STORAGE NAME: h6005b.APC
DATE: 4/14/2023
(February 14, 2023)
SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT
The Honorable Paul Renner
Speaker, The Florida House of Representatives
Suite 420, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Re: HB 6005 - Representative Duggan
Relief/Robert Earl DuBoise/State of Florida
THIS IS AN EQUITABLE CLAIM FOR $1,850,000 TO
COMPENSATE ROBERT EA RL DUBOISE FOR MORE THAN
37 YEARS OF WRONGFUL INCARCERATION.
FINDINGS OF FACT: Crime and Early Investigation
At around 8:00 a.m. on August 19, 1983, Antonio Abay (“Abay”)
discovered the body of 19-year-old B.G. behind his Tampa,
Florida dental office. B.G. was naked other than a tube top
pulled up over her breasts, and she had severe trauma to her
head, face, and neck. Abay then called out for Joseph Tietack
(“Tietack”), who was nearby. Tietack approached and observed
the body of B.G., whose face he described as "obliterated,"
then called 911.
Law enforcement quickly arrived on the scene, including
Tampa Police Department (“TPD”) Detective Phillip Saladino
(“Saladino”), who would become lead detective on the case.
B.G. was covered in blood and had visible bruises on her
knees, ankles, and wrists as though made by fingers and
thumbs grasping her tightly. Torn turf and knee imprints also
surrounded her body, evidencing a violent struggle. This
evidence, combined with the fact that B.G. was nearly naked
and on her back, indicated to the officers that she had been
sexually assaulted before she was killed. Saladino also
observed that B.G. had sustained several blows to the head,
delivered with such force that her head was indented four
inches into the dirt. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 2
Law enforcement collected evidence from the scene, including
a woman’s purse, shorts, and underwear; a pack of cigarettes;
three pieces of 2x4 boards on which they found blood and hair;
and latent fingerprints. The officers inferred from the evidence
that at least one of the 2x4 boards was the murder weapon.
Saladino also noted a pale band of skin on one of B.G.’s
fingers, suggesting she frequently wore a ring. A witness would
later confirm that B.G. wore a silver Avon ring set with an opal
flanked by two smaller stones, but no ring was found at the
scene and it is unclear whether B.G. was wearing the ring on
the night of her murder as witnesses gave conflicting testimony.
During the ensuing investigation, Saladino determined that
B.G. left her workplace, a Hot Potato restaurant, at around 9:30
p.m. on August 18, 1983, and began walking home. Two
witnesses reported seeing B.G. walking south in the direction of
her home sometime around 9:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. that night
and offering her a ride, but B.G. declined. However, B.G.’s
body was found north of where the witnesses saw her walking,
leading the State to theorize that B.G. turned around at some
point and headed north, perhaps to buy the pack of cigarettes
found at the scene. Another witness believed he saw B.G.
sometime between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. at the Eastern
Gas Station, located one block from where her body was found,
but a second witness who was the gas station on the night of
B.G.’s murder did not see her there.
An autopsy performed by Dr. Lee Miller (“Miller”) with the
Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s Office (“MEO”)
determined B.G.’s cause of death to be blunt force trauma to
the head, in the manner of homicide, with her time of death
approximately 11:30 p.m. In preparation for the autopsy, Miller
collected photographs, hair samples, and a rape kit, including
vaginal, rectal, and oral swabs. Miller also discovered what he
believed was a bitemark on B.G.’s left cheek. He then
photographed the mark and, despite having no experience in
bitemark preservation, excised it away from B.G.’s face,
attempting to preserve it in a formaldehyde solution. According
to Dr. Adam Freeman (“Freeman”), a forensic odontology
expert and the former president of the American Board of
Forensic Odontologists (“ABFO”), who later reviewed this case,
the mark likely shrunk by at least ten percent as a result of
Miller’s actions, which did not comply with the scientific
standards for bitemark preservation in place at the time.
To assist with the bitemark investigation, law enforcement
brought in Dr. Richard Powell (“Powell”), a dentist and MEO
consultant, and Dr. Richard Souviron (“Souviron”), a certified
forensic odontologist. While Powell had never testified as an
expert in a criminal trial nor looked at a human bitemark on a
body, Souviron was, at that time, considered a bitemark expert
and had testified in several criminal trials involving bitemark
evidence, including that of Ted Bundy. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 3
As part of his analysis, Souviron asked Saladino and the
recently-assigned TPD detective K.E. Burke (“Burke”) to obtain
beeswax dental impressions from persons of interest in B.G.’s
murder. In the course of their investigation, Saladino and Burke
obtained over 100 such impressions, out of which Powell made
stone casts for comparison to the alleged bitemark. However,
according to Freeman, beeswax is so soft and malleable that is
likely that the heat of the poured stone would have softened the
beeswax impression, distorting any stone cast made from it.
