WOLFSON

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Waterhouse v. State, 792 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2001)
  …ruct upon, and allow the jury to consider, evidence of nonstatutory mitigating circumstances,3 we vacated the death sentence, and remanded to the trial court for a new penalty phase. See Waterhouse v. State, 522 So. 2d 341, 344 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 846, 109 S.Ct. 123, 102 L.Ed.2d 97 (1988). At this second penalty phase, the jury once again recommended,4 and the circuit court imposed, the death penalty.5 Waterhouse then filed a direct appeal of the newly imposed death sentence.6 We again affirmed…
• Waterhouse v. State, 596 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1992)
  …of death imposed upon him. Id. We subsequently ordered a new sentencing proceeding because the trial judge did not instruct on and the jury did not consider nonstat-utory mitigating evidence. Waterhouse v. State, 522 So. 2d 341 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 846, 109 S.Ct. 123, 102 L.Ed.2d 97 (1988). Upon resentencing, the jury recommended the death penalty by a vote of twelve to zero and the trial court again imposed a sentence of death.1 We address first Waterhouse’s claim that he was denied the right to…
• Bernell Hegwood v. State, 575 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1991)
  …screpancies between Burgess’ testimony and the evidence produced at trial, including Heg-wood’s confessions, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. See Waterhouse v. State, 522 So. 2d 341 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 846, 109 S.Ct. 123, 102 L.Ed.2d 97 (1988). Moreover, for much the same reasons, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the denial of the motion for new trial based on the characterization of Burgess’ testimony as newly discovered evidence.5…