John Goodman Case

8/3/2019 John Goodman Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 1/40

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUN)''yv.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 201OCF005829AMB

JOHN GOODMAN,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF HEARING

__ .",

JUDGE JEFFREY COLBATH

v .

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

ofCriminal 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

B la c k. S re b n lc k, K o rn s pa n & Stump f

2 01 S _ Bisca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia mi. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1· F ax : 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6 •www.RoyB la ck .com

http://www.royblack.com/




',..(


OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

CASENo. 201OCF005829AMB


v .

JOHN GOODMAN,

Defendant.

On January 13,2012, the Sate of Florida filed amotion 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 toMr. 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 §918.05of the Florida Statutes.

Section 918.05 provides that:

B la c k. S re b nic k. K o rn sp a n & S tump f

2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S u ite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 - P h on e: 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1· F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6· www.RoyB la ck .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, itmay

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 isconceded that bringing the vehicles into the courtroom isnot possible. But aswill

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

-2-

B la c k, S r eb n ic k , K o rn s p an & S tump f

2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P h on e: 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1 • F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6 • w w w .R oy Bla ck ,c om



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 ineach, 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 ajury view of the vehicles is not

necessary in order to prove the matters the State asserts as a basis for its motion.

-3-

B la c k. S r eb n ic k . K o rn s p an & S tump f

2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1· F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6' wWw.RoyB lack .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 DUIManslaughter 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 significantdamage 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

-4-

B la c k. S r eb n ic k , K o rn s pa n & Stump f

2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd , S uite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1' F ax : 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6· www.RoyB lack .com





at the scene and at the Sheriffs impound yard.'

2) 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 pre-

impact 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 models, geometric measurements

and algebraic computations.

'Photographs at impound yard do not show automobiles from unrelated collisions.

-5-

B la c k. S re b nic k. K o rn s pa n & S tump f

2 01 S . B isca yne B oule va rd . S uite 1 30 0· M ia mi. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71-6 42 1 • F ax : 3 05 -35 8-2 00 6 • www.RoyB l ack . com





Given all of this, it is inconceivable how this collection of exhibits and testimony

could beviewed bythe State asbeing insufficient to "allow thejury toassess 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

I

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 bypolice 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

-6-

B la c k. S re b nic k . K o rn s pa n & S tump f

2 01 S . B is ca yn e B o ule va rd . S uite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1- F a x: 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6· www .RoyB l a ck . 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 belief that the only advantage to the

prosecutions 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,

each of the cases sited involve jury views at crime scenes and the requirement for strict

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

-7-

Black . Srebnkk. Ko rnspan & S tump f

2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 - M ia mi. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1- F ax : 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6 -www.RoyB la ck .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 ajury to view the vehicles in the environment described, can only

be calculated to unfairly prejudice the jury against Mr. Goodman, contrary to §90.403.

-8-

B la c k. S r eb n ic k . K o rn s pa n & Stump f

2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1 • F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6 • www.RoyB lack .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.


BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSP AN

& STUMPF, P .A.

201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300

Miami, Florida 33131

Office (305) 371- 21 - Fax 305) 358-2006


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Icertify that on January 24, 2012, my office Federal Expressed a true copy of theforegoing to:

Ellen Roberts

Assistant State Attorney

West Palm Beach State Attorney's Office

Traffic Homicide Unit



-9-

B la ck . S re b nic k. K o m sp a n & S tump f

2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S u ite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P h on e: 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1' F ax : 3 0 5 -3 58 -2 00 6· \\WW .R o yB la ck .c om



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,~'~;~'

~ :t.;;P", c.- "'-'cP° '..~nrr.z.: .:;z : ."9......;:0-.' .Y 1:-' ' . r -- ~ ~ . " , r n

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

J;o' ....... ~ ., ••

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

Defendant.

