BELL WARRANT: Today's evidentiary hearing on Bell's Brady/Giglio claim
Michael Bell’s execution is set July 15 at 6:00 p.m. Today, the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on Bell's Brady/Giglio claim.
Michael Bell’s execution is set July 15 at 6:00 p.m.—the eighth in Florida this year. On Friday, the circuit court granted Bell’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his claims of newly discovered evidence of Brady/Giglio violations. It is the first time an evidentiary hearing has been granted in warrant litigation since at least 2019.1
Witnesses
Both Bell and the State were to file their exhibit and witness lists by Friday at 5:00 p.m.
Over the weekend, Bell filed witness lists listing the following witnesses:
Dan Ashton
Christy Dickerson
Henry Edwards
Charles Jones
Colin Kelly
Glory Mitchell
Cathy Robertson
Daly George
Ned Pryor
Erica Williams
Paula Goins
Records Custodian for the Duval County Jail
Records Custodian for the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office
Tennie Martin
Today, the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on Bell’s claims.
Bell’s Motions
Over the weekend, Bell filed a motion to make the State provide Bell’s witnesses with immunity from perjury charges. The Court heard argument on the motion before the evidentiary hearing but did not make a ruling until after Jones and Edwards testified. Later, the Court denied the motion.
Bell also filed a motion for leave to amend his motion for postconviction relief.
There was discussion about the time-limitations the team is under, and the Court commented that those were set by Florida Supreme Court. (Note: The warrant period was set by the Governor. The Court then set the litigation schedule based on the warrant period.) The Court has not ruled on the motion.
Testimony
The following testimony was presented at the hearing.
Tennie Martin
Ms. Martin was the first witness to testify and has been Bell’s attorney since 2019 or so. She testified that, after the warrant was signed for Bell, attorneys for another case told her that there may be information available in Bell’s case.
Before that, Ms. Martin testified that Bell’s team was not aware of the witnesses wanting to recant or having any additional information. The State suggested on cross-examination that the information was available in the postconviction record.
Charles Jones
Before the hearing, the Court appointed registry counsel to represent Mr. Jones. Before he was called to testify, Mr. Jones’ attorney indicated to the Court that Mr. Jones intended to assert his Fifth Amendment right and remain silent.
After Mr. Martin’s testimony, the defense called Mr. Jones, and he pled the Fifth to every question Bell’s attorneys asked. For each question, the Court had to rule as to whether Mr. Jones had to answer the question. For most questions, the Court did not require Mr. Jones to answer. Ultimately, Jones testified:
In 2002, he was in federal custody with federal charges.
In 2002, he was transported to Duval County to participate in a hearing.
Henry Edwards
Before the hearing, the Court appointed registry counsel to represent Mr. Edwards.
He testified in Bell’s original trial.
He testified again in Bell’s case in 2002.
He knew and had contact with Detective Bolena. Detective Bolena approached him about being a witness in Bell’s case.
His Affidavit wasn’t true. “I thought y’all were making a movie.” Then he pled the Fifth and said that he made the Affidavit “under duress” to save Bell’s life.
Colin Kelly
Mr. Kelly is an Investigator/Mitigation Specialist with the Office of the Federal Defender for the U.S. District for the Middle District of Florida. Mr. Kelly was involved in Bell’s case in 2024 to do a Dozier investigation regarding Bell’s stay there in the 1980s and also was the investigatory who spoke with Mr. Jones and Edwards after Bell’s warrant was signed.
He testified that he and the other investigator identified themselves multiple times when they spoke to Jones and Edwards, gave them their business cards, and both witnesses were ready and willing to talk. He said he did not do anything to make Edwards think he was shooting a movie; there were no cameras or recording equipment.
Mr. Kelly testified they did not tell Edwards to say anything—that he answered questions and agreed to sign an affidavit. Mr. Kelly testified that Mr. Edwards was very relaxed and forthcoming and said this had been eating at him and he was concerned about Mr. Bell being executed on his lies. However, Mr. Edwards was concerned coming into court because of repercussions—specifically, that the state would send him back to prison.
On Sunday, Mr. Kelly was also alerted to information about Mr. Jones. Mr. Kelly testified that when they visited Mr. Jones in prison and told him about Mr. Bell’s warrant, “[h]e deflated” and said “ok I’ll talk to you guys.”
Mr. Kelly said Mr. Jones freely spoke and said he needed to get this off his chest and that it was his time to come forward and tell the truth. He told Mr. Kelly and his team that it was all a lie, he was coached to do it. He then agreed to sign an affidavit. Mr. Kelly did not recall Mr. Jones having concerns about testifying.
Notes about Mr. Kelly’s original testimony were obtained from Nichole Manna (The Tributary).
