Full opinion text
CARNES, Circuit Judge: Gerald Eugene Stano was convicted and sentenced to death in 1983 for the 1974 murder of Cathy Scharf. The lengthy factual and procedural history of this case is set out in our previous en banc and panel opinions. See Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898 (11th Cir.1990) (en banc); Stano v. Dugger, 883 F.2d 900 (11th Cir.1989). In that en banc opinion, we remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on specified issues. The district court conducted a hearing that lasted ten days. We are indebted to that court for the thoroughness with which it explored the relevant factual issues and for its meticulous findings of fact. A copy of the district court’s order, containing its factfind-ings, is reproduced as Appendix A hereto. After the district court had issued its order on remand but before the case had been briefed to this Court, Stano filed a Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion raising additional but related issues. The district court’s order denying that motion is reproduced as Appendix B hereto. Stano appeals from the district court’s adverse rulings on the issues we remanded to it, and he also appeals from the court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. We consolidated the two appeals, and for the reasons that follow we affirm the denial of relief in each. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Initially, we address Stano’s assertion that the clearly erroneous standard of review does not apply to the district court’s findings of fact. In support of his contention, Stano cites a portion of our opinion in Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 & 1014, 101 S.Ct. 1709 & 1724, 68 L.Ed.2d 203 & 214 (1981), in which we state, “In passing on the ultimate issue of voluntariness, we may substitute our own judgment even in the absence of a conclusion that the district court’s ruling was clearly erroneous.” Id. at 932. Stano misreads our precedent and misapprehends the limited nature of our review of factfindings. It is clear from the statement itself and certainly from the context of the discussion in Jurek that the statement Stano relies upon was referring to the “ultimate” determination of the voluntariness of a confession, a mixed question of law and fact that is subject to de novo review. See id. Indeed, just before the sentence quoted by Stano, we stated that “We will not disregard or overturn findings of fact made by the district court unless they are clearly erroneous.” Id. The Supreme Court subsequently clarified the meaning of the clearly erroneous standard of review of a district court’s findings of fact in Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985), where it held: If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Id. at 573-74, 105 S.Ct. at 1511; see also Spaziano v. Singletary, 36 F.3d 1028, 1032 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 911, 130 L.Ed.2d 793 (1995). Stano also cites the Jurek opinion for the proposition that we will not defer to the district court’s factfindings based on documentary evidence where those findings do not rest upon credibility evaluations of live witnesses. That is what we held in Jurek, 623 F.2d at 932, but it is no longer good law. Five years after Jurek, the Supreme Court in Anderson squarely held that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies “even when the district court’s findings do not rest on credibility determinations, but are based instead on physical or documentary evidence or inferences from other facts.” 470 U.S. at 574, 105 S.Ct. at 1511-12; see also Spaziano, 36 F.3d at 1032. Accordingly, we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review to the district court’s factfindings — whether those findings are based on witness testimony or on documentary evidence. Moreover, as mandated by the Supreme Court, we will give even “greater deference” to factfindings of the district court that are based on determinations of the credibility of witnesses, as is largely the case here. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575, 105 S.Ct. at 1512. As to the denial of Stano’s Rule 60(b) motion, this Court “will overturn a district court’s denial of a motion to set aside a judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) only if the district court has abused its discretion.” Delaney v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 947 F.2d 1536, 1545 n. 21 (11th Cir.1991). II. DISCUSSION We will first address Stano’s appeal from the district court’s denial of habeas relief following its evidentiary hearing on the issues remanded by this Court’s en bane opinion. Then we will discuss his appeal from the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. A. THE REMAND ISSUES The en banc opinion of this Court remanded four issues to the district court, each of which we will address in turn. 1. The Brady Claim As stated in the en banc opinion, “Stano has alleged that the prosecution suppressed evidence that there was collusion between [Sergeant Paul] Crow, the police investigator; Donald Jacobson, Stano’s defense attorney during the investigative stage; and Dr. Ann McMillan, the defense psychologist during the investigative stage. The alleged purpose of this collusion was to exploit Stano’s mental vulnerabilities in order to coerce murder confessions, including confessions to the Seharf killing.” 901 F.2d at 899. The district court made the following findings of fact based on the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing: Attorney Jacobson did not tell Crow what Stano had confessed to him until Stano entered his plea agreement with the State’s Attorney’s Office in the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (consisting of Volusia, Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties). Crow did not ask Jacobson or Warren Walker, an investigator for the defense, for details about any murders or request that they ask Stano for any details. Stano and his parents encouraged Jacobson to obtain a plea agreement for Stano that would avoid a sentence of death. Because Jacobson knew that Stano had committed multiple murders, he arranged a plea agreement with the Seventh Judicial Circuit prosecutor that would prevent Stano from receiving the death penalty for any murders to which he confessed before a plea of guilty was entered and in which the victim’s body was found within the jurisdiction of the Seventh Judicial Circuit. Jacobson permitted Crow to talk to Stano about murders within the scope of the plea agreement in order to comply with the agreement. Jacobson told Stano that he should confess to all the murders in which he left the bodies of the victims within the Seventh Judicial Circuit, because any murders revealed after the plea of guilty was entered would not be covered by the plea agreement and could result in a death sentence. Moreover, Jacobson explained to Stano that because the plea agreement was limited to the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Stano was not to talk about any murders in which a body was left outside that jurisdiction— which would include the murder of Cathy Seharf in Brevard County. The district court also found that Dr. McMillan did not instruct Crow about how to question Stano, or even talk with Crow about his methods of interrogation, and that there was no evidence that any statements made by Dr. McMillan influenced Crow’s method of interrogating Stano. Crow did not