The source of Petitioner's contention that McMillan instructed Crow as to how he should interrogate Stano appears to have come from McMillan herself and McMillan's subsequent statements to news reporters. McMillan testified that on one of the three times noted above when she met Crow, she understood that Jacobson told her to discuss with Crow how to question Stano. She testified that at the time she felt it was ludicrous for her to tell a trained police officer how to conduct an investigation and felt uncomfortable with Jacobson's alleged suggestion. Since she had read something about Ted Bundy, McMillan stated that she said in response to Jacobson's direction, "Feed on his ego", and also that Stano would "lay down false trails".

She testified that she was very general and not specific in her statement to Crow and that she knew at the time that Crow already had a confession from Stano. Further, she testified that she had no knowledge of any interrogation methods used by Crow. She knew at the time that Crow was a well trained and highly regarded police officer and stated that she had no idea why anyone would ask her to tell Crow how to interrogate Stano.

If this conversation occurred at all, and both Jacobson and Crow deny that it did, this simplistic statement by Dr. McMillan did not rise to the level of McMillan instructing Crow on how to interrogate Stano. "Feeding" on the ego of a suspect is a well known method of interrogation by law enforcement which was neither invented by McMillan nor revealed by her to Crow for the first time. Further, there was no evidence that this interrogation method was employed by Crow.

Finally, the record reflects that Crow knew long before he met McMillan that Stano did not immediately confess to crimes he committed and "laid down false trails", i.e. in Stano's claim that he did not associate with black individuals when asked about Toni Vann Haddocks. At best, McMillan appears to have misperceived a comment by Don Jacobson during the course of one of the three encounters she had with Crow.

In any event, her statement that Stano would "lay down false trials", and that Crow should "feed on his ego," if made, was either not heard by Jacobson and Crow or, if heard, was viewed as so utterly insignificant as to be unworthy of note.

McMillan's role was limited and strictly defined. She had been hired by Jacobson for the purposes of administering a psychological test to Stano and gathering background information as noted above. She was not trained in police interrogation methods. There was no evidence that any statement she made had any effect on how Crow interrogated Stano. Crow testified that he did not discuss with McMillan ways to interrogate Stano, the manner in which to pose questions, the areas to cover or how to interrogate a suspect in multiple murders.

By the time McMillan met Crow, Crow was far ahead of McMillan in his investigation of Stano and in his training on how to interview criminal suspects. Crow did not need, or receive, any assistance from Dr. McMillan in conducting interrogation incident to his investigation of Stano.

The initial contact of Crow by Ecker concerning the possibility of jointly writing a book in the future was only that, an initial overture to discuss the possibility of a future joint effort. Crow did not talk to Ecker's agent, had no literary agent himself, and did not authorize Ecker to discuss the possibility of a book with Ecker's agent.

Crow did not enter any agreement with Ecker, and the idea of a joint book was not further pursued by Crow past this initial overture. Ecker's inquiry had no effect on the way Crow investigated Stano's crimes. The initial solicitation of Crow by Ecker was rejected after Crow determined that Ecker's work was inaccurate, sensational and glamorized.

While Terrell Ecker did not appear to know about Crow's evaluation of Ecker's work, his testimony basically echoes that given by Crow. Ecker stated that he discussed writing a book with Crow after Stano had entered a guilty plea to the six Volusia County murders and he thought the cases involving Stano were over. Ecker testified that neither he nor Crow would be comfortable writing a book about an ongoing case.

Ecker further testified that it was his intent to write a book with or without Crow, and that he had solicited Crow's input because he felt Crow would add "color" to Ecker's book. Ecker did not testify to any additional contact with Crow after Ecker's initial overture to Crow, although Ecker did confer with his literary agent about a possible book. Ecker did not pursue the book concept further for himself or anyone else after his brain aneurysm.

This contact by Mr. Ecker concerning the possibilities of writing a book in the future was the only one Crow did not immediately reject.

When he testified before the Court in 1992, Paul Crow stated that he still thought from time to time about writing a book, although he has not taken any steps to make this idea come to fruition and has not prepared for publishing, or published, anything, either directly or indirectly, alone or with anyone else, concerning Stano.

While Crow testified that there was a great deal of office talk about the potential of writing a book and that many people told him "You should write a book-you'll get rich!", he took no steps to author a book from the time he first met Stano to the present date. His brief conversation with Mr. Ecker about the potential of writing a book together was quickly dispelled by Crow's own decision concerning the inappropriateness of Ecker's style, and in any event was a contemplation which was not to be pursued until Crow's work investigating the crimes of Mr. Stano had been concluded. This brief discussion was not pursued further.

Crow's consideration of the idea of writing a book sometime in the future has remained the contemplation of a person who finds himself, because of unique historical events, in a position to make a scholarly contribution to law enforcement at some appropriate time in the future. That time has not yet arrived. There is no evidence that this thought had any impact whatsoever on Crow's investigation of Stano.

Crow did not discuss writing a book with Mr. Morrison or Mr. Eugene Stano, Petitioner's father. Further, he never heard that Don Jacobson was writing a book and did not discuss writing a book with Don Jacobson.

From the evidence presented, the Court finds that Crow did not discuss jointly writing a book with Stano or intend that he and Stano would share in the proceeds of a book. The Court finds that Paul Crow did not state to anyone that "the more confessions Stano made, the better Crow's book would be" or words to like effect. Petitioner's assertions to the contrary are without merit.

(7) INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF STANO FOR THE MURDER OF CATHY LEE SCHARF

During Stano's confessions on March 12, 1981 as part of his plea agreement with the State Attorney in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, and as noted earlier while Stano was trying to piece together his route in the Jane Doe murder where the victim was left in the median of an interstate highway, Stano mentioned facts concerning his route which appeared to be inconsistent with the information Crow had ascertained as to the six homicides under investigation in Volusia County.

Shortly after March 12, 1981, Crow called Captain DeWitt of the Brevard County Sheriff's Department to ask if he had any information concerning a homicide from the sparse facts that Stano had related. Crow did not have a name of a victim. Captain DeWitt stated he recalled nothing about any homicide victim in Brevard County which might be consistent with such facts.

Sometime later, Crow asked Kathy Kelly, a reporter with the local newspaper in Daytona Beach, if she had heard of any case that might fit the information. Kelly researched the matter and sent Crow a copy of an October 6, 1977 news article. Crow then wrote the State Attorney for Brevard County, Douglas Cheshire, Jr., in the hope that his office would commence an investigation, since Crow felt there had been a lack of response from the Sheriff's office.

Approximately two months later, in April or May of 1981, an Assistant State Attorney from Brevard County called and told Crow that they would be in touch with him in the future. Thereafter, Lt. James Bollick of the Brevard County Sheriff's Department called Crow to advise that Detective Johnny L. Manis of his office would be investigating the case. to say, but not to question him about the Scharf case. Some time elapsed, and when Crow was not contacted, Crow then wrote Manis a letter dated November 20, 1981, some seven to eight months after Crow had originally called Captain DeWitt. (Petitioner's 34).

Manis stated that he talked to Crow by telephone after receiving Crow's letter. However, up to December of 1981, Manis testified he did not do much work on the Scharf case except to talk to Crow by telephone. While Manis testified that during a telephone conversation with Crow in November or December of 1981, Crow advised that he had been given some information by Stano, Crow did not state he had a confession from Stano as to this murder.

On January 20, 1982, Manis went to the Florida State Prison with Mr. Bollick to talk to Stano. Manis introduced himself and talked to Stano for approximately two hours after first advising Stano of his rights. Manis testified that he and Stano talked about many things, ranging from putting in a sprinkler system to the Scharf case. Manis was attempting to build his own rapport with Stano and intended to see Stano again. Since Manis was the homicide investigator in the jurisdiction charged with prosecuting the case, Manis did not invite Crow to join him.

In the course of this interview, Stano told Manis that he did not recall any crimes in Brevard County and did not recall telling Crow about any. Manis testified that Stano did not deny the crime. According to Manis' testimony, Stano basically stated that he did not remember the incident, and the bottom line was that Stano did not admit to committing the murder.

When Manis returned to Brevard County, he contacted Sgt. Crow and told him that Stano had not admitted to the murder of a victim found in Brevard County. Crow responded that Stano would only talk to persons if he liked them and stated that he, Crow, would try to get back over to talk to Stano at sometime in the future at the Florida State Prison.

Between January 20, 1982 and April 23, 1982, Manis talked to Crow by telephone approximately two to three times. Manis noted that Crow was extremely busy. During one of these telephone calls to Crow, Manis told Crow that he wanted to go to Florida State Prison again to interview Stano with reference to two murder victims, Sandra Dubose and Cathy Lee Scharf. Manis testified that he requested that Crow ask Stano if Stano would talk to Manis because Manis felt Crow had rapport with Stano.

Thereafter, Crow drove to the prison, and Manis flew there with his supervisor, Mr. Bollick. Because Manis was late in arriving at the Florida State Prison, he met Crow as Crow was leaving the prison. Crow advised Manis that Stano insisted on being transported back to Volusia County before Stano would talk further to anyone about any crime. Crow advised Manis that he was going to try to obtain authority to have Stano transported back to Daytona Beach and that he would let Manis know if that could be accomplished.

Pursuant to an order of the state court, Stano was returned from the Florida State Prison in Starke to the Daytona Beach jail during the week of August 10, 1982 (Petitioner's 38). Since the Daytona Beach jail is not a maximum security facility and since many jurisdictions were seeking to have their representatives question Stano, a procedure to route all requests for interviews of Stano through Crow was devised for security as well as for the protection of Stano. After conferring with Crow by telephone, Manis advised Crow that he would be coming to the Daytona Beach jail on August 11, 1982.

Manis testified that he had been keeping Dean Moxley, the assistant prosecuting attorney in Brevard County within the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, advised of his actions and that Moxley had suggested that Manis try to talk to Stano again. Therefore Manis drove to the Daytona Beach Police Department where he spent four to five minutes with Crow in Crow's office.

Manis stated that he originally went there to see when he could talk to Stano, and when he arrived Crow stated that Manis could talk to Stano "right now". Manis testified he was caught by surprise because he did not have a tape recorder, his file on the case, or even a brief case and was not prepared to talk to Stano. Nevertheless, he followed Crow to an interview room where Stano was waiting, and Crow introduced Manis to Stano. Crow gave Stano his Miranda rights, and Stano filled out the waiver form in the presence of Manis.

Crow then asked Stano if he remembered Manis, and Stano responded "Yes". Crow left to get coffee for Manis and Stano and came back in two to three minutes. Crow asked Manis and Stano if they wanted anything else. Stano answered that he would like to go for a jog, and everyone laughed. Manis then began his interview, and Crow stood there for a few minutes before he left Manis and Stano alone for the interview. Manis alone asked Stano questions. Stano discussed both the Scharf and the Dubose murders with Manis. After the interview, Manis returned to Brevard County.

Manis returned from Brevard County to Crow's office at the Daytona Beach Police Department the next day on August 12, 1982 and told Crow that he wanted to record Stano's testimony. Crow advised Manis that several other agents were waiting to interview Stano and that Stano was fairly booked for the day. Nevertheless, Crow eventually took Manis to the interview room where Stano was waiting.

At this interview, Manis had his Scharf file, his tape recorder, his Dubose file, and a waiver of rights form. Manis read the Miranda rights to Stano. Stano waived his rights. This is also reflected in the recording of this interview. Petitioner's 149. Manis conducted the interview, and Crow came in and out of the room during the interview from time to time. Crow was not there for all of the interview, nor did he ask Stano any questions during the interview.

Manis identified as a true and correct transcript of Stano's confession on August 12, 1982, an exhibit marked Respondent's 30. This Court noted, without satisfactory explanation from counsel, that in the transcript of this interview which was provided to the appellate court in Petitioner's appendix and which was admitted into the record before this Court as Respondent's 31, that the name of Manis as the questioner in the original transcript has been eliminated and the name of Paul Crow has been inserted as the questioner in the place of Mr. Manis. Thus, it appears that someone has tampered with this document presented to both this court and the appellate court.

The evidence is undisputed that Paul Crow did not participate by asking questions in either interview of Stano on August 11, 1982 or August 12, 1982, and that during the taped confession and interview of Stano on August 12, 1982, Manis is the only person who asked Stano questions. (Respondent's 149). While Crow was present very briefly during the interviews on both dates, Manis was the person conducting the questioning.