The defense later recalled Mr. Kelly. He testified that he and Ms. Dickerson spoke with Mr. George on June 16 and prepared the Affidavit for his review before his signed it.
Christy Dickerson
Ms. Dickerson is another investigator working on Mr. Bell’s case.
I was unavailable during Ms. Dickerson’s testimony.
Erica Williams
I was unavailable during Ms. Williams’ testimony.
Paula Goins
Ms. Goins is Mr. Bell’s aunt who testified at his original trial.
I was unavailable during Ms. Goin’s testimony.
Ned Pryor
Mr. Pryor testified at Mr. Bell’s original trial and in 2002.
Mr. Pryor testified he doesn’t remember what he talked to George Bateh about related to Michael Bell’s case. He also testified he does not recall whether Bateh threatened him. He agreed that he spoke to investigators for Bell’s case last week. He then testified he never saw Mr. Bell with a gun. When Mr. Bell’s attorney asked him to clarify, he pled the Fifth.
He then said he doesn’t recall and pled the Fifth when asked if he got a “time-served” sentence after testifying in Mr. Bell’s case. He said he told investigators he got released after Mr. Bell’s case but didn’t think it was related.
The State tried to refresh his recollection with the trial transcript, and Mr. Pryor pled the Fifth.
Daly George
Mr. George testified at Mr. Bell’s original trial.
When asked if Mr. Bateh ever threatened him or do anything to get him to testify in Mr. Bell’s case, Mr. George pled the Fifth. He agreed that he spoke to investigators for Bell’s case last week. When asked if he told investigators Mr. Bateh threatened him with first-degree murder, he said he can’t recall and is under a lot of stress. He then pled the Fifth when asked further questions about what Mr. Bateh told him about testifying against Mr. Bell.
Mr. George testified he knows who Detective Bolena is. When asked if Detective Bolena “clotheslined” him, he pled the Fifth. When asked if he told investigators that last week, he pled the Fifth.
He continued to plead the Fifth when asked what he told investigators last week.
The State did not have cross-examination for Mr. George.
Cathy Robertson
She used to be married to Henry Edwards.
She testified that Mr. Edwards “had dealings” with Detective Bolena. Detective Bolena brought Mr. Edwards home to visit with her while Mr. Edwards was incarcerated in the Duval County jail, and Mr. Edwards received money from Detective Bolena.
The State did not have cross-examination for Ms. Robertson.
Glory Mitchell
Ms. Mitchell testified by Zoom that Henry Edwards was a confidential informant for Detective Bolena and that Detective Bolena beat Mr. Edwards.
She also testified that Detective Bolena told her that he was targeting Mr. Bell since he was 10 years old; however, the Court sustained the State’s hearsay objection on that testimony.
George Bateh
The State called Mr. Bateh, who is in Scotland, by Zoom. Mr. Bateh was the State’s only witness.
Mr. Bateh was the director of the prosecutor’s homicide unit when Mr. Bell’s case was prosecuted. The State asked him about his interactions with Ms. Goins, Mr. Bell’s aunt, related to her testimony in Mr. Bell’s prosecution.
When defense asked Mr. Bateh about The Tributary’s recent article related to his actions in Kenneth Hartley’s case,2 the State objected. The Court overruled the objection, and Mr. Bateh testified he’s aware of the article.
The defense also brought up the Florida Supreme Court’s opinions in Urbin v. State and Brooks v. State addressing Mr. Bateh’s prosecutorial misconduct. Defense counsel said the Court “took [Mr. Bateh] to the woodshed.” In Urbin, the Court wrote “acknowledge[d] and disapprove[d] of a number of improprieties in [Mr. Bateh’s] closing penalty-phase argument”:
[W]e point out several of the instances of misconduct displayed during the prosecutor’s closing penalty-phase argument in the present case.
First and foremost, we are particularly concerned that the prosecutor invited the jury to disregard the law. Urbin argues that the prosecutor improperly asserted that if Urbin was sentenced to life in prison, he could still be released some day because “We all know in the past laws have changed. And we all know that in the future laws can change.” We find this to be particularly egregious because it invites a jury to disregard the law as it is written by the legislature. The obvious intent of the legislature in establishing this sentencing scheme was to prohibit parole for the covered offenses, period. By his specious comment that “we all know that in the future laws can change,” the prosecutor invited the jury to disregard this law. In effect, the prosecutor encouraged the jury to reject the only lawful alternative to the death penalty, even if they believed that to be the right recommendation, based on a reflexive fear that, regardless of the law, Urbin might someday be eligible for parole. We find this exhortation of particular concern because it is advanced by the State, obviously the same State that has mandated the “no parole” life sentence alternative. This type of “ignore the law” argument has absolutely no place in a trial, especially when asserted by the State.