receive a “covert” copy of a July 12, 1992, letter from Jacobson to Stano. Jacobson did not reveal information he had learned from Stano concerning homicides committed outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit beyond the six murders within the scope of the plea agreement and the September 2, 1981, plea of guilty. Crow did not deprive others of contact with Stano. Crow had no intention of writing a book while his investigation of Stano was ongoing, and Crow did not “feed” information to Stano in order to cause Stano to confess to homicides that he did not commit. Based upon our review of the record, we hold that the district court’s factfindings, which we have summarized in the preceding two paragraphs, are not clearly erroneous. Those findings fully support, indeed compel, the district court’s conclusion that “there was no collusion between Crow, Jacobson and McMillan.” That alone is a sufficient basis upon which to affirm the district court’s rejection of Stano’s Brady claim, because there cannot have been suppression of nonexistent evidence. The district court went further and held, as an alternative basis for rejecting the Brady claim, that Sergeant Crow, who was a member of the Daytona Beach Police Department in Volusia County, was not part of the Brevard County prosecution team that prosecuted Stano for the Scharf murder. That holding was based upon factfindings that: Crow did not do any investigation for Dean Moxley, the Brevard County prosecutor in the Scharf case; Crow was not under Moxley’s authority or control; Crow did not participate in developing Moxley’s ease for trial; there was no jurisdictional overlap between Brevard County and either Volusia County or the Daytona Beach Police Department regarding the control or direction of the Scharf murder investigation; Crow was used by Moxley merely as a fact witness and source of information for the Scharf investigation; and the Scharf case “was always a Brevard County Sheriffs case and never a joint investigation with any other agency.” Our review of the record convinces us that the district court’s factfindings about Crow’s relationship to the Scharf murder prosecution team are not clearly erroneous, and thus the factual premise of its alternative holding is sound. The legal premise of the alternative holding is that information known to a police officer who testifies at trial is not imputed to the prosecutor in a different jurisdiction unless that officer is a member of the prosecution team. That may be so, see Stano, 901 F.2d at 906-07 (Edmondson, J., concurring), but we need not decide, because it is enough for present purposes that there was no collusion and thus no suppressed evidence. We affirm on that basis without addressing whether, if there had been collusion, Crow’s knowledge of it would have been imputed to the prosecution. 2. The Henry Claim Stano has alleged that the trial testimony of Clarence Zacke, a jailhouse informant, was in violation of United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S.Ct. 2183, 65 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). The district court found no evidentiary support for Stano’s Henry claim and made the following factfindings: In the present case, there was no evidence that Zacke received instructions from the police, from the prosecutors, or from anyone else to do anything whatsoever concerning Stano. There was nothing in the evidence presented to the Court indicating that there was any prearrangement for Zacke to obtain anything from Stano. The Court was presented with no evidence indicating that Zacke was paid or otherwise rewarded to develop any type of relationship with Stano or to otherwise secure incriminating information. The prosecution did not use Zacke to carry out any deliberate and surreptitious interrogation of Stano. Zacke was not promised any rewards for any information that he might provide regarding Stano. The prosecution did not request Zacke to elicit any information from Stano, and there was no presolicitation of Zacke by the prosecution to do anything of any nature concerning Stano. There simply was no evidence that Zacke was a .government agent or that Zacke in any manner deliberately elicited incriminating statements from Stano. Based on our review of the record, the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of habeas relief based on the Henry claim. 3. The Johnson v. Mississippi Claim In our en banc opinion, we also asked the district court to address Stano’s argument that his sentence should be vacated under Johnson v. Mississippi 486 U.S. 578, 108 S.Ct. 1981, 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988), because two of the convictions relied upon in his sentencing had been invalidated by a panel of this Court. Stano, 901 F.2d at 905. However, the opinion invalidating those two convictions, Stano v. Dugger, 889 F.2d 962 (11th Cir.1989), was subsequently vacated, Stano v. Dugger, 897 F.2d 1067 (11th Cir.1990), and the case heard by this Court en banc. As the district court correctly observed, the en banc Court determined that Stano’s Sixth Amendment attacks on the two convictions were without merit and affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief as to those convictions. Stano v. Dugger, 921 F.2d 1125, 1154 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 835, 112 S.Ct. 116, 116 L.Ed.2d 85 (1991). Because the panel opinion invalidating the two convictions has subsequently been overturned by this Court en banc, we hold that Stano’s Johnson v. Mississippi claim was properly rejected. 4. Voluntariness of Stano’s Confessions Although there is some question as to whether our en bane opinion specifically directed the district court to determine whether Stano’s confessions to the Scharf murder were voluntary, the evidentiary hearing did include this issue and the district court made findings of fact and entered a holding concerning it. Regarding the March 1981 confession, the district court found that Stano waived his rights after being advised of them and that neither Crow nor the other questioner coached Stano or edited the tape recording of the interview. As for the August 1982 confessions, the court found that Stano waived his rights and that there was no evidence that the waiver of rights form was filled out before it was given to Stano. The court also dismissed the testimony of Martin Markowitz, who suggested that tapes of Sta-no’s interviews indicated his responses were coerced or involuntary, as “speculative, unreliable and beyond the competency of this witness....” The district court determined that “there was no coercion imposed by Crow, Jacobson, or McMillan, together or individually, on Stano with regard to the confessions” and rejected Stano’s claim to the contrary. After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court. B. STANO’S RULE 60(B) MOTION The district court conducted its evidentiary hearing in January and March of 1992 and issued its order denying relief on June 10, 1992. In June of 1993, a book entitled Blind Fury was published. Blind Fury was writ ten by the mother of an Assistant Florida Attorney General who had participated in the litigation of this case, and includes a forward written by Sergeant Crow. It is a paperback, tabloid-type book which purports to chronicle the investigation of Stano and his murder convictions. As the State aptly observed in its brief, Blind Fury is “obviously without a scholarly bent” and “has the intellectual appeal