Well, first off, my name is Jose Baez. I'm the lead defense attorney for Shannon Gardner in the State of Florida versus Shanna Gardner. So, uh first off, the reason I've asked you to come out here today is because uh a matter of great importance, uh and public interest has arisen. And I think it's important for everyone to have a certain amount of transparency as to what's actually going on. In this case. I will start by saying this is not something I do often. In fact, it's the first time I've outwardly spoken in this case, other than a few brief comments for which I was approached walking to my car previously. Other than that I really make very few public statements about the case because, uh, I believe much of which should be done in the courtroom except, and unless there are matters of, of great public interest and importance, having said that I'll start off by telling you that, uh, my office has filed or will be filing shortly, uh Today, a motion in this case advising the court of certain violations of Brady material, which is favorable evidence that was in the possession of the state and not turned over to the defense, much of what the motion entails surrounds uh incidents and testimony that was elicited during the Arthur hearing, which is a bond hearing on May 15th of this year. Now having said that, uh that is an opportunity for those of you who know or, or don't know is an opportunity for the state to put on a certain amount of evidence to be able to show that the accused should be held without bond pending the, the outcome of the case. Now, during that, during the course of that hearing, we learned of a meeting that took place between the two prosecutors in involved in this case. Um One of them I see here today, uh I presume he's gonna open himself up for questions after and I would invite that of course, to hopefully respond to some of the issues that occurred in this matter. First off, it's dealing with the uh testimony of Detective Johns who during the course of that testimony elicited or spoke of certain text messages between a individual with whose initials are KJ and another person's uh whose initials are sl this name had never been made known to us previously. Up until the night before the hearing, we objected to these text messages from coming in and that was overruled. So they did come in in a matter. Of course, we don't take issue with that. Detective Johns testified that he never, that he believed one of his other officers spoke with this witness and, and that he did not when pressed, he later stated that the witness had changed her phone number and uh they had a hard time getting a hold of her. The sl was actually watching the hearing at that time and was outraged by the lies told by Detective Johns in this matter. And I'll remind everyone this is a death penalty case where the state is attempting to utilize the color of law to kill another human being. So as part of this is testimony, number one, it turns out that uh MS L did not change her phone number. She has the same phone number and has had the same phone number since 2014. So that was an outright lie. In addition to that no other detective spoke with uh with MS L. It was Detective Johns who in fact spoke with MS L. That was his second lie and that was a bond being pressed. Now, these are clear, unambiguous straight up lies made by the lead detective involving a critical witness who was allegedly being solicited for, to hire a hit man for murder as it turns out um th this the actual truth was that this was an a running joke between uh the two witnesses that I previously mentioned who apparently uh witnessed S L's fa uh husband is an African American. And uh there was a member who she worked with, who had specifically approached her and, and, and made an offensive comment asking whether he knew any individuals who were involved with crime. So naturally the amongst friends, they, they continued to chide her and that's specifically what was, what was done within those text messages. It was a, it was, they were text messages made in Jest. And as you also heard during the course of that hearing, there was this meeting between the two lead prosecutors as well as the two lead detectives with KJ KJ also got to view uh this hearing and as it turns out was equally enraged by some of the lies told by Detective Johns and some of the key facts omitted by the prosecution such as the statements and many of the text messages that were displayed in an attempt to keep Shanna Gardner in custody were they were told specifically by KJ that many of them were made in Jest and they were not taken seriously by anyone. And in fact, many of the individuals who were surrounding this case knew that this critical information, which is, which is exculpatory information was never disclosed to the defense. And it wasn't until after the Arthur hearing that we were able to uncover that these statements for which are non recorded and no police report was done. I think that's worth mentioning here because I, I don't stand here and, and take this situation lightly. I realize that I am being highly critical of both prosecution and law enforcement in this case. But it, and it does not come easy for me, but I hold them to the highest standards as we all expect our elected officials and our public servants to, to, to act. And in this situation, uh that critical information was not disclosed. And as you saw during the hearing, I was highly critical of the fact that they did not record this, this meeting and that they did not uh write a police report uh uh stating as such. So, you know, my position is simple, even held in the best of lights with the best intentions, completely honest intentions. If you have four highly trained individuals getting a statement from a the most critical witness in the case, you record it. Otherwise you're incredibly incompetent and they, and perhaps they should be fired for that reason. Iii I would want police officers in investigating a crime that I believe is incredibly important, especially one to me to, to do their job appropriately and competently and clearly that's not done and nothing's being said or done about it. And that's a big problem. You can't expect to hold our, our, our public officials accountable if you don't hold them accountable. Let me finish. There's more information I have to disclose. So you have the situation where um this secret meeting is taking place with no recordings and no police reports written on, on the meeting and no disclosure to the defense when we are trying to seek uh uh release from pretrial custody, which are, are founded on constitutional principles such as the presumption of innocence, such as having your day in court, such as holding the government to its full burden. All of these are ignored and being circumvented just because it's popular doesn't, doesn't make it right. And furthermore, what did we learn from this overall hearing? Well, there's some ugly text messages and that's it. I don't think anyone learned any more information about Shannon Gardner's involvement, alleged involvement or non involvement in this case. Other than there were some bad text messages who we now find out were as a result of um ma many of them ingest taken out of context and if you don't, if that's all you have. So what do you do next? You manufacture a case? And I'm not saying that we're at that point yet, but I see very, very potentially harmful things along the horizon such as having, having meetings and not recording them, having meetings and not doing police reports and not disclosing favorable evidence to the defense. As early as yesterday, the uh the prosecutors turned over more additional statements that were allegedly made by KJ at the secret meeting. All of many of which KJ even denies that were ever said and, and KJ also says were, were taken completely out of context and, and uh spun in a direction that was wholly inappropriate when prosecutors don't have a case. These are the things that are done and I will tell you what happens next when you don't have evidence and you have a case like this. The next inclination is to go out and get yourself a jailhouse snitch. So I presume that's being done right now. There's a little shopping that might be going on or might not be. But as a result, what we have done is we are sending a letter to the elected state attorney in this case, Melissa Nelson, and we're going to, and as well as law enforcement in this case advising them that Shanna Gardner is represented and they are not to send in any agents of the state to try and go in who are actually trying to make a deal for themselves and trying to better their current situation while in jail to be able to hurt and harm Shannon Gardner in a death penalty case. That's a textbook move and we are calling them out and I'm telling you right now, II I, if that happens in the future, you will be able to go back at this moment and you'll be able to know and see that I was absolutely 100% correct. So, watch out for that, that's coming next and you cannot have in under any circumstances, a police officer lying in a court of law lying to a judge who has to make the critical decision to, to hold someone while in custody. Everybody forgets. There's Shannon Gardner has a child who is terminally ill. You have this child who may not live being completely torn away from his mother while she waits could be a year, could be two years could be even longer for trial and for which you're seeking the death penalty, the stakes couldn't be higher. And in fact, the, the, the actual conduct couldn't be more egregious. This is not something this community should stand for when they elected Melissa Nelson. They should have expected her to hold her standards, her prosecutors to the, to a heightened standard for which they can fully work within the public trust. And that doesn't mean violating agreements while maintaining attorney client privilege materials for which this court has even acknowledged uh was, was a poor judgment. And now we have this withholding favorable evidence from the defense prior to a critical hearing and then later on afterwards doing it again even more. As recently as yesterday, we got more statements that allegedly occurred during the secret meeting that was not recorded. So folks, I employ all of you who are here to, you know, we're trying to do our job. We want you to ask the tough questions. Don't take the guy to tour. This is, this case is not as simple and as open and shut as it has been laid out to be, you have only heard one side of this case. And what's coming out of it reeks. And I think all of you, I think it's, it's your journalistic responsibility to seek out and ask them. Why are you putting on a police officer who's lying on the stand? Why are you allowing that to happen? Why aren't you recording meetings with spec with very important critical witnesses? Why are you not getting these statements completely locked down? And, and ladies and gentlemen, I will tell you there's a very good reason and the reason is an obvious one. So I would ask that all of you and even those who, who are listening to seek out and ask these questions and, and hold them to their, their, their, their level of professionalism. And I can tell you this, it gives me no pleasure to stand here and do this. None whatsoever. I hate it, hate it with every being, uh uh every part of my being, but I will do it. I will fulfill my oath as an officer of the court and as the lawyer who has been entrusted with Shannon Gardner's life, they're not going to get away with lying in the courtroom. We're not going to stop until we seek justice. In this case. They're not going to get away by creating evidence and we're not going to allow that to happen in this case. I certainly hope that if there's any ambiguities that they clear them up immediately, that they explain why they didn't record that meeting, why they didn't file a police report on that meeting, why Detective Johns is lying about speaking to a person when in fact, he actually did lying as to why she changed her number. When in fact, she still to this day has not changed her number. There's no reason any of these things could have had to have occurred in this case. If they really have a case, if their case is as open and shut as they say, it is to the point where they're confident enough to seek the ultimate penalty of death, then none of this should be going on. None of this. And the fact that they expect us to stand by and let it occur just isn't going to happen, just is not going to happen. And I ask that all of you ask the tough questions and, and by all means, if you want to ask me questions, I noticed Mr Mizrahi left, you know, he doesn't want to answer to his actions. So it is what it is. Uh perhaps perhaps he had another matter and, and in fact, he does so, II I take, I take that back the reality is, is you need to ask him MS Stifler or Melissa Nelson, these tough questions and I think they need they owe the public answers, especially if they're putting on such type of evidence. Mr Baez, I was just hoping to get some clarity. What specifically are you requesting in this motion. Is it a re, uh, you know, consideration of the bond? And two, how did you learn that this witness? How did you learn the? Sure. Well, it's all laid out in our motion. So you'll be able to see it. But I will tell you this, um, first off, we learned about it because they were watching the hearing and, um, that specific witness, the first thing she did is she hired a lawyer and that lawyer then contacted us. We were since able to uh obtain uh a sworn affidavit. Um And in fact, we even have the phone records from when uh Detective Johns actually called her. So there's no getting out of this one. And in addition to that, um both witnesses submitted affidavits clarifying their position and, and basically saying that these, these statements were completely taken out of context and that are completely utterly false. We're requesting the court has numerous and broad discretion in, in a situation like this. She can dismiss the case, she can dismiss the State Attorney's office and disqualify them as we know, this is not their first brush with uh with incidents in, in this case. And she can also give us reconsideration for the bond hearing for which we're asking, we're asking for Shannon Gardner to be released. And that, of course, is one of the remedies that we're seeking to subpoena to testify, they would testify to the truth of what they're saying Yes. Well, there have been hearings in this case to talk about discovery and, and things like that moving forward after the issues that we have discovered previously. Why not bring this up at the next hearing? Why take this um I guess drastic of a step rather than bringing it up before judge. It's not a drastic step, it's drastic conduct. Ok. So you have to respond in kind. And number one, this was the first, as soon as we found out about this information, we immediately got affidavits to, to ensure that this, this testimony is sworn. And in addition to that, what we did next is we, um we filed a motion. So, uh there haven't been any court appearances since we've discovered all of this information, but I can assure you they're all significant discovery violations. They disclosed some of the statements made in that meeting almost a year ago. Ok. But they completely withheld the rest and they absolutely withheld all exculpatory statements. How do you do that? Would any one of you want your family member or, or, or your fellow citizens to go through a system of justice like this? I would, I, I would, I would, I would answer for you and absolutely not. And, and I tell you, um II, I believe, you know, these things require them to, to answer to. And the only way we're going to do it is by exposing it and having full transparency. Do you want to see Detective John for testifying in future hearings or at the trial. That is, there are a number of remedies that the court can fashion. That is one of them as well as a potential jury instruction. And I don't know why you guys put me out here to fry like this under the, in the hot sun. We asked you for all this. Yes, but not in the, not uh uh we, we were told you you wouldn't do it under a tree. But regardless, uh I'm here, I am sweating like crazy. What's that? Uh, ok, I got you. Any other questions? Are you, are you, are you basically saying the Jacksonville Jacksonville Beach Police Department kind of botched this investigation? No, I'm not saying that I'm saying that they lied under oath in a court of law and II, I think, um, that's a fair interpretation of, of what the witnesses are saying and you can't hide. There's no disputing. Uh, the witnesses' phone number is the same. There's no disputing the phone records. Uh, there's no disputing any of that. I think there's complete, uh, you know, there, there's, um, an accurate and complete account of what actually occurred and it's not as what was testified to. And with this, you're going to, I'm assuming you would want this case to be ruled out of the. Shannon wants to clear her name, she's innocent and, you know, one faces enough when the state of Florida decides to charge you with a crime and then charge you with the death penalty uh and to seek the death penalty. So I, I just, I don't know how one deals with that other than fights it, you know, and, and I think this case is equally important to everyone because if this is the type of conduct and these are the type of things that are done in this case, when everyone is watching, you can only imagine what's being done when no one is watching. And, um, and I think these cases are incredibly important for that. And trust me, I have extensive experience in cases that are high profile where people are watching. And if you're sloppy and you do this in a, in a high profile case, you absolutely do it when no one's watching. And that's a scary thought here. It's a scary thought when, uh, uh, a arm of the government has the ability to sanction the killing of another human being and to do it in a way where evidence is not what it's supposed to be. So you're going to file this motion, leave it in Judge Christ's hands about what to do next. Correct. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
