10-009583CB In Re: Senate Bill 46 (William Dillon) vs. * Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Tuesday, February 1, 2011.

THE FLORIDA SENATE

SPECIAL MASTER ON CLAIM BILLS

Location

40 2 Senate Office Building

Mailing Address

404 South Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1100

(850) 487 - 5237

DATE COMM ACTION

2/1/11 SM Fav/1 amendment

February 1, 2011

The Honorable Mike Haridopolos

President, The Florida Senate

Suite 409, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1100

Re : SB 46 (2011) Î Senator Mike Haridopolo s

HB 23 (2011) Î Representative Steve Crisafulli

Relief of William Dillon

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT

THIS IS AN EQUITABLE CLAI M FOR $ 81 0 ,000 FROM

GENERAL REVENUE, PLU S TUITION WAIVERS, T O

COMPENSATE WILLIAM D ILLON FOR HIS 27 - YEAR

WRONGFUL INCARCERATI ON FOR MURDER.

FINDINGS OF FACT: On August 17, 1981, the body of James Dvorak was found in

a wooded area fre quented by gay men at Canova Beach.

Canova Beach is between Melbourne Beach and Satellite

Beach in Brevard County, opposite the Eau Gallie

Causeway. There were multiple fractures of DvorakÓs skull

and blood was spattered in a wide area. The medical

exam iner determined that Dvorak was beaten to death with

fists and/or with a blunt instrument. No murder weapon was

ever found. It was estimated that the beating occurred

between 1:30 a.m. and 3:30 a.m. on August 17 and that

Dvorak died soon afterward.

John Parker drove to Canova Beach in his truck at 1:30 a.m.

or a little later. He observed a man walk up from the beach.

The man appeared unsteady and upset. He wore shorts and

no shirt, but had a shirt in his hand. Parker pulled his truck

over to the man and asked what was wrong. The man told

Parker that he could not find his car and asked Parker for a

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 2

ride to the A - Frame Tavern , which was not far away. Parker

later described the man as 21 to 27 years old, about 6 feet

tall, and having a ÐmediumÑ mustach e. The man said his

name was Jim. He was sweaty and had blood smears on

his leg and pants. When Parker asked about the blood, the

man said he had been in a bar fight. Parker propositioned

the man for sex and performed oral sex on him in the truck.

Par ker then drove the man to the A - Frame Tavern.

The next morning, Parker found a T - shirt in his truck. The

shirt was yellow and had ÐSURF ITÑ printed on the front and

back. When Parker later heard about the murder at Canova

Beach, he contacted the police and told them about the

hitchhiker at Canova Beach and the T - shirt that was left in

his truck. The Brevard County SheriffÓs Office obtained the

T - shirt and prepared a sketch of the hitchhiker from ParkerÓs

description. Blood on the T - shirt was matched to the murder

victim, Dvorak.

At the time of the murder, Claimant James Dillon was 22

years old and unemployed. DillonÓs attorneys described his

status as Ðbetween jobsÑ as a construction worker, but his

activities in the days before and after the murder are more

suggestive of a beach bum. His father said he was

ÐdestituteÑ and not working. Dillon was usually broke and

spent his days and nights sleeping on the beach, in cars, or

at the apartments of acquaintances or strangers, smoking

marijuana, and " bumming " cigarettes, drinks, meal s, rides,

and clothes. Dillon was often at the Pelican Bar, which is

across A - 1 - A from Canova Beach. A couple of weeks before

the murder, he met Donna Parrish at the Pelican Bar and

was spending a lot of time with her.

Unlike the hitchhiker, Dillon did not have a mustache. The

evidence was ambiguous as to whether Dillon had tried to

grow a mustache and had recently shaved it, but he never

had a mustache like the one depicted in the sketch

developed from ParkerÓs description of the hitchhiker.

Parker de scribed the hitchhiker as being about 6 feet tall.

Dillon is 6 feet, 4 inches tall. The T - shirt left by the hitchhiker

was a size Ðsmall.Ñ It is unlikely Dillon could have worn a

size small T - shirt.