of a mosquito bite.” The book does contain numerous references to Crow, and Stano contends that it “was written with Paul Crow’s substantial assistance and active participation.” Stano moved for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) based on the publication of Blind Fury. In his motion to the district court, Stano argued that the publication of the book undermined the credibility of Sergeant Crow, that it provided substantive support for Stano’s constitutional claims, and that the attorney general’s office improperly failed to disclose the fact that the book was being written. The district court denied Sta-no’s Rule 60(b) motion, finding that Stano’s allegations did not justify relief from its earlier. order denying habeas relief. Stano contends that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing regarding the impact of Blind Fury on the district court’s assessment of Crow’s credibility. For the reasons that follow, we reject Stano’s contention and affirm the order of the district court denying his Rule 60(b) motion. Stano argues that Crow’s participation in the publication of Blind Fury undermines the credibility of his testimony at the eviden-tiary hearing where he stated that he was not involved in writing a book about Stano and that he was only interested in authoring an educational treatise for use by law enforcement. The district court rejected Sta-no’s assertion that the subsequent publication of Blind Fury should change its evaluation of Crow’s credibility and the substance of his testimony. The district court noted that Crow testified at the hearing that he did not want to write a book until the Stano investigation was over, and that the investigation had been concluded. Moreover, Crow did not author the book; he only wrote the forward and assisted the author. The court determined that there was no “reason why Mr. Crow would now be foreclosed from authoring a book of his own.” We agree with the district court that the issue of whether Crow’s investigation and testimony was tainted by his desire to write a book was “thoroughly explored” at the evi-dentiary hearing held before Blind Fury was published, and that Stano’s allegations “demonstrate no facts which would undermine the previous findings of the Court.” The publication of Blind Fury in 1993 does not demonstrate that Crow was motivated in 1981 and 1982 by ulterior motives to coerce Stano to make confessions to crimes that he did not commit. In addition, the fact that the book was published (a year and a half after he testified) does not undermine Crow’s credibility at the hearing; the same district court judge whose job it was to evaluate the credibility of witnesses at the evidentiary hearing has explicitly determined that publication of the book does not affect his credibility assessments. We therefore hold that the district court was not required to hold an evi-dentiary hearing regarding the book Blind Fury and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stano’s Rule 60(b) motion. In addition to arguing that the publication of Blind Fury affected Crow’s credibility, Stano asserted two other grounds in support of his Rule 60(b) motion to the district court: that the book provided substantive support for his habeas claims and that the attorney general’s office acted improperly in failing to disclose to the district court that the book was being written. Stano apparently has abandoned these two arguments in his appeal to this Court. In any event, the district court’s order implicitly rejected these two arguments when it found that Stano’s “arguments are without merit” and that his allegations “demonstrate no facts which would undermine the previous findings of the Court.” We see no error in those conclusions. III. CONCLUSION We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief and AFFIRM its denial of Stano’s Rule 60(b) motion. APPENDIX A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION Gerald Eugene Stano, Petitioner, v. Thomas L. Barton, Superintendent, Florida State Prison; Harry K. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondents. Case No. 87-753-CIV-ORL-19 ORDER An evidentiary hearing was held in this case from January 22, 1992 through January 31, 1992 and from March 5, 1992 through March 9, 1992, pursuant to the remand from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Stano v. Dugger, 901 F.2d 898 (11th Cir.1990). Upon consideration of the evidence and the law, the Court enters its findings of fact and conclusions of law as follows: I. BRADY CLAIM A FINDINGS OF FACT ON CLAIM OF COLLUSION AND COERCION (1) STANO’S CONFESSION TO THE MURDER OF MARY CAROL MAHER ON APRIL 1, 1980 James William Gadberry, Jr., now a patrolman with the Daytona Beach Police Department, testified that on April 1, 1980, he “broke” the Maher ease by developing the lead that solved it. Gadberry had just arrested Gerald Eugene Stano (“Stano”) on that date for the aggravated battery of Donna Hensley in Daytona Beach, Florida. Sta-no had been brought to the Daytona Beach Police Department for questioning by Gad-berry, who was then a detective, and Detective Richard Zachary. During the course of this questioning, Gadberry determined that the wounds inflicted on Donna Hensley were similar to the wounds on the body of a homicide victim under investigation by his department, Mary Carol Maher. Gadberry left Stano in the interview room and went into the office of Captain Marvin Eugene Powers where he announced with enthusiasm that he had solved the murder of Mary Carol Maher. Gadberry stated “We’ve got the guy responsible for the Maher murder,” or words to like effect and also announced that the murderer was then in their interview room. This questioning of Stano by Gadberry occurred before any interview of Stano by Sgt. Paul B. Crow of the Daytona Beach Police Department. Since Sgt. Crow was in charge of the Maher murder investigation, Captain Powers directed Crow to join Gadberry in the interview room to further question the suspect. Gadberry excitedly advised Crow that the wounds in the Hensley case and the Maher case were similar, particularly in the thigh areas, and that he, Gadberry, had solved the Maher ease. Crow joined Gadberry in the interview room where Stano was questioned by both police officers. During the course of this interview, Crow showed Stano a color studio photograph of two Maher sisters who were similar in.appearance, and Stano immediately pointed to Mary Carol Maher as his victim. When Sta-no was asked to describe Mary Carol Maher, he stood up to give her height and weight by gesture and described her as being tall and athletic. Stano’s description of the victim was accurate. On further questioning, Stano gave a correct description of the clothes Mary Carol Maher had been wearing. When Crow said Maher was wearing slacks and a shirt, Stano corrected him and identified her as wearing a white shirt with animal designs and jeans. Stano also described how he murdered Maher, including stabbing her in the chest, thigh and back. His description of the wounds matched the autopsy report except that stab wounds in the back had not been included in the medical report on Ms. Maher. Stano stated that he had stabbed the victim in the chest as hard as he could. The autopsy reflected that her sternum had been broken. Stano further described the road which he traveled with her body, how he wrapped her in a foam padding or ticking, and how he left the body in an area near the