Florida Death Row Advocacy Group

THE COURT: I would. I believe that as an officer of the court who is facilitating the execution of his client, I as the chief judge of the court have to be sure that you are doing everything that one should do ethically in this situation. And I believe that includes – and my opinion may be wrong – but if I were you, before I continued to play this decisive role, I would want to interview Mr. Lopez myself. I would certainly want to speak to Dr. Norko. I probably would like him to be with me, in fact, if that were possible, so he could talk to Mr. Lopez himself. I would like Dr. Norko to not only read Lopez’s letter, but I would ask Dr. Norko, what is the story? Let’s suppose there is some truth to this, how does that factor into your opinion on which I am relying, the opinion on which Judge Clifford relied and thus the State Supreme Court and all the other state officials and the public? What impact does it have on your opinion? And by the way, while we’re at it, since you testified in front of Judge Clifford, there have been a number of things that have come to my attention that I didn’t know about then. And people say that it would undermine my confidence in your opinion. I would like you to give me an explanation as to why these things do not in fact affect your opinion. But, you know what? I wouldn’t phrase it that way. I would ask him: Do they affect your opinion? Here is Lopez’s letter; here’s the Ross writings that you didn’t have before; and so forth. Because Dr. Norko, you have to understand, I, Attorney Paulding, hold this man’s life in my hands. And I want to be sure that I’m not making the worst mistake of my life.
So I put it to you, as an officer of the court and as a chief judge of the court, what do you think about that, Mr. Paulding?
MR PAULDING: Well, I think that you’re – I really think that the suggestions you’re making are well-founded. I will tell you, I do have somewhat of a difference of opinion, which is not necessarily going to make me not do what you’re suggesting, but I do have a difference of opinion on whether the conditions at Northern – it’s – I don’t want to be long-winded, but it’s our opportunity to talk so, number one, the conditions at Northern and the death row syndrome phenomenon and all those issues, whether those have somehow created in Michael Ross, these feelings of despair
MR PAULDING: Going back to where we were on this. Number one, I’ll try and address the whole situation, on the issue of whether he is capable of voluntarily making this decision or this choice, I view that – and again this is – we’re just talking here – I view that as something that is separate and distinct from whether or not a person is competent to make that choice. That being said, let me just tell you what I’ve addressed on that specific issue and then I’ll move over to the doctors and Mr. Lopez. On the issue of the coercive nature of Northern and those types of things and their effect that they may have had on Mr. Ross, for most of the time that Michael Ross was housed at Northern Correctional – and, Judge, I know that you’ve been up there so you know what kind of a place it is..
THE COURT: Yes
MR PAULDING: When death row was moved from Osborn to Northern, as you know, Northern was instituted for basically jerks or troublemakers within our correction system who needed to be more severely disciplined and had to have much more strict rules and regulations.
THE COURT: The worst of the worst
MR PAULDING: The worst of the worst.
That was not the situation with the death row inmates. In fact, for many, many years, the death row inmates while at Northern had far more privileges than any other inmate in the institution, and that included Ross. And those were such things as, you know, presents at Christmas time, much more time out of the cells. He did have the ability to interact and make friendships. And as is reflected in the record, he did such things as starting a law library, et cetara, et cetera. That changed within the last two to three years and I believe – I don’t know exactly why – it had