Interviews conducted by homicide investigators in the

Canova Beach area after the murder caused Dillon to

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 3

become a suspect. Someone thought the sketch of the

hitchhiker looked like Dillon. It was reported to police that

Dillon said he had Ðrolled fagsÑ for money. Police were also

told that Dillon had a mu stache that he recently shaved off

and was dressing and acting differently after the date of the

murder.

On August 22, Dillon was contacted and asked for an

interview. At the interview conducted a few days afterward

by Agent Thom Fair, Dillon said that h e a nd Donna Parrish,

had spent the entire night of August 16 in Cocoa Beach at

the home of Linda and George Plumlee. Dillon said that the

next day, August 17, he and Parrish stayed with his friend

Matt Bocci in Satellite Beach. Agent Fair said that Dillo n had

recently - healed scratches on his hands at the time of the

interview .

When Donna Parrish was first interviewed, she stated at one

point that she and Dillon spent the night of August 15 with

Charles and Rosanne Rogers, but at another point she said

it was the night of August 16. In a second interview taken

just a few minutes later with different investigators, Parrish

said that she and Dillon went to the Bocci residence on

August 16.

Parrish said she went by herself to the Pelican Bar that

evening an d Dillon arrived later. She said that they left the

bar at about 1:00 a.m., crossed A - 1 - A to Canova Beach, and

then she left Dillon alone at about 2:00 a.m. and hitchhiked

to SamboÓs in Satellite Beach. She said Dillon came into

SamboÓs at about 3:00 a.m . and had money with him that he

did not have earlier. Parrish was interviewed a third time a

few hours later and told investigators she had lied in her

previous statements. She said that she and Dillon went to

the Bocci residence on August 16, that they had an

argument, that she went alone to the Pelican Bar, Dillon

never showed up, and that she left the bar at about 12:30

a.m. and hitchhiked home. Parrish said she called the

Pelican Bar and talked to Dillon at 2:00 a.m. and that he got

a ride to her h ome and arrived about 3:00 a.m.

Parrish said Dillon was scared and depressed when he

arrived at her house and told her the Ðpolice would be after

him.Ñ She said DillonÓs hands were cut and he had dried

blood on his hands. She also said Dillon told her t hat when

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 4

he needs money he sometimes goes to Canova Beach to

Ðgo home with queers and when they fall asleep I take their

money.Ñ

Dillon agreed to take a polygraph test and the examiner

concluded that Dillon showed deception when he was asked

whether he wa s at Canova Beach at the time of the murder

and whether he ÐhitÑ Dvorak. At the conclusion of the test,

Dillon said he could not have killed Dvorak because he was

at the Bocci residence the evening of August 16 until the

afternoon of August 18, and never left during that period.

Later, Dillon told investigators that he lied about not leaving

the Bocci residence. He said he left the evening of August

16, but he did not go to Canova Beach. In a second

polygraph test taken to question Dillon about whether he

stole money from Dvorak, the examiner concluded that

Dillon showed deception when he was asked whether he

had taken money from Dvorak.

No fingerprints, blood samples, or hair samples taken from

the crime scene were ever linked to Dillon. When John

Par ker was first asked whether he could identify Dillon as the

hitchhiker, Parker was unable to make a positive

identification. However, during one of DillonÓs interviews, the

deputies got Dillon to handle a piece of paper that was later

given to John Presto n, the handler of a tracking dog.

According to Preston, his dog then connected DillonÓs scent

on the piece of paper to the bloody T - shirt left in ParkerÓs

truck, indicating that DillonÓs scent was also on the T - shirt.

Three or four people said that Dillo n often wore a yellow

ÐSURF ITÑ T - shirt like the one left in ParkerÓs truck by the

hitchhiker. Pictures of Dillon taken around the time of his

arrest show him wearing a yellow T - shirt with ÐEAT IT RAWÑ

printed on the front. The words ÐEAT ITÑ were on top and

the word ÐRawÑ was below. DillonÓs ÐEAT ITÑ T - shirt could

have been mistaken for the yellow ÐSURF ITÑ T - shirt.

Sometime after DillonÓs arrest, Charles and Rosanne Rogers

contacted the SheriffÓs Office and said Dillon and Parrish had

spent the night of August 16 with them in Cocoa Beach.

