john goodman case
TRANSCRIPT
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 1/40
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUN)''yv.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 201OCF005829AMB
JOHN GOODMAN,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF HEARING
__ .",
JUDGE JEFFREY COLBATH
v .
TO: Ellen Roberts, ASA
West Palm Beach SAO
401 North Dixie Hwy.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
The Defendant, JOHN GOODMAN, through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Florida Rule
ofCriminal Procedure 3.060, hereby serves notice upon the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office that
this case will be called up on Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue, before the Honorable
Jeffrey Colbath, Circuit Court Judge, at the Main Judicial Complex, 205 North Dixie Hwy., West
Palm Beach, F133401, Courtroom lIF, on Monday, February 27, 2012, at 3:30 p.m.
PLEASE BE GOVERNED ACCORDINGLY.
DATED at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of January, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for John Goodman
B la c k. S re b n lc k, K o rn s pa n & Stump f
2 01 S _ Bisca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia mi. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1· F ax : 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6 •www.RoyB la ck .com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 2/40
',..(
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
CASENo. 201OCF005829AMB
JUDGE JEFFREY COLBATH
v .
JOHN GOODMAN,
Defendant.
On January 13,2012, the Sate of Florida filed amotion seeking ajury vie~ of the two
vehicles involved in the February 12, 2010 collision which resulted in the death of Scott
Wilson. John Goodman objects to the State's motion because its purpose and rational for
seeking the Court's approval is inconsistent with Florida Statute 918.05, as well as the
Florida decisions relied upon. Mr. Goodman also objects because permitting a jury view of
the vehicles at the police impound yard would be unfairly prejudicial toMr. Goodman under
Florida Statute 90.403. Finally, given the breadth of evidence in addition to the numerous
well-documented and detailed police photographs of the vehicles, ajury view of the vehicles
is an unnecessary waste of time and an improper cumulative presentation of evidence.
Florida Statue 918.05. View by Jury
The prosecutor's motion to transport the jury to the Palm Beach County Sheriffs
impound yard is inconsistent with the language and intent of §918.05of the Florida Statutes.
Section 918.05 provides that:
B la c k. S re b nic k. K o rn sp a n & S tump f
2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S u ite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 - P h on e: 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1· F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6· www.RoyB la ck .com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 3/40
"When a court determines that it is proper for the jury to view a place where the
offense may have been committed or other material events may have occurred, itmay
order the jury to be conducted in a body to the place, in custody of a proper officer.
The court shall admonish the officer that no person, including the officer, shall be
allowed to communicate with the jury about any subject connected with the trial. .." (emphasis added).
The State's motion seeks to bring the jury to the police impound lot to view evidence,
rather than having the evidence brought to court. Under no circumstance does this scenario
fall within the intent and express language of§918.05. The language and intent of the statute
is obvious on its face and clearly permits ajury view of the crime scene or some other place
where material events may have occurred. Using the statute to have a jury view ofa piece
of evidence, at some unrelated place simply for convenience of either party, is not
contemplated by this law, and the State's motion must be denied.
It isconceded that bringing the vehicles into the courtroom isnot possible. But aswill
be argued below, neither is it necessary under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Moreover, should this Court grant the State's motion notwithstanding the plain meaning of
§918.05, Mr. Goodman will be irreparably and unfairly prejudiced.
Unfair Prejudice and §90.403
The State's motion says that the vehicles are in police custody at the "Palm Beach
County Sheriffs secured impound yard." In this case, it is misleading to characterize the
location simply as an "impound yard". In reality, the Sheriffs Office maintains two separate
impound yards at one general location. One of the yards contains automobiles towed there
for any number of reasons that are non-criminal in nature. Most, if not all, are vehicle which
-2-
B la c k, S r eb n ic k , K o rn s p an & S tump f
2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P h on e: 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1 • F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6 • w w w .R oy Bla ck ,c om
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 4/40
have not been damaged in a collision.
The other yard, where the subject vehicles are stored, is segregated from the first
because each of the vehicles kept there have been involved in criminal and non-criminal
traffic fatalities. The collection of dozens upon dozens of automobiles, motorcycles and
bicycles, are a frightening and tragic mass of twisted metal and broken glass that negatively
impacts anyone seeing it. As the lead police investigator once told defense counsel during
an inspections of the automobiles, "Each one of these wrecks represents at least one dead
person".
So total is the destruction of most of the vehicles that one need not hear from a traffic
homicide investigator that at least one of the occupants ineach, perished. From the burnt out
frames of some cars engulfed in firey crashes, to the crushed mini-vans associated closely
to the transporting of whole families and young children, the traffic homicide/fatality
impound yard is a deeply moving, frightening and profoundly sad place.
It is not reasonable to believe that a jury viewing of these vehicles, in those
surroundings of death and destruction, in a case involving a traffic homicide, would not
unfairly prejudice the jury against Mr. Goodman. If the Court determines that it is proper
for the jury to have a live viewing of the vehicles, the automobiles should be brought to the
courthouse parking lot or some other benign location.
The State's motion should also be denied because ajury view of the vehicles is not
necessary in order to prove the matters the State asserts as a basis for its motion.
-3-
B la c k. S r eb n ic k . K o rn s p an & S tump f
2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1· F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6' wWw.RoyB lack .com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 5/40
The State's reason for requesting ajury view under §91S.05 is set out in paragraphs
six of the motion. Paragraphs four and five have been included for context, as fol1ows:
4) ... The speed at which the Defendant was traveling is relevant to the DUIManslaughter charge as well as thy Vehicular Homicide charge.
5) The significant damage sustained by both vehicles is relevant to show the
corresponding pre-impact approach angles and post impact departure angles, which
in turn are used to determine the speed of the Defendant's vehicle at impact. This
information is vital in determining not only the impact speed of the Defendant's
vehicle but also the dynamics of the actual crash.
6) It is difficult and ineffective to attempt to explain only through oral testimony and
non-three dimensional photographs about the force necessary to cause this significantdamage to both vehicles and the resulting outcome. Photographs lack the necessary
depth to allow the jury to assess the true damage to both of these vehicles. While a
photograph is worth a thousand words, it does little to reveal the actual damage to
both the Defendant's vehicle and Scott Wilson's.
Section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code provides that:
Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed
by the anger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence.
The State suggests that unless its motion is granted, the jury will not easily be able
to "assess the true damage to both of the vehicles." The State contends that being ale to
assess the true damage to the vehicles is necessary in order to prove the matters contained
in paragraphs four and five. The State's position is not credible in light of the abundance
of evidence produced in the State's Discovery Exhibits. For example, some of the State's
Discovery materials include:
1) Numerous and meticulously detailed police photographs of the vehicles taken
-4-
B la c k. S r eb n ic k , K o rn s pa n & Stump f
2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd , S uite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1' F ax : 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6· www.RoyB lack .com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 6/40
at the scene and at the Sheriffs impound yard.'
2) Police photographs showing both vehicles placed in the position believed at
the time of impact. Photographs are taken from every possible angle on the
ground as well as from an elevated position above the vehicles in order to
show a bird's-eye view of the collision point.
3) A state-of-the-art, digitally produced, three dimensional animated re-enactment
of the accident, taken from four different perspectives demonstrating the pre-
impact approach angles and post impact departure angles. This video
accomplishes exactly what the State's purported reason is for the jury view in
its motion. The video re-enactment leaves no detail to the imagination of
anyone viewing it, regarding the pre or post-impact approach angles of the
vehicles.
4) An accident reconstruction diagram, produced to scale, by the State's accident
reconstruction expert, detailing the pre-impact approach angles and post
impact departure angles.
5) An opinion given by the State's accident reconstruction expert as to what the
relative speeds of each vehicle was at the moment of impact based upon
industry accepted accident reconstruction models, geometric measurements
and algebraic computations.
'Photographs at impound yard do not show automobiles from unrelated collisions.
-5-
B la c k. S re b nic k. K o rn s pa n & S tump f
2 01 S . B isca yne B oule va rd . S uite 1 30 0· M ia mi. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71-6 42 1 • F ax : 3 05 -35 8-2 00 6 • www.RoyB l ack . com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 7/40
Given all of this, it is inconceivable how this collection of exhibits and testimony
could beviewed bythe State asbeing insufficient to "allow thejury toassess the true damage
to both of these vehicles," absent a live viewing.
The State claims that "the vehicles are in the same condition as they were upon final
I
rest at the scene of the crash" and that" a picture is worth a thousands words". If this is the
case, then moving jurors, Judge, bailiff, courtroom staff, attorneys and police evidence
custodians to view what has already been meticulously documented, is not only an
unnecessary waste of time and resources, but an improper and needless cumulative
presentation of evidence.
Moreover, and contrary to the State's assertion, the vehicle have not been "well
preserved nor undisturbed other than by experts from both parties." In fact, both vehicle
have been left outside, uncovered and exposed to the sun, wind and rain for two years.
Additionally, both vehicle have been moved more than once bypolice to different locations
within the yard. Given their condition after the accident, it is unknown the extent to which
the significant moving and handling of the vehicles by police investigators has resulted in
parts falling or braking from the cars. Both cars are badly rusted and each have excessive
mold and mildew in the interiors. The fact is, both vehicles do not look as they did on the
night of the accident. They look worse, and the prosecution team is directly and entirely
responsible for this.
The State has willfully failed to properly store and preserve this evidence. The result
-6-
B la c k. S re b nic k . K o rn s pa n & S tump f
2 01 S . B is ca yn e B o ule va rd . S uite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1- F a x: 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6· www .RoyB l a ck . com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 8/40
is that any jury viewing of the vehicles is unfairly prejudicial to Mr. Goodman, in that the
severity in the appearance of each is unfairly enhanced, and will be imputed to the defendant.
In light of these facts, it is the Defendant's belief that the only advantage to the
prosecutions case in conducting the jury view, is for the purpose of gaining an unfair
advantage by prejudicing the jury against Mr. Goodman. The displaying of visually tragic
evidence in an environment littered with the tragedy of destroyed vehicles of unrelated traffic
fatalities, would be grossly unfair.
The Case Law Sited
The State's motion sites to three Florida cases, none of which support the motion that
a jury view pursuant to §918.0S may occur at the Sheriff's Office impound yard. In fact,
each of the cases sited involve jury views at crime scenes and the requirement for strict
compliance with the parameters of §918.0S.
Billie v. State, 863 So.2d 323 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003).
In Billie, the Defense and prosecution stipulated to ajury view of the crime scene. The
purpose for the jury view of the outdoor scene, was to permit the jury to "appreciate the
darkness in the vehicle on the evening in question." id. at 333. The issue on appeal was not
whether the jury view was proper, but whether alternate scenarios of the crime scene
presented during the jury view, was proper. Of the three cases sited in the State's motion,
the Billie case is perhaps the best example of the proper application of §918.0S. That is, a
viewing of a crime scene for the specific purpose of assisting the jury in applying evidence
-7-
Black . Srebnkk. Ko rnspan & S tump f
2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 - M ia mi. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1- F ax : 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6 -www.RoyB la ck .com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 9/40
presented at trial to the conditions present at the crime scene viewed.
Washington v. State, 98So.2d 605 (Fla 1924).
In Washington, it was the defendant who moved the Court to permit ajury view of the
crime scene in his homicide trial. The issue on appeal was whether the defendant's absence
from the viewing violated his right to be present under the applicable statute then in force.
While the appeal was denied on this issue, given the defendant's failure to request to be
present, the Court went on to advise that strict adherence to the law's parameters must
otherwise be met.
Thomas v. State, 748 So.2d 970 (Fla. 1999).
In Thomas, the appellant claimed that the trial court erred when it denied his motion
for a jury view of the crime scene. The trial court denied his motion after it determined that
"it would serve no useful purpose because the scene could not be substantially duplicated."id.
at 983. Here again, the prosecutions authority reaffirms that a jury view under §918.05
applies to the crime scene itself, or some other location where material events may have
occurred.
Conclusion
Neither §918.05, nor any of the cases relied upon by the State, support a jury view
of the vehicles. The Sheriffs Office impound yard has no material connection to the events
in this case and permitting ajury to view the vehicles in the environment described, can only
be calculated to unfairly prejudice the jury against Mr. Goodman, contrary to §90.403.
-8-
B la c k. S r eb n ic k . K o rn s pa n & Stump f
2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1 • F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6 • www.RoyB lack .com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 10/40
, .
WHEREFORE and for the foregoing reasons, the Defendant, John Goodman,
respectfully requests that the State's Motion For Jury View of the Vehicles be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSP AN
& STUMPF, P .A.
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300
Miami, Florida 33131
Office (305) 371- 21 - Fax 305) 358-2006
Counsel for John Goodman
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Icertify that on January 24, 2012, my office Federal Expressed a true copy of theforegoing to:
Ellen Roberts
Assistant State Attorney
West Palm Beach State Attorney's Office
Traffic Homicide Unit
401 North Dixie Hwy.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
-9-
B la ck . S re b nic k. K o m sp a n & S tump f
2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S u ite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P h on e: 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1' F ax : 3 0 5 -3 58 -2 00 6· \\WW .R o yB la ck .c om
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 11/40
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.
STATE OF FLORIDA, CRIMINAL DIVISION "W"
CASE NO. 502010CF005829AXXXMB
v.
JOHN B. GOODMAN,~'~;~'
~ :t.;;P", c.- "'-'cP° '..~nrr.z.: .:;z : ."9......;:0-.' .Y 1:-' ' . r -- ~ ~ . " , r n
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ~ (" " ) g . ~ .~ . O.DEFENDANT'S SWORN MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENU.i~~:~~>,
J;o' ....... ~ ., ••
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Defendant, John B.:Q~d~'s. ,:;:t<:'
Defendant.
("Defendant"), Sworn Motion for a Change of Venue and Incorporated Memorandum of Law,
filed on January 5, 2012. After carefully examining and considering the Defendant's Motion, the
Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion, and all other pertinent pleadings and relevant
caselaw, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Defendant presents this Court with his motion for change of venue and attaches a large
volume of exhibits documenting the publicity and attention paid to this criminal case since
February of 2010 when the accident at issue occurred. Defendant argues that the Court should
grant a motion for a change of venue to Miami-Dade County because it will be impossible for
Defendant to receive a fair and impartial trial by jury in Palm Beach County. Voluminous
documentary exhibits show that the media (and especially the Palm Beach Post) have published
multiple articles and blog postings with regard to this case, the majority of which either reveal a
negative portrayal of Defendant or contain negative comments by readers. As a result,
Defendant asks this Court to accept the proposition that a jury pool selected from Palm Beach
County is presumptively tainted by this portrayal.
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 12/40
Although Defendant's primary concern is the negative publicity to which the people of
Palm Beach County have allegedly already been exposed, this Court rejects the notion that it can
accurately assess this issue without first attempting to empanel a jury. As recently as last year,
the Florida Supreme Court noted that "(0Jrdinarily, absent an extreme or unusual situation, the
need to change venue should not be determined until an attempt is made to select a jury."
Serrano v. State, 64 So. 3d 93, 112 (Fla. 2011); Manning v. State, 378 So. 2d 274, 276 (Fla.
1979) ("The trial court may ... withhold making the determination until an attempt is made to
obtain impartial jurors to try the cause.") In fact, the two-pronged Supreme Court analysis when
determining prejudice, and one adopted by courts in Florida, presupposes an attempt to empanel
a jury: "a trial court must ... evaluat[e]: (1) the extent and nature of any pretrial publicity; and
(2) the difficulty encountered in actually selecting ajury." Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278,285
(Fla. 1997) (emphasis added) (citing Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975).
Indeed, this Court is not convinced, despite the material presented by Defendant, that this
case is so extreme or unusual that an attempt should not first be made to draw a jury from Palm
Beach County. With a mind to the tremendous impact Mr. Wilson's death had on his family,
friends, and the community at large, the Court notes that the Florida Supreme Court did not find
the Rolling easel extreme or unusual enough to warrant a change in venue. Likewise, there is no
reason to believe that a DUI manslaughter case would prove to be.more inflammatory or extreme
to the public at large than the heinous acts committed in Rolling.
As the Florida Supreme Court explained:
"[k]nowledge of the incident because of its notoriety is not, in and of itself,grounds for a change of venue. The test for determining a change of venue is
whether the general state of mind of the inhabitants of a community is so infected
1 Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278, 285 (Fla. 1997), involved the brutal assault and murder of five college students in
Gainesville by Defendant Daniel Rolling. Rolling sexually assaulted his victims and mutilated their bodies and was
later sentenced to death.
2
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 13/40
by knowledge of the incident and accompanying prejudice, bias, and
preconceived opinions that jurors could not possibly put these matters out of their
minds and try the case solely upon the evidence presented in the courtroom.
McCaskill v. State, 344 So. 2d 1276, 1278 (Fla. 1977) (internal citation omitted.) Indeed, cases
in which convictions were overturned or new trials were granted involve particularly egregious
examples of corruption by the media. In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 727-28 (1961), after being
exposed to media reports, eight of the twelve jurors admitted that that had "formed an opinion
that the defendant was guilty before the trial began; some went so far as to say that it would take
evidence to overcome their belief in his guilt." See Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 798
(1975). And again, in Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963), defendant's confession under
police interrogation was broadcast three times in the community where the crime took place. In
a population of approximately 150,000 people, the court determined that the confession had been
broadcast to some 97,000 in the community over the course of three airings.
In Manning v. State, 378 So. 2d 274, 276 (Fla. 1980), the Florida Supreme Court, finding
the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial, explained that "[e]very member
of the prospective jury had knowledge of exparte statements of the evidence against the
accused." The defendant in this case had murdered two sheriffs deputies in a rural community.
Manning, 378 So. 2d at 274. The court granted the request of the office of the public defender to
be dismissed from handling the case because of the friendships they had with the victims. Id. at
275. Further, the sheriffs department and state attorney's office made multiple inappropriate
comments to the media, including the facts and circumstances of the shooting, names of
witnesses and the substance of initial testimony. [d.
Defendant would have the burden of showing, after a jury pool is pre-screened, that the
trial will be "inherently prejudicial because of the general atmosphere and state of mind of the
3
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 14/40
inhabitants in the community ... [and} evidence [that] reflects that the community is so
pervasively exposed to the circumstances of the incident that prejudice, bias, and preconceived
opinions are the natural result." Serrano v. State, 64 So. 3d 93, 112 (Fla. 2011). Defendant
would have to show more than mere pretrial publicity. In Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278, 285
(Fla. 1997), the Florida Supreme Court provided the following five factors to be considered:
(1) the length of time that has passed from the crime to the trial and when, within
this time, the publicity occurred, Oats v. State, 446 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla. 1984); (2)
whether the publicity consisted of straight, factual news stories or inflammatory
stories, [Provenzano v. State, 497 So. 2d 1177, 1182 (Fla. 1986)]; (3) whether the
news stories consisted of the police or prosecutor's version of the offense to the
exclusion of the defendant's version, Manning, 378 So. 2d at 275; (4) the size of
the community in question, Copeland v. State, 457 So. 2d 1012, 1017 (Fla. 1984);and (5) whether the defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. Hoy v.
State, 353 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 293, 58
L.Ed.2d 265 (1978).
Perhaps the case most closely comparable to the case at bar, and one which applies these
five factors, is a recent case out of Broward County. Hooks v. State, No. 4D08-4729, 2011 WL
2555387, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). A group of young men viciously beat three homeless men
and ultimately killed one of them over the course of a drug-induced spree one evening. Hooks,
2011 WL 2555387, at *1. One of the attacks was caught on a surveillance camera. Id. at *1.
Recognizing the media saturation surrounding the attacks and the public's easy access to the
surveillance video, the trial court acknowledged that "the blogs are the most disconcerting thing
for the Court. People have very, very strong opinions once they have seen this video." Id. at *2.
In approving a denial of a motion for a change of venue, the Fourth District Court of
Appeal explained how they applied the five factors of Rolling: first, although the publicity
around the case was significant when police first released the video to enable them to apprehend
the suspects, more than two years had elapsed since the crimes were committed and voir dire
began. Id. at *3. Likewise, in the case at bar, over two years will have elapsed since the night of
4
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 15/40
the accident (February of 2010) and the start of voir dire (March of 2012). Further, during voir
dire, at least one hundred and seventy of the four hundred potential jurors called, claimed to have
little to no knowledge about the case, including five of the jurors who were eventually selected to
serve. Id. Second, the trial court noted that much of the publicity centered on the video of the
attack which was admitted into evidence and published to the jury. Id. Likewise, there is a
potential that many of the hot-button issues that have been written about in this case (i.e. blood-
alcohol level) will also be admitted into evidence. Third, the court also determined that much of
the community reaction to the crime alternated between condemning the defendants and
reminding the public that the defendants should not be tried in the media. Id. While the majority
of exhibits submitted by the Defendant condemn his purported actions, some of the reaction,
especially right after the accident, was a call to allow the police to do their job and to wait to
form an opinion about Defendant until all the facts came to light.
The fourth factor the District Court considered was the sheer size of Broward County.
Noting that Broward County was the second largest in the State of Florida, the court determined
that a tainted jury was potentially a much smaller risk than it would be in rural or less populous
community. Id. Likewise, Palm Beach County falls just behind Broward as the third most-
populous county in Florida with around 1.3 million people.i The odds of the whole of Palm
Beach County having knowledge of this case is far less likely than it would be in a much smaller
community. Finally, the court noted that the Defendant had exhausted his peremptory
challenges, the final factor to be considered after voir dire is conducted in this case as well. Id.
This Court intends to facilitate an in-depth, thorough voir dire process to ensure the
elimination of any potential juror who cannot apply the law to the facts of the case. The Fourth
U.S. Census Bureau, State & County QuickFacts, Palm
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfdJstates!12/12099.htmi
\
Beach County, Florida,
5
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 16/40
District summarized the Hooks case in the following manner:
[w]e live in a day and age where news is instantaneous and pervasive. Within
minutes, we are alerted to happenings from around the world . . ., Access to
media is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. And the list of
commentators expressing their opinions on every aspect of our lives is endless.
Virtually no high profile case is immune to vast exposure on the electronic waves
of today's communication devices. We must rely on our justice system and those
that toil within ifto ensure the protection of our constitutional guarantees.
Id. at *4. Likewise, this Court is committed to the process of a fair trial by jury for Defendant
and for any defendant that appears before it. Defendant is welcome to renew his Motion for
Change of Venue after a jury pool from Palm Beach County has been pre-screened should he
believe grounds exist for such a renewal. At this time, however, Defendant's Motion is
premature. Accordingly, Defendant's Sworn Motion to for a Change of Venue is hereby
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
-lorida this 1 : : 2 day of January 2012.
Copy provided to:
Roy Black, Esq. & Mark A.J. Shapiro, Esq., Black, Srebnick, Kornspan, & Stumpf, P.A., 201 South Biscayne
Boulevard, Suite 1300, Miami, Florida 33131
Ellen Roberts, Esq., Assistant State Attorney, West Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, Traffic Homicide Unit, 401
North Dixie+Iighway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
6
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 17/40
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY
CASE NO. 2010CF005829AMB
STATE OF FLORIDA,.,;:
.\' -0Vt ....: i ~ . , : ; ; P 'P'::;:'
1'7.".. ~~:;:%J C-.
- O:II!' '.f?~:x. .;~,' . - . n . . . , . 'S 'P " :D1"oJ:.-i
.:,~'al,,~..,.~. .~..' 0 .,.~
';0" c» ;"~."-: '0·-o~:s'I ;;c. .. '..
-P-LA-I-N-T-IF-F-'S-R-E-S-P-O-N-S-E---'TOEFENDANT'S SWORN MOTION FOR A ~~G~ •....
OF VENUE .~
Plaintiff,
v .
JOHN B. GOODMAN,
Defendant.
Plaintiff, the State of Florida, by and through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully responds if! opposition to Defendant John B. Goodman's Sworn Motion for
a Change of Venue, and states as follows:
1. Defendant has filed a 92 page Motion for a Change of Venue and
Memorandum of Law consisting basically of four parts: Part I - Change of Venue
Standards and Factors; Part" - The Media Blitzkrieg; Part III - The Public Opinion
Survey; and Part IV - Prejudice Should Now Be Presumed and a Change of Venue
Ordered. Plaintiff responds by first noting that Part I and Part IV are intertwined as a
legal analysis on the law concerning change of venue, and that Part II and Part III
combine publicity issues. Plaintiff believes that Defendant's basis for his motion (1) just
does not rise to the level of inflammatory pretrial publicity warranting a change of venue,
as can be seen by going to the facts actually u.nderlying the cases cited by Defendant,
and (2) is premature without the benefit of voir dire, as is the posture in almost all the
cases cited by Defendant. .
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 18/40
2. Defendant's contention in Part IV of his Memorandum that "the
community passion surrounding Mr. Goodman's prosecution has been as dramatic as
any in Florida criminal trial history" to be an extreme exaggeration. See page 80,
Memorandum of Defendant. Not surprisingly, none of the cases cited by Defendant in
support of his motion are used for an analogy to their underlying facts. as the underlying
facts in those cases mainly consist of facts so offensive and severe that they cannot in
any reasonable manner be compared in substance to the case herein.
3. For instance, Defendant uses the very famous Sheppard case and states
that "the local media launched a Post-like editorial artillery against a doctor accused of
murdering his wife". See page 83 of Memorandum of Defendant, ciiting Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 304 U.S. 333 (1966). The new blitz was indeed incredible in that case, but
incredible only because of the underlying facts. The Sheppard opinion from the
Supreme Court of the United States actually begins with the line "Marilyn Sheppard,
petitioner's pregnant wife, was bludgeoned to death in the upstairs bedroom of their
lakeshore home in Bay Village, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland." The Court opinion says
bludgeoned, not murdered. And then goes on for nine pages to describe the most
egregious pretrial publicity imaginable. That case occurred in 1954, with a local media
consisting of three newspapers and three television stations. Undeniably, it was the biggest
news event of the decade in the Cleveland area, and even reached an unparalleled
dimension in the national news media. A simple reviewof the Supreme Court's recitationof
the Sheppard investigation and trial demonstrates that the facts are so far outside the level
of pretrial publicity in this case that any comparison would be futile. That is precisely why
2of11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 19/40
the case is cited by the Defendant for its legal rulings, and precisely why its facts are not
discussed in any detail.
4. Defendant also cites Irwin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961), and states that in
that case the defendant was charged with six murders in a small Indiana town, but does not
discuss the fact that the venire was from a rural county which was also quite small. Not
surprisingly in the atmosphere described, the jury venire was found to be undeniably
prejudiced. Defendant goes on to state that "In Irvin, the defendant was charged with six
murders in a small Indiana town, and police press releases announcing Irwin's confession-
functionally equivalent to the Wilson family attorneys' fomenting of publicity about Mr.
Goodman's refusal to testify in a civil deposition because it might incriminate him - were
intensively publicized." See Memorandum of Defendant, page 81. To compare the
Defendant's case to the small town murder of six people in a rural county in 1955 is like
comparing apples and oranges.
5. As noted above in Part I and Part IV of his Memorandum, Defendant
discusses the legal standards governing a change of venue and the presumption of juror
prejudice. As to Florida law, Defendant cites, inter alia, the cases of Serrano v. State, 64
SO.2d93 (Fla. 2011). ROiling v. State, 695 So.2d 278 (Fla.1997), and Hooksv. State. No.
4008-4729 (Fla. 4th DCA June 29, 2011),36 Fla. l.Weekly 01382. However. Defendant
does not explain any of the underlying facts of those cases.
6. Serrano gives a limited rendition of the law in Florida as to a change of
venue for inflammatory pretrial publicity, but importantly recited the Florida Supreme
Court's long standing policy that "Ordinarily, absent an extreme or unusual situation, the
need to change venue should not be determined until an attempt is made to select a
30f11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 20/40
/, .
jury." Serrano v. State, 64 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2011). Moreover, the salient facts behind the
Serrano decision involved the murder by Serrano of four individuals, three business
associates and a woman who accidently came upon the scene of the murders. All four
were shot multiple times in the head by Serrano, and evidence showed a detailed and
planned killing worthy of a crime drama. Even with the pretrial publicity inherent in such
.a case, the Florida Supreme Court still found no error in the trial court's decision to
maintain venue.
7. Defendant also cites Rolling v. State, 695 So.2d 278 (Fla.1997), a
terrifyingly gruesome and sad case involving the murders by serial killer Danny Rolling
of five college students, including four young women. The murders are outlined in
bloody detail in the opinion, explicitly describing each of the five murders and the sexual
assault on three of the victims. Nevertheless, after examining the underlying facts and
law, the Court still affirmed the trial court's denial for a change of venue.
8. Legally speaking, the Florida Supreme Court wrote extensively in Rolling
on the law concerning change of venue. Its recitation begins with the concept that
"pretrial publicity is normal and expected in certain kinds of cases, like this one (Rolling],
and that fact standing alone will not require a change of venue". The Court went on to
state that "In exercising its discretion, a trial court must make a two-pronged analysis,
evaluating: (1) the extent and nature of any pretrial publicity; and (2) the difficulty
encountered in actually selecting a jury. Rolling, 695 So.2d at 285. As in almost every
case cited by Defendant, the Court was presented with a case where voir dire had
already begun or been completed.
.4 of 11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 21/40
9. The Rolling Court noted five factors in evaluating the nature and effect of
any pretrial publicity on the knowledge and impartiality of prospective jurors, including
factors such as (1) the length of time that has passed from the crime to the trial and
when, within this time, the publicity occurred; (2) whether the publicity was consisted of
straight, factual news stories or inflammatory stories; (3) whether the news stories
consisted of the police or prosecutor's version of the offense to the exclusion of the
defendant's version; (4) the size of the community in question; and (5) whether the
defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. ROiling, 695 So.2d at 285.
10. Most notably, the Fourth DCA case of Hooks is cited in Defendant's
Memorandum but not explained. The Hooks court recited the tests espoused in Rolling,
and found that the trial court had not abused its discretion in finding against a change in
venue. Hooks involved the highly publicized case of four young men beating several
sleeping homeless victims with baseball bats in Ft. Lauderdale. One of the attacks was
caught on videotape and received constant airplay locally and nationally. Many
similarities with Defendant's case are noteworthy. As in Defendant's case, the publicity
made by the video began immediately after the attacks and continued for the two years
before voir dire began. The trial court also noted that Broward County is the second
largest in the State. The trial court further received praise from the Fourth DCA for its
significant time and patience in selecting a jury. The trial court mentioned how
disconcerting the blogs were, and noted in closing that news today is instantaneous and
pervasive. It is hard to imagine a more pointed case to analogize with the Defendant's
pretrial publicity, and in fact, it is once again undeniable that the Hooks case involved
much more inflammatory public sentiment than Defendant's. Nonetheless, the Hooks
50f11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 22/40
· .
decision found that the trial court was still able to select a fair and impartial jury, and
indicated that the large population of Broward County helped male it possible to achieve
such a just result.
11; Part IV of Defendant's Memorandum discusses a Public Opinion Survey
conducted on behalf of the Defendant; involving 400 individual residents of Palm Beach
County. See, Memorandum of Defendant, pages 74-80. From that selection, the
Survey makes an evaluation of the entire citizenry of Palm Beach County and
concludes that the citizenry is so tainted that the court need not take pause to even
examine the screening process or questionnaires, a conclusion made even more
difficult to fathom in light of the actual population of Palm Beach County, which the U.S.
census estimates at 1,320,134.
12. To put any legal certainty in a statistical analysis of 400 people in
populous Palm Beach County that finds that the entire jury pool has been tainted is
incredibly far reaching. and premature without the benefit of voir dire. Not surprisingly,
the case precedent cited by Defendant for the use of such a survey in court proceedings
regarding a change of venue is well beyond sparse; and only includes 4 cases. See·
Defendant's Memorandum, pages 74-75, footnote 117. The percentage of the 400
residents polled in the survey divided by the actual population equals a decimal
percentage of .000303, or approximately 3 ten thousandths of the entire population.
With such a population base, the results of the Survey are unfair and give very little
credit to the citizens of Palm Beach County or the current methodology employed by the
court system to select a jury in voir dire.
60f11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 23/40
13. Moreover, Defendant's Memorandum cites Skilling v. U.S., 130 S.Ct. 2896,
at 2915 n. 15 (2010) to give some credence to a statistic gleaned from the Survey. See
Defendant's Memorandum, page 76. However, the footnote cited is pure dicta and
clearly shows that different questions were asked in each poll. Furthermore, of the 400
residents polled in the Goodman's Survey, it is extremely important to note that only
13% of those 400 residents who were asked the initial question of whether they
had ever heard of John Goodman responded affirmatively. It is only after further
questioning and divulging information on the case that the statistics grow higher in
Goodman's favor. Finally, the United States Supreme Court in Skilling gave no weight
to the Skilling survey in any event.
14. Skilling tackles the presumption of prejudice by noting several differences
between Skilling (the famous Enron case) and three other major Supreme Court cases
where prejudice was found: Rideau v. Louisiana, 83 S.Ct 1417 (1963); Estes v. Texas,
538 S.Ct. 1628 (1965); and Sheppard v. Maxwell, 86 S.Ct. 1507 (1966). The Court
initially stated that the three cases being compared were all overturned because a
conviction was obtained in those cases in a trial atmosphere that was utterly corrupted
by press coverage. Skilling, 130 S.Ct. at 2914.
15. Skilling went on to state that the Supreme Court's decisions in those three
cases "cannot be made to stand for the proposition that juror exposure to news
accounts of the crime alone presumptively deprives the defendant of due process.
Skilling, 130 S.Ct. at 2914. The Court continued: "Prominence does not necessarily
produce prejudice, and juror impartiality, we have reiterated, does not require
70f11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 24/40
ignorance ... Scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed
some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case ... Every case of public interest
is almost, as a matter of necessity, brought to the attention of all the intelligent people in
the vicinity, and scarcely anyone can be found among those best fitted for jurors who
has not read or heard of it, and who has not some impression or some opinion in
respect to its merits. A presumption of prejudice, our decisions indicate attends only
the extreme case." Skilling, 130 S.Ct. at 2914-2915 (emphasis added) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
16. Lastly, the Skilling Court heavily emphasized the size and characteristics of
the community in which the crime occurred, and stated that there was a reduced
likelihood of prejudice where the venire was drawn from a pool of over 600,000
individuals. Skilling, 130 S.Ct. at 2915 (quoting from Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada,
111 S.Ct. 2720 (1991). Plaintiff cannot stress enough that the sheer size of Palm
Beach County makes it highly probable that a fair and impartial jury could be selected if
time and patience is used in voir dire and the court strictly controls all aspects of
publicity from the beginning. The court herein has already begun that process and
Plaintiff believes that a jury can be selected from the proper venue, and that the
Defendant's due process rights 'can be steadfastly protected.
18. Another noteworthy case is U.S. v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2006),
wherein the 11th Circuit found a pretrial survey insufficient to establish pervasive
community prejudice for a number of reasons, including an inadequate sampling size of
300 residents in a Miami-Dade County case. The case is instructive and again shows
80f11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 25/40
the inherent difficulty with allowing such surveys in large' populated area. Campa, 459
F.3d at 1131.
17. The blogoshere also makes up a large part in Defendant's argument for a
presumption of prejudice. Defendant's listing of every article and blog is certainly
noteworthy, but is overkill in today's media and the advent of the information super
highway. As noted by Rolling, "pretrial publicity is normal and expected in certain kinds
of cases". Blogs cannot be viewed as credible news sources and no information in
Defendant's vast Memorandum indicates that they are. It is common knowledge that
blogs are a comment section for anyone who wishes to anonymously express
themselves. Nothing profound in Defendant's Memorandum indicates that the general
public now considers blogs anything more than just that. Neither can anyone say with
any certainty the origination of a blog. It could come from anywhere by anybody. As
noted, blogs are anonymous for a reason, suggesting that a person may write anything
they feel without repercussions for libelous or false statements. They invite hearsay
and innuendo.
18. Finally, the Hooks decision described above, the most recent of all cases
and authoritative in this district, did not find blogs to rise to a level where the court found
that a change in venue was warranted, even though the court did find the blogs written
on the underlying material as being very disconcerting. That case undeniably received
more damaging press coverage than any "media blitzkrieg" in this case. Although
Hooks is now being appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida and may address the use
of blogs, Hooks is still the single most factually analogous authority with the case
90f11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 26/40
herein. As noted above, the sheer size of Broward County in itself played a pivotal role
in the Fourth DCA's analysis In Hooks and the success of voir dire by the trial court in
that case. Palm Beach County's population and the trial court's strict oversight of the
entire jury selection process bring about the same result here. Plaintiff is confident that
the lessons learned from past cases and their applicability herein make it abundantly
clear that a fair trial can be had in Palm Beach County, and that the jury selection
process can be played out in a fair and conscientious manner.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny the
Defendant's Motion for a Change of Venue and continue to trial as scheduled.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL M. MCAULIFFE
: : t o c U j _Ellen Roberts
Assistant State Attorney
401 N. Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 355-7008
Facsimile: (561) 355-7126, and
By:~/~
Robert Knabe, Bar No. 6509900
Assistant State Attorney
401 N. Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 355-7064
Facsimile: (561) 355-7281
rknabe@sa 15.state.f1.us
10of 11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 27/40
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response has
been delivered by U.S.~I to Roy Black, Esq. and Mark Shapiro, Esq.,
Counsel for John Goodman, at 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300, Miami,
/~AFlorida 33131, Tel: (305) 371-6421, Fax: (305) 358-2006, this 20 day of
January, 2012.
ROBERT KNABE, Esq.
11of 11
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 28/40
.. _ J T "C o
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15THJUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY
STATE OF FLORIDA,Plaintiff,
CASENo. 2010CF005829AMB
JUrDGEJEFFREY COLBATH
: : . : : :
v .
Defendant.
JOHN GOODMAN,
AMENDED DEFENSE EXHIBIT
pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b), files this Amended Discovery,,
Exhibit to include two CD's witlrimage~~i.de~tifie<i·:(,l~JMQ00242hrough IMG00249, and
1 : f :~; ·L~~r ' .' c: j · ' . i \ : ; : ; ~ :'. : . \ : ' f
images identified as IMG 1703 through IM9 r882.· .ThesetwoCl)' s are corrections to the
CD earlier provided in item # 18:~_fDefe~dan~'sDiscovery Exhibit provided on December. . . .
8,2011.
Respectfully submitted,
BLACK, SREBNICK, KORNSPAN & STUMPF, P.A.
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300
Miami, Florida 33131
Office (305) 3 -(5421- (305) 358-2006
I
• • 1 .~ .. .. ''/ '
~ • . '; f ) _'t.
,
. •. B la ck. S reb n ick . K ~rn spa n & Stump f
2 01 S . B isca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia mi, F lo rid a 3 31 31 - P ro ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1- F ax: 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6 •www.RoyB la ck .com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 29/40
II
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI
Ellen Roberts, Assistant State Attorney
West Palm Beach State Attorney's Office
Traffic Homicide Unit
401 North Dixie Hwy.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
I certify that on January 26, 2012, 1hfd delivered a true copy of the foregoing to:
I
I!
Page 2:of 2
B la c k . S r eb n ic k . k o rn s p a n & S tump f
2 0t S . B is ca yn e B o ule va rd . S u ite 1 30 0· M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31 · P ro ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1- F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6· www.RoyB la ck .com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 30/40
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY
STATE OF FLORIDA,Plaintiff,
CASENo. 20 IOCF005829AMB
JUDGE JEFFREY COLBATH
v .
JOHN GOODMAN, -(i<P .~'
Defendant. ~~>~:........................... ~~~~.-n
orn~ ,-. -C-:;J \u)_ \
-~ . - rnAMENDED DEFENSE EXHIBIT ~::t:.~ -e 0
:x > 00,(') ,-,
- - : J = . . -
DEFENDANT, JOHN GOODMAN, by and through his undersigned~~e~''V...{f"''' ~:
r-. ?) cP
pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b), files this Amended Dis;6~ery
Exhibit to include:
• A copy of Mark Ganzi's White Horse Tavern receipt request and receipt for
February 11,2010.
Respectfully submitted,
BLACK, SREBNICK, K ORNS PAN & STUMPF,P.A.
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300
Miami, Florida 3313
Office (305) 37 1 -
Counsel for John Goodman
Black . S r eb n kk , k o rn s pa n & S tump f
2 01 S , B isca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia mi. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1· F ax : 3 05 -3 58 -2 00 6 • www.RoyB l ack . com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 31/40
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Icertify that on January 27,2012, a true copy of the foregoing was mailed to:
Ellen Roberts, Assistant State Attorney
West Palm Beach State Attorney's Office
Traffic Homicide Unit
401 North Dixie Hwy.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Page 2 of 2
Black. Srebnkk. Komspan & Stump f
2 01 S . B is ca yn e B ou le va rd . S uite 1 30 0 • M ia m i. F lo rid a 3 31 31• P ho ne : 3 05 -3 71 -6 42 1 • F ax : 3 0 5-3 58 -2 00 6 • www.RoyB lack .com
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 32/40
10/05/2011 15:45 _G L OB A L T OW ER P AR TN E R5619950321
BRQCaJ138263
D AT E. T IM EFAX NO . INAME~ T IONP A G E ( 5 )
RESULTt IODE
FAX ,
White Horse Tavern - Billing DepartmentT o: Fax: 561.333.3924
'1---------------------------------1F rom ; A nush l(a F rom er on beha lf' o f M arc C . Gam :1 Date: e8.99.2811
I\e: Request fOt Dining Receipt I0.()(o .20II
Pages: 2
• Urgent C For Review t: I PleaseCOmment C PleaseReplv 0 PleaseRayc;le
, ',Dear SIr or Madam,
Marc and Melissa Ganzi hosted a dinner at the White Horse Tavern on
Thursday, February 11, 2010 and would like to request a copy of their
dIning receipt.
The dinner was cha rged to Mr. Ganzr 's American Express card (see following
page for transaction details).
,:Could you please email or fax the full dining receipt to my attention at your.
earliest convenience? Below is my contact InformatIon:
Anushka Fromer
Executive Assistant to Marc C. Gan2i
Global Tower Partners
750 Park of Commerce Boulevard« : ; • • it 'CI ~(\n
, .,
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 33/40
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME 0 8/ 09 /2 01 1 1 6: 15NAME GLOBAL TOWER PARTNERFAX 5619950321TELSER.» BROC0J138263
DATE,TIMEF AX N O. /N AM EDURATIONPAGE(S>RESULTMODE
To: White Horse Tavern - Billing Department Fax; 561.333.3924
From; Anushka F r ome r on behalf of Ma r c C. Ganzi Date: 08.09.2011
Roe: Request for Dining Receipt
Pages: :2
• Urgent Q For Review Q Please Comment [J Please Reply [J Please Recycle
Dear Sir or Madam,
Marc and MelissaGanz; hosted a dinner at the White Horse Tavern onThursday, February 11, 2010 and would like to request a copy of their.dining receipt,
The dinner was charged to Mr. Ganzi's American Express card (see fol lowing
page for transactIon details).
Could you please email or fax the full dining receipt to my attention at yourearliest convenience? Below is my contact information:
Anushka FromerExecutive Assistant to Marc C. GanziGlobal Tower Partners750 Park of Commerce Boulevard"",.. . . " ---
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 34/40
To: White Horse Tavern - Billing Department Fax: 561.333.3924
From: Anushka Fromer on behalf of Marc C. Ganzi Date: ee.99.2Bl1
Request for Dining Receipt IO· (){.p . 20
2
a ForReview a P l ease Comment a P l ease Reply a P le a se R e c yc le
Sir or Madam,
Marc and Melissa Ganzi hosted a dinner at the White Horse Tavern on
Thursday, February 11, 2010 and would like to , request a copy of theirdining receipt.
The dinner was charged to Mr. Ganzi's American Express card (see following
. page for transaction details).
Could you please email or fax the full dining receipt to my attention at your
. earliest convenience? Below is my contact information:
Anushka Fromer
Executive Assistant to Marc C. GanziGlobal Tower Partners
750 Park of Commerce Boulevard
Suite 300Boca Raton, FL [email protected]
o 561.886.5897
M 561.213.8944F 561.982.7030
Thank you very much!
+k_'\c, f~?t
lk(M .;\ .lc..
7 \ Q . . A A . ~ Q _ S~
~ ?a= -n~ b \ C L ' ,
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 35/40
TransactIon Dato:
TransaCtion Dilscrlptlon;
Catdmember Nama:
Amount $:,
Doing Bu6In88& As:
Merchant Addreaa:
Rlference Number:'
Category:
0211112010 T hu
WHfrEHORSETAVEflNROVAL PALMSE
RfStAURI\NT
FOOOIBEV~GE 512.97
T lP 100 .0 0
W,RCCGANlI
672.91
W H r T 'E H O R S E TAVERN
3 40 1 E QU ES TR IA N Q UB A D
WaL.NGTON
A.
W E S T P A L M B EA C H
33414-6823
UNffB)STATES
Ra s la u ra n t- R e s t au r an t
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 36/40
CASE NO. O{ 'O, DC ECJQ61{cX9'A DIVISION:
STATE OF FLORIDA VS. G-ODnm AN cro 1 = 1 rJI .
- r a CANCEL from the following calendar:
DATE: ~ ; / / Q l . - . : : TIME: _ : : _ ; I S ~ : - = c . . 3 : : ; _ _ o _
o ADD to the following calendar:
DATE: TIME: _
o CHANGE:
FROM:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TO: __
COMMENTS:
REQUESTED BY: Marilyn Cartwright, J.A. DATE: - - - f 4 - T - " l ; / ; ~ . _ ! ./ _ _ _ ; : ; ; _ ; ; L ; - - _ _ -
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 37/40
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CRIMINAL DIVISIONIN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 201OCF005829AMB DIVISION "W"
STATE OF FLORIDA
vs.
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon the Moii~n for Jury View of
the Vehicles and the agreement of the parties; it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the vehicles involved in this case will be
transported to an area adjacent to the Courthouse and,the jury will be permitted to view them in
the presence of the parties and the Court.
DONE AND ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this
thenay of January, 2012.
copies furnished to:
ELLEN D. ROBERTS
ROY BLACK, ESQ., 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD., SUITE l300, MIAMI, FL 33133*
. ",.'
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 38/40
IN T HE CIRCU IT COU RT OF T HE F1FI 'E ENT H JU DICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CRlMINAL DMSION ''W''
TO: DR. ,MICHAEL BELL
M E DICAL E XAM INE R'S OFFlCE .;PALM BE ACH
COUNTY
D IST RICT 15 - PALM BE ACH COUNT Y
c t .126 GUN CLUB RD .WEST PALM BEAC~ FL 33406-3005
, CASE NO. 2010CF005829AMB
P ol ic e C as e N o 0 1-1 0-0 37 89 6
M E . No.10-0164
PAlM BEACH
STAlE O;FFLORIDA
VB.
JOHN OOODMAN
0: DECEASIID, SCOTT WILSON,
AUTOPSY* 10-81644 WEEK DOCKET - REMAIN ON CALL
V:0II are ~ODlm8Dded to appear at the Palm Beach COIIl l ty Cou rt h.OI ISe , liS North DlDe HIghway,
COURTROOM I1F, West Paba Beam, Florida, begimdDg at 9:30 am., 0 1 1 . 03/86/%012. PJeaseeall (561)
3SS-716Swheayoa receive this suhp OeD. a AND thewoddq daylteforetriaJ after Z:OO)lg8.to vaifytiJlle
of trial. '§ ~. . . . , ~
Fai~ure to ~ar will subject you to contempt of Court. This subpoena is b i n d i n S day to ~d ~ to week
u ntil th e ea se IS closed. ' :501 , NI, '~~ ,~
, . , . , . ~ ",
~~YL--. f O :0 " U
~. (A)L LE N D .R OB E RT SAssistant StlteAttcmeyPIa Bar NO.0607827
Janu 26 2012
PLEASE CALL UPON RECEIPT -DO NOT COME IN WITHOUT FIRST CALLING TO FIND OUT
YOUR DATE AND TIME OF TESTIMONY •
••• *********** •• ***************. **** •• ***.**~I received,this su~a on the;; 7 day of ' J R . . . . . . , ,2012, and executed the s.~j9Il1.~~·~
:fCt t'\ .2012. in Palm Beach County, Florida
JIt3 JQ/k > "
1>33f'~ SHERIFF,PALMB
I f y ou a re a p ers oo with a d i sab il it y whoneeJ s any a~odation in ~ to participate in th is p roceed ing , }IOU are e nt it le d, a t n o
COlt to you , to the p rovis ion of C E r t a i n a ss is ta n ce . P le as e c ont ac t the AD A Coor di na to r intheAdmini st ra ti ve Of fi ce of t he Cou rt ,
Pa lm BeachCCl.U 'l ty Cou rt hoUse ; lOS North D ix i e Highway , R oo m .5 .2 50 0,W ea Pa lm B ~ Flaida. 33401 ; telephone num ber (561)
3 .5 5 -4 380w i th in two (2) w<r i : ing days of y ru r re ce ip t o f t h is notice; ify<ll a re h e ar in g o r y o ic e impa ir ed , c a ll 1 - 80 0 -9 55 -8 771 ,
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 39/40
IN T HE CIRCU IT COU RT OF T HE FIFI 'E ENT H JU DIC IA L CIRCU ITIN AND FOR PALM BE ACH COU NT Y, FLORID A
CRIMlNAL DMSION"W"
TO :EMTSCOT ICMOCK
PALM B EACH COU NT Y FIRE RE SCU E
4 0.5 P IK E R OA D
W E ST PALM BE AC~ FL 33411
PALMBEACB
ST AT E OF FLORIDAVi.
JO HN G OO D M AN
RE:TRAmCFATAL11YON~lQMAT
THE INTERSECTION OF LAD WoF.JtRD AND
12OI'BA VE SOUTH-SMEf·l·ED AN ODOR OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMINGFROMTBl£
DEI'., OBSERVED SLtJRRED SPEECH. SLOWGA.rI ' , THE DEF STA.TED TO BlMTHA T HEHADSTOPPED AT T HE STOP SIGNAT 1201"BANDWBENBE POLI..ED OUT BE BIT THE OTBER.
CARWHO HAD NO LIGHTS ON, DEFREJ'USEDIV &RE FU SE D BLOOD GLU COSE .
4WEEK DOCICET - REMAIN ON CALL
Y 011are eOD lD l 8Dded to appea r atthe Palm B each C ounty C&ar th01 l se , 20 5 N orth D I xie mghway,COURTROOM IIF, West Palm Beach, J1orid~ 'egiJmblg at 9:38 & I ll . , . . 83/861Z81Z. PJease taU (561)
355-7168 ,nea you rec:eive this subpoeD8 AND the workiBg d.ay before trial after 2:08 p.m. to vaify time
oftrisl. g ,"c: ~
Failu re to appew w il l su bjec t y ou to oon tem pt of C ou rt. T h is su bpoen a is b ind ing day to day a nd w eek taeek ~
until the case is c losed . ~ "1J ~
~OJ ~00'1
~o ~o·:< CfbD~E LLE N D . ROBE RT S
Ass is taD t S ta e Attmley
Fla. Bar No.0607827
Janu 26 2012
PLEASE CALL UPON RECEIPT -DO NOT COME IN WImOUT FIRST CALUNG TO FIND OUTYOUR DATE AND TIME or TESTIMONY.**•••• *******.*****~**********!**.**.*****. ,
I :c:ved th is ~bpoena on theLa y , of' J~, 201 2. and execu ted the sam e on th e U ? da y of_ ~ ' = ; " : : = . . lI o l . . .. f _ " 2012 , inPalm Beach County . F lorida . "
Ify ou a re a P ErS on w ith a d is ab il ity w h o n ee ds any acccmmodaticn in erda:' to participate inthis proceeding. yeu are entitled. at no
c o s : to yw, to the p ro vis io o o f c erta in a ss is ta nc e. P ie -a se c on ta ct. t h e A D A C O CC "d ln ata "n th e A d min is tr ativ e O ff ic e o f t h e C ou rt,
Palm B eadl County Cou rth wse, 205 N orth D ixie Highway . Ro om . 5 ,2 5 00 , WeB . Palm B ea ch . F lo rid a. 3 34 01 ~ te le ph on e n um b er ( 56 1)355-4380 within two (2) waking days of yoor receipt ofthis notice; if yru are hearing or ..oiee impaired, call 1·800-9S5·8n1.
8/3/2019 John Goodman Case
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/john-goodman-case 40/40
IN T HE CIRCUIT COU RT OF T HE FIFT EE NT H JUD ICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR PALM BE ACH COU NfY t FLOR IDA
CRIMlNAL DMSION "W"
T O: M E D IC ROBE RT ST EV EN PE RRAULT
PALM BE ACH COUNT Y FIRE RE SCUE
40S PIKE 'ROAD
ROYAL PALM BE ACH , P I . . 33411 VPALMBEACB
ST AT E OF FLORID A
VB.
JOHN OOODMAN
•. ?Ji-.,
ltI:TRAFJ!IC fATALITY ON211211''', .3:18AMAT TBlINTERSECDON OF LAKlfWORT H RD AND 120T H AVE SOUTB..;,-
ASSESMENT OFDIF, OBSERVEDSLUDIDSPE BCH , WALK W AS SLOW NOT ANORMAL GAIT, APPIABBD INTOXICATBD,HlAllD A DEPUTYASKDIF DHI BADBlBN D 1llNKING, T HE D BF ST AT E D YE S,HI HADA COlJPLl GLASSIS OFW I.N I •
.. W E IKD OCKIT - R EM AIN ONCAll..
You .. e eommanded to appear at the Palm Beach County COurthODSe, 205 North Dixie mgbway,COURTROOM IlF tWest Palm Beam, florida, beginldDg at 9:30 a .m. , _ 03/0612111. Please call (561)
3S5-7.68whea you receive tJds subpoena AND the workiDgday before trial after 2:00 p.m. to vaifytbDeof trial.
F ailu re to appear w il l subject you to contem pt of C ou rt. T his subpoena is b ind ing day to day and w eek to w eek
u ntil th e case is closed.
PLEASE CALL UPON RECEIPT -DQ NOT COME IN WITHOUT FIRST CAILIN (; 0
YOUR DATE AND TIME OF TESTIMONY. ~b :t:oo
OUT
*********** •••***.****.*.*********.********* ~-
I re ~ eiv ed this su bp oe na o n. t he _ _ : Z 2 _ day of I) 'f?v,/ • 2012 , and executed the sam e ~ the ~ day of{ ] J S J , 2012 , in Palm B e ac h C ou nty ) F lo rid a. CJ W
~