During the interview on August 12, 1982, Manis took a statement from Stano concerning the Scharf murder first and then a statement concerning the Dubose murder next. (Petitioner's 189). The information provided by Stano concerning these confessions was given by Manis to John Dean Moxley, Jr., the Assistant State Attorney in charge of prosecuting the first degree murder cases of Scharf in Brevard County and of Dubose in Seminole County for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit.

From a second point of view, Dean Moxley testified that he was involved in two prosecutions of Gerald Stano involving jury trials, the Scharf case prosecution in September of 1983 which resulted in a mistrial and the Scharf case prosecution in December of 1988 which is the subject of the instant case.

Sometime in 1982, Manis talked to Moxley about the letter from Crow implicating Stano in a murder in Brevard County. In April of 1982, Moxley had Crow's letter, the information from Manis and Bollick concerning their visit to the Florida State Prison when Stano stated he did not recall the Scharf incident, and certain crime scene facts that appeared to fit facts that Stano had given to Crow. Moxley decided to present the case to the grand jury in 1982 to encourage the Brevard County Sheriff to spend more time and effort investigating the case.

Moxley felt that there was probable cause to indict Stano, but there was sentiment in Brevard County that since Stano was subject to incarceration for life as a result of the Volusia County cases, additional effort should not be devoted to his prosecution for a murder in Brevard County. Therefore, the presentation of information to the initial grand jury by Moxley was designed to learn if the grand jury would recommend further investigation of the case. The grand jury did recommend that the Sheriff further investigate the case.

In March of 1983, Moxley made a second presentation to the Brevard County grand jury. This time he presented as witnesses officers Crow, Hudson, Manis, and Kendrick and his Brevard County State's Attorney investigator, George Dirshka. The grand jury issued an indictment as to Stano for the murder of Ms. Scharf.

Moxley testified concerning the extensive investigation that he conducted himself and directed others to conduct with reference to the prosecution of the Scharf case. For instance, he interviewed witnesses, attended two depositions of Paul Crow, and talked to many witnesses in the Maher case because he felt that it involved similar fact evidence under the Williams Rule. Moxley also sent investigators to other jurisdictions to examine their files in an effort to gain other similar fact evidence.

In addition, Moxley personally compared the facts contained in the confession of Stano to Manis with the crime scene and the route which Stano stated to Manis that he had taken. Moxley determined that the description of the body being covered with palm fronds was consistent with the several palm fronds placed on top of Scharf's body when she was found.

Stano's statement concerning her Indian jewelry matched the ring with the Indian head that she was wearing when her body was found. Stano's statement concerning Scharf's clothing, her age, and her general description matched that of the victim.

Further, Moxley determined that Stano's statement of the circumstances of his travel and the route that he took were consistent with the details of the murder. Moxley personally drove the route given by Stano. Stano mentioned an orange grove and a canal which Moxley located as Stano had described them.

In addition, since the time of the murder, the Kennedy Space Center Preserve had been established, and the highway, which formerly had been called "A1A" in 1974 at the time of the murder, was designated State Road 3 at the Kennedy Space Center in 1983 at the time Moxley drove the route.

Moxley therefore obtained an old map of the area in order to check the facts concerning the route given by Stano. Moxley found that the route given by Stano in his confession in 1982 to Manis was consistent with the facts of the route as they existed in 1974 at the time of the murder although the demarcations along the route in 1983 had been renamed.

Moxley utilized Crow as a fact witness at some proceedings which he handled in Brevard County incident to the Scharf case. At Moxley's request, as noted above, Crow testified before the second Brevard County grand jury which issued the indictment of Stano in the Scharf case. Crow was also subpoenaed to testify in both trials and was deposed.

While Moxley used the statement that Stano made to Crow in March of 1981 in each trial, Moxley testified that without the confessions made on August 11 and August 12, 1982 by Stano to Manis, he would not prosecute the case because, while he had probable cause for the issuance of an indictment, he did not feel that he would have proof beyond a reasonable doubt with only the statement of Stano to Crow.

Moxley stated that the confessions of Stano to Manis on August 11 and August 12, 1982 were the most important confessions in his prosecution of Stano for the Scharf murder. Moxley testified that he did not consider the statement to Crow made by Stano in March of 1981 as the "lynch pin" of his case.

Moxley had no information that Stano had been promised life imprisonment for revealing the Scharf murder, and at no time did he have to go through Paul Crow to talk to Stano. Further on two occasions Stano himself confessed to Moxley that he had murdered Scharf and Dubose and offered to plead guilty to both murders in exchange for a promise of life imprisonment.

(8) RELATIONSHIP OF CROW AND GADBERRY

The Court has been troubled with the fact that Officer Gadberry, who took credit for solving the Mary Carol Maher murder in April of 1980, did not indicate his view that Stano did not know the facts of the crime or his concern that Stano had been fed information by Crow or that Stano was factually innocent of this crime until several years later. It therefore appears that a statement of facts on the relationship between Crow and Gadberry should be made.

Paul B. Crow, now Chief of the Daytona Beach Police Department, began in 1966 as a patrolman with this law enforcement agency. At the time of the initial confession by Stano in April of 1980, Crow was a sergeant in the Daytona Beach Police Department, was Gadberry's supervisor on the Detective Bureau, and reported to Captain Powers.

When Officer James W. Gadberry, Jr. was asked on the witness stand whether Crow was his supervisor at the Detective Bureau at the Daytona Beach Police Department during 1980, Gadberry bristled and answered that Crow was his "unwritten" supervisor. However, both Captain Powers and Crow testified readily when asked the same question that Crow was Gadberry's supervisor and the person to whom Gadberry reported.

From further evidence it appears that during the 1980's Gadberry had been reprimanded by Crow and subsequently demoted from detective to patrolman. Captain Powers had charged Sergeant Crow with the responsibility of monitoring case control systems within the police department. Crow stated that during this time he found over 100 of Gadberry's assigned cases had not been investigated by the department's required due date and had not been worked for nine to ten months.