airport, placing palm branches over it. During this interview, Crow did not suggest to Stano what clothes the victim was wearing or her wounds or how the body appeared when it was located. Neither officer showed Stano police reports, the autopsy report, or any photographs except the one of the two sisters referenced earlier. (See transcript and recording of confession, Petitioner’s 4 and 149.) During this questioning of Stano, Gadber-ry walked in and out of the interview room. Captain Powers testified that Gadberry came out of the interview room several times and advised him that Stano was guilty of the Maher murder. The interview of Stano on this date lasted approximately one and one-half hours. Captain Powers then directed Crow and Gadberry to have Stano take them to the scene where Stano claimed to have left the body to see if Stano could corroborate his confession. The three men traveled in a marked police car with Officers Willie Azma and Grady Jackson following in a separate vehicle. While the testimony is in conflict as to what occurred on the trip to the scene, the Court finds that Sgt. Crow did not show Stano the way to the place where Mary Carol Maher’s body had been found. Stano directed Crow, who was driving the vehicle, to make the appropriate turns, and after he had directed Crow to a place where three roads diverged in an area which was approximately fifty percent a dump site, Stano picked the least traveled of the three roads to follow. The men got out of the two vehicles in which they were travelling, and Stano directed them on foot some distance from the cars to the exact location where the body had been found. Stano cried as he pointed to the place where he had left Mary Carol Maher’s body and described how he had placed branches over her body before leaving. On their return from the trip to the site where Maher’s body had been found, Gad-berry advised Sgt. Marvin J. White of the Daytona Beach Police Department that he had solved the Maher case, and the officers who had gone to the scene also reported to Captain Powers that Stano had led them right to the place where the body had been found • and had cried. Gadberry did not state any concern about the confession or the trip to the scene of the crime at the time of these events. In the days following Stano’s initial' statement on April 1, 1980, Sgt. Crow undertook further investigation. He had a second autopsy of Mary Carol Maher performed. He and the medical coroner went to the funeral home where the coroner examined the body and found for the first time the two stab wounds in the back of Mary Carol Maher which Stano had described and which the medical examiner had missed in his first autopsy and medical report. Crow asked Detective Lewis to check with jurisdictions south of Daytona Beach to see if the body of a woman had been located along 1-4 or 1-95. Lewis investigated and reported to Crow that no evidence on this alleged murder victim had been obtained. As the result of the confession of Stano on April 1, 1980, Crow did a complete records check of the Daytona Beach boardwalk area for missing persons, homicides, and any crimes involving the name Stano. Crow came up with several incident reports, and from these reports prepared a chart compiling this information. From this information Crow learned that several women had accused Stano of assault and battery after picking them up at the boardwalk area. Crow compiled reports of crimes or missing persons concerning the following women: Ramona Neal, Debra Jackson, Donna Hensley, Mary Carol Maher, Hazel Allen and Patricia Courtney. Crow then contacted Dave Hudson of the Volusia County Sheriffs Department for the names of other possible crime victims. From Hudson he obtained information concerning homicide victims, including Ms. Nancy Heard, whose body had been found three miles north of the Holiday Inn boardwalk, and Ms. Linda Hamilton, who had been reported missing from the boardwalk area and found on the beach in New Smyrna. In addition, on April 1, 1980, Crow called Stano’s mother and father who went to the Daytona Beach Police Department. Grow advised them that Stano had confessed to murder and asked for their input on his background and personality, which they provided. Crow further researched Stano’s background and found that in other jurisdictions of Florida as well as in Pennsylvania and New Jersey there were homicides involving a similar modus operandi to that of the homicide of Mary Carol Maher with such things as branches covering the female victims when their bodies were found. Crow also sent Stano’s car to the crime lab for examination and visited Stano’s room, but found no viable evidence. (2) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CROW, JACOBSON AND McMILLAN Meanwhile on April I, 1980, Stano called Don Jacobson from the jail and made a confession to him. Jacobson, an experienced criminal defense attorney who has handled several capital cases and who had previously represented Stano, called Stano’s parents to advise them that he would like to represent Stano. Mr. and Mrs. Stano initially retained Jacobson. Then a few days later, they terminated this relationship and instead hired Michael Lambert to represent their son. When they were unable to pay Lambert’s fee, they begged Jacobson to take the defense of Petitioner Stano again. Jacobson entered an initial notice of appearance on April 9, 1980 to defend Stano against the charge of the murder of Mary Carol Maher. Because Michael Lambert was the attorney of record, Jacobson entered a second appearance on behalf of Stano on May 9,1980. He was officially appointed as one of Stano’s attorneys on May 15, 1980. Jacobson interviewed Stano several times, during which Stano confessed to the six murders in Volusia County which eventually became the basis for entry of a plea of guflty on September 2, 1981 described below. Stano confessed to Jacobson that he had committed other murders as well. Jacobson obtained court orders to hire a private investigator, Warren Walker, to go to the cities or areas where Stano said he had murdered people or left bodies in order to determine if Stano’s confessions were “real”; in other words, Jacobson wanted to determine if Stano had truly committed these murders or was falsely confessing. (Petitioner’s 117, 118, 121 and 122). Jacobson also obtained authorization to hire Ann McMillan, a psychologist, to obtain background information and to perform psychological tests on Stano. (See Petitioner’s 116, 119). From the information he gathered through his own investigation, Jacobson determined to his satisfaction that Stano had in fact committed the murders which he confessed to committing to his attorney. Jacobson testified that before he allowed Stano to enter a plea of guilty incident to the six Volusia County murders, he had ruled out the factual innocence of Stano through Jacobson’s own, independent investigation. Until Don Jacobson as Stano’s attorney and Larry Nixon as the prosecuting attorney in the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit entered an agreement which would allow Stano to plead guilty and receive a sentence of.life imprisonment for any murder he committed of a victim whose body was located in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Jacobson described his relationship with Paul Crow as one of adversaries. Although Crow and Jacobson had known each other professionally since 1966, they were not personal friends and had associated with each other only in the context of their work within their respective professions. Jacobson testified that he and Crow not only did not work together, but also that they were “enemies” until Jacobson and Nixon entered a deal to spare the life of Jacobson’s client, Stano, as to the murder victims located within the Seventh Judicial Circuit. Until then, Jacobson did not tell Crow what Stano had confessed to Jacobson. Instead Jacobson would talk to Crow or have Warren Walker, his investigator, talk to Crow to try to find out how much Crow had learned concerning the various murders that Stano already had confessed to committing to Jacobson. Crow testified that he told Don Jacobson and Warren Walker from time to time in response to their inquiries the information that Crow was learning about Stano but that he never asked Jacobson or Walker for details and never requested that they ask Stano for details. During the course of his investigation of Stano, Crow told Jacobson that he did not think Stano had killed just one or two persons. Jacobson would respond to Crow, “Prove it.” or “Show me.” Jacobson did not indicate agreement with Crow or acquiescence in what Crow said. Jacobson did not give Crow any indication that Jacobson viewed Stano as a multiple or serial killer. In April or May of 1980, Jacobson began making contact with Larry Nixon, the prosecuting attorney, in an effort to obtain a plea agreement which would spare his client’s life. Sometime around May of 1980, he approached Nixon and advised Nixon that he had “interesting information” but that he would want something in exchange for it. In Jacobson’s professional opinion, Nixon had a strong case against Stano in the Maher and Vann Haddocks murders, and he felt that the death penalty for Stano was likely. Jacobson testified that in Stano’s confessions to him, Stano knew facts only the killer of these women would know. Stano from the very outset had urged Jacobson to obtain for him a plea agreement that would spare his life because he feared the death penalty. Stano as well as his parents had expressed their desire on several occasions for Jacobson to try to negotiate a plea agreement on behalf of Stano. Because Jacobson knew that Stano was involved in more than one murder, he continued to pursue the concept of a plea agreement with Larry Nixon, and a deal was struck in May of 1980 in which Nixon agreed to give use immunity to Stano as to any murders to which Stano confessed prior to entry of a plea of guilty and if the bodies of the victims were found in the Seventh Judicial Circuit. Jacobson and Nixon both testified that this agreement meant Stano would not receive the death penalty for any murder of victims whose bodies were found in the Seventh Judicial Circuit to which he confessed prior to entry of his guilty plea before Judge Fox-man. The agreement between Nixon and Jacobson pertaining to this plea of guilty and sentence was limited to the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Nixon’s jurisdiction. Jacobson made clear to Stano on several occasions, and he testified that Stano understood, that if a body-had not been left within the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Stano was not to talk about it to the authorities. Jacobson instructed Stano not to talk to anyone about the bodies of Stano’s victims which were located outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit, and particularly since Stano had confessed by this time to Jacobson to the Scharf murder in Brevard County as well as to other murders outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Jacobson advised Stano that these other murders were outside the agreement that he had made on behalf of Stano with Mr. Nixon and were therefore “taboo”, not to be mentioned or discussed by Stano with anyone. Jacobson explained use immunity to Stano in May of 1980 and reiterated to him in several subsequent conversations that he should not discuss any murder in which the body of the victim was found outside the jurisdiction of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, including but not limited to the murder of Cathy Lee Scharf, because it was not covered by the plea agreement with Nixon. In addition, Jacobson explained to Stano that he should confess to all murders he had committed in the Seventh Judicial Circuit and left the bodies of the victims there because if Stano was found guilty of a murder after the plea of guilty was entered and he was sentenced by Judge Foxman, Stano would probably “get the electric chair” for that crime. Jacobson also determined at this time that because of the circumstances of the case, because he knew that bodies would be located within several jurisdictions located within the Seventh Judicial Circuit and because he knew that there would be arguments among these jurisdictions over their respective authorities, that he would like Crow to be the clearing house for all of the cases to which Stano confessed pursuant to the plea agreement Jacobson had negotiated with Nixon. In this manner Jacobson could work through Crow without having to deal with other police officers and agencies in the Seventh Judicial Circuit. (a) Meetings between Crow, McMillan and Jacobson It was approximately seventeen months from the date this plea agreement was struck until the entry of Stano’s plea of guilty before the state trial court on September 2, 1981. Against this background, there were a series of three meetings involving Crow, McMillan and Jacobson, as well as others, which were the subject of evidence before this Court. First, around May 7,1980, Warren Walker requested a meeting with Crow to look at Stano’s car at Jacobson’s office. On this date, Crow had obtained Stano’s statement about the murder of Mary Carol Maher and his statement about leaving another body on an interstate highway median. Crow went to Jacobson’s office where he saw Walker and Jacobson and first met the psychologist, Dr. Ann McMillan, whom Jacobson had earlier hired to get background information and to conduct psychological testing on Stano. At this meeting, Crow learned that McMillan would examine Stano the next day. Crow talked to the people present for about thirty minutes, then searched Stano’s car and left. While on the premises, Crow told Warren Walker that he thought Stano was involved in more than the murder of Mary Carol Maher and that he had reason to believe that Stano had been involved in the Ramona Neal case and the Toni Vann Haddocks ease. Next, Crow saw Jacobson in Deland at the jail annex probably around May 8, 1980. This was an unplanned encounter. Jacobson invited Crow to join him and Dr. McMillan at the Holiday House restaurant for lunch which lasted about one hour. Again, this meeting with Crow was not prearranged. During lunch, Crow was advised for the first time by Jacobson and McMillan that there was a problem with a test that McMillan had administered to Stano. Jacobson and McMillan suggested that Crow also ask Sta-no to take the test again to the best of his knowledge. Crow testified that no diagnosis of Stano was given to him by McMillan, and although McMillan and Jacobson discussed theories, Crow did not agree with what they were saying. Crow chose to remain silent rather than become involved in the conversation. The third meeting occurred approximately one week after this meeting in Deland at the Holiday House, sometime after May 9th but before June 3rd, 1980. Within a week following the meeting at the