("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. blood-

alcohol 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 most-

populous county in Florida with around 1.3 million people.i The odds of the whole of Palm

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 QuickFacts, Palm

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfdJstates!12/12099.htmi

\

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 ifto 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. At this time, however, Defendant's Motion is

premature. 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,

-lorida 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,.,;:

.\' -0Vt ....: i ~ . , : ; ; P 'P'::;:'

1'7.".. ~~:;:%J C-.

- O:II!' '.f?~:x. .;~,' . - . n . . . , . 'S 'P " :D1"oJ:.-i

.:,~'al,,~..,.~. .~..' 0 .,.~

';0" c» ;"~."-: '0·-o~:s'I ;;c. .. '..

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

OF VENUE .~

Plaintiff,

v .

JOHN B. GOODMAN,

Defendant.

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 reviewof the Supreme Court's recitationof

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 confession-

functionally 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.2d93 (Fla. 2011). ROiling v. State, 695 So.2d 278 (Fla.1997), and Hooksv. 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

on the law concerning change of venue. Its recitation begins with the concept that

"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. ROiling, 695 So.2d at 285.

10. 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. Nonetheless, the Hooks

50f11



· .

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

had ever heard of John Goodman responded affirmatively. It is only after further

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. The Court continued: "Prominence does not necessarily

produce 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,

111 S.Ct. 2720 (1991). Plaintiff cannot stress enough that the sheer size of Palm

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

presumption of prejudice. Defendant's listing of every article and blog is certainly

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. They invite hearsay

and innuendo.

18. Finally, the Hooks decision described above, the most recent of all cases

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.


MICHAEL M. MCAULIFFE

: : t o c U j _Ellen Roberts


401 N. Dixie Highway


Telephone: (561) 355-7008

Facsimile: (561) 355-7126, and

By:~/~

Robert Knabe, Bar No. 6509900


401 N. Dixie Highway


Telephone: (561) 355-7064

Facsimile: (561) 355-7281

rknabe@sa 15.state.f1.us

10of 11




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,

/~AFlorida 33131, Tel: (305) 371-6421, Fax: (305) 358-2006, this 20 day of

January, 2012.

ROBERT KNABE, Esq.

11of 11



.. _ J T "C o

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15THJUDICIAL CIRCUIT


STATE OF FLORIDA,Plaintiff,

CASENo. 2010CF005829AMB

JUrDGEJEFFREY COLBATH

: : . : : :

v .

Defendant.

JOHN GOODMAN,

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~JMQ00242hrough IMG00249, and

1 : f :~; ·L~~r ' .' c: j · ' . i \ : ; : ; ~ :'. : . \ : ' f

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.


BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN & STUMPF, P.A.


Miami, Florida 33131

Office (305) 3 -(5421- (305) 358-2006

I

• • 1 .~ .. .. ''/ '

~ • . '; f ) _'t.

,

. •. B la ck. S reb n ick . K ~rn spa n & Stump f

2 01 S . B isca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia mi, F lo rid a 3 31 31 - P ro ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1- F ax: 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6 •www.RoyB la ck .com





II

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI

Ellen Roberts, Assistant State Attorney





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

I

I!

Page 2:of 2

B la c k . S r eb n ic k . k o rn s p a n & S tump f

2 0t S . B is ca yn e B o ule va rd . S u ite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P ro ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1- F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6· www.RoyB la ck .com







STATE OF FLORIDA,Plaintiff,

CASENo. 20 IOCF005829AMB


v .

JOHN GOODMAN, -(i<P .~'

Defendant. ~~>~:........................... ~~~~.-n

orn~ ,-. -C-:;J \u)_ \

-~ . - rnAMENDED DEFENSE EXHIBIT ~::t:.~ -e 0

:x > 00,(') ,-,

- - : J = . . -

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


BLACK, SREBNICK, K ORNS PAN & STUMPF,P.A.