Crow had a conference with Gadberry and gave the latter two weeks to comply with the police department's procedures. After this deadline had passed, Crow reviewed Gadberry's work and found that some of the cases still had not been investigated. When he questioned Gadberry concerning these cases, Gadberry responded that he had been on vacation and had not been able to get to them. Crow investigated and found that Gadberry had not been on vacation and further found that Gadberry had left cases unattended in his desk. Crow reported the incident to Captain Powers.

In addition, at approximately the same time, Gadberry was deemed to have improperly handled the investigation of the death of a well-known sports figure, Lewis McSwain, and Crow was assigned to complete this investigation. As a result of these events, Captain Powers suspended Gadberry for one day and transferred Gadberry out of the Detective Bureau, placing him back in the patrol division.

Gadberry resigned from the Daytona Beach Police Department in September of 1982 to become the youth director of a church in Kentucky. He was rehired as a patrolman at the Daytona Beach Police Department in June of 1983, a position which he now holds. Patrolman is viewed as a step below the detective division within the Daytona Beach Police Department.

Gadberry had also been criticized for his investigation in the Donna Hensley case. The police report reflects that Hensley defended herself against Stano, received puncture wounds with a can opener and stab wounds with a knife, and that Stano tried to pour muriatic acid on her. Gadberry noted on the Hensley report that Hensley had "superficial wounds". (Petitioner's 148)

When Lt. John N. Power and his partner Officer O'Brien saw Hensley in the course of their duties for the Daytona Beach Police Department, she showed them her wounds which were still oozing. They also learned in this conversation that the suspect's car, license tag and description were available to the police. These police officers then went back to the police station and contacted Gadberry to discuss the case.

After determining that Gadberry was not going to take appropriate action in the case, the police officers made a request to their supervisor, Sgt. Crow, that if Gadberry was not going to conduct the investigation into the Hensley case that they wished to be assigned the Hensley case to complete the investigation. As a result of their complaint, Crow talked to Gadberry about the Hensley case. Shortly thereafter, Gadberry had Stano arrested on April 1, 1980 and brought into the Daytona Beach Police Department where Stano made his first confession as noted earlier.

Captain Powers observed that while Gadberry did not appear to be resentful when Powers initially directed Crow to enter the interview room with Gadberry to question Stano on April 1, 1980, and thereafter when Powers ordered both officers to accompany each other with two backup officers and Stano to see if Stano could locate the site where the Maher body had been found, Powers noticed that Gadberry became resentful toward Crow when the rumors began to flow in the Daytona Beach Police Department that Crow would be writing a book about this experience.

Further, while Gadberry testified that he was not for or against the death penalty, that it did not contradict his religious beliefs, and that he held no strong views one way or the other, Captain Powers testified that Gadberry had told Powers that Gadberry was definitely opposed to the death penalty.

Finally, Dean Moxley testified that on July 29, 1983 he interviewed Gadberry about the Hensley and Maher cases in the course of his trial preparation for the prosecution of Stano in the Scharf murder. Gadberry did not make any statement to Moxley to the effect that Stano was innocent, or that he questioned Crow's interview techniques, or that Crow had led Stano to the place where Mary Carol Maher's body had been found. Moxley further testified that Gadberry told him during this interview that the odor of Mary Carol Maher's body was still at the site when Gadberry and Crow visited it with Stano. Gadberry, in contrast, denied that he had ever been contacted by Moxley.

While some of these statements are not material to the issues in this case, they reflect that Gadberry's testimony conflicts in part with the testimony of several witnesses and further help to explain why Gadberry has given evidence which is in conflict with the testimony of other witnesses.

In any event, as knowledgeable and experienced police investigators testified during the evidentiary hearing before the Court, most suspects do not tell the truth the first time they are interrogated. Giving a suspect some information is a proper interrogation technique. It is not inappropriate to tell a suspect details to refresh the suspect's memory, particularly if he is confessing to many crimes, because details of a crime to a suspect can run together.

It is the finding of this Court after listening to the evidence and observing the demeanor of the witnesses, that Sgt. Crow did not feed information to Stano and thus cause Stano to confess to crimes which he did not commit as contended by Officer Gadberry. 

(9) THE PROSECUTION TEAM

The concurring opinion on remand requests a determination whether Detective Paul Crow was "part of the prosecution team in the Scharf case" and whether he acted under the authority of the Brevard County Prosecutor, Dean Moxley. Since this Court has found that there was no collusion or coercion as alleged by Stano, the issue whether Paul Crow of the Daytona Beach Police Department in Volusia County was part of the prosecution team in a jurisdiction outside his own, that of Brevard County, may not be necessary to this opinion. However, since evidence was presented in this trial court on the issue, and the appellate court has indicated its interest, the Court enters its findings of fact as follows.

After Stano acknowledged his responsibility to the six murders within the jurisdiction of Volusia County and entered his plea of guilty in September of 1981, Stano went to prison, and the Volusia County cases were concluded. However, Stano continued to call and write a variety of persons, including but not limited to his former attorney Donald Jacobson, Kathy Kelly and Paul Crow.

Donald Jacobson cautioned Stano both before and after the conclusion of the six murder cases in Volusia County that his agreement concerning confessing to murders in Volusia County in exchange for life imprisonment had ended on September 2, 1981 when he entered his plea of guilty, and that he should not confess to any other murders unless he first received immunity. Jacobson knew, because of Stano's confessions to him and from his own investigation, that Stano was responsible for the murders of more than the six women in Volusia County.

The murders to which Stano confessed and the factual circumstances of each often involved different law enforcement agencies and their investigations. It is the custom among law enforcement agencies that the agency which has jurisdiction over the territory where the body of a homicide victim is found will take jurisdiction of the case for purposes of prosecution.

However, when a victim resides in and is reported missing in one jurisdiction, and the body is found within the jurisdiction of another agency, it is a common practice for the jurisdiction having responsibility for the prosecution of the murder, i.e. the jurisdiction where the body is found, to request information from other jurisdictions in the course of gathering facts and evidence concerning the case. This is for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to save the cost and expense of sending investigators from one jurisdiction into another jurisdiction to do work which could be easily accomplished by the jurisdiction receiving the request for information.

Therefore, if one jurisdiction is asked for information from another jurisdiction, the second jurisdiction will try to provide the information to the requesting agency. This does not necessarily make the investigation joint. The jurisdiction receiving the request is obtaining evidence or information in a specifically designated sphere, even though if assistance is provided to the requesting jurisdiction, persons from that other agency may be required to testify as to what was done by them when the requesting agency proceeds with the trial of the case.

The testimony was without conflict that Sgt. Crow was not part of the Brevard County prosecution team of Dean Moxley. Moxley testified that Crow did no investigation for Moxley and that the Scharf homicide was a Brevard County case from the date on which her remains were found, January 19, 1974, until conclusion of the second trial of Stano in Brevard County in December of 1983 for her murder. Moxley testified that Crow was not under Moxley's authority or control and that Crow had no role in developing Moxley's case for trial.

Moxley requested information from Crow as well as from many other persons, and he specifically kept his investigation and trial preparation with reference to the charges against Stano for the murder of Cathy Scharf "self-contained". There was no jurisdictional overlap between Brevard County and either Volusia County or the Daytona Beach Police Department with reference to control or direction of the Scharf investigation. While Moxley asked Volusia County and the Daytona Beach Police Department for information, including copies of records and witness interviews, Sgt. Crow was used by Moxley solely as a fact witness and as a source of information on other cases.

Evidence was presented on the history of the Scharf murder investigation. James A. McDonald, Jr. was the Brevard County Sheriff's Deputy called to the scene in 1974 where hunters found the body of Scharf on the Cape Kennedy Preserve inside the Brevard County line. At the time he was not aware of a missing person's report on Scharf in Volusia County.

He undertook the investigation of the murder of this young female, including but not limited to background research, interview of witnesses, investigation of her clothing and jewelry, and investigation of missing person's reports. He was able to identify the victim as Cathy Lee Scharf who lived in Volusia County, and McDonald contacted Lt. Ouellette of the Daytona Beach Police Department to request that representatives of this agency go the last places where Scharf had been seen and also talk to her associates to obtain any information concerning the victim.

Ouellette directed Detective Susan Nix and one or two others under his supervision in the Daytona Beach Police Department to obtain this information for McDonald. McDonald testified that Nix was not an active investigator for him. He had several telephone conversations with Detective Nix, and she as well as others from the Daytona Beach Police Department helped him gather information. However, Lt. Ouellette was McDonald's primary contact at the Daytona Beach Police Department and the person with whom McDonald spoke the most at that agency.

McDonald stated that in this early stage of the investigation, the Scharf case was not considered a joint investigation between Brevard County and the Daytona Beach Police Department. The case was always a Brevard County Sheriff's case and never a joint investigation with any other agency.

In the course of attempting to gain more information concerning the Scharf murder, McDonald had his Brevard County Sheriff's crime lab make an intelligence bulletin. The crime lab had no authority to determine if an investigation was joint or not. This intelligence report was a way to seek information concerning the victim, and the intelligence reports were sent to any jurisdictions that might possibly have information on the victim.

When a bulletin was sent to another agency, the crime lab automatically listed in the bulletin the name of the Brevard County Sheriff's Department and the agency to whom it was sending the bulletin as well. Thus one bulletin could be sent to many jurisdictions which might have contact with the victim, and the crime lab would caption the bulletin with the name of the Brevard County Sheriff and the name of the jurisdiction receiving the bulletin. The crime lab would insert the name of the agency to whom it was sending the bulletin so that the bulletin would be posted in that agency's offices to solicit information.

After the Scharf murder was not resolved in 1974 and 1975, the case lay dormant, and little if any further activity with reference to it occurred until Johnny Manis reactivated the investigation of the Scharf murder as a follow up to Sgt. Crow's inquiry in 1981 concerning a murder victim in Brevard County. Manis, then a Detective with the Brevard County Sheriff's Department, testified that Sgt. Crow had no responsibility to gather evidence in the Scharf case and that there was no jurisdictional overlap between Brevard and Volusia Counties.

Since the Scharf body was found in Brevard County, that agency had jurisdiction of the investigation of the Scharf murder. Manis testified that he did not give Sgt. Crow any information that Crow could use to question Stano concerning Scharf and that the only thing Sgt. Crow told Manis on how to question Stano was that if Stano did not like the interviewer, Stano would not talk to him. 

The procedures utilized by Dean Moxley and Detective Manis in investigating the Scharf case are not unlike the procedures followed in the investigation of other victims whose bodies were found in jurisdictions outside of the Daytona Beach Police Department. introduced Denton to Stano and then left the interview. Stano then gave a confession concerning this Bradford County murder which Denton taped. (Respondent's 32 and 33; Court's Exhibit 1; Petitioner's 187).

Denton testified that Stano gave new information which Denton did not have from his previous investigation of this murder and which Sgt. Crow had not been told. Denton stated that at no time did Crow deny access to Stano. Stano never stated that he would not talk to Denton without Crow, and Stano talked freely. Denton testified that his agency, and not the Daytona Beach Police Department, was the agency with the jurisdiction to investigate the murder of the victim found in Bradford County.

Further, Denton and other Bradford County law enforcement representatives set up an interview with Stano on August 23, 1982 at the Volusia County courthouse without the assistance of Crow, during which Stano again freely confessed to this murder. Respondent's 33. Crow acted in large part as a conduit or channel of information to other agencies because the Daytona Beach Police Department did not have the personnel or the resources to conduct investigations of murders in multiple jurisdictions outside its own jurisdiction.

While Crow did investigate the murders committed within the jurisdiction of his own Daytona Beach Police Department and to some extent assisted the investigation of murders within the jurisdiction of the Volusia County Sheriff's Department, Crow primarily passed along pieces of information Stano gave to other agencies and would try to encourage Stano to talk to representatives of other agencies about crimes in their respective jurisdictions. knowledgeably than Crow. In this deposition Crow describes the number of homicides which Stano admitted committing ( Id. at p. 14-15), how Stano did not "rubber stamp" confessions to homicides ( Id. at p. 12), and how Stano had difficulty communicating with some people ( Id. ).

Crow also gave an overview of how Stano might become confused as to the route he took or the year because of the number of murders. However, he noted Stano was usually very accurate as to clothing, jewelry, dialogue, location, and how the murder was effected. For instance, Stano confessed to the murder of two girls in Gainesville and was very accurate as to location, clothing and the means of the murder but was in error as to the year. ( Id. at p. 23; see also id. at p. 30).

With reference to the questions posed in the concurring opinion as to the "prosecution team", the Court finds as follows:

1. There was no collusion between Crow, Jacobson and McMillan, and therefore by implication, and by his direct testimony, Moxley was unaware of any collusion.

2. Crow did not work for Moxley.

3. Crow was not under the control or authority of Moxley.

4. Crow had no significant role in developing the Scharf murder case for trial once he informed Manis of Stano's statement concerning a victim in Brevard County.

While as to the six murders in Volusia County which were part of Stano's plea agreement it could be said that there was a jurisdictional overlap and that Paul Crow was a member of Larry Nixon's prosecution team for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, these cases are distinguishable from the prosecution of Stano for the murder of Cathy Lee Scharf in a separate jurisdiction, Brevard County.

In the Volusia County cases, Sgt. Crow of the Daytona Beach Police Department was responsible for the Maher murder investigation, Detective Lehman of the Volusia County Sheriff's Department was responsible for the Toni Vann Haddocks' murder investigation, and Detective Hudson of the Volusia County Sheriff's Department was responsible for the murder investigations of Heard, Hamilton, Doe and Neal and also the Haddocks case when Lehman left the Sheriff's office.

Nevertheless, Larry Nixon headed the prosecution team within the Seventh Judicial Circuit as to these six murders, and Sgt. Crow obtained information concerning these murders from Stano and others. Don Jacobson, Stano's attorney in these Volusia County cases, testified that he concurred that Sgt. Crow should be designated as the person to obtain information concerning these murders in Volusia County after Stano had been given immunity and a promise of life imprisonment in exchange for his plea of guilty to the murders of those victims whose bodies were disinterred in the Seventh Judicial Circuit as a result of the information Stano provided.

The Eleventh Circuit remanded this claim to this Court for an evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts with respect to whether the alleged evidence of collusion and coercion was suppressed by the prosecution. From the factual findings of the Court discussed above, Stano's Brady claim must fail.

A Brady violation occurs under the following circumstances: (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence suppressed was favorable to the defendant or exculpatory; and (3) the evidence suppressed was material to the issues at trial. United States v. Burroughs, 830 F.2d 1574, 1577-1578 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 969 , 108 S.Ct. 1243, 99 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). In the instant case, as discussed above, there was no collusion between Crow, Jacobson and McMillan. Not only was there no collusion, but also Moxley, by implication and by his own direct testimony, was unaware of any collusion.

Additionally, there was no coercion imposed by Crow, Jacobson, or McMillan, together or individually, on Stano with regard to the confessions, and the confessions were not tainted. The Court finds that there was no evidence of collusion or of coercion that could have been suppressed by the prosecution. Since the Court is unable to conclude that there was any evidence suppressed by the prosecution, there was no Brady violation.

Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit has determined that " Brady and its progeny apply to evidence possessed by a district's prosecution team, which includes both investigative and prosecutorial personnel. Brady, then, applies only to information possessed by the prosecutor or anyone over whom he has authority." United States v. Meros, 866 F.2d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 932 , 110 S.Ct. 322, 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989) (citation omitted) (quotation omitted). Crow did not work for and was not under the control or authority of Moxley and was not otherwise answerable to Moxley. Crow did not have a significant role in developing the Scharf murder case for trial once he informed Manis of Stano's statement with regard to a victim in Brevard County.

Therefore, Crow was not an agent of Moxley. In the event that there was any evidence favorable to Stano's contentions with regard to Crow's activities, such evidence was not, as required by Brady, in the possession of the prosecution. Crow's knowledge was not imputable to Moxley. Hence, Crow was not a part or a member of the "prosecution team" in the Scharf case, and Brady is not applicable. See Meros, 866 F.2d at 1309.

In the present case, there has been no violation of Brady since the Court finds that there was no collusion or coercion between, by, or among Crow, McMillan, and Jacobson and that Crow was not a part of the prosecution team. The evidence presented by Stano on the Brady claim is insufficient to support habeas relief.

In April of 1983, the State Attorney's office for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida was advised that Clarence Zacke would agree to plead guilty to a charge of the second degree murder of Richard Lee Hunt and to assist the State in the prosecution of his co-defendants charged with this murder.

On April 15, 1983, the State Attorney, Mr. Douglas Cheshire, Jr., and others traveled to Florida State Prison to interview Zacke about becoming a witness in the Hunt murder case. Zacke indicated to Cheshire that he wanted his classification changed and a reduction in his sentence.

After discussion, Cheshire, Joe Mitchell, Zacke's attorney, and Zacke agreed that Zacke would enter a plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree of Richard Lee Hunt and receive a sixty year sentence of incarceration instead of the death penalty on this charge. In addition Zacke would receive a reduction to sixty years of incarceration on the sentence he was currently serving for other crimes, all sentences to be served concurrently. Zacke also agreed to testify against his co-defendants in the Hunt case.

On April 26, 1983, Mr. Dean Moxley, as Assistant State Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, interviewed Clarence Zacke at Florida State Prison. Only the case involving Richard Lee Hunt was discussed at this time, and nothing was discussed which related in any manner to Gerald Eugene Stano. Zacke agreed to enter the plea agreement described above and was polygraphed subsequently at the Florida State Prison at the direction of Moxley. When Moxley interviewed Zacke on April 26, 1983 at the Florida State Prison, a tape recording of this conversation was made and became part of the plea agreement in the Richard Lee Hunt case.

Thereafter, Zacke was returned from Florida State Prison to the Brevard County jail and put in an isolation cell called the "shower cell". Zacke testified that he did not ask for this cell and that he did not know why he was put there. However, it was the same cell in which he had been placed when he was previously in the Brevard County jail. Stano was also in the Brevard County jail during this time although not in Zacke's cell.

Zacke testified that he was in the Brevard County jail for approximately three to five months and was returned to the Florida State Prison before Christmas of 1983. Zacke entered his guilty plea to the murder of Richard Lee Hunt on May 13, 1983 and was sentenced in October of 1983 in that case. During the time that he was in the Brevard County jail, he was in the exercise yard approximately five times.

There is no evidence that there was any promise from Moxley or anyone else to Zacke of leniency in exchange for his testimony or information about crimes other than the murder of Richard Lee Hunt until the telephone call from Joe Mitchell, Zacke's attorney, to Moxley in the fall of 1983 described below. Until then Moxley's promises to Zacke related solely to the Hunt murder case and are embodied in the plea agreement and transcript of the interview. There is no evidence that Zacke was directed by Moxley or Cheshire or any person to get statements for the state from Stano or from any other inmate.

Further, Moxley did not direct that Zacke and Stano be put close together in the jail. When Stano was moved from the Brevard County jail and transported to the Seminole County jail on May 12, 1983 in response to an order of the state court, Moxley requested that Zacke be moved to the shower cell for his security "when Stano is moved", meaning when Stano was taken to the Seminole County jail. Respondent's 34.

After Zacke entered his plea of guilty in the Hunt case in Brevard County on May 13, 1983, Zacke was moved into the shower cell at the Brevard County jail. Stano was in the Seminole County jail during this time. At the time of this move, there had been no conversation between Zacke and Moxley about Mr. Stano.

On July 14, 1983, Stano's counsel caused Stano to be transferred back to the Brevard County jail from the Seminole County jail, and in this month Mr. Stano and Mr. Zacke had the conversation in the exercise yard during which Stano confessed to committing the murder of Cathy Lee Scharf. Stano's second trial in the Scharf case.

Initially, Zacke did not tell anyone about Stano's confession to him because Zacke thought Stano would be convicted. After Stano's first trial resulted in a mistrial in September of 1983, Zacke told his attorney, Joe Mitchell, about Stano's confession. Mitchell then contacted Moxley to advise him that Zacke had information concerning Stano.

Moxley testified that he was completely surprised by Joe Mitchell's contact and the information he related. Moxley thereafter had Zacke polygraphed, and when the results showed that Zacke was being "non-deceptive", Moxley decided to talk to him.

Zacke advised Moxley of the confession of Stano to Zacke at the exercise yard and asked to be moved from Florida State Prison and to receive the return of his seized truck. Moxley interviewed Zacke again shortly before the second trial of Stano and found Zacke's statement of the exercise yard confession by Stano to be the same on this subsequent interview as it had been on Moxley's previous interview of Zacke.

Zacke testified that he provided the information to the authorities concerning Stano's confession on his own volition. Both he and Moxley testified that no one had told, suggested or advised Zacke to go back into the jail and get more information. Neither Moxley nor anyone on his behalf directed Zacke to obtain statements from Stano. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

The testimony of Marlene Mitchell Alba concerning jail house sweeps in Brevard County, the affidavits of Curtis Davis, Sr. and Johnny Jim Mallory to the effect that snitches were used by Brevard County authorities (Petitioner's 200 and 209), and the testimony of Melvin Shackleford, Marvin Glen Cook and Lawrence Litus about rumors as to who was a "snitch" in the jail do not constitute proof of Stano's contention that Zacke had been promised leniency in exchange for testimony about other murders or that Zacke had been placed in proximity to Stano to obtain additional information for the prosecutor. None of these witnesses had any evidence concerning Mr. Zacke or Mr. Stano which supported Petitioner's contention that Zacke was a government agent.

Further, the Court finds that the testimony of William Van Poyck, an inmate on death row with Stano who had been asked by Stano to help him in this case, lacks credibility and is of questionable relevancy. In any event, Van Poyck testified that Zacke never stated that he was acting as a government agent or that a person acting on behalf of the state attorney asked Zacke to get more information concerning Stano.

Moxley stated that on November 14, 1983, he wrote the Supervisor of Corrections, Louis Wainwright, to ask for the transfer of Zacke (Petitioner's 192). This was for security reasons to protect Zacke from retaliation while he was in the same prison as Stano. On December 12, 1983 he again wrote the Department of Corrections to request transfer of Zacke to another prison to prevent retaliation. (Petitioner's 193).

On October 3, 1984, Zacke's attorney, J. Robert Cooper, wrote the Parole Commission to ask for a hearing in December because he had requested Moxley to testify and relate the fact that Zacke had testified in two cases and had given important cooperation (Petitioner's 194). However, this letter to the Parole Commission was not written pursuant to any promise Moxley made to Zacke.

After Stano's second state court trial, Cooper asked Moxley to make a statement to the parole commission. Moxley testified did not see Cooper's letter and did not promise Cooper that he would make favorable comment for Zacke. Prior to the end of Stano's second trial, Moxley had made no promise that he would make a favorable comment to anyone on Zacke's testimony in the Stano case.

Stano alleges that the testimony of Clarence Zacke relating to his jailhouse confession violates United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 , 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980), because the prosecutor, Dean Moxley, promised leniency to Zacke in exchange for testimony about other murders and because Moxley directed that Zacke and Stano be placed in proximity to each other in the jail, thus making Zacke an agent of the state who elicited statements from Stano in violation of Henry. The evidence of record does not support these contentions, and thus the Court does not need to deal in this opinion with the issue of whether there has been procedural default.

There is no evidence that there was prearrangement for Zacke to obtain information for the authorities with reference to Stano or that he was acting in the capacity of a government agent. While Zacke confessed to his role in the murder of Richard Lee Hunt and agreed to testify against co-defendants, he had no promises of leniency except those specifically relating to the Richard Lee Hunt case, i.e. that he would receive a reduction in his current sentence from 180 years to 60 years incarceration and that he could plead guilty to second degree murder and receive a sentence of 60 years concurrent, thus eliminating the potential of the death penalty.

To establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment in a jailhouse informant case, the defendant must demonstrate that a fellow inmate was a government agent and that the inmate deliberately elicited incriminating statements from the defendant. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 270 , 100 S.Ct. 2183, 2186-87, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980); see also Lightbourne v. Dugger, 829 F.2d 1012, 1020 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934 , 109 S.Ct. 329, 102 L.Ed.2d 346 (1988). The primary concern is "secret interrogation by investigatory techniques that are the equivalent of direct police interrogation." Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 459 , 106 S.Ct. 2616, 2630, 91 L.Ed.2d 364 (1985).

In the present case, there was no evidence that Zacke received instructions from the police, from the prosecutors, or from anyone else to do anything whatsoever concerning Stano. There was nothing in the evidence presented to the Court indicating that there was any prearrangement for Zacke to obtain anything from Stano. The Court was presented with no evidence indicating that Zacke was paid or otherwise rewarded to develop any type of relationship with Stano or to otherwise secure incriminating information.

The prosecution did not use Zacke to carry out any deliberate and surreptitious interrogation of Stano. Zacke was not promised any rewards for any information that he might provide regarding Stano. The prosecution did not request Zacke to elicit any information from Stano, and there was no presolicitation of Zacke by the prosecution to do anything of any nature concerning Stano. There simply was no evidence that Zacke was a government agent or that Zacke in any manner deliberately elicited incriminating statements from Stano.

"[A] defendant does not make out a violation of that right simply by showing that an informant, either through prior arrangement or voluntarily, reported his incriminating statements to the police. Rather, the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks." Kuhlmann, 477 U.S. at 459 , 106 S.Ct. at 2630.

In the present case, Stano has merely shown that Zacke reported Stano's incriminating statements to the police. However, "we should keep in mind the duty that is imposed upon all citizens to report criminal activity to the appropriate authorities.... This deeply rooted social obligation is not diminished when the witness ... is involved in illicit activities himself.... [T]he criminal defendant no less that any other citizen is obliged to assist authorities." Lightbourne, 829 F.2d at 1020 (citation omitted) (quotation omitted). There is no violation of the Sixth Amendment when " "by luck or happenstance [ ] the State obtains incriminating statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attached.' " Kuhlmann, 477 U.S. at 459 , 106 S.Ct. at 2630 (quoting Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 176 , 106 S.Ct. 477, 487, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)).

"There is, by necessity, no bright-line rule for determining whether an individual is a government agent for purposes of the sixth amendment right to counsel.... At a minimum, however, there must be some evidence that an agreement, express or implied, between the individual and a government official existed at the time the elicitation takes place." Depree v. Thomas, 946 F.2d 784, 793-794 (11th Cir.1991).

Stano has failed to show that Zacke was acting as a government agent when he elicited incriminating statements from Stano. Zacke was not paid by, nor was he acting under the instructions or solicitations of the prosecution. "[T]he protections of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel enunciated in ... Henry [is] inapplicable when, after the right to counsel has attached, statements by a defendant are made to an individual who is not an agent for the Government, although he may be a Government informant. This is so regardless of whether the statements were "deliberately elicited.' " United States v. Taylor, 800 F.2d 1012, 1015 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 838 , 108 S.Ct. 123, 98 L.Ed.2d 81 (1987). In the instant case, Stano has not established any Sixth Amendment violation, and there is no basis for habeas relief.

The Eleventh Circuit has directed this Court to address the argument that Stano's sentence should be vacated because "two of the prior convictions which were relied upon by the State in the sentencing phase were found to be invalid by a panel of this court." See Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898, 905 (11th Cir.1990). The Eleventh Circuit was referring to its prior opinion in Stano v. Dugger, 889 F.2d 962 (11th Cir.1989), in which this Court was directed to grant Stano's petition for writ of habeas corpus because of the determination that the state trial judge committed error in accepting Stano's guilty plea with regard to the murders of Susan Bickrest and Mary Kathleen Muldoon.

However, in Stano v. Dugger, 897 F.2d 1067 (11th Cir.1990), the Eleventh Circuit vacated the opinion reported at 889 F.2d 962 so that the cause could be reheard by the court "in banc." The Eleventh Circuit subsequently determined in Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125 (11th Cir.1991), that Stano had not raised a constitutionally cognizable claim under either self-representation or ineffective assistance of counsel analysis, and "all other appellate issues presented by Stano [were referred] to the original panel for resolution." Id. at 1154. Hence, the decision of this Court to deny Stano habeas relief with respect to his Sixth Amendment claims was affirmed.

The Eleventh Circuit's determination that the Johnson claim was still viable arose from its earlier determination that Stano's convictions for the murders of Bickrest and Muldoon "were found to be invalid by a panel of this court." Stano, 901 F.2d at 905. However, the opinion invalidating those convictions was subsequently vacated by the Eleventh Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit, in its opinion reported at 921 F.2d 1125, affirmed this Court's denial of Stano's request for habeas relief as to the convictions for the murders of Muldoon and of Bickrest; therefore, this Court does not need to address the argument on the Johnson claim since the convictions for the murders of Muldoon and of Bickrest remain valid.

Therefore, this Court finds the Petitioner's claims to be without merit, including contentions which may not be specifically addressed in this opinion.

DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this 10th day of June, 1992.

PATRICIA C. FAWSETT

United States District Court

This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Relief From Judgment Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (Doc. No. 194, filed July 26, 1993).

Petitioner states that in June, 1993 a book entitled "Blind Fury" was published. According to Petitioner, the book was written by the mother of Assistant Attorney General Belle Turner and "purports to be an account of Paul Crow's genius at work in the Gerry Stano case." Petitioner describes the book as "tabloid type," "sensational," and "filled with sexual overtones."

Petitioner alleges that the book was written with Paul Crow's "substantial assistance and active participation" and that the Paul Crow wrote the book's forward. Petitioner requests the Court to set aside its Order of June 10, 1992 (Doc. No. 160) because of Mr. Crow's involvement with the book.

The Court finds that Petitioner's arguments are without merit. Mr. Crow at all times indicated he considered writing a book, but not until the investigation was over. The investigation is over. The fact that a book has now been published, that it focuses on Mr. Crow and that Mr. Crow wrote the forward does not require the Court to set aside the Order of June 10, 1992.

There is no indication that Mr. Crow is the author of this book-only that he assisted the author and wrote the forward. The fact that Ms. Flowers, the author of the book, wrote a sensational book venerating Mr. Crow and that Mr. Crow has not yet been reported to have written a scholarly work as he testified he would like to do does not change the import of the Court's Order.

Other witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing that they planned to write books involving Mr. Stano which would be based on interviews with, and therefore the assistance of, Mr. Crow. In any event, the Court is unaware of any reason why Mr. Crow would now be foreclosed from authoring a book of his own. Whether his investigation of and testimony concerning Mr. Stano was tainted by his desire to write a book as well as other factors was thoroughly explored at the evidentiary hearing held in this case, and the allegations made in the instant motion demonstrate no facts which would undermine the previous findings of the Court.

Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Relief From Judgment Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (Doc. No. 194, filed July 26, 1993) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1993.

PATRICIA C. FAWSETT