Anthony Mungin - Innocence Briefing (January 9th, 2013)
I. Timeline
- Anthony Mungin was charged with the 1990 first degree murder in Jacksonville, Florida of Betty Jean Woods.
- Guilt phase trial (25/01/93-28/01/93): verdict of guilty of first degree murder.
- Penalty phase trial (02/02/93): jury recommends the death penalty by a 7 to 5 vote.
- February 23rd, 1993: Judge Southwood sentences Anthony Mungin to death.
- 1993-2006: Appeals: direct appeal, writ of certiorari, Motion 3850 (all denied)
- On 07/12/06, Mungin filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the United States District Court, Middle District. On 11/06/06, Mungin filed an amended
petition. This case is held in abeyance pending Circuit Court exhaustion.
- 2007- to date: Motion 3851 to vacate judgement based on discovery of new evidence (download at bottom of the page)
. 2011 Evidentiary hearing granted by the Florida Supreme Court with no need for oral arguments (click here to read argument)
. 2012 Evidentiary hearing. Appeal denied by Judge Southwood on March 19th
. 2012 Appeal filed with the Florida Supreme Court on August 9th.
. 2013 Anthony has lost his appeal with the Florida Supreme Court (June 20th). See Court ruling here
More details on timeline here - To access all public records, click here
II. The issue
Anthony Mungin always admitted his guilt in 2 armed robberies, which occurred on September 14th, 1990 (and for which he has been already punished). However he has always maintained his innocence in a third crime, committed 2 days later, with the same gun, on September 16th, in which a store clerk, Betty Woods, was killed. He was arrested in the possession of the gun on September 18th. For that 3rd crime, he was sentenced to death. In none of the cases, he could have known whether the victims had survived or died.
Anthony Mungin maintains he committed the two armed robberies on September 14th with a gun lent by Ice, an individual who was trading in cars and drugs. He says he then gave back to Ice his gun on that very day (14th) before going away for a couple of days to Georgia. He maintains he got the car and the gun that were used for the crime of September 16th, AFTER that crime had been committed earlier that day.
At trial, one witness, Ronald Kirkland, a man with extensive criminal history, was presented by the prosecution. He identified Anthony Mungin as the man coming out of the crime scene as himself was entering it. However, new investigations uncovered a new witness George Brown, a respectable citizen, who 20 years later, says that the police report is false.
III. Statement of the facts, as given at the guilt phase of the trial
[As given in Direct Appeal] On Sunday, September 16, 1990, between 1:30 and 2:00 pm, Betty Jean Woods, a convenience clerk in Jacksonville was shot once in the head and died four days later at hospital. There were no eyewitness to the shooting, but shortly after Woods was shot, a customer [Ronald Kirkland], entering the stored passed a man leaving the store hurriedly with a paper bag (T664,671). Kirkland got a brief glimpse of the man. The man coming out of the store had longish hair in a “jeri curl” and had a growth of beard (T680,681)
Kirkland did not see anyone in the store; he got a diet coke and waited for the clerk to return. (T664). A few minutes later, Kirkland noticed a woman lying on the floor, behind the counter, near an open cash register (T664-665,670). He attempted CPR. The woman started coughing blood. Kirkland noticed a wound in the woman’s head (T665). Another customer entered and called 911. The woman was taken to the hospital and died 4 days later of a gunshot wound to the head.(T652,639,659,661,689)
An evidence technician lifted 29 latent finger prints at the crime scene (T628-629). No evidence was presented later of any comparison of the latent prints obtained with Mungin’s fingerprints. The evidence technician also observed a purse behind the counter in the Lil’ Champ (T630). He saw no indication that the purse had been gone through (T 630-631). He also testified that the scene had been contaminated before he arrived, and that various people had walked behind the counter (T625). Dennis Elder, the food store supervisor determined that the store had $59.05 less than the register reading indicated should have been there (T694).
A shell casing was found on the floor of the Lil Champ store (T621-622). The medical examiner testified that Ms Woods was shot one time, with the entrance wound above the left ear (T640, 642).
On September 18, 1990, Anthony Mungin was arrested at 614 Jim Cody street, Kingsland, Georgia (T836-837). A search of the house at that address revealed, in a bedroom, a .25 caliber Raven semi automatic pistol, bullets and Mungin’s Georgia identification card (T837-843). The state’s firearms identification analyst determined that the bullet recovered from Ms Woods had been fired from the pistol seized at 614 Jim Cody street, and the shell casing recovered at the Lil’Champ store was ejected from the same gun (T880,885)
This was also the same gun that had been used by Anthony Mungin in a double armed robbery 2 days before the murder. We give here a short summary:
On September 14, 1990, two days before the Jacksonville shooting, Anthony Mungin had committed a double armed robbery in Monticello, Florida, and in Tallahassee, Florida. He had shot both store clerks, who both survived the shooting. It was the first time Anthony Mungin was using a firearm against anyone.
In both robberies, Mungin’s fingerprints had been found at the scene.
In both robberies, shells recovered from the stores, were determined to come from the same gun that was seized at Jim Cody street in Kingsland, Georgia.
IV – Summary version of Anthony Mungin
Anthony Mungin says he committed 2 armed robberies on September 14th with a gun lent by Ice, an individual who was trading in cars and drugs. He says he then gave back to Ice his gun on that very day (14th). He maintains he got the car and the gun that were used for the crime of September 16th, back from Ice, AFTER that crime had been committed. The timeline is as follows:
Friday September 14th, 1990
Ice lends his gun to Anthony, who commits a double-armed robbery. Before returning to Georgia on that day Anthony gives Ice back his gun and his car, and asks him to get rid of it. He then goes to Georgia for the next two days.
Sunday, September 16th, 1990:
A. Mungin spends the morning in Georgia with A. Jacobs.
10.30 am : He meets a friend, Brian Washington, and asks him if he can drive him to Jacksonville. Brian accepts.
Between 11.30 am and 11.45 am : Brian collects Anthony.
Around 12.45 and 1pm. Brian and Anthony arrive in Jacksonville in Brian’s car.
Anthony meets then an old friend, Philip Levy. They talk for about 15mn and Anthony tells him that he’s going to go to ex girl friend, Donetta, on 28th street.
Around 1.15 pm - Donetta is not at home, but her grand-mother, Cora Reid, is and they talk together.
2.00 pm - He meets Philip and Vernon (“Tank”), who he stays with for an hour.
Later in the afternoon, Anthony walks to 22nd Myrtle Avenue to see if Ice can lend him a car so that he can visit his girlfriend in Pensacola, Florida.
Anthony talks briefly to Ice, who tells him about a white car around the corner. Driving off, Ice told Anthony that the gun was in the car he was lending him.
Anthony then goes to Pensacola to see his girlfriend with Ice’s car and the gun for the next two days.
September 18th: Anthony is arrested in possession of the gun at his cousin Angie Jacob’s.
V. Arguments in favour of a new trial
V.1 The police report may be false (current appeal). The sole prosecution key witness may have lied.
Without question, state witness Ronald Kirkland, was the linchpin of the State’s case against M. Mungin. Without a confession or physical evidence linking M. Mungin to the crime scene, Kirkland’s identification of M. Mungin at the scene was unquestionably a critical piece of evidence for the prosecution. He was the only witness to testify that he saw M. Mungin leave the crime scene with a paper bag (R671).
However, a new witness, found in 2007 by Anthony Mungin’s legal team, George Brown, a respectable citizen with no criminal history (unlike Ronald Kirkland who had an extensive criminal background), gave exculpatory information in an affidavit. It establishes that the version of events, as reported in the detective’s report “is false”.
George Brown declares in his affidavit:
I have reviewed a police report (...), dated November 5, 1990. The version of events in the report is false. (…) M. Kirkland says in the report that he saw a black guy coming out of the store. This is not true because when I went into the store, someone was coming out and I could not identify anyone and no-one in the store was there. (…). I told the officer that I was the only one in the store because the person who brushed by me I could not identify, so there is no way that M. Kirkland could identify anyone, he was not in the store.
Anthony Mungin’s attorney at trial (M.Cofer) has since become a judge. He also raises his voice to say that it would have made a significant difference at the trial, should he have been in a position to put the new witness on the stand. He declares:
M. Brown's affidavit contradicts the version of events as testified at trial by the State's key witness, Ronald Kirkland, in many significant ways (...)
Because I relied on the veracity of the police report, apparently no-one from the defense team contacted or spoke with M. Brown prior to trial. Had the State provided me with an accurate report containing the true version of events that M. Brown witnessed, this would have made a tremendous difference in terms of the presentation of M. Mungin's case.
Update May 29th, 2012 - Based on the latest 2012 evidentiary hearing, it appears that:
- George Brown was certain that when he arrived at the store, there was no-one else at the time aside from the victim, Ms Woods. He was 100% certain (T13-14)
- George Brown has never been arrested or have any other legal problem (T17-18)
- He was sure that the other man (Kirkland) came in after he (Brown) did (T36) and he told the police what he was saying now (T36). "Everything that went on from when I went in the store until I called 911 I can remember just like I was standing there now" (T40)
- M. Brown explained that he tried to tell the police what he witnessed but that the other man was "talking over the top" of him (PCT 22)
- After that day, no one ever spoke with M. Brown regarding what he witnessed in the store, until he was contacted by employees of the Defendant's counsel (PCT at 18, 22-23).
Anthony's lawyer recently concluded:
"In light of an accurate reading of the entire record in this case, the inescapable conclusion is that M.Mungin is entitled to a new trial. (...)
Brown's testimony [new witness uncovered in recent investigation] which could have been used to impeach Kirkland [the sole witness presented by the prosecution at trial] as well as lead detective (...), would have been powerful evidence for the jury because it had the potential to impugn the integrity and character of the entire investigation in this case. When reviewing the relevant testimony from the law enforcements in this case, it is clear that the police reports relied on by defense counsel as well as the testimony of Ronald Kirkland, were false and/or misleading, and that both Brady and Giglio violations have been established here. (...) there can be no other conclusion, but for the fact that the police reports in this case were lacking in truthfulness regarding what information Brown actually possessed and imparted to the police on September 16. 1990. Certainly, the interviews of Brown and Kirkland at the scene were not conducted under ideal circumstances; they were hurried interactions in the parking lot of a convenience store that was in the middle of a robbery and shooting investigation. Hurried interviews were conducted by various police officers and the manner in which the ultimate reports were prepared leaves one to suspect that these interviews of Kirkland and Brown were muddled together. But the circumstances under which these interviews were conducted does not vitiate the State's responsibility to provide an accurate police report to the defense, to provide impeachment evidence to the defense, and to refrain from presenting false testimony to a jury in a criminal case. Here, all these circumstances exist."
V.2. Poor investigation pre-trial
a) Anthony Mungin contends his counsel at trial didn’t take all the possible steps to check on the existence of the possibility that Ice could have been the murderer.
In preparing for trial, Judge Cofer met with M. Mungin on a number of occasions at the jail (PCR288). M. Mungin consistently took the position that he was not guilty and there was an alibi that could be a potential defense (PCR289). M. Mungin mentioned an individual who went by the name of “Ice” (PCR293). M. Mungin told him that after the shootings in Tallahassee and Monticello, he back tracked to Jacksonville and the gun that was used in the Tallahassee and Monticello cases, as well as the car, were traded to someone named “Ice” who resided in an area on Moncrief road (PCR295). Thus M. Mungin told him that the gun was in possession of “Ice” during the time of the Jacksonville homicide (PCR296). Judge Cofer testified that he did some investigation “on his own” with respect to “Ice” but he didn’t go to the location around 22nd and Myrtle in Jacksonville to see if he could find “Ice” or determine if “Ice” even existed (PCR296). Judge Cofer had a recollection of contacting Robert Blue, an investigator, and asking him if he had heard of someone named “Ice” but Blue did not know anything (PCR297). He had no recollection, however, of sending out anyone to the neighborhood to inquire as to the existence and/or whereabouts of “Ice” (PCR297-98).16
In Judge Cofer’s view, “most attorneys” would view it as a “daunting task” to attempt to locate “Ice” despite the fact that he knew his nickname and had a “general locale in a high crime area of Jacksonville” (PCR321). He acknowledged that if “Ice” had been located and said that he or someone else had committed the murder, “that would have been beautiful” (PCR504).
b) Various witnesses could have testified at trial about the existence of Ice. For example, two were found years after the trial by Anthony Mungin’s new legal team. [motion 3850]
Edward James Kimbrough, a business owner and married with children (PCR378), testified that he had been familiar with a man nicknamed “Ice”, “who was in his 30s and lived in the Moncrief area of Jacksonville. (PCR381-82). “Ice” would “provide a service for those who wanted to do drugs, alcohol, or whatever” (PCR381). “Ice” also dealt in stolen vehicles and was always armed (PCR382).. At no time did any investigator or attorney on behalf of M.Mungin ask him any questions about “Ice” (PCR384). At the time of trial, Kimbrough would gladly have provided a description of “Ice” and attested to the fact that “Ice” in fact existed (PCR384).