Claimant’s Identification and Arrest
According to Saladino’s testimony, the TPD initially identified
two suspects in B.G.’s murder. Both suspects had a known
connection to B.G. and were placed in the area of the crime on
the night of her murder. Further, both suspects gave conflicting
testimony about their whereabouts on that night.
However, the investigation soon shifted to the then-18-year old
Claimant and two other males, the Claimant’s brother Victor
DuBoise (“V.D.”) and their friend Raymond Garcia (“Garcia”),
after an Eastern Gas Station clerk stated that "Robert," "Ray,"
and "Bo" would hang around the store and cause trouble. The
clerk pointed the officers in the direction of where she believed
these individuals lived, and at one of the homes in that area,
Saladino found mail addressed to persons with the surname
“DuBoise” and connected them to the Claimant. At this point,
the Claimant, who had no known connection to B.G., became a
suspect in her murder.
On September 25, 1983, the Claimant volunteered to be
interviewed at Saladino’s request. During this interview, the
Claimant denied any involvement in B.G.’s murder, indicating
that he would prove he "wasn’t the guy that bit that girl" and
that he had "nothing to hide." Saladino and Burke also
interviewed the Claimant’s parents, who stated that the
Claimant had been out on the night of the murder looking for
his missing sister with V.D. and Garcia but had returned home
by about 10:30 p.m. that night. Indeed, a missing persons’
report for the Claimant’s sister was filed on August 16, 1983,
two days before B.G.’s murder.
During this initial investigation, the Claimant voluntarily allowed
Saladino and Burke to make a beeswax dental impression of
his teeth. On October 13, 1983, this dental impression was sent
along with several other impressions to Souviron for
comparison to the alleged bitemark. Souviron ultimately
determined that the Claimant’s dental impression was similar to
the alleged bitemark, and based on this alone, the Claimant
was arrested on October 23, 1983. Saladino later testified that,
at the time of his arrest, the Claimant continued to volunteer his
dental impression for comparison to the bitemark in the hopes
that it would clear him. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 4
After the Claimant’s arrest, Saladino obtained a warrant for new
dental impressions of the Claimant’s teeth and Powell made
three such impressions. The Claimant remained cooperative
during the nearly five hours of impression-making, indicating
that they should "go ahead and do it" because he "didn’t have
anything to do with [B.G.’s murder]." These impressions were
then sent to Souviron, who stated that, after comparing the
impressions to the alleged bitemark, he was positive that the
Claimant was its source.
No other physical evidence linked the Claimant to the murder.
In fact, the Claimant was excluded from latent fingerprints and
hairs recovered from the scene and body, and the blood type of
the contributor of the semen found in B.G.’s vaginal sample
was indeterminate. Further, blood samples recovered from the
scene either could not be typed or were Type O, a blood type
shared by the Claimant and the battered B.G., making it
possible that the blood belonged to B.G. herself.
Charges and Conviction
Based on Souviron’s certainty regarding the alleged bitemark’s
source, the claimant was charged with First-Degree Felony
Murder and Attempted Sexual Battery. At trial, the state
presented Souviron’s testimony, in which he concluded that the
mark on B.G.’s left cheek was a human bitemark that could be
linked to the Claimant with a "reasonable degree of dental
certainty." In return, the defense presented the testimony of Dr.
Norman Sperber (“Sperber”), a forensic odontologist and
chairman of the Bitemark Guidance Committee. Sperber
testified that the Claimant’s dental impression did not match the
mark on B.G.’s cheek and that the number of inconsistencies
between the claimant’s dental impression and that mark
actually excluded the Claimant as its source. The defense also
tried to expose Souviron’s potential prosecution bias by
successfully getting Souviron to admit that, when speaking at a
November 1984 conference of the International Association of
the Chiefs of Police, he said, "If you tell me that is the guy that
did it, I will go into court and say that is the guy that did it."
