JOSEPH C. MAJEWSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Majewski appealed the trial court's summary denial of his post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed, finding that the trial judge erred in dismissing the motion without a hearing, particularly because the judge's reliance on polygraph evidence—which has questionable reliability and requires stipulation for admissibility—was insufficient to render harmless any deficient representation.
The appellate court held that while the motion sufficiently alleged ineffective assistance, the trial court erred in summarily denying it without a hearing. The court disagreed that the polygraph evidence rendered harmless any deficient representation, given polygraph evidence's questionable reliability and inadmissibility absent stipulation.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must be granted a hearing if the allegations, if true, could support an order finding ineff…
[2] Failure to interview or call alibi witnesses may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“given the questionable reliability of polygraph examinations and the fact that the results of such examinations are not even admissible into evidence in the absence of a stipulation as to admissibility, we must disagree with the trial judge's conclusion that the presentation of the polygraph evidence so strengthened the state's case as to render harmless defense counsel's failure (if any) to present an available defense on behalf of his client”
The court's core reasoning for reversal, establishing that polygraph evidence cannot justify summary dismissal of an ineffective assistance claim
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMajewski was charged with robbery occurring in Panama City, Florida on July 25, 1982. Before trial, Majewski provided his retained defense attorney wi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Polygraph Examination Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Majewski appeals the trial court’s denial, without hearing, of his motion for post-con viction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. We reverse.
The ultimate allegations of Majewski’s motion are that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he should therefore receive a new trial. Among the specific allegations set forth in the motion are: (1) that Majewski was charged in Case No. 83-10 with a robbery which occurred in Panama City, Florida on July 25, 1982, (2) that prior to trial Majewski furnished his retained defense attorney with the names of several alibi witnesses who would have testified that Majewski was in Pascagoula, Mississippi at the time the robbery occurred, (3) that his attorney failed to call to trial or even to interview the alibi witnesses, and (4) that the jury convicted him of the robbery on the strength of the unrebut-ted testimony of certain witnesses for the state who identified him as the robber. In his order summarily denying Majew-ski’s motion the trial judge pointed out that the testimony of the state’s identification witnesses was not the only evidence linking Majewski to the robbery since the results of a polygraph test which Majewski “flunked” had been placed before the jury pursuant to a stipulation between Majewski and the state. Therefore, reasoned the judge,
When his motion for post-conviction relief is reviewed under these circumstances, even assuming the conduct of defense counsel in failing to prepare a specific defense to the charge and in failing to interview and call witnesses to rebut the state’s identification testimony was deficient, it is obvious such conduct by itself did not affect the outcome of the trial.
The trial judge attached to his order a copy of the stipulation between Majewski and the State which indicated that the polygraph operator had found untrue Majew-ski’s negative answers to certain questions concerning his involvement in the robbery.
We agree with the trial judge's conclusion, reflected in his order, that Ma-jewski’s motion sufficiently alleges ineffective assistance, i.e., we agree that the allegations of the motion, if found to be true, could support an order finding ineffectiveness on the part of defense counsel and granting a new trial. However, given the questionable reliability of polygraph examinations and the fact that the results of such examinations are not even admissible into evidence in the absence of a stipulation as to admissibility, we must disagree with the trial judge’s conclusion that the presentation of the polygraph evidence so strengthened the state’s case as to render harmless defense counsel’s failure (if any) to present an available defense on behalf of his client.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the truthfulness of the allegations of Majew-ski’s motion.
ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
THOMPSON, Judge.
The state has filed a motion for rehearing suggesting that instead of remanding this cause for a mandatory evidentiary hearing, it should be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 as amended.
We agree and modify our opinion to provide that the case be remanded for further proceeding under rule 3.850 consistent with our opinion.
With this modification, the motion for rehearing is denied.
ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Highsmith v. State, 617 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…At our request, the state filed a brief responding to the allegations of the motion. See Toler v. State, 493 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Counsel for the state concedes that appellant satisfied two of the criteria set forth in Majewski v. State, 487 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), for evaluation of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim predicated upon defense counsel’s failure to interview allegedly exculpatory witnesses. However, the state asserts appellant failed to allege sufficiently specific fac…
-
Loren v. State, 601 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…n, 466 U.S. 668, 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 695 (1984)). Indisputably, allegations of an attorney’s failure to properly investigate and prepare a defense may establish grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel. Majewski v. State, 487 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (allegation that defense counsel failed to interview or call alibi witnesses sufficiently alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claim). Accord Prieto v. State, 573 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Gaines v. Hopper, 575 F. 2d 11…
-
Gill v. State, 632 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…of what witnesses to call and what evidence to present,” Sanborn v. State, 474 So. 2d 309, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), counsel’s discretion is not absolute and ineffectiveness may result if crucial witnesses are overlooked. See, e.g., Majewski v. State, 487 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (failure to call alibi witnesses). An attorney might offer any number of justifications for failing to call witnesses. Similarly, counsel might have valid reasons for wanting his or her client to refrain from testifying at trial…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence