S. A. CASE NO.

: 16CF048511AD IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH

CLERK NO.: 162016CF007454A

DIVISION: CRA

STATE OF FLORIDA
vs.
MARQUIS IHKEEM JEROME JACKSON

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

COMES NOW, the State of Florida, by and through the undersigned Assistant State Attorney,
and moves this Honorable Court for further clarification regarding its Order Granting Defendant’s Motion
to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements: Lack of Probable Cause to Stop the Defendant. The
State of Florida seeks clarification based on the following:

1. On April 26, 2018, this Court entered an Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Suppress
Physical Evidence and Statements: Lack of Probable Cause to Stop the Defendant (“Order”).

2. Within the Order at section III., Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court made
certain credibility findings. In those findings, the Court wrote that Sgt. John Nobles “was not
credible as it concerns the events leading to the stop of the Defendant’s vehicle.” The Court
concluded “that it will not believe the corrected testimony of Sgt. Nobles at the motion hearing
in the instant case.”

3. As a result of the credibility findings set forth in the Court’s Order, in all prosecutions in which