Deland Holiday House, Larry Nixon told Crow that there was an agreement between Nixon and Jacobson and that Crow should cooperate with Jacobson and tell Jacobson exactly what Crow knew about any murders he thought that Stano may have committed to see if Stano would give information. Jacobson called Crow shortly thereafter to meet with him. This meeting was at Ann McMillan’s office, and on Crow’s arrival McMillan, Jacobson, and Stano’s mother and father were present. At this meeting, Crow identified to Jacobson and the others present the possible victims whom he suspected were linked to Sta-no and a general description of where the bodies were found: the girl in the blue and white bikini whose body had been found in Tomoka State Park, the girl whose body had been found by the power lines in Tomoka State Park, the girl who had been found on the beach at New Smyrna Beach, and the girl whose body Stano said he had left on an Interstate highway. Crow did not tell Jacobson or any of the other persons present the details of these four homicides. He told them just enough information so that they could identify the murder victim to Stano and get information from Stano in order to fulfill the agreement Jacobson and Stano had struck with Nixon. As a result of this third meeting, Jacobson was to talk to Stano and was then to provide information on the murders in the Seventh Judicial Circuit in which Stano was involved. At no time did Crow ask Mr. or Mrs. Stano or any of the other persons present to obtain information for his investigation from Stano. Jacobson, however, asked Stano’s parents to talk to their son to urge him to be truthful. At this time, in an effort to comply with the provisions of the plea agreement he had negotiated for his client with Larry Nixon, Jacobson consented to Stano talking to Paul Crow about murders for which Stano was responsible in the Seventh Judicial Circuit. (b) McMillan’s Lack of Influence on Crow’s Interrogation Techniques From the evidence presented, the Court finds that at no time did Dr. McMillan give instruction to Sgt. Crow on how to interrogate Stano nor did Crow ever discuss with McMillan how to question Stano. When Crow first met McMillan, he had already obtained at least one confession from Stano to a murder Stano had committed. Further, Crow was a seasoned investigator who had attended the F.B.I. Academy and had extensive instruction in courses such as psychological profiles, personality dysfunctions and serial killers. The source of Petitioner’s contention that McMillan instructed Crow as to how he should interrogate Stano appears to have come from McMillan herself and McMillan’s subsequent statements to news reporters. McMillan testified that on one of the three times noted above when she met Crow, she understood that Jacobson told her to discuss with Crow how to question Stano. She testified that at the time she felt it was ludicrous for her to tell a trained police officer how to conduct an investigation and felt uncomfortable with Jacobson’s alleged suggestion. Since she had read something about Ted Bundy, McMillan stated that she said in response to Jacobson’s direction, “Feed on his ego”, and also that Stano would “lay down false trails”. She testified that she was very general and not specific in her statement to Crow and that she knew at the time that Crow already had a confession from Stano. Further, she testified that she had no knowledge of any interrogation methods used by Crow. She knew at the time that Crow was a well trained and highly regarded police officer and stated that she had no idea why anyone would ask her to tell Crow how to interrogate Stano. If this conversation occurred at all, and both Jacobson and Crow deny that it did, this simplistic statement by Dr. McMillan did not rise to the level of McMillan instructing Crow on how to interrogate Stano. “Feeding” on the ego of a suspect is a well known method of interrogation by law enforcement which was neither invented by McMillan nor revealed by her to Crow for the first time. Further, there was no evidence that this interrogation method was employed by Crow. Finally, the record reflects that Crow knew long before he met McMillan that Sta-no did not immediately confess to crimes he committed and “laid down false trails”, ie. in Stano’s claim that he did not associate with black individuals when asked about Toni Vann Haddocks. At best, McMillan appears to have misperceived a comment by Don Jacobson during the course of one of the three encounters she had with Crow. In any event, her statement that Stano would “lay down false trials”,- and that Crow should “feed on his ego,” if made, was either not heard by Jacobson and Crow or, if heard, was viewed as so utterly insignificant as to be unworthy of note. McMillan’s role was limited and strictly defined. She had been hired by Jacobson for the purposes of administering a psychological test to Stano and gathering background information as noted above. She was not trained in police interrogation methods. There was no evidence that any statement she made had any effect on how Crow interrogated Stano. Crow testified that he did not discuss with McMillan ways to interrogate Stano, the manner in which to pose questions, the areas to cover or how to interrogate a suspect in multiple murders. By the time McMillan met Crow, Crow was far ahead of McMillan in his investigation of Stano and in his training on how to interview criminal suspects. Crow did not need, or receive, any assistance from Dr. McMillan in conducting interrogation incident to his investigation of Stano. (c) No “Covert” Copy of Jacobson’s Letter Delivered to Crow Finally, the evidence is undisputed that Crow never received a “covert” copy of a letter from Jacobson to Stano dated July 12, 1982 (Petitioner’s 36 and 132). Crow did not see and did not discuss this letter or its contents with anyone until this issue was raised by Stano in his post trial habeas petitions. Further, Crow never told anyone that “he was Stano’s best source.” Jacobson testified that he meant in this letter by the statement “your best source is still Sergeant Paul Crow” that Crow was the best source for Stano to find out if there was use immunity for any murder he committed in addition to the six Volusia County murders to which he confessed before he entered his plea of guilty on September 2, 1981. Jacobson testified that he had intended to send, but did not send, a copy of this letter to Crow to underscore that there was no promise of life imprisonment as to any other murders Stano confessed to committing and to make Crow understand that Stano should be asking for immunity. The Court finds that Paul Crow had no knowledge of this letter at any time prior to being questioned about it incident to Petitioner’s allegations in this case. (3) CONFESSION TO MURDER OF TONI VANN HADDOCKS Meanwhile, Toni Vann Haddocks had been listed as a missing person from Daytona Beach, Florida. Around April 6, 1980, her body had been found in Volusia County in an area where Stano used to live and which was near the residence of Stano’s brother. Sta-no did not have a good relationship with his brother at the time. On April 20, 1980, at the request of Detective Lehman of the Volu-sia County Sheriffs Department, Crow went to the scene in Volusia County where the portions of the body had been found. Crow felt from the scene where the body was found that there were similarities between the murder of Toni Vann Haddocks and the