To bolster its case, which would otherwise rest solely on the
bitemark evidence, the state presented the testimony of Claude
Butler (“Butler”), a jailhouse informant facing multiple life
sentences for crimes including Kidnapping, Robbery with a
Firearm, Grand Theft, Grand Theft Auto, Dealing in Stolen
Property, and Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer. Butler had
a working relationship with TPD detective John Counsman
(“Counsman”), for whom he had served as a confidential
informant in the past; it was Counsman who allegedly put Butler
in touch with Saladino. Curiously, Saladino testified that he did
not know of Butler before Butler’s involvement in the Claimant’s
case, but the record shows that Saladino was part of a sting
operation that led to Butler’s arrest for Grand Theft in 1982. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 5
Before testifying, Butler was allegedly given a polygraph
examination, the results of which were never disclosed to the
defense or included in the State’s files. Butler also met with
Saladino and Counsman several times to discuss his
testimony. However, Saladino only memorialized one such
meeting, during which Butler said that the Claimant, with whom
he was confined in the Hillsborough County Jail, confessed to
him that he, Garcia, and V.D. attempted to steal B.G.’s purse,
beating her up after she tried to escape.
However, by the time Butler gave a statement to Manuel Lopez
(“Lopez”), the prosecutor initially assigned to try the Claimant’s
case, his story had evolved. This time, Butler alleged that the
Claimant confessed to him that he had been getting high with
V.D. and Garcia when they ran out of money and decided to
steal B.G.’s purse. According to Butler, the Claimant said B.G.
struggled over the purse and Garcia came to help, pulling her
into the car after she recognized him, after which the men
drove B.G. to the "business district" and raped her before
hitting her with a "stick."
1
Relying heavily on Butler’s testimony, the State argued that the
claimant murdered B.G. with the help of V.D. and Garcia.
However, no other evidence tied V.D. and Garcia to B.G.’s
murder, and neither were arrested in connection with the crime.
At trial, the defense focused on Butler’s credibility by presenting
the testimony of John Parkhill (“Parkhill”), the Claimant’s first
defense counsel. Parkhill testified that he interviewed Butler
about his statement and that Butler told him the statement was
untrue and given only because he was afraid of Saladino due
to tactics the detective used in the Claimant’s case. Parkhill
further testified that when he asked Butler outright if the
Claimant had ever confessed to killing B.G., Butler said "no."
Further, when questioned at trial about his incentive for
testifying against the Claimant, Butler denied receiving any
benefit in exchange for his testimony; Mark Ober (“Ober”), the
prosecutor who tried the case, affirmed this in his remarks to
the jury. However, the record reveals that on May 14, 1984,
less than 30 days after giving his statement to Lopez, Butler
pled guilty to his numerous pending charges and was
sentenced to only five years’ imprisonment. The record also
reveals that two months after Butler testified in the Claimant’s
trial, Ober filed a motion to reduce Butler’s sentence to time
served due to his cooperation with the state, resulting in
Butler’s early release. Curiously, Ober also told the jury that he
had not had prior contact with Butler and had nothing to do with
any of his pending charges, even though he had indicted Butler
on his Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer charge just four
months earlier.
1
This story does not align with the State’s theory of the case, namely that B.G. walked back to a store in the vicinity of the
crime scene before she was killed. Further, the significant details Butler provided were all available in police and media
reports and deposition transcripts. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 6
To round out its case, the State presented the testimony of two
additional witnesses. The first witness, Joanne Suarez
(“Suarez”), testified that she spent the night with the Claimant in
mid- to late-August of 1983 and noticed scratches on the
claimant’s chest and back. Suarez also testified that at some
point the Claimant told her he had killed someone and was
wearing a ring on his pinky finger; she described the ring as a
silver band set with an opal flanked by diamonds.
At trial, Ober showed Suarez an artist’s rendering of a ring from
a Zale’s catalog, and she testified that it was similar to the ring
she saw the Claimant wearing. A coworker of B.G.’s also
testified that the rendering was similar to B.G.’s ring. However,
during the trial, Suarez became confused about the dates to
which she was testifying, admitted to having a head injury that
impaired her memory, and stated that she drank every day and
took pain medication from July to October of 1983. She would
also later admit uncertainty as to the appearance of the ring
she saw the Claimant wearing and the timeline for when she
allegedly saw him wearing it.
The second witness, Jack Andrusckiewiecz
(“Andrusckiewiecz”), only become involved in the trial two-and-
a-half years after B.G.’s murder and days before the trial
began; he was not mentioned in the investigative reports, nor
was he on the State’s witness list produced three days before
trial. According to Andrusckiewiecz, in October of 1983, while
both he and the Claimant lived in the same motel,
2
he saw the
Claimant with a look on his face as though he wanted to start a
fight. When he asked the Claimant why he looked that way, the
Claimant confessed that he was a bad person and wanted for
murder.