Dillon did not claim to have stayed with the Rogers on

August 16 until the Rogers came forward with that account.

When Dillon was asked at his trial why he had not said

earlier that he stayed with the Rogers on Aug ust 16, he said

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 5

he had forgotten their names. Matt Bocci said Dillon and

Parrish were at his house on August 16 and they went out in

the evening and returned after midnight. BocciÓs fianc e ,

Tracey Hermann, confirmed that Dillon and Parrish were at

Bocci Ós house on August 16. She was certain of the date

because she had just arrived on that date from Texas. Matt

BocciÓs brother, Joe, and Glen Zeller also lived at the house.

Both Joe Bocci and Zeller saw Dillon at the Bocci residence

on August 16. Joe B occi also said he saw Dillon sleeping at

the Bocci residence at 6:00 a.m. on August 17 when he

(Joe) left for work.

Several people said that they saw Dillon at the Pelican Bar

on the night of August 16 and early morning hours of

August 17. Mark Muirhead, who was a doorman/bouncer at

the Pelican Bar, says he saw Dillon and Parrish arrive at the

bar at about 10:00 p.m. on August 16, leave around

midnight, and then return separately later. Muirhead said

Dillon returned to the Pelican Bar near closing time a t 2:45

a.m. and asked Muirhead for a ride. Muirhead drove Dillon

to ParrishÓs residence. Brevard County Sheriff Deputy

George McGee followed Muirhead from the Pelican Bar to

the Parrish residence because he had observed Muirhead

commit a traffic violatio n. Deputy McGee confirmed the time

and date previously reported by Muirhead. Margaret

McDonald was working as a bartender at the Pelican Bar on

August 16 and she recalls seeing Dillon and Parrish at the

bar around midnight. She remembers that Dillon gav e her a

tip that night, which was unusual because he never had any

money. Dillon was also seen at the Pelican Bar on the night

of August 16 by another bartender, Genevieve Tisdale. A

patron of the Pelican Bar, Richard Drouin, saw Dillon and

Parrish at th e bar on the night of August 16.

There are simply too many people who swore they saw

Dillon at the Bocci residence and at the Pelican Bar on the

night of August 16 and in the early hours of August 17 for me

to believe they could all be mistaken. T hese witnesses had

no apparent reason to lie about DillonÓs whereabouts. Dillon,

himself, s wore he was at the Bocci residence on August 16.

T he Rogers ' were mistaken about Dillon and Parrish being

with them on August 16.

A week after DillonÓs arrest , Parrish changed her story again.

She said that she and Dillon were at the Pelican Bar on the

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 6

night of August 16, she left by herself at 1:00 a.m. on August

17 and Dillon left shortly afterward. They talked for a short

while outside the bar and then Par rish hitchhiked home. She

says she returned to the bar and Dillon was not there, but

then showed up again and he had money to buy drinks for

himself, Parrish, and some other people. She got mad at

Dillon and hitchhiked home. She then called the Pelican Bar

and talked to Dillon and he got a ride to ParrishÓs house.

Parrish said Dillon told her that he had gotten in a fight and

hurt someone. She said he later told her he had beaten

someone Ðso bad he died.Ñ

A month later, Parrish changed her story again. She said

she saw Dillon in the parking area next to Canova Beach just

after midnight on August 17, talking with someone at a

parked car. She said she later went looking for Dillon, taking

the path toward th e beach, and came upon a body. She

said Dillon was standing next to the body, putting on his

jeans.

Parrish lied from her first interview and continuously

thereafter. All of her statements, whether they helped or hurt

Dillon, are subject to doubt unless they are corroborated by

others.

It was later disclosed that, following an interview of Parrish

by Chief Homicide Investigator Charles Slaughter, he drove

her to his residence and had sexual intercourse with her.

The sexual encounter was reported by Par rish, who filed a

complaint about it with the SheriffÓs Office. Slaughter

admitted the sexual contact and he was immediately

suspended, demoted, and transferred out of the homicide

unit.