murder of Mary Carol Maher, particularly the fact that branches of small trees had been used to cover the bodies of both victims. Further, Crow was advised that the University of Florida Anthropology Department had determined that a possible weapon used in the Vann Haddocks murder was a can opener, a weapon which had been used by Stano in the Donna Hensley case. (Respondent’s 7). Stano had denied knowledge of Toni Vann Haddocks in his initial interview with Gad-berry and Crow on April 1,1980, stating that he did not associate with blacks. However, when Crow sent Detective Lewis, a man who is similar in physical appearance to Stano, to an area known as “Ridgewood” which is frequented by black prostitutes, in order to obtain information, the black prostitutes at first thought Lewis was Stano. Several of these prostitutes stated they knew Stano from previous associations with him. When Lewis reported this information to Crow, Crow realized that this information contradicted what Stano had stated earlier" on April 1st. Between April 1, 1980 and May 9, 1980, Crow stated that he saw Stano five or less times. On these occasions he tried to get background information on Stano and to maintain rapport. Crow and Detective Lehman of the Volusia County Sheriffs office, which had jurisdiction over the Vann Haddocks investigation, decided that Crow should talk to Stano about the Vann Haddocks’ murder as an experiment to see if Stano would talk to Crow based in part on this rapport. On May 9, 1980, Crow talked to Stano about the Vann Haddocks crime after Stano was given his rights and signed a waiver form (Appendix 73 to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus). Stano confessed to this crime (See also Petitioner’s 158). The body of this victim had been scattered by animals. Stano knew details concerning the victim which the police did not know. For instance, when Crow asked Stano if he knew something about the victim which the police would not know, Stano stated that Vann Haddocks had a cast on her arm. When Crow asked Stano if it was a sling cast, Stano stated that it was an arm cast not a sling cast. On May 19, 1980, and June 3, 1980, Crow and Lehman interviewed Stano, telling Sta-no, inter alia, that other jurisdictions wanted him for murders which it was suspected he had committed in such other jurisdictions, and that it was not likely that these jurisdictions would be interested in Stano if Stano was doing a term of life in prison in Florida. They also advised Stano that they did not have enough information to keep Stano in Florida. Crow testified, particularly with reference to the plea agreement that had been entered by Stano through Don Jacobson with Larry Nixon, that they as police officers were not misstating the case when they said that they were working with Stano in order to obtain a confession in the Vann Haddocks case. Crow testified that in this interview, Lehman- acted as the lead interrogator and that Crow disagreed with Lehman’s theory that Stano had multiple personalities. (See Petitioner’s 149). (4) CONFESSIONS IN MARCH OF 1981 TO MURDERS OF HEARD, HAMILTON, NEAL, AND JANE DOE Between May 19, 1980 and March of 1981, Crow continued to talk to Stano and to see him from time to time in jail although their conversations were not about cases. Although Stano called Crow on the telephone, and wrote and called others including Ann McMillan, Crow had only Stano’s confessions to the Maher and Vann Haddocks murders during this period of time in spite of the fact that he had previously told Jacobson of his suspicions concerning four additional murder victims in Volusia County. Around March 6, 1981, Stano indicated that he wanted to talk about other murders in Volusia County. Crow contacted Jacobson and Nixon, and a court order was issued, with the knowledge of Don Jacobson, to allow Detective Hudson of .the Volusia County Sheriffs Department and Sgt. Crow of the Daytona Beach Police Department to bring Stano from the Volusia County jail to the Daytona Beach Police Department for questioning. This transportation occurred on March 12,1981. (Petitioner’s 21, 22, 87 and 128). On March 12, 1981 Crow advised Stano of his Miranda rights, and Stano executed a waiver form. Crow and Hudson then questioned Stano concerning the four cases for which he had been transported to Daytona Beach as part of the plea agreement to discuss and which were referenced in Stano’s March 6,1981 letter: the Nancy Heard, Jane Doe, Ramona Neal, and Linda Hamilton murders. Stano gave additional details of each murder beyond what Crow had related to Jacobson and Stano’s father in their last meeting. Crow was not familiar with many of the details of the cases. The investigators took four confessions from Stano, one after another, concerning Hamilton, Neal, Jane Doe and Heard in that order. These confessions were transcribed and later signed by Stano after review on March 17,1981. (Petitioner’s 168(a)-(d)). Although Stano was. asked questions concerning the four murders and bodies found in Volusia County pursuant to the plea agreement between him and his attorney, Don Jacobson, on the one hand and Larry Nixon on the other, and although he had been admonished by his attorney not to reveal the murders he had committed outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in the course of trying to relate facts and reconstruct the route he took with reference to the Jane Doe murder, Stano became confused over whether he had left the body in a median on Interstate 95 or Interstate 4. In the course of discussing the Jane Doe murder and trying to retrace his route and the events of the murder, Stano “went off on a tangent” and volunteered information about Titusville and taking the girl to a skating rink, stabbing her and putting her in a dried ditch, then throydng her purse out of his car. Crow noted to himself that these facts did not fit the facts of the case about which Stano was being questioned although no name for this victim was given. Stano did not mention the name of Scharf, and Crow did not feel at this time that Stano was making a confession to a murder. Crow made a notation of these facts given by Stano on his notes concerning the murder of Susan Bickrest, a victim whose name was supplied to Crow by Dave Hudson. During these confessions on March 12, 1981, Stano gave additional details about the four murders. Neither Hudson nor Crow gave Stano details or case report files. Neither man coached Stano or edited sections of the tape recording of his confessions. Detec-five Hudson had the files on each of the four cases which he did not give to Sgt. Crow. On March 12, Stano was returned to the Volusia County jail, and the investigators made plans to have Stano take them the next day, March 13, 1981, to the sites where two bodies had been found. On March 13, 1981, Hudson, Crow and Stano drove to Tomoka State Park, an area comprising thousands of acres of everglades-like vegetation. Here Stano first directed the officers to the location where he had left the body of Ramona Neal. Crow did not know where this body had been found. Sta-no pointed out the site after directing the officers to make the proper turns. Hudson confirmed to Crow that' the place Stano identified was in fact the place where the Neal body had been found. Next, Stano directed the officers to drive approximately two miles away in the area of power lines where Stano identified the place where he had left the second body, that of Nancy