To aggravate matters further, the prosecutor asserted that any juror's vote for a life sentence would be irresponsible and a violation of the juror's lawful duty. The prosecutor argued that “my concern is that some of you may be tempted to take the easy way out, to not weigh the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances and not want to fully carry out your responsibility and just vote for life.” The prosecutor continued, “I’m going to ask you not be swayed by pity or sympathy. I'm going to ask you what pity, what sympathy, what mercy did the defendant show Jason Hicks. I’m going to ask you to follow the law. I'm going to ask you to do your duty.” The prosecutor’s comments are similar to those condemned in Redish v. State, 525 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), wherein the First District found the prosecutor's remark that the jury would be “ ‘in violation of your oath as jurors’ if they ‘succumb[ed] to the defense argument’, was . . . an impermissible attempt by the prosecution to instruct the jury as to its duties and functions.” Id. at 930. . . .
We also note that the prosecutor, as in Garron, went far beyond the evidence in emotionally creating an imaginary script demonstrating that the victim was shot while “pleading for his life.” We find that, as in Garron, the prosecutor's comments constitute a subtle “golden rule” argument, a type of emotional appeal we have long held impermissible. By literally putting his own imaginary words in the victim’s mouth, i.e., “Don’t hurt me. Take my money, take my jewelry. Don't hurt me,” the prosecutor was apparently trying to “unduly create, arouse and inflame the sympathy, prejudice and passions of [the] jury to the detriment of the accused.” Barnes v. State, 58 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla.1951).
The prosecutor’s attack on Urbin’s mother as the “mistress of excuses” and, more importantly, his criticism of her because “she never once tried to express concern, that remorse, that sorrow to the family of Jason Hicks,” was likewise improper.
These attacks could only serve to prejudice Urbin for any animosity that may have been aroused in the jury for Urbin’s mother, hence essentially turning the substantial mitigation of parental neglect against Urbin.
Finally, we note that the prosecutor improperly concluded his argument by stating, “If you are tempted to show this defendant mercy, if you are tempted to show him pity, I’m going to ask you to do this, to show him the same amount of mercy, the same amount of pity that he showed Jason Hicks on September 1, 1995, and that was none.” This line of argument is blatantly impermissible . . . . The prosecutor also stated that, “Now this defendant wants a life sentence for robbing somebody and murdering them. What kind of message would that send—what kind of message would a life recommendation send to this defendant?” (Emphasis added.) Although the prosecutor tried to limit the clearly improper “message” argument to Urbin, this is precisely the type of emotional argument we condemned in Bertolotti, 476 So. 2d at 133, and Campbell v. State, 679 So. 2d 720, 724–25 (Fla. 1996). As we stated, “[t]hese considerations are outside the scope of the jury’s deliberation and their injection violates the prosecutor’s duty to seek justice, not merely ‘win’ a death recommendation.” Bertolotti, 476 So.2d at 133; Campbell, 679 So.2d at 724.
The fact that so many of these instances of misconduct are literally verbatim examples of conduct we have unambiguously prohibited in Bertolotti, Garron, and their progeny simply demonstrates that there are some who would ignore our warnings concerning the need for exemplary professional and ethical conduct in the courtroom.3
Mr. Bateh agreed that the evidence in Mr. Bell’s case was weak until Detective Bolena got involved.
Closing Arguments
The defense said in closing arguments that Detective Bolena made several threats to Ms. Goins to coerce her testimony against Mr. Bell, including that her granddaughter would be taken away, that her house would be taken away, and that she would lose her job.
The State argued that recanting evidence is unreliable, as the Florida Supreme Court has said. The State argued that the witnesses’ testimony was more credible at the time of trial than it is today and that the witnesses didn’t necessarily contradict their trial testimony. The State also argued that the evidence doesn’t rise to the level of justifying relief for Mr. Bell. The State asked the Court to deny the motion on the merits. Further, the State argued that Bell’s claims are not timely.
Defense counsel said he’s put in 200 hours in the past week and that they’re doing the best they can to get Mr. Bell’s claims in front of the Court. He said he’s not “going to play Chicken Little” and panic because of the timeframe.
On rebuttal, defense counsel said if he could find a way to retry Bell’s case he would “kick ass” because of how bad the State’s evidence is. He concluded: “Should a man die” because of evidence the jury didn’t hear?
Documentary Evidence
After testimony concluded, the parties went through documentary evidence.
Per the Court’s Scheduling Order, the Court’s ruling will be issued by tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.
News Articles
TFDP Prior Coverage of Bell’s Warrant
Circuit court grants evidentiary hearing
My thoughts are with everyone involved in the warrant- and execution-related process.
No evidentiary hearings were granted in 2023 or 2024. Before that, the last execution was August 22, 2019. I do not believe any were granted in 2017-2019 either but have not reviewed each case to confirm.
(Footnotes and citations omitted.)