Jesse Sanders.
In the mid-1980s, Sanders knew a man named “Ice” who would hang around the Moncrief area of Jacksonville (PCR393). “Ice” dealt drugs and exchanged stolen cars for drugs (PCR397). No-one from M.Mungin’s legal team ever contacted him about whether “Ice” existed; had he been contacted he would have told them that “Ice” was a real person (PCR399).
c) Various alibi witnesses never presented at trial, were only found years after the event by the new legal team of Anthony Mungin. [motion 3850]
Brian Washington
The last time he saw M.Mungin was at around 10.30 am on September 16, 1990 at a convenience store in Kingsland (PCR407-08). He recounted a brief conversation they had during which M.Mungin said he needed a ride to Jacksonville (PCR408). Washington picked up M.Mungin from his cousin, Angie Jacobs’s house (PCR409). They then drove to Jacksonville and Washington dropped M.Mungin off somewhere near Golf air Boulevard (PCR410). About a week or so later, Washington learned that M.Mungin had been arrested for a homicide (PCR410). After he learned this, Washington told his mother it could not have been true because of the time frame (PCR411). No one from M. Mungin’s defence legal team ever contacted him about the case , and had he been asked, he would have told them about what he knew (PCR411).
Victoria Angela Jacobs Glover. The last time she saw her cousin Anthony Mungin was when he was arrested at her house (PCR422). Prior to his arrest, M.Mungin had been gone for several days, and she recalled him telling her he had gone to Pensacola (PCR423-24).
Philip Levy. The last time he saw M.Mungin was in 1990 on a Sunday between 11.30 and 1.00 pm. They met at Levy’s aunt’s house and then went to the area of 28th street and Stuart to see if Donetta Dues, a former girlfriend of M.Mungin was home (PCR433). After that, Levy and M.Mungin went to Levy’s uncle house and then M.Mungin left to his aunts house (PCR433-34). The last time Levy saw him was around 4.30 or 5.00 pm. He was pretty sure it was on Sunday mid September of 1990 (PCR435) because Ms Dues was at Church (PCR436). He didn’t see M.Mungin in the possession of a gun on that day (PCR441).
Vernon Longworth. The last time he saw M.Mungin was on a Sunday afternoon when he came to his house at 1.00 or 2.00 pm for a few hours to visit (He stayed there until 2.30 or 3.00 - PCR479). Longworth also testified that M.Mungin had gone to Donetta’s house across the street.
[Note: Cora Reid did not testify in any evidentiary hearing as she died before the investigator reached out to her]
V.3. Scantiness of the evidence used against Anthony Mungin
(i) Ballistic evidence linking Anthony Mungin to the crime of Betty Jean Woods is not sufficient to prove his guilt.
There is currently no dispute on the circumstancial evidence that Anthony Mungin was found with the murder weapon, and that this weapon was used in the first two armed robberies committed by himself on September 14th. However Anthony Mungin holds that people in the ghettos cannot all afford to individually own their weapon, which therefore can change hands within short time spans. Hence a weapon can be used by different people.
There are twice as many violent crimes in Jacksonville than in the rest of the USA. [1] Life in the ghettos is neither safe nor peaceful. Anthony Mungin knows about this: His beloved brother Raymond got killed by a gun in a gang attack in New York. His own son, Jacouri, who was not violent, was the victim of a lost bullet, and became paralytic as a result at the age of 16 (before dying at the age of 19, at Christmas 2006).
[1] http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/fl/jacksonville/crime/ (0.05 violent crime per 1000 people in the US; 0,10 violent crime per 1000 people in Jacksonville)
(ii) Questionable car evidence.
In Jacksonville, a four Dodge Monaco Royal, a big car, white with a vinyl roof was stolen on September 15 or 16, 1990 (T799, 802-803). The owner specifically had testified that her vehicle was stolen between 10.00 am on September 15, and 1.00 pm on September 16 (R805-06). The Dodge was recovered on September 18, 1990, near Kingsland, Georgia, near the house where Mungin was arrested (T 826,828). Two expended shells found in the Dodge Monaco, were determined to have been used in the gun that shot Ms Woods. (T828,853,884-885). [Direct appeal]
There is no certainty as to when the car was exactly stolen and whether it could have been stolen by Anthony Mungin. If it was stolen on September 15th, this would have been at a time Anthony Mungin was in Georgia. None of the witnesses retrieved after the trial testified they saw M. Mungin with a vehicle on the 16th. The testimony adduced by M. Mungin supports his account to police and supports his alibi, and all of these witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing that they were available at the time of trial and would have testified if asked at trial.