Heard. Stano referred to this area as Cobb’s Corner. Crow did not know the area or where the body had been found and could not see the power lines until Stano directed the officers to the exact location where he had left the body. Hudson again confirmed to Crow that Stano had identified the place where this body had been found. On September 2, 1981, S.tano entered a plea of guilty to the Volusia County murders of Maher, Vann Haddocks and Heard, and in exchange was sentenced to life in prison after a hearing to determine his competency. The Hamilton, Neal and Jane Doe cases were not prosecuted. Respondent’s 17(a). At no time did Jacobson reveal to the authorities information he had learned from his client regarding the homicides Stano had committed outside the Seventh Judicial Circuit beyond these six murders encompassed in this September 2, 1981 plea of guilty. (5) CONTACT OF STANO BY OTHERS THROUGH PAUL CROW There is no evidence that Stano was deprived from contact with others by Sgt. Crow. Stano was housed at a variety of prisons in addition to the Daytona Beach jail. For instance he was housed at the Volusia County jail at Deland, the Seminole County jail and at Florida State Prison. He was also subject to visits and interrogations by persons who had no relationship to Paul Crow. In particular, Stano’s father, Eugene Stano, testified that he saw Stano whenever he wished, whether Stano was in Starke or Day-tona Beach, and that he saw his son several times in Crow’s office. He was at no time prohibited from seeing his son. Even when Stano was brought back to the Daytona Beach jail pursuant to court order in August of 1982, Stano was not deprived of contact with other persons. The state court had directed in its order that the Sheriff of Volusia County and the Chief of the Daytona Beach Police Department must keep Stano “safely held in close custody.” (Petitioner’s 37). While safety precautions were implemented as noted later in this opinion to route visits to Stano through Crow while Stano was at the Daytona Beach jail in order to prevent threats on Stano’s life, for Stano’s security, comfort and safety, and to channel, not prevent, visits to Stano, the Court finds that there is no evidence that Sgt. Crow prevented anyone from seeing Stano. (6) THE BOOK(S) It is not surprising in view of the nature of the crimes which were being investigated with reference to Stano that several people contemplated writing books about the events which were rocking the small Florida east coast beach community, and farther that rumors concerning future books and potential wealth to be derived therefrom abounded in this community. Several people contemplated writing books. Stano himself wanted to write a book and wrote several people, including his attorney Donald Jacobson, concerning this possible venture. There was evidence that Sta-no’s parents initially wanted to write a book until they were inundated by news articles. Kathy Kelly, a staff writer of some 29 years with the Daytona Beach News Journal, went so far as to submit several chapters of her proposed book to a literary agent, but she testified that she has not pursued this venture further. Terrell Walter Ecker, a free lance writer and journalist for over 25 years, also began work on a book in which he hoped to focus on Crow’s investigation and other investigations of Stano. Ecker had a literary agent, the Foley Agency in New York City, but his work remained unfinished after he suffered a brain aneurysm in April of 1982. The subsequent brain surgery ended his hope of writing a book. In contrast, Donald Jacobson testified that he at no time had an interest in writing a book and never took any action toward authorship of one. However, both Donald Jacobson and Kathy Kelly testified that there were many rumors that Crow was going to write a book and that both of them mentioned the rumors to Crow on occasion. Both Kelly and Jacobson stated that Crow never indicated to them that he was writing a book, although they knew he had been approached by many people to do so. Kelly testified that when she told Crow about her book, Crow did not suggest that they author a book jointly. Jacobson stated that the rumors about Crow writing a book became a form of a joke. When people would see Crow, they would greet him with “Well, how is the book going?” as a humorous form of greeting. After hearing the testimony of the witnesses on this issue, it appears to this Court that the purported knowledge of some witnesses as to an alleged book Crow intended to write is based upon rumor and not fact. For instance, Kenneth James Morrison testified that he was in a room while Crow and Stano were talking about a book but that he did not know if they were serious or joking. He has no clear memory of the time of this conversation or what was said but testified that it was “a well known fact” among the investigators working on the case that a book was going to be written. He further testified that it was “almost a joke”. The Court finds that testimony given by Paul Crow on the subject of his potential authorship of a book is the most credible evidence provided by any of the witnesses in the case on this subject. Sgt. Crow testified that the concept of a book has at all times been and remains only a possibility in his mind. In any event, he felt that any book in which he made any contribution while his investigation was ongoing would harm his investigation, and he did not intend to pursue the concept of writing a book until his investigation had been completely ended. He testified that rumors abounded in his office that he should write a book and that he could get rich from it. ■ Further, many people contacted him about the possibility of writing a book. He took no steps to make this a reality and rebuffed all inquiries except for one from Terrell Ecker. In 1981 or 1982, Terrell Ecker was one of the persons who contacted Crow about writing a book. Crow thought Ecker’s idea was interesting and talked with Ecker about a possible collaboration in the future. However, when Crow further read some of Ecker’s work, Crow decided that he did not like Ecker’s style, which he felt was sensational with sexual overtones and of a tabloid approach. Crow’s concept of any book that he might participate in writing in the future would be limited to an informational and educational book for law enforcement academies to use in training officers how to investigate a multi-jurisdictional case. Crow felt that there was no treatise at the time to explain to law enforcement agencies how to deal with conflicts among jurisdictions investigating cases which, from his own experience with the Stano ease, had led to confusion and frustration. The initial contact of Crow by Ecker concerning the possibility of jointly writing a book in the future was only that, an initial overture to discuss the possibility of a future joint effort. Crow did not talk to Ecker’s agent, had no literary agent himself, and did not authorize Ecker to discuss the possibility of a book with Ecker’s agent. Crow did not enter any agreement with Ecker, and the idea of a joint book was not further pursued by Crow past this initial overture. Eeker’s inquiry had no effect on the way Crow investigated Stano’s crimes. The initial solicitation of Crow by Ecker was rejected after Crow determined that Ecker’s work was inaccurate, sensational and glamorized. While Terrell Ecker did not appear to know about Crow’s evaluation of Ecker’s work, his te