Joe Cool defendant passes polygraph

Assistant Public Defenders Anthony Natale and Brian Stekloff, along with co-counsel Bill Matthewman, who represent Joe Cool defendant Guillermo Zarabozo, filed a motion yesterday to admit polygraph evidence. Here's the intro:

Mr. Zarabozo has passed scientifically valid polygraph examinations conducted by two separate, leading experts in the field of polygraph examination. Both experts have determined that Mr. Zarabozo truthfully answered questions that demonstrate he did not: (1) commit premeditated murder, i.e., shoot anyone; (2) conspire to commit murder; or (3) commit felony murder. The Eleventh Circuit has held that polygraph evidence is admissible to corroborate the testimony of a witness at trial–here, Mr. Zarabozo. See United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529, 1536-37 (11th Cir. 1989). Moreover, for the reasons discussed in detail below, the science of polygraph examination has evolved to a point where it clearly satisfies the requirements of Daubert. As Justice Potter Stewart stated, “Any rule that impedes the discovery of truth in a court of law impedes as well the doing of justice.” Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 81 (1958) (Stewart, J., concurring). Any effort to deprive a jury from hearing the results of Mr. Zarabozo’s polygraph examinations would run contrary to Justice Stewart’s admonition and would impede justice in this case.

Apparently Zarabozo passed two different polygraph examinations. Here are the questions from the first polygraph:

“1. While on the Joe Cool, did you shoot anyone? Answer – No.
2. Before hearing the first gunshot, had you talked with Kirby Archer
about shooting anyone on board the Joe Cool? Answer – No.
3. Before hearing the first gunshot, had you talked with Kirby Archer
about stealing the Joe Cool? Answer – No.”

And from the second:

“Q1: Regarding what you knew before that charter boat the ‘Joe Cool’ crew was killed and
the boat hijacked last September 22, 2007: Do you intend to answer truthfully each
question about that” A1: Yes.
Q2: Other than what you now know: At any time before the crew members of the Joe
Cool were shot: For any reason did you really know that was going to happen? A2:
No.
Q3: When you said that before the shooting occurred on that boat the Joe Cool; that the
only reason you were on board, was to travel to Bimini and participate in pre-planned
security job with Kirby Archer, did you lie about that? A3: No.
Q4: When you said that you expected to participate in a future CIA assignment with
Kirby Archer either in Cuba or Venezuela after the Bimini security job was done: Did
you lie about that? A4: No.
Q5: When you said that you brought your handgun for use on the Bimini security job and
that it was never intended to be used by you or Kirby Archer to hijack that boat the
Joe Cool: Did you lie about that? A5: No.”

Looks like it was a busy day...

...in mag court.

Judge Gold to speak May 14

This should be a great talk. May 14th at the Banker's Club at noon. Cost is $35. RSVP to Lourdes Fernandez at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov

Rumpole & Ashley Dupre

Rumpole has a funny post about the federal buildings here. From what I hear, there are trials scheduled in the new building in May... I'll believe it when I see it.

The AP's Curt Anderson reports here that Ashley Dupre is on video saying she is 18 and consenting to the Girls Gone Wild video:

The release came one day after series founder Joe Francis and his companies were sued for $10 million in Miami federal court by Ashley Alexandra Dupre, who claims she was only 17 at the time and too young to sign a binding contract. Dupre, now 22, also accused Francis of exploiting her image and name on various Internet sites.
In the new release, Dupre appears covered by a terrycloth towel and gives her name as Amber Arpaio. An unseen questioner asks if she is 18.
"Yes I am," Dupre answers in a strong Southern accent.
"Do you know what 'Girls Gone Wild' is?" the questioner asks.
"Yes I do," she replies with a laugh.
"Can I use this on 'Girls Gone Wild'?" she is asked.
"Of course you can," Dupre answers.
The video also displays a New Jersey driver's license with the Amber Arpaio name and a birth date that would have made her appear to be in her 20s.

Not so good for her lawsuit...

UPDATE -- the lawsuit fell before Judge Lenard.

"Prosecutors say jailhouse snitches won't be called to testify in Joe Cool case"

That's the headline from Vanessa Blum's article discussing the government's filing today. It makes sense not to call these guys, who would just muddy the case up for the government. Smart move.

From Blum's article:

Two jailhouse snitches who say they heard incriminating statements from a suspect in the Joe Cool murder-at-sea case won't be called to testify at trial, federal prosecutors stated in a motion filed Monday evening.Their announcement came after attorneys for Guillermo Zarabozo sought to have the so-called confession thrown out, claiming it violated Zarabozo's constitutional right to be represented by an attorney during questioning.U.S. District Judge Paul Huck set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the government's filing. Huck canceled a hearing where the inmates, Antwan Hall and Daniel Noel, were expected to testify about the circumstances of their conversations with Zarabozo in Miami's Federal Detention Center.Zarabozo, 20, of Hialeah and Kirby Archer, 36, of Strawberry, Ark. are charged with murdering Joe Cool captain Jake Branam, 27; his wife, Kelley Branam, 30; his half brother, Scott Gamble, 35; and first-mate Samuel Kairy, 27 on Sept. 22.

***

But the confession posed problems for prosecutors. First, it could not be used against Archer, meaning the government would be forced to try the two defendants separately if it came in as evidence. Secondly, the inmates would have obvious credibility problems as witnesses, because they are convicted felons seeking sentence reductions.Most urgently, Zarabozo's lawyers wanted Huck to rule on claims the confession violated Zarabozo's right to counsel. In a motion filed last week, defense lawyers said prosecutors knew Hall and Noel were government snitches and intentionally placed the men next to Zarabozo to illicit a confession.Federal judges have ruled that informants who have pre-existing agreements to gather information for prosecutors may be considered government agents. That would make a jailhouse interrogation illegal unless the suspect's lawyer was present.Prosecutors disputed that was the case, saying the government had "no agreement or prearrangement" with the men to seek a confession from Zarabozo.Still, prosecutors agreed not to use the confession unless Zarabozo took the stand at trial and told a different story.The men's trial is currently set for early June but could be pushed back if the government opts to seek the death penalty.