Miami, Florida 3313

Office (305) 37 1 -


Black . S r eb n kk , k o rn s pa n & S tump f

2 01 S , B isca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia mi. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1· F ax : 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6 • www.RoyB l ack . com






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

Ellen Roberts, Assistant State Attorney





Page 2 of 2

Black. Srebnkk. Komspan & Stump f

2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1 • F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6 • www.RoyB lack .com





10/05/2011 15:45 _G L OB A L T OW ER P AR TN E R5619950321

BRQCaJ138263

D AT E. T IM EFAX NO . INAME~ T IONP A G E ( 5 )

RESULTt IODE

FAX ,

White Horse Tavern - Billing DepartmentT o: Fax: 561.333.3924

'1---------------------------------1F rom ; A nush l(a F rom er on beha lf' o f M arc C . Gam :1 Date: e8.99.2811

I\e: Request fOt Dining Receipt I0.()(o .20II

Pages: 2

• Urgent C For Review t: I PleaseCOmment C PleaseReplv 0 PleaseRayc;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 cha rged 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 at your.

earliest convenience? Below is my contact InformatIon:

Anushka Fromer

Executive Assistant to Marc C. Gan2i

Global Tower Partners

750 Park of Commerce Boulevard« : ; • • it 'CI ~(\n

, .,



TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT

TIME 0 8/ 09 /2 01 1 1 6: 15NAME GLOBAL TOWER PARTNERFAX 5619950321TELSER.» BROC0J138263

DATE,TIMEF AX N O. /N AM EDURATIONPAGE(S>RESULTMODE

To: White Horse Tavern - Billing Department Fax; 561.333.3924

From; Anushka F r ome r on behalf of Ma r c C. Ganzi Date: 08.09.2011

Roe: Request for Dining Receipt

Pages: :2

• Urgent Q For Review Q Please Comment [J Please Reply [J Please Recycle

Dear Sir or Madam,

Marc and MelissaGanz; hosted a dinner at the White Horse Tavern onThursday, 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 fol lowing

page for transactIon details).

Could you please email or fax the full dining receipt to my attention at yourearliest convenience? Below is my contact information:

Anushka FromerExecutive Assistant to Marc C. GanziGlobal Tower Partners750 Park of Commerce Boulevard"",.. . . " ---



To: White Horse Tavern - Billing Department Fax: 561.333.3924

From: Anushka Fromer on behalf of Marc C. Ganzi Date: ee.99.2Bl1

Request for Dining Receipt IO· (){.p . 20

2

a ForReview a P l ease Comment a P l ease Reply a P le a se R e c yc le

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 theirdining 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. GanziGlobal Tower Partners

750 Park of Commerce Boulevard

Suite 300Boca Raton, FL [email protected]

o 561.886.5897

M 561.213.8944F 561.982.7030

Thank you very much!

+k_'\c, f~?t

lk(M .;\ .lc..

7 \ Q . . A A . ~ Q _ S~

~ ?a= -n~ b \ C L ' ,

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



TransactIon Dato:

TransaCtion Dilscrlptlon;

Catdmember Nama:

Amount $:,

Doing Bu6In88& As:

Merchant Addreaa:

Rlference Number:'

Category:

0211112010 T hu

WHfrEHORSETAVEflNROVAL PALMSE

RfStAURI\NT

FOOOIBEV~GE 512.97

T lP 100 .0 0

W,RCCGANlI

672.91

W H r T 'E H O R S E TAVERN

3 40 1 E QU ES TR IA N Q UB A D

WaL.NGTON

A.

W E S T P A L M B EA C H

33414-6823

UNffB)STATES

Ra s la u ra n t- R e s t au r an t



CASE NO. O{ 'O, DC ECJQ61{cX9'A DIVISION:

STATE OF FLORIDA VS. G-ODnm AN cro 1 = 1 rJI .