However, one month after testifying against the Claimant,
Andrusckiewiecz provided incriminating testimony in another
capital murder trial presided over by the same judge who
presided over the Claimant’s trial. Specifically, he testified that
the defendant came to his motel room covered in blood and
that he assisted the defendant in cleaning himself and
disposing of his bloody clothes. Though the state also found a
piece of bloody carpet in Andrusckiewiecz’s motel room and
matched the sample to the victim’s blood, Andrusckiewiecz was
never charged for his role in this crime,
3
and the record reveals
that Counsman was the detective assigned to the case.
On March 7, 1985, the jury convicted the Claimant of First-
Degree Felony Murder and Attempted Sexual Battery,
unanimously recommending a life sentence. However, the
judge overrode the jury’s recommendation, sentencing the
Claimant to death by electric chair.
2
It is unclear from the record whether the Claimant actually lived at the motel. While he was arrested there, the State
never presented evidence of his motel residency, and his arrest location had been disclosed in media reports.
3
The evidence suggests that he could have, at a minimum, been charged as an accessory after the fact. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 7
Post-Trial Developments
The Claimant appealed his convictions unsucce ssfully.
However, on March 10, 1988, the Florida Supreme Court
vacated the Claimant’s death sentence, finding that the trial
court improperly sentenced him to death after the jury had
unanimously sentenced him to life imprisonment. On April 4,
1988, the trial court resentenced the Claimant to life
imprisonment, but the Claimant had already spent over three
years on death row.
On August 1, 2006, the Claimant filed a motion for post-
conviction DNA testing. At a hearing on the motion, the Clerk of
the Circuit Court testified that all the evidence admitted in the
Claimant’s trial was destroyed in 1990. Further, though a TPD
detective testified that he located boxes of microslides
containing hair samples, an FDLE crime lab analyst testified
that it would be difficult to obtain DNA from these slides. The
court ultimately denied the Claimant’s motion, finding that,
because of the state’s theory of the case – that is, that V.D. and
Garcia were also involved in B.G.’s murder – excluding the
Claimant from any DNA evidence would not exonerate him.
However, the court failed to consider the possibility that V.D.
and Garcia might also be excluded.
In any event, around this time, experts were questioning the
science around bitemark evidence. In 2009, the National
Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) issued a report criticizing such
evidence, stating that "the [National Research Council]
received no evidence of an existing scientific basis for
identifying an individual [through bitemark analysis] to the
exclusion of all others." The NAS report also stated that,
because no empirical population data exists as to bitemark
pattern rarity, it is impossible for a forensic odontologist to
conclusively identify an individual as the source of a human
bitemark; for every “match,” there are an untold number of
potential other “matches.”
In 2016, the ABFO implemented significant changes to its
bitemark evidence standards and guidelines. Most significantly,
the ABFO prohibited a forensic odontologist from determining
that a specific individual inflicted a bite; according to the ABFO,
the only acceptable conclusions are that a person is "excluded"
or "not excluded" as a bitemark’s contributor. Additionally, the
National Commission on Forensic Science issued a
recommendation to the United States Attorney General that the
phrase “to a reasonable degree of dental certainty” no longer
be offered in court, as it has "no scientific meaning and may
mislead factfinders about…its scientific reliability and
limitations."
SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 8
CRU Investigation and Claimant’s Exoneration
In 2018, the Claimant asked the Innocence Project to assist
him with his case, and the Innocence Project ultimately
petitioned the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit’s Conviction Review
Unit (“CRU”)
4
to investigate the Claimant’s convictions. The
CRU ultimately accepted the Claimant’s petition and began a
formal investigation, during which Freeman reviewed the
alleged bitemark evidence; the CRU also located evidence
slides which the MEO had in its possession and had the slides
tested for DNA. On September 11, 2020, based on the results
of its investigation, the CRU issued a report with the following
findings:
The DNA evidence from B.G.’s vaginal slides revealed
sperm from two contributors, excluded the Claimant,
and incriminated two persons who had no known
connection to the Claimant, V.D., or Garcia.
5
The bitemark evidence is unreliable as the mark in
question is not actually a human bitemark, and, thus, no
forensic odontologist could testify as to its source.