After DillonÓs arrest on August 26, 1981, he was placed in a

jail c ell with Roger Chapman. Agent Thom Fair met with

Chapman at the jail and Chapman told Agent Fair that Dillon

said he had Ðsucker punchedÑ a guy at the beach and then

beat him with his fists. Agent Fair said Chapman initiated

the meeting. At the claim bi ll hearing held on November 2,

2009, Chapman testified that he had been coerced by Agent

Fair to make up lies about Dillon or face harsh prosecution

on his own charge of sexual battery. ChapmanÓs charges

were later dropped. Agent Fair submitted an affida vit in

which he asserts that ChapmanÓs statement was not

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 7

coerced. The testimony of Chapman and Agent Fair on this

point was not subject to cross - examination and is otherwise

insufficient to resolve the conflicting claim about coercion.

Nevertheless, I do not find ChapmanÓs testimony about what

Dillon told him to be credible.

At DillonÓs trial, Parker identified Dillon as the hitchhiker who

left the T - shirt in his truck, Preston testified that his dog

matched Dillon to the bloody T - shirt, and Chapman te stified

about DillonÓs ÐconfessionÑ to him when they were sharing a

jail cell. There was testimony that Dillon often wore a yellow

ÐSurf - itÑ T - shirt. Parrish testified that she saw Dillon at

DvorakÓs body. It is not surprising, therefore, that the jury

found Dillon guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Long after DillonÓs trial, the dog handler, John Preston, was

discredited. It was established that Preston was falsely

claiming that his dogs were matching crime scene evidence

to suspects when the re was no match.

In addition to DillonÓs loss of freedom and the many other

deprivations caused by his incarceration, he claims to have

been gang - raped while in prison. He also says he has

dental problems due to the poor dental care he received in

prison . Dillon had a good record in prison with respect to

work assignments and general behavior.

LITIGATION HISTORY: Dillon was tried in the circuit court for Brevard County. He

was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

A week after the trial, DillonÓs attorney moved for a mistrial

because Parrish wanted to recant her trial testimony. A

hearing was held before the trial judge to consider the

motion. Parrish said that she had lied about seeing Dillon at

the body of the murder victim. S he said she lied because

SheriffÓs deputies told her that, if she did not lie for them, she

would Ðrot in jail for 25 years.Ñ Parrish did not explain what

crime she could have been prosecuted for that could cause

her to be sentenced to 25 years in prison. Following the

hearing, the trial court denied the motion for mistrial, and

Dillon was sent to prison.

In 2005, Dillon learned about the Wilton Dedge case and

DedgeÓs exoneration for a rape conviction based on DNA

testing. Dillon filed a motion for DNA testing. In 2007, an

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 8

interview of Dillon was seen by staff at the Innocence Project

of Florida. The Innocence Project got involved to assist

Dillon and paid for DNA testing of the bloody T - shirt by a

private laboratory which used testing methods not avai lable

at the state laboratory. The DNA testing showed that the

sweat and skin cells on the T - shirt did not come from Dillon.

A motion for a new trial was granted in November 2008 and

Dillon was released from prison. In December 2008, the

State Attorne y for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Norman

Wolfinger, decided not to pursue a new trial. In a letter sent

to the Special Master, Wolfinger explained that Ðmeeting the

StateÓs burden of proof was going to be unrealistic in light of

the nine witnesses wh o are now deceased and another key

witness who has substantial medical issues.Ñ

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: DNA Testing

Wilton Dedge and Alan Crotzer were convicted of rape. The

DNA testing in their cases exonerated them because the

semen taken from the victim s was shown not to be their

semen. DillonÓs attorneys assert that the DNA testing of the

bloody T - shirt proves that Dillon is innocent. That notion is

also frequently stated in the newspaper articles about the

Dillon case. However, while the DNA testing shows that

Dillon was not the hitchhiker, it does not erase all the other

evidence against Dillon.

It cannot be said with certainty that the hitchhiker murdered

Dvorak. It can only be said that the hitchhiker was involved

in the murder because he had Dv orakÓs blood on his T - shirt.

Dillon is not the hitchhiker, but proof of DillonÓs innocence

requires that his possible involvement with the murder be

eliminated.