though, everybody on this call has some responsibility. But mostly you. Because we are relying heavily on you. I don’t want to challenge you, but I have to.
MR PAULDING: Okay
THE COURT: You mentioned that you think Ross was transferred to Northern a couple or three years ago. MR PAULDING: He was transferred there probably 15 years ago. Within the last 10 to 15 years.
THE COURT: Right. I believe it was in the spring of 1995. And I believe that as a result of that his life changed very dramatically for the worse, and that was again April of 1995. SO we’re going back almost ten years.: Okay… SO he spent the better part of ten years in those conditions. And I toured the place with an eye toward trying to grasp what its effect would be on the individual inmate. And I found it to be a very striking experience, one that I remember vividly years later.
There is abundant literature, some of which I’ve read, not half of which, but a fair amount of which I have read, and that gives great weight to the notion that a person who is in that setting can lose his ability to make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary choice. In fact, most European countries – I want to careful to be as accurate as I can – I believe most European countries have recognized that to the point where their courts will not permit extradition of people from their countries to this country if the person’s going to wind up in that setting. So this is not a flight of fancy on the part of Dr. Grassian. This is a well-recognized phenomenon, one that has reached the point in those places that I just described. I take it that you are no more of expert on that than I am, and I would not feel comfortable personally sizing up Mr. Ross myself with that in mind.
And the fact that Dr. Norko is admittedly ignorant of it would cause me a great sense of unease. I’m speaking very frankly with you here, Mr. Paulding. It would cause me tremendous unease if I were in your position, a position that is unique.
I would need to have an expert who knows why the courts of Europe will not extradite people to places like Northern. Look at Mr. Ross and ask whether in fact he is Exhibit A. He looks rational, he sounds rational, but in fact he’s at the end of his rope.
Beyond that, without meaning to cast aspersions, when I toured Northern – and Jim Nugent will remember this, because he tried the case, and Ann Lynch will remember this also – there were allegations about how the staff at Northern had gone into Webb’s cell in order to alter the situation before I toured it. And it had to do with heat and cold and vents and this. And I never got into it in depth, but I believed then and I believe now, that the allegation was well founded. I believed, as I looked those people in the eye, that there was a very good chance they had undertaken to move things around in order to strengthen the case for the department in order to weaken the claim of Mr. Webb.
Is that surprising? Is that shocking? No. I mean, we know people will do things that maybe aren’t exactly right if in their scheme of values they think, well, the end justifies the means.
I have had police officers take the witness stand and commit blatant perjury to the point where it was baffling to me that they could think I was that stupid. But it was obvious that they had no qualms about it. So is it possible that somebody who works at Northern could in fact be influenced by the kind of mindset that one might find at a place like Northern? Maybe. You know, that would cause me concern, reasonable concern.
MR SANTOS: Your Honor, this is Hubert Santos. I apologize for interrupting. But in the last 24 hours I have made certain phone calls, and one of the persons I’ve talked to was the former deputy commissioner of the Department of Corrections who in fact from ’93 to ’95 was in charge of the death row inmates and knows Michael Ross quite well, and this morning I conferred with him again. And in front of Attorney Seeley, on her desk, I’m not in the state, is a draft affidavit that he is willing to sign. And his conclusion, based upon his contact – this is a 29 year

and you know that you are responsible. You know you had sexual sadism. You know that you became a monster because of it. And you have now found a way to end this. And there’s no turning back. I suggest to you that Michael Ross may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row,
Michael Ross, by what I see in the record, suffered from these intolerable obsessional bouts with sexual sadism, which were not relieved until he began that regimen of chemical castration, whereupon they were relieved. And then when it was taken away from him they came back. And it was only when he got the alternative regimen that he found relief again.
He explains that the only people in the system who showed him any kindness were two women. The only ones who didn’t treat him like a monster were those two women, yet in the grip of this disease he would lie awake all night thinking about sexually brutalizing them and killing them. So is he a sick man? Boy, oh, boy. So when he says, I feel that I’m the victim of a miscarriage of justice because they didn’t treat it as a mitigating factor, I can well understand where he’s coming from.
Going beyond that, we have a guy who, having gotten beyond the sexual sadism, is nevertheless trapped in this environment at Northern where you have no human contact to speak of, you’re locked up in a seven by twelve foot cell where you get to ruminate about all these things that you did, you get to think about how the world hates you, despises you. And is it any wonder that the guy might decide, given his mental illness, given everything he’s been through, to go kill himself as he in fact tried to do three times? And we have evidence in the record that says, after my mandatory appeals, I’m going to do it…So I don’t know how anybody in your position, honestly, Mr. Paulding, I do not know how anybody in your position could be accepting of this responsibility to proceed in the face of this record to be the proximate cause of this man’s death. I put it to you, Mr. Paulding… I think you’re way out on a limb. And I appeal to you. You need to see what you’re doing.
When I was in practice as a litigator – I don’t mean to pat myself on the back – but my investigation in a typical run-of-the-mill injury case would be more comprehensive than your investigation of this…. I don’t mean to offend you, but it’s the truth. I mean, you haven’t taken Lopez’s letter to Norko. You haven’t sat Norko down and you haven’t put the documents about this disorder in front of him and said, read these, let’s talk about it. Are you sure? We have this fellow Grassian, a nationally recognized expert telling us that Ross can convince anybody because he’s that desperate to kill himself. And you’re going to take it upon yourself to say Grassian’s wrong? I know better? A guy who knows very little about this syndrome, and I’m relying on a psychiatrist Norko who admits he doesn’t know anything? I mean, Mr. Paulding, what is going on?
You point to this explanation and –
MR PAULDING: Your Honor, if I can just – I’ll wait.
THE COURT: Yeah. You need to wait. You point to this explanation, as does the State, and it has superficial appeal. Given that you believe in him, given that you believe he is sincere when he says he’s motivated to avoid causing the victims’ families any further harm, you accept that. You say that’s an honorable choice. That’s sort of what I would do if I were in your place. Well, you know what? I believe, if I look at it in a light most favorable to him, that he is telling the truth, okay? That’s his motivation. He doesn’t want to hurt them anymore. He can’t live with himself as it is. He also doesn’t want to have another penalty hearing. I mean, if the best he gets is a setting aside of his death sentence so he gets to go back to the penalty hearing and see it all over again in their presence, does he want that? Absolutely not. If that is what he was facing as the only alternative to execution, you could say that makes sense. But we have the Callahan litigation. He doesn’t have to cause his victim any pain. He

Ross and who is this guy Lopez. And if Michael Ross is dead, oh, boy it’s not going to be nice for anybody. Not for the courts, not for the State’s Attorney, not for the Department of Correction, not for the people of our state. It’s going to be horrendous. And you’re the man. You are the man.
So there you go.
MR PAULDING: Well, would you permit me a little bit of time to process this and –
THE COURT: Yes. You have between now and whenever you process it. But you’ve put yourself in a pretty bad place, Mr. Paulding. And again, I’m sorry for you, because you strike me as a very decent person I think that you’re a kind-hearted, decent, gentle soul. But you know what? Often times, those are the ones who wind up making the worst mistakes. So there you are.
MR PAULDING: I appreciate everything you’re saying and I’m taking it with the utmost seriousness and I will – I will have a response. I just don’t think I can respond at the moment.
THE COURT: Well, you may – I would urge you to tell your client what I have said.
MR PAULDING: I will
THE COURT: And I would urge you to say, I think he’s right. And I would urge you to say, Michael, I can bring you in off this limb you’re out on. I can bring you in. I can say that because of what has happened, because of what we’ve heard, because of this Lopez letter, because of this thing Hubert Santos told me about, man, I’m not ready to go. I don’t want to be responsible anymore. In fact, I’m saying what you’re doing is a mistake. You don’t have to cause the victims’ families any pain. All you got to do is go back and be quiet and maybe you’ll get the life sentence that you said you would take tomorrow if it were offered to you. I cannot be a party to this anymore. And in fact, I object. I won’t let you do it. And he’ll say, well, I can’t come back off this limb. I’m like the kid on the bridge at Cornell, I’ve got to jump.
You say, I’m not letting you. I’m standing next to you on the bridge and I’m holding you and I’m preventing you from jumping and I’ll take the heat for it and let’s see what happens with the Callahan litigation let’s see what happens as this thing unfolds. Meanwhile, you will not be to blame for any upset to anybody. It’s my fault. But I’m not going to stand here and take it upon myself to watch you go to your death when all of these questions have been raised. I cannot do it as an officer of the court. I cannot do it.
MR PAULDING: Okay
MR NUGENT: This is Jim Nugent. Also, Mr. Paulding, I think it’s very important for you to understand that for Mr. Ross to be informing you that times have changed at Northern for the past two or three years is grossly inaccurate. The incident with Daniel Webb was more than six years ago. So he is either 100 percent off his time frame or more than that. It’s either two years being six years in reality or three years being six in reality, which leads me to believe that he is a very poor historian or he has the ability to mislead you for whatever reason.
MR PAULDING: I’ll check into that too. That was something that I had actually not been told by him. I had actually been told by another source as to when that occurred. And I certainly take you at your word, Jim.
MR CULLIGAN: You Honor, Patrick Culligan here for the Chief Public Defender
MR CULLIGAN: Your Honor, if we needed to reach you after 5:00, is there a way that can be accomplished? THE COURT: I’ll be here. I’ll be here. And if I’m not here somebody will be here who knows how to get me. But I’m not going anywhere.
MR CULLIGAN: Thank you, Your Honor
THE COURT: This is more important than whatever plans I might have made.
MR CULLIGAN: Thank you, Your Honor
THE COURT: I’m going to sign off now!

"Could it be that modern American capital punishment is the poisonous fruit of the poisonous tree of America's history with slavery? Could it be that the seeds of a defective scriptural interpretation..., which rallied to defend God's word by defending slavery, is yielding a harvest of defective scriptural interpretation and analysis ... by defending capital punishment?"
Recinella concludes that people of biblical faith should be advocates for abolishing the death penalty rather than supporters of continuing it.
Perhaps the other major argument for capital punishment is that it's a deterrent to violent crime. That deterrent effect is impossible to demonstrate, of course, but it is indeed a popularly held assumption. According to one survey, however, 84 percent of leading criminologists reject the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.
Our system, furthermore, hardly fulfills the late Justice Lewis J. Powell's principle that "the death penalty must be imposed fairly and with reasonable consistency or not at all." There are disproportionate numbers of inmates on Death Row reflecting conditions of indigence, racial-minority status and mental incompetence.
Executions are also disproportionately Southern. Texas and Virginia lead the way, but Florida is close behind. Our state leads in the number of Death Row inmates (25) who have been released since 1973 because of their innocence.

While most American mainline religious denominations officially oppose capital punishment, those in the pew - like most Americans - affirm it. There is evidence, however, that the gap is closing. Support for the death penalty has been dropping the past 20 years.

Meanwhile, servant leaders such as Dale Recinella stand in the gap.

Leo Sandon is Distinguished Teaching Professor emeritus of religion and American studies at Florida State.