(iii) Flawed instructions given to the jury [Direct appeal]
The judge Southwood instructed the jury on both premeditated murder (T1033-1034) and felony murder with robbery or attempted robbery as the underlying felony (T1034-1037). The judge instructed the jury on the aggravating factors of prior crime of violence, robbery and pecuniary gain (T1246-1247).
However, evidence may not have been sufficient to support first degree murder :
- Anthony Mungin was never charged officially with robbery or attempted robbery because of the lack of evidence supporting robbery or attempted robbery.
- The Florida Supreme Court itself already ruled on appeal that premeditation could not be proven in his case either.
- Although Anthony Mungin had not been charged with robbery or attempted robbery, the Florida Supreme Court found that the fact that $59.05 was missing from the store, that the money cash box was gone, that someone tied to open the cash register without knowing how, and that Mungin left the store with a paper bag, “supported robbery or attempted robbery, and that there was no reasonable hypothesis to the contrary”. However, in a vigorous dissent, Justice Anstead, from the Florida Supreme Court, stated :
“I would grant rehearing in this case and reverse and remand for a new trial based upon our conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation. (…) Mungin was not even charged with robbery or attempted robbery (…). Moreover, the prosecutor twice explicitly reminded the jury during closing argument that Mungin was not charged with robbery and told them that they did not have to find Mungin guilty of robbery in order to convict him of first degree murder (…) The evidence is thin at best and certainly not strong enough to render the trial court’s error in instructing the jury on premeditation harmless beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, I also would grand rehearing in this case because I believe that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Griffin vs United States—upon which the majority relies for finding the error here to be harmless one simply makes no sense. Rather there is a solid body of case law which states that where a jury is instructed that it can rely on any of 2 or more independent grounds to support a single count, and one of those grounds was improper, as the premeditation theory was here, a general verdict of guilt must be set aside because it may have rested exclusively on the improper ground.”
iv) Other related issues
. None of the alibi witnesses were presented at trial, and were only found 10 to 17 years later, in the context of subsequent appeals. Some witnesses have died. After having been prejudiced already once at the time of his trial (as his version of the facts was not investigated before his trial), Anthony Mungin is now prejudiced a second time (because of the time gap).
. The American Bar Association has already stated in its general assessment of the death penalty system in Florida that Florida should require juries to make the ultimate sentencing decision. This is all the more true in the case of Anthony Mungin, which was sentenced to death by a tight 7-5 jury vote.
Latest ruling (Oct 2011)
October 2011: Ruling of the Florida Supreme Court granting an evidentiary hearing: Click here
"If the trial judge upon remand determines Brown is being truthful, this would clearly mean that Kirkland was untruthful at trial, which might have been critical testimony for the jury. We are troubled by the possibility that a false police report was submitted and then relied on by defense counsel. Without an evidentiary hearing to explore this issue, we are left with mere speculation as to what in fact occurred, what the police knew, what the prosecutor knew, and whether Kirkland, a witness with an extensive criminal history, was lying when he testified at trial. (...) We cannot agree that the record at this point conclusively shows that the evidence was not material i.e. that there was not a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this claim to the post conviction court for an evidentiary hearing pertaining to Brown and the allegation that the police report was false."
"If the trial judge upon remand determines Brown is being truthful, this would clearly mean that Kirkland was untruthful at trial, which might have been critical testimony for the jury. We are troubled by the possibility that a false police report was submitted and then relied on by defense counsel. Without an evidentiary hearing to explore this issue, we are left with mere speculation as to what in fact occurred, what the police knew, what the prosecutor knew, and whether Kirkland, a witness with an extensive criminal history, was lying when he testified at trial. (...) We cannot agree that the record at this point conclusively shows that the evidence was not material i.e. that there was not a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this claim to the post conviction court for an evidentiary hearing pertaining to Brown and the allegation that the police report was false."
Older legal document (Original 1st direct appeal with dissent of Justice Anstead)
Please contact us for any other legal documents.
| direct_appeal_filed_by_steve_been.pdf |
| opinion_court_supreme_floride_sur_direct_appeal.pdf |