Credibility

DillonÓs prosecution involved unreliable witnesses, faulty

memories, and official misconduct, making it difficult to sort

out the events of August 16 and 17, 1981. In my own

analysis, I disregarded the dog handler testimony and

ParkerÓs identification of Dillon as the hitchhiker. I also

disregarded ChapmanÓs testimony that Dillon con fessed to

the crime.

If Parrish were a credible witness, her testimony, alone,

would be enough to prove DillonÓs involvement in the

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 9

murder. However, Parrish was not a credible witness. All

her actions showed her to be a weak person, easily

manipulated and willing to lie for Dillon or for her own self -

interest.

As discussed above, I do not believe DillonÓs alibi that he

spent the night of August 16 in Cocoa Beach at the Rogers

residence. I find more persuasive the multitude of witnesses

who saw him at the Bocci residence and at the Pelican Bar

on August 16 and August 17. Dillon was not truthful about

his whereabouts at the time of the murder. That is the most

troubling aspect of this claim bill.

There was no named respondent in this case. Dillon and his

attorneys presented their argument and evidence at the

claim bill hearing without opposing argument or evidence.

In a letter to the Special Master, State Attorney Wolfinger

stated that the DNA testing did not exonerate Dillon. Thom

Fair, now retired from the Brevard County SheriffÓs Office,

moved to intervene after the claim bill hearing and filed an

affidavit to rebut the claim that he had coerced the statement

of Chapman. He still believes that Dillon is guilty of the

Dvorak murder. The motion to intervene was denied, but the

affidavit was made a part of the record.

Burden of Proof

In the 2008 Session, the Legislature created Chapter 961,

F lorida Statutes , to compensate victims of wrongful

incarceration. The relief provided under Chapter 961 is

$50,000 for each year of wrongful incarceration; a tuition

waiver for up to 120 hours at a career center, community

college, or university in Florida; and reimbursement of court

costs, attorneyÓs fees, and expenses incurred in the criminal

proceedings. Di llon is ineligible to seek relief under Chapter

961 because that law is only available to persons who have

no felony conviction other than the conviction for which they

were wrongfully incarcerated. Dillon has a felony conviction

for possession of a contr olled substance -- a Quaalude Î for

which he served no jail time, but paid a fine and served

probation. If Dillon were eligible to use Chapter 961, he

would not qualify for compensation unless he presented

Ðclear and convincing evidenceÑ that he Ðneither committed

the act nor the offense that served as the basis for the

conviction and incarcerationÑ and he Ðdid not aid, abet, or act

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 10

as an accomplice or accessory to a person who committed

the act or offense.Ñ

Chapter 961Ós requirement to prove Ðactual inno cenceÑ is

substantially different than showing that guilt was not proved

beyond a reasonable doubt. Although probably

misunderstood by much of the general public, a juryÓs

determination that a defendant is Ðnot guiltyÑ is not a

determination that the defe ndant is actually innocent. The

defendant is presumed to be innocent, but there is no

determination of actual innocence. Some jurors m ay believe

in the actual innocence of the defendant when they vote Ðnot

guilty,Ñ but a belief that the defendant is inno cent is

unnecessary for an acquittal . Jurors can suspect that a

defendant more likely than not committed the act for which

he or she was charged, but still find the defendant Ðnot

guiltyÑ because the jurors are not certain of guilt. A

reasonable doubt re mains in their minds. In our criminal

justice system, a defendant who might have actually

committed the crime for which he or she is charged must be

set free if the State does not prove the defendantÓs guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt.

In contrast, Chapte r 961 does not presume innocence for the

purposes of compensation. Under Chapter 961, it is not

enough for a claimant to show that the evidence against him

or her was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt. The claimant cannot be compensat ed unless there is

clear and convincing evidence of his or her actual

innocence.

DillonÓs attorneys asserted that the evidence of DillonÓs

innocence is clear and convincing, but they argued that the

proper standard of proof for this claim bill is Ðpreponderance

of the evidence.Ñ They note that this is essentially a claim

bill seeking compensation for damages ari sing from the tort

of false imprisonment and should qualify for the usual

preponderance of the evidence standard that is applied in

nearly all claim bills involving government torts. They also

point out that previous claim bills for wrongful incarceration

(Pitts, Lee, Dedge, and Crotzer) were not subject to a Ðclear

and convincingÑ standard.

The ClaimantÓs argument that the Senate should apply a

preponderance of the evidence standard is a reasonable

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 11

position. However, the clear and convincing standard in

Chapter 961 could be viewed as a new guide for legislative

action on claims bills for wrongful incarceration because

Chapter 961 is an expression of legislative intent and policy

on the subject. There is no precedent to turn to in

considering this issue because this is the first claim bill for

wrongful incarceration since the enactment of Chapter 961.

In DillonÓs case, the appropriate burden of proof is critical

because, although I believe Dillon has shown by a

preponderance of the evidence that he was w rongfully

incarcerated , I do not believe that the evidence of his actual

innocence is clear and convincing. I still have a reasonable

doubt due to DillonÓs presence in the area of the murder, at

the time of the murder, and his not being truthful about it.

Conclusion

Because this is not a Chapter 961 proceeding, I believe the

appropriate burden of proof is preponderance of the

evidence. I recommend that Dillon be compensated for the

27 years he spent in prison because there is no physical

evidence linking Dillon to the victim or the crime scene and

Dillon would probably not have been found guilty with the

credible evidence available to the prosecutors.

When Dillon first presented his claim in the 2010 Session, he

was seeking the same compensation tha t is provided under

Chapter 961. However, i f the compensation provided by

Chapter 961 goes only to a claimant who has no other felony

conviction and who proves actual innocence by clear and

convincing evidence, then it seems only logical that a

claiman t who has another felony conviction and proves

wrongful incarceration by only a preponderance of the

evidence should get less than the compensation provided by

Chapter 961. Otherwise, there is no incentive for a

wrongfully incarcerated person to use Chapt er 961.

Dillon reduced his claim from $1.35 million to $810,000,

which represents a reduction from $50,000 for each year of

wrongful incarceration to $30,000 for each year. The ÐrightÑ

compensation in this situation is debatable, but $30,000 for

each yea r of wrongful incarceration is a reasonable figure

and it protects the integrity of Chapter 961.

SPECIAL MASTERÓS FINAL REPORT Î SB 46 (2011)

February 1, 2011

Page 12

In addition, Dillon requests the same tuition waivers for 120

credit hours of schooling that is available under Chapter 961.

That is reasonable and I belie ve the Senate should approve

tuition waivers for Dillon.

ATTORNEYS FEES: DillonÓs attorneys are representing him pro bono . However,

the Innocence Project of Florida reported $27,611.85 of

costs incurred in obtaining the release of Dillon from prison

and assisting him thereafter. There is no lobbyistÓs fee.

OTHER ISSUES: I recommend the deletion of the ÐwhereasÑ clauses of the bill

that assert that witnesses were coerced by investigators to

give false testimony against Dillon. These assertions

amount to legislative findings that crimes were committed by

members of the Brevard County SheriffÓs Office, but there

have been no charges filed, no determinations by a court,

and there was insufficient evidence presented to the Special

Master to find that crime s were committed by the SheriffÓs

Office.

RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that Senate

Bill 46 (201 1 ) be reported FAVORABLY , as amended .

Respectfully submitted,

Bram D. E. Canter

Senate Special Master

cc: Senator Mike Haridopolo s

Representative Steve Crisafulli

R. Philip Twogood , Secretary of the Senate

Counsel of Record

Attachment

Florida Senate - 2011 SPECIAL MASTER AMENDMENT

Bill No. SB 46

Ì696350$Î 696350

LEGISLATIVE ACTION

Senate . House

.

.

.

.

.

The Special Master on Claim Bills recommended the following:

1 Senate Amendment

2

3 In title, delete lines 29 - 36

4 and insert:

5 WHEREAS, the prosecutors presented witness testimony

6 against William Dillon which the prosecutors knew or should have

7 known was unreliable, and

8

Page 1 of 1

2/20/2011 3:01:36 PM 600 - 01770 - 11