- r a CANCEL from the following calendar:

DATE: ~ ; / / Q l . - . : : TIME: _ : : _ ; I S ~ : - = c . . 3 : : ; _ _ o _

o ADD to the following calendar:

DATE: TIME: _

o CHANGE:

FROM:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TO: __

COMMENTS:

REQUESTED BY: Marilyn Cartwright, J.A. DATE: - - - f 4 - T - " l ; / ; ~ . _ ! ./ _ _ _ ; : ; ; _ ; ; L ; - - _ _ -



IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CRIMINAL DIVISIONIN 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.

DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this

thenay of January, 2012.

copies furnished to:

ELLEN D. ROBERTS

ROY BLACK, ESQ., 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD., SUITE l300, MIAMI, FL 33133*

. ",.'



IN T HE CIRCU IT COU RT OF T HE F1FI 'E ENT H JU DICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRlMINAL DMSION ''W''

TO: DR. ,MICHAEL BELL

M E DICAL E XAM INE R'S OFFlCE .;PALM BE ACH

COUNTY

D IST RICT 15 - PALM BE ACH COUNT Y

c t .126 GUN CLUB RD .WEST PALM BEAC~ FL 33406-3005

, CASE NO. 2010CF005829AMB

P ol ic e C as e N o 0 1-1 0-0 37 89 6

M E . No.10-0164

PAlM BEACH

STAlE O;FFLORIDA

VB.

JOHN OOODMAN

0: DECEASIID, SCOTT WILSON,

AUTOPSY* 10-81644 WEEK DOCKET - REMAIN ON CALL

V:0II are ~ODlm8Dded to appear at the Palm Beach COIIl l ty Cou rt h.OI ISe , liS North DlDe HIghway,

COURTROOM I1F, West Paba Beam, Florida, begimdDg at 9:30 am., 0 1 1 . 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 b i n d i n S day to ~d ~ to week

u ntil th e ea se IS closed. ' :501 , NI, '~~ ,~

, . , . , . ~ ",

~~YL--. f O :0 " U

~. (A)L LE N D .R OB E RT SAssistant StlteAttcmeyPIa 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 ' J R . . . . . . , ,2012, and executed the s.~j9Il1.~~·~

:fCt t'\ .2012. in Palm Beach County, Florida

JIt3 JQ/k > "

1>33f'~ SHERIFF,PALMB

I f y ou a re a p ers oo with a d i sab il it y whoneeJ s any a~odation in ~ to participate in th is p roceed ing , }IOU are e nt it le d, a t n o

COlt to you , to the p rovis ion of C E r t a i n a ss is ta n ce . P le as e c ont ac t the AD A Coor di na to r intheAdmini st ra ti ve Of fi ce of t he Cou rt ,

Pa lm BeachCCl.U 'l ty Cou rt hoUse ; lOS North D ix i e Highway , R oo m .5 .2 50 0,W ea Pa lm B ~ Flaida. 33401 ; telephone num ber (561)

3 .5 5 -4 380w i th in two (2) w<r i : ing days of y ru r re ce ip t o f t h is notice; ify<ll a re h e ar in g o r y o ic e impa ir ed , c a ll 1 - 80 0 -9 55 -8 771 ,



IN T HE CIRCU IT COU RT OF T HE FIFI 'E ENT H JU DIC IA L CIRCU ITIN AND FOR PALM BE ACH COU NT Y, FLORID A

CRIMlNAL DMSION"W"

TO :EMTSCOT ICMOCK

PALM B EACH COU NT Y FIRE RE SCU E

4 0.5 P IK E R OA D

W E ST PALM BE AC~ FL 33411

PALMBEACB

ST AT E OF FLORIDAVi.

JO HN G OO D M AN

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. SLOWGA.rI ' , THE DEF STA.TED TO BlMTHA T HEHADSTOPPED AT T HE STOP SIGNAT 1201"BANDWBENBE POLI..ED OUT BE BIT THE OTBER.

CARWHO HAD NO LIGHTS ON, DEFREJ'USEDIV &RE FU SE D BLOOD GLU COSE .

