http://www.angel-diaz.us/lethal/Filed_08-22-2007_LightbourneResponse.pdf
BILL McCOLLUM, etc., ET AL.,
Petitioners,
Case No. SC07-1499
v.
IAN DECO LIGHTBOURNE
Respondent.
____________________________/
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
COMES NOW the Respondent, IAN DECO LIGHTBOURNE, by and
through undersigned counsel, and hereby responds to
Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification. Respondent states:
through undersigned counsel, and hereby responds to
Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification. Respondent states:
1. On August 9, 2007, the circuit court granted Mr.
Lightbourne’s motion for a view of the execution chamber
and to witness a walk-through. The circuit court stated in
its order that “whatever is arranged with the Department of
Corrections shall not delay the final hearing previously
scheduled. The undersigned judge will not be available to
participate in any view before August 28, 2007.” The
court’s order did not require judicial oversight of the
walk-through or the view of the chamber. The language
contemplates that a walk-through or viewing of the chamber
may occur prior to the start of the final hearing,
scheduled for August 28, 2007, as the circuit court ordered
that any walk-through or viewing would not delay the
Lightbourne’s motion for a view of the execution chamber
and to witness a walk-through. The circuit court stated in
its order that “whatever is arranged with the Department of
Corrections shall not delay the final hearing previously
scheduled. The undersigned judge will not be available to
participate in any view before August 28, 2007.” The
court’s order did not require judicial oversight of the
walk-through or the view of the chamber. The language
contemplates that a walk-through or viewing of the chamber
may occur prior to the start of the final hearing,
scheduled for August 28, 2007, as the circuit court ordered
that any walk-through or viewing would not delay the
proceedings. As such, the court simply indicated that it
was not available until August 28, 2007, not that it must
participate.
2. On August 10, 2007, Petitioner appealed that
order. This Court denied Petitioner’s request for review
of that order on August 20, 2007, stating in part that the
order. This Court denied Petitioner’s request for review
of that order on August 20, 2007, stating in part that the
“denial is subject to the trial court determining factual
issues regarding whether and when a walk-through is
currently scheduled and the details of the view of the
death chamber and a walk-through.”
issues regarding whether and when a walk-through is
currently scheduled and the details of the view of the
death chamber and a walk-through.”
3. Based on this Court’s order, Mr. Lightbourne
filed a Motion for Immediate Hearing in the circuit court.
However, counsel for Mr. Lightbourne had been told last
week by Judge Angel’s judicial assistant that the judge
would be on vacation the entire week of August 20, 2007 and
would not be back to court until the morning of August 28,
2007. Therefore, counsel believes Mr. Lightbourne’s motion
will not be heard until the morning of August 28, the same
date the final hearing is scheduled to begin.
filed a Motion for Immediate Hearing in the circuit court.
However, counsel for Mr. Lightbourne had been told last
week by Judge Angel’s judicial assistant that the judge
would be on vacation the entire week of August 20, 2007 and
would not be back to court until the morning of August 28,
2007. Therefore, counsel believes Mr. Lightbourne’s motion
will not be heard until the morning of August 28, the same
date the final hearing is scheduled to begin.
4. Petitioner has repeatedly stated that a walk-
through is not scheduled for the week of August 28, 2007.
Because of these assertions, Mr. Lightbourne was concerned
that a walk-through, or routine training exercise, would be
conducted this week, thereby preventing Mr. Lightbourne the
through is not scheduled for the week of August 28, 2007.
Because of these assertions, Mr. Lightbourne was concerned
that a walk-through, or routine training exercise, would be
conducted this week, thereby preventing Mr. Lightbourne the
opportunity to attend a walk-through before the end of the
relinquishment period. In fact, Department of Corrections
counsel confirmed that a training exercise is scheduled for
today, August 22, 2007, but could not tell undersigned if
any additional walk-throughs are scheduled.
5. Based on the time constraints placed by this
Court and the circuit court and the delay resulting from
the Petitioner’s appeal of the circuit court’s order,
counsel for Mr. Lightbourne contacted the Department of
Corrections to determine if any details could be worked out
prior to the return of Judge Angel from vacation. Counsel
for Mr. Lightbourne was acting in good faith in an effort
to be diligent and in an effort to prevent the delay and
time constraints from foreclosing the opportunity to view
the chamber and witness a walk-through, both of which the
circuit court and this Court have stated Mr. Lightbourne is
entitled to.
Court and the circuit court and the delay resulting from
the Petitioner’s appeal of the circuit court’s order,
counsel for Mr. Lightbourne contacted the Department of
Corrections to determine if any details could be worked out
prior to the return of Judge Angel from vacation. Counsel
for Mr. Lightbourne was acting in good faith in an effort
to be diligent and in an effort to prevent the delay and
time constraints from foreclosing the opportunity to view
the chamber and witness a walk-through, both of which the
circuit court and this Court have stated Mr. Lightbourne is
entitled to.