Butler’s testimony lacks credibility due to:
o His significant prior connection to law
enforcement in his role as an informant;
o Inconsistencies in his various statements;
o Discrepancies in the record relating to his
alleged polygraph examination;
o Apparently false statements made at trial by
Ober and Saladino;
o The fact that the information he provided could
easily have been obtained from police reports
and deposition transcripts; and
o The significant benefits he received for
cooperating with the state.
If the trial were to occur today, there would be no
credible evidence that the Claimant committed the
crimes with which he was charged and there would be
clear and convincing evidence that he is innocent of
those charges.
As a result of the CRU’s findings, the Claimant filed a motion to
vacate his judgment and sentence. In its response to the
motion, the State opined that the Claimant’s conviction should
be vacated and that he should be exonerated of the charges
against him. On September 14, 2020, the court granted the
Claimant’s motion, vacating his judgment and sentence and
ordering a new trial, and the State subsequently entered a nolle
prosequi.
4
The CRU, created in 2018 by the Office of the State Attorney for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, to "prevent, identify, and
remedy wrongful convictions" that occurred in Hillsborough County, Florida, investigates claims of innocence and possible
miscarriages of justice, acting upon new, credible, and material evidence that creates a reasonable likelihood that a
convicted defendant did not commit the offense for which he was convicted.
5
The CRU report did not publicly identify the suspects as they had not been formally charged at the time of the report. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 9
Claimant’s Criminal Record
The Claimant has three felony convictions on his record that
pre-date his 1985 conviction for the First-Degree Felony Murder
and Attempted Sexual Battery of B.G. Specifically, on March
16, 1983, the Claimant pled no contest to and was convicted of
Burglary of a Conveyance and two counts of Grand Theft,
stemming from a single incident in which the then-17-year-old
Claimant broke into and stole a car in August of 1982.
6
The
Claimant was sentenced to four years’ probation, but his
probation was subsequently revoked and he was sentenced to
five years’ imprisonment with credit for time served on these
charges for two probation violations stemming from his arrest
for B.G.’s murder.
Claimant’s Position
The Claimant asserts that he is actually innocent of the charges
– that is, the First-Degree Felony Murder and Attempted Sexual
Battery of B.G. – and seeks monetary compensation for his
time spent wrongfully incarcerated.
Respondent’s Position
The Respondent presented no case at the Special Master
Hearing held in this matter. However, the Office of the State
Attorney for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, through the CRU
attorney who appeared at the hearing, indicated that it neither
supports nor opposes this claim bill.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Wrongful Incarceration Relief under Chapter 961
Chapter 961, F.S., governs the general process for
compensating wrongful incarceration victims. This chapter
requires a person claiming to be such a victim to prove that he
or she is actually innocent of the crime for which he or she was
incarcerated and meet other criteria, including that he or she
not have more than one felony conviction on his or her record
that predates or occurred during the wrongful incarceration.
7
In the instant matter, the Claimant is ineligible for and thus has
been unable to obtain relief under chapter 961 because of the
three felonies for which he was convicted prior to his 1985
convictions and incarceration for the First-Degree Felony
Murder and Attempted Sexual Battery of B.G. However, the
Legislature is not bound by the chapter 961 process and may
pass this claim bill in spite of the Claimant’s criminal record.
6
The record suggests that the Claimant was a juvenile at the time of his arrest on these charges. However, for reasons
unclear from the record, the Claimant was charged as an adult. At the Special Master Hearing held in this matter on
March 1, 2021, the Claimant testified that he believes the court charged him as an adult because he missed a court date.
7
See ss. 961.03, 961.04, F.S. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 10
Evidentiary Standard for Victims of Wrongful Incarceration
Generally, a claimant seeking damages under a claim bill must
prove his or her entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the
evidence – that is, that the claimant’s position is more likely to
be true than untrue. However, a claimant seeking a claim bill for
wrongful incarceration must demonstrate actual innocence.
Since 2012, the House Special Master has applied a “clear and
convincing” standard to wrongful incarceration claim bills, which
is an intermediate burden of proof requiring that the evidence
be of “such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact
a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of
the allegations sought to be established.”
8
Two wrongful
incarceration claim bills passed by the Legislature since that
time applied the clear and convincing standard, and it is also
the standard applied to claims for relief under chapter 961.
9
While the Legislature is not bound by a previous Legislature’s
actions, the Legislature’s prior acceptance of the clear and
convincing standard, coupled with the Legislature’s selection of
that standard for chapter 961 proceedings, demonstrates that
the clear and convincing standard is appropriate for wrongful
incarceration claim bills.