4WEEK DOCICET - REMAIN ON CALL

Y 011are eOD lD l 8Dded to appea r atthe Palm B each C ounty C&ar th01 l se , 20 5 N orth D I xie mghway,COURTROOM IIF, West Palm Beach, J1orid~ 'egiJmblg at 9:38 & I ll . , . . 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 ,"c: ~

Failu re to appew w il l su bjec t y ou to oon tem pt of C ou rt. T h is su bpoen a is b ind ing day to day a nd w eek taeek ~

until the case is c losed . ~ "1J ~

~OJ ~00'1

~o ~o·:< CfbD~E LLE N D . ROBE RT S

Ass is taD t S ta e Attmley

Fla. Bar No.0607827

Janu 26 2012

PLEASE CALL UPON RECEIPT -DO NOT COME IN WImOUT FIRST CALUNG TO FIND OUTYOUR DATE AND TIME or TESTIMONY.**•••• *******.*****~**********!**.**.*****. ,

I :c:ved th is ~bpoena on theLa y , of' J~, 201 2. and execu ted the sam e on th e U ? da y of_ ~ ' = ; " : : = . . lI o l . . .. f _ " 2012 , inPalm Beach County . F lorida . "

Ify ou a re a P ErS on w ith a d is ab il ity w h o n ee ds any acccmmodaticn in erda:' to participate inthis proceeding. yeu are entitled. at no

c o s : to yw, to the p ro vis io o o f c erta in a ss is ta nc e. P ie -a se c on ta ct. t h e A D A C O CC "d ln ata "n th e A d min is tr ativ e O ff ic e o f t h e C ou rt,

Palm B eadl County Cou rth wse, 205 N orth D ixie Highway . Ro om . 5 ,2 5 00 , WeB . Palm B ea ch . F lo rid a. 3 34 01 ~ te le ph on e n um b er ( 56 1)355-4380 within two (2) waking days of yoor receipt ofthis notice; if yru are hearing or ..oiee impaired, call 1·800-9S5·8n1.



IN T HE CIRCUIT COU RT OF T HE FIFT EE NT H JUD ICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR PALM BE ACH COU NfY t FLOR IDA

CRIMlNAL DMSION "W"

T O: M E D IC ROBE RT ST EV EN PE RRAULT

PALM BE ACH COUNT Y FIRE RE SCUE

40S PIKE 'ROAD

ROYAL PALM BE ACH , P I . . 33411 VPALMBEACB

ST AT E OF FLORID A

VB.

JOHN OOODMAN

•. ?Ji-.,

ltI:TRAFJ!IC fATALITY ON211211''', .3:18AMAT TBlINTERSECDON OF LAKlfWORT H RD AND 120T H AVE SOUTB..;,-

ASSESMENT OFDIF, OBSERVEDSLUDIDSPE BCH , WALK W AS SLOW NOT ANORMAL GAIT, APPIABBD INTOXICATBD,HlAllD A DEPUTYASKDIF DHI BADBlBN D 1llNKING, T HE D BF ST AT E D YE S,HI HADA COlJPLl GLASSIS OFW I.N I •

.. W E IKD OCKIT - R EM AIN ONCAll..

You .. e eommanded to appear at the Palm Beach County COurthODSe, 205 North Dixie mgbway,COURTROOM IlF tWest 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 vaifytbDeof trial.

F ailu re to appear w il l subject you to contem pt of C ou rt. T his subpoena is b ind ing day to day and w eek to w eek

u ntil th e case is closed.

PLEASE CALL UPON RECEIPT -DQ NOT COME IN WITHOUT FIRST CAILIN (; 0

YOUR DATE AND TIME OF TESTIMONY. ~b :t:oo

OUT

*********** •••***.****.*.*********.********* ~-

I re ~ eiv ed this su bp oe na o n. t he _ _ : Z 2 _ day of I) 'f?v,/ • 2012 , and executed the sam e ~ the ~ day of{ ] J S J , 2012 , in Palm B e ac h C ou nty ) F lo rid a. CJ W

~

Documents

John Goodman Case