Palm Beam, florida, beginldDg at 9:30 a.m., _ 03/0612111. Please call (561) 3S5-7.68whea you receive tJds subpoena AND the workiDgday before trial after 2:00 p.m. to vaifytbDe of trial.

Failure to appear will subject you to contempt of Court. This subpoena is binding day to day and week to week until the case is closed.

PLEASE CALL UPON RECEIPT -DQ NOT COME IN WITHOUT FIRST CAILIN YOUR DATE AND TIME OF TESTIMONY.

*********** ••• ***.****.*.*********.*********
I re~eived this subpoena on. the __:Z2_ day of I) 'f?v,/ {] JSJ , 2012, in Palm Beach County) Florida.

• 2012, and executed the same ~ the ~
~
CJ W

~-

~b

(; 0
:t:oo

OUT

day of

If you are a PEnOO wjth a disability who needs any accommodatioo in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no COlt to you, to the provisioo of certain assistance, Please contact the ADA Coordinator in the Administrative Office of the Coort. Palm Beach Cwnty Coorthouse, 20S North Dixie Highway. Room 5.2500, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33401; telEphooe number ($61) 35:5-4380 within two (2) werking days of yoor' receipt of this nctice; if yru are hearing or voice impaired, call 1-800-9S5-8771,