witnesses rule in Florida

1965The prevailing principles of law are set forth in Ames v. Ames, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 737 , as follows: * * * * * * "In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "`We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor *363 which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous.' (Emphasis supplied) "In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made:

1963In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous." In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made: "This case was heard before the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the rule is too well established to req

1965The prevailing principles of law are set forth in Ames v. Ames, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 737 , as follows: * * * * * * "In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "`We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor *363 which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous.' (Emphasis supplied) "In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made:

1963In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous." In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made: "This case was heard before the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the rule is too well established to req

1965The prevailing principles of law are set forth in Ames v. Ames, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 737 , as follows: * * * * * * "In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "`We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor *363 which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous.' (Emphasis supplied) "In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made:

1963In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous." In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made: "This case was heard before the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the rule is too well established to req

2013POSTCONVICTION MOTION A. Brady and Giglio Claims Wickham raises multiple claims alleging that the State withheld material evidence concerning several of the State’s witnesses in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

2013POSTCONVICTION MOTION A. Brady and Giglio Claims Wickham raises multiple claims alleging that the State withheld material evidence concerning several of the State’s witnesses in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

2013Additionally, he claims that the State presented, or failed to correct, false or misleading testimony in violation of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). 4 After outlining the Brady and Giglio standards, we will address each claim in turn as it relates to each witness.

2013Additionally, he claims that the State presented, or failed to correct, false or misleading testimony in violation of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). 4 After outlining the Brady and Giglio standards, we will address each claim in turn as it relates to each witness.

2011Nor is this a case where defense counsel failed to provide the trial court with enough information to necessitate a comprehensive Richardson hearing. 7 Contrast Johnson v. State, 25 So.3d 662, 665-66 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 43 So.3d 44 (Fla.2010) (concluding defense counsel did not provide the trial court with the information necessary to conduct a comprehensive Richardson hearing when defense counsel first revealed its intent to call a witness not included on the defense witness list after the close of the state’s evidence and denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, neither proff

2004Id.

1999A Henry violation is established when police improperly use a jailhouse informant to elicit statements from a defendant in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, see 447 U.S. at 274 , 100 S.Ct. 2183 , and Giglio is violated when the state knowingly presents false testimony.

1999A Henry violation is established when police improperly use a jailhouse informant to elicit statements from a defendant in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, see 447 U.S. at 274 , 100 S.Ct. 2183 , and Giglio is violated when the state knowingly presents false testimony.

1993The parties did not show that Florida was the home state of the children or of either parent, or that the children or either parent had a significant connection with Florida, one of which was essential under the facts of this case to give the trial court jurisdiction to modify appellee’s visitation rights under Section 61.1308, Florida Statutes (1991). 1 See, e.g., Cook v. Wells, 493 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

1975In Bryans v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Fla.App. 1st 1966, 191 So.2d 624 , this Court said: "An appellate court is not justified in overturning a verdict of the jury unless the appellant clearly and affirmatively demonstrates that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence or was motivated by prejudice, passion, mistake or some other improper cause.

1965The prevailing principles of law are set forth in Ames v. Ames, Fla.App. 1963, 153 So.2d 737 , as follows: * * * * * * "In Thompson v. Field, Fla. 1951, 54 So.2d 520 , it was said: "`We are unalterably committed to the rule that we will not reverse a Final Decree entered by a Chancellor *363 which is predicated upon conflicting evidence if the record contains competent, substantial testimony to sustain such Final Decree, or, stated in another way, unless the Chancellor's findings were clearly erroneous.' (Emphasis supplied) "In Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584 , this statement is made:

1962Larkin v. Tsavaris, Fla. 1956, 85 So.2d 731, 732 .