
Will Florida Kill an Innocent Man? - bryanrasmussen
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/opinion/james-dailey-florida-murder.html
======
credit_guy
Tampa Bay Times has a completely different take.

Here's a few paragraphs from the article (warning: it's quite graphic):

"Shelly, her twin sister Stacy and friend Stephanie Forsythe were hitchhiking
near St. Petersburg the night of May 5, 1985, according to news reports.
Shelly was seen dancing at a bar with Dailey and Jack Pearcy.

Dailey was from Kansas, an Air Force veteran who served three tours in
Vietnam. He and Pearcy were roommates, and news reports said they all went
back to the men’s house. Stacy and the friend left. Shelly stayed behind.

At trial, the prosecution told jurors the two men drove Shelly to a secluded
area under the bridge, intent on raping her. The 14-year-old fiercely resisted
them. The medical examiner said she had 18 defensive wounds on her hands.

Dailey was soaking wet and missing his shirt when he and Pearcy returned home
the morning after the murder, Pearcy’s pregnant girlfriend told investigators.
Dailey said they had to leave the state right then. He was captured in
California and extradited back to Florida, news reports said."

[1] [https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2019/09/27/pinellas-
girl...](https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2019/09/27/pinellas-
girl-14-lived-a-short-hard-life-her-killer-is-set-to-die/)

~~~
Nicksil
It's not a different take. They outline the information from the trial as most
outlets have.

Here's the NYT/Pro-Publica report on the jailhouse informant:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/magazine/jailhouse-
inform...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/magazine/jailhouse-
informant.html)

That alone ought to be enough to give this man another trial.

~~~
credit_guy
> That alone ought to be enough to give this man another trial.

This was actually brought up by Daily's defense team [1]. The Supreme Court of
the State of Florida [2] opined on this (and a few other points raised by the
defense) and dismissed the arguments as meritless.

The relevant paragraphs are:

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

[1] [https://efactssc-
public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2018/557/...](https://efactssc-
public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2018/557/2018-557_Brief_129233_INITIAL20BRIEF2DMERITS.pdf)

[2] [https://efactssc-
public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/557/...](https://efactssc-
public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2018/557/2018-557_disposition_147540_d05.pdf)

------
olliej
Make prosecutors share liability for crimes of snitches they release. Charge
them for perjury if they release a perjurer after claiming that they have no
such deal in place.

Prosecutors and police that use known liars to achieve convictions should be
treated legally the same way someone who plants evidence is meant to be.

------
moomin
Might as well add “again” to the headline.