10
In light of the foregoing, I find that the
clear and convincing standard should apply in the instant
matter, in accordance with House precedent and legislative
intent.
Application of Burden of Proof to Claimant’s Case
In determining whether the Claimant proved his actual
innocence by clear and convincing evidence, I find the following
to be persuasive:
The Claimant maintained his innocence from the time of
his arrest through the vacatur of his judgment and
sentence.
There is no physical evidence linking the Claimant or his
supposed co-perpetrators to B.G.’s murder. In fact, the
DNA evidence specifically excluded the Claimant, V.D.,
and Garcia and incriminated two suspects with no
known connection to these men.
11
8
See S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. RLI Live Oak, LLC, 139 So.3d 869, 872 (Fla. 2014).
9
See s. 961.03(3), F.S. (stating that a wrongful incarceration victim is entitled to relief if he or she can present “clear and
convincing evidence that [he or she] committed neither the act nor the offense that served as the basis for the conviction
and incarceration,” and meet other requirements).
10
Additionally, while not dispositive as to legislative intent, it would seem odd to require a person with “clean hands”
seeking relief under chapter 961, F.S., to prove his or her innocence by a clear and convincing standard, while requiring a
person ineligible for relief under chapter 961, F.S., to prove his or her innocence by the lesser preponderance of the
evidence standard.
11
At the time of the Special Master Hearing held in this matter, the State had not yet publicly identified the suspects.
However, a status update submitted by the Claimant’s counsel in January of 2023 suggests that the State has since
publicly identified the suspects and charged them with B.G.’s murder. SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 11
The science behind bitemark evidence has been
discredited, and the mark in question was determined to
not even be a human bitemark.
Butler’s testimony is unreliable for the reasons given in
the CRU report.
Andrusckiewiecz’s testimony is unreliable as the
evidence suggests he may have been incentivized to
testify against the Claimant to avoid charges in another
murder investigation.
Suarez’s testimony is unreliable as a brain injury
impaired her memory, causing her to struggle with dates
and descriptions important to her testimony, and she
was, by her own admission, under the influence of
substances for months surrounding B.G.’s murder.
The Claimant’s innocence came to light through the
State’s own CRU investigation, which led to the vacatur
of the claimant’s judgment and sentence and the State’s
entering of a nolle prosequi on both charges.
In light of the foregoing, I find that the Claimant has
successfully demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence,
that he is actually innocent of the crimes for which he was
convicted – that is, the First-Degree Felony Murder and
Attempted Sexual Battery of B.G.
Claim Bill Amount
Section 961.06(1)(a), F.S., provides that “monetary
compensation [shall] be calculated at a rate of $50,000 for each
year of wrongful incarceration.” The Claimant seeks a monetary
award of $1,850,000, which is $50,000 for each of the more
than 37 years that he was wrongfully incarcerated.
Exhaustion of Remedies
House Rule 5.6(c) requires a claim bill to be held in abeyance
until a claimant has exhausted “all available administrative and
judicial remedies.”
12
In the instant matter, the Claimant has filed
a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Tampa and
several TPD employees in connection to his arrest and
conviction for B.G.’s murder; this lawsuit is currently in the
discovery phase. However, the Claimant is ineligible for chapter
961 relief – that is, relief for his wrongful incarceration without
regards to any alleged civil rights violations – due to his criminal
record.
12
Senate Rule 4.81(6), while including a similar exhaustion of remedies requirement, states that such requirement “does
not apply to a bill which relates to a claim of wrongful incarceration.” SPECIAL MASTER’S FINAL REPORT--
Page 12
ATTORNEY/
LOBBYING FEES:
The Claimant’s attorneys and lobbyists are providing their
services on a pro bono basis. Thus, there are no attorney fees,
lobbying fees, or costs associated with this claim bill.
RECOMMENDATION : Because I find that the Claimant has demonstrated by clear
and convincing evidence that he is actually innocent of the
crimes for which he was convicted in 1985 – that is, the First-
Degree Felony Murder and Attempted Sexual Battery of B.G. –
I recommend that HB 6005 be reported FAVORABLY.
Respectfully submitted,
CAITLIN R. MAWN,
House Special Master
cc: Representative Duggan, House Sponsor
Senator Grall, Senate Sponsor
Amanda Stokes, Senate Special Master