Torres: No surprise, state wants Crosley Green back in prison
Well, what we did we really expect? It should surprise no one that the State of Florida ― mainly Attorney General Ashley Moody ― wants to see Crosley Green complete his life sentence and die in prison.
After all, the state correctly argues in a filing to the Middle District Court in Orlando, Green has run out of appeals.
To recap, in 2018 a federal court ruled that prosecutors violated Green's constitutional rights by not disclosing notes taken during a meeting with the two responding officers the night Charles "Chip" Flynn and his girlfriend Kim Hallock were supposedly carjacked. Flynn was killed by a single gunshot to his chest. The officers believed Hallock, not Green was responsible. The federal court vacated Green's conviction.
The state (naturally) appealed and the lower court's ruling was overturned. Green was allowed to leave prison in 2021 while the appellate process was ongoing. Now, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the case, the state wants Green behind bars once more. His conviction stands.
"The terms of Green’s release expired with the conclusion of the appeal in the Eleventh Circuit and he should surrender himself forthwith. Alternatively, this Court must now rescind its order granting release," the state writes in its four-page filing. "Alternatively, Respondents respectfully request this Court to expeditiously enter its order rescinding Green’s release and return him to the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections so that he can complete the remainder of his lawfully imposed sentence."
Lawfully imposed sentence. Was it though? Didn't both the Middle District Court and the 11th Circuit rule that notes that were not shared with Green's defense in his 1990 trial should have been? Yes, but the 11th went on to say the materials did not matter.
I guess there is no gray area. No ambiguity. The notes wouldn't have mattered. There's no chance a juror would have voted differently had they known the two responding officers requested a meeting with prosecutor Chris White for the purpose of telling him they believed Green to be innocent and instead Flynn's ex-girlfriend to be responsible for the shooting?
If Green's defense attorney used that information to plant the seed of doubt in just one juror's mind then Green might never have spent more than 30 years in prison. But the courts have ruled and the state is eager to exact its pound of flesh. Because that's what the law says. The state will get Crosley Green's last breath.
I can't help but to think of Victor Hugo's classic "Les Miserables," and its' antagonist, Police Inspector Javert, who follows the law to its letter leading to his own demise. He never stops to wonder if the laws themselves are just as he pursues a man for decades who broke parole after serving 20 years in prison for stealing bread.
When confronted with the idea of kindness, Javert says: "Kindness disorganizes society. Good God, it is easy to be kind, the difficulty is to be just."
More:Torres: Arguing for Crosley Green to remain free is easy | Opinion
It doesn't matter that there are multiple reasons to suggest Green is likely innocent and that he has already served three decades or that he refused to take a seven year-plea deal because he said he wouldn't admit to something he didn't do or that he has been eligible for parole for years but that would necessitate him admitting his crime.
"I tell my first-year students when they come in, and they don't believe me, but I tell them innocence is not grounds for an appeal," University of Florida Law Professor Kenneth Nunn said recently. "The fact that you did not commit the crime is not a reason for you to go to a higher court and say 'overturn my conviction.' There has to be an error that the lower court made for the higher court to come back and overturn that case. I think most people will agree that's a flaw in our so-called justice system ― that we are not concerning ourselves with the fundamental question of whether a person deserves to be in prison or not."
Nunn said that what appellate courts look for are these errors, technicalities, and that's what makes Green's case so compelling: innocence plus technicalty.
"All they are looking at is technicalities," Nunn said. "But guess what? Here's a man (Green) who had a technicality in his case. Mr. Green's attorneys never saw that piece of paper. The case Brady v. Maryland says clearly that favorable and material evidence has to be disclosed. The 11th Circuit, which heard this case, got the law wrong. It was clearly wrong. That piece of paper should have been turned over."
The numerous other issues with this case, including a prejudiced photo lineup, a junk-science dog track, four witness recantations and no physical evidence tying Green to the crime, among others, have been well-documented.
Also well documented is Green's record in rison and since being released in 2021. That's pretty amazing, though not as amazing as the prison warden writing and signing an affidavit on Green's behalf supporting his efforts and stating that he wished all of this inmates were like Green or the two corrections officers who testified years ago on Green's behalf as he fought to come off of death row.
More:U.S. Supreme Court denies Crosley Green
And then, of course, there are the two responding officers, retired from the Brevard County Sheriff's Office, who continue to support Green and testify to the fact they believed Green had nothing to do with the crime.
It's coming up on 33 years, including 20 on death row. It seems excessive given all the issues with this case, not to mention the likelihood that Green is innocent. But none of that matters as long as the state collects its due.
Contact Torres at 321-242-3684 or at jtorres@floridatoday.com. You can follow him on Twitter @johnalbertorres or on Facebook at facebook.com/FTjohntorres.
Support local journalism and become a subscriber. Visit floridatoday.com/subscribe
This article originally appeared on Florida Today: No surprise, state wants Crosley Green back in prison | Torres