6. As evidenced by the letter sent to counsel for
the Department of Corrections on August 21, 2007,
undersigned counsel requested information as to when any
training exercises were scheduled and expressed counsel’s
availability at any time between now and the expiration of
the relinquishment period, including availability on August
22, 2007. Further, undersigned counsel expressed that the
the Department of Corrections on August 21, 2007,
undersigned counsel requested information as to when any
training exercises were scheduled and expressed counsel’s
availability at any time between now and the expiration of
the relinquishment period, including availability on August
22, 2007. Further, undersigned counsel expressed that the
letter was an inquiry to see if any of the details could be
worked out prior to commencement of the final hearing.
7. Counsel for the Department of Corrections
contacted undersigned counsel on the same date and
confirmed that a walk-through was scheduled for August 22,
2007. DOC counsel’s position was that the presence of Mr.
Lightbourne’s legal team could not be arranged for this
date. According to counsel, he had continuing concerns
regarding details that must be worked out with the circuit
court, and interpreted the circuit court’s order to mean
that Judge Angel must be present for any walk-through.
Undersigned counsel and DOC counsel agreed the issue would
have to be heard than on the morning of August 28, 2007.
contacted undersigned counsel on the same date and
confirmed that a walk-through was scheduled for August 22,
2007. DOC counsel’s position was that the presence of Mr.
Lightbourne’s legal team could not be arranged for this
date. According to counsel, he had continuing concerns
regarding details that must be worked out with the circuit
court, and interpreted the circuit court’s order to mean
that Judge Angel must be present for any walk-through.
Undersigned counsel and DOC counsel agreed the issue would
have to be heard than on the morning of August 28, 2007.
8. Counsel for Mr. Lightbourne did nothing
inappropriate in contacting counsel for the Department of
Corrections to iron out some of the issues prior to the
commencement of the final hearing. Discovery issues are
routinely worked out preliminarily in the interest of
judicial economy. In fact, the circuit court’s order
contemplates that arrangements would be made with the
Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections
is responsible for the control of its facility.
inappropriate in contacting counsel for the Department of
Corrections to iron out some of the issues prior to the
commencement of the final hearing. Discovery issues are
routinely worked out preliminarily in the interest of
judicial economy. In fact, the circuit court’s order
contemplates that arrangements would be made with the
Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections
is responsible for the control of its facility.
9. Mr. Ligthbourne’s rights to due process and to
discovery to which he is entitled by court order will be
discovery to which he is entitled by court order will be
foreclosed due to circumstances created by the circuit
court and the Petitioner. As a result undersigned counsel
is making every effort to resolve issues in a timely and
expedited fashion.
10. Regardless of these facts, the Petitioner’s
motion is moot based on Department of Corrections’ position
that all issues will have to be heard by the circuit court
on Tuesday, August 28.
motion is moot based on Department of Corrections’ position
that all issues will have to be heard by the circuit court
on Tuesday, August 28.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Lightbourne through undersigned
counsel, respectfully requests that the Petitioner’s Motion
for Clarification be denied as moot.
counsel, respectfully requests that the Petitioner’s Motion
for Clarification be denied as moot.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
SUZANNE MYERS KEFFER
Assistant CCRC
Florida Bar No. 0150177
ANNA-LIISA NIXON
Staff Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0026283
OFFICE OF THE CAPITAL
COLLATERAL REGIONAL
COUNSEL
COUNSEL
101 N.E. 3rd Ave., Suite
400
400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954) 713-1284
COUNSEL FOR MR.
LIGHTBOURNE
LIGHTBOURNE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail and facsimile to
Kenneth S. Nunnelley, Assistant Attorney General, 444
Seabreeze Blvd, 5th Floor, Daytona Beach, FL 32118; Carolyn
Snurkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-
1050; Rock E. Hooker, Assistant State Attorney, 19 NW Pine
Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475; Maximillian J. Changus, Assistant
General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, 2601
Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, FL 32399; and the Honorable
Carven D. Angel, Circuit Court Judge, Marion County
Judicial Center, 110 NW First Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475 on
this ___ day of August, 2007.
foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail and facsimile to
Kenneth S. Nunnelley, Assistant Attorney General, 444
Seabreeze Blvd, 5th Floor, Daytona Beach, FL 32118; Carolyn
Snurkowski, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-
1050; Rock E. Hooker, Assistant State Attorney, 19 NW Pine
Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475; Maximillian J. Changus, Assistant
General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, 2601
Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, FL 32399; and the Honorable
Carven D. Angel, Circuit Court Judge, Marion County
Judicial Center, 110 NW First Avenue, Ocala, FL 34475 on
this ___ day of August, 2007.
________________________
SUZANNE MYERS KEFFER
Assistant CCRC
Florida Bar No. 0150177
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment