On January 13, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court grant­ed new tri­als to two Florida death-row pris­on­ers. The court over­turned Joe Simpsons 2007 con­vic­tion and death sen­tence because of pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct. It also over­turned Peter Avsenews 2018 con­vic­tion and death sen­tence because of the improp­er pre­sen­ta­tion of remotely-recorded testimony. 

Simpson was sen­tenced to death in 2007 for the mur­ders of Archie Howard Crook, Sr. and his preg­nant girl­friend, Kimberli Kimbler in 1999. In a 5 – 1 deci­sion, the Florida Supreme Court over­turned Simpson’s con­vic­tion and sen­tence because pros­e­cu­tors uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly with­held from the defense evi­dence that one of the state’s lead wit­ness­es, Crook’s son Little Archie,” was a con­fi­den­tial infor­mant for the state. 

Another state wit­ness, George Durrance, told police that Simpson con­fessed to the killings to him. The pros­e­cu­tion also did not inform the defense that Crook’s son had been an infor­mant against Durrance in an unre­lat­ed case. The Florida Supreme Court held that this should have been dis­closed to Simpson.

In rul­ing that the sup­pres­sion of this evi­dence was prej­u­di­cial, the major­i­ty wrote that the rela­tion­ship between Simpson, Little Archie, and Durrance was of crit­i­cal impor­tance in this case, and the infor­ma­tion Little Archie pro­vid­ed to law enforce­ment per­tain­ing to Durrance casts a dif­fer­ent light on this rela­tion­ship.” The major­i­ty deter­mined that Little Archie’s tes­ti­mo­ny and cred­i­bil­i­ty were of sig­nif­i­cant con­se­quence when we con­sid­er the lack of evi­dence link­ing Simpson to the scene of the crime.” 

Chief Judge Charles Canady dis­sent­ed, argu­ing that the evi­dence with­held by the pros­e­cu­tion was imma­te­r­i­al to Simpson’s case, writ­ing: The fact that Little Archie had been a source to law enforce­ment in unre­lat­ed mat­ters is of lit­tle, if any, relevance.” 

Avsenew was sen­tenced to death in 2018 for the mur­ders of Steven Adams and Kevin Powell in 2010. At tri­al, because of her health prob­lems, pros­e­cu­tors pre­sent­ed tes­ti­mo­ny from Avsenew’s moth­er via a video record­ing. The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure per­mit the use of pre-record­ed video tes­ti­mo­ny in cer­tain lim­it­ed cir­cum­stances in which a wit­ness is unavail­able to attend tri­al. The rules man­date that, when this occurs, the court must keep the defen­dant in the pres­ence of the wit­ness.” The tes­ti­mo­ny in the case estab­lished that Ms. Avsenew could not see her son as she was testifying. 

The court unan­i­mous­ly reversed Avsenew’s con­vic­tion. In assess­ing the prej­u­di­cial effect of the rules vio­la­tion, the jus­tices wrote: Without ques­tion, the impact of Ms. Avsenew’s incrim­i­nat­ing tes­ti­mo­ny on the jury would have been even greater because she is Avsenew’s mother.” 

The Florida Supreme Court remand­ed the two cas­es to coun­ty tri­al courts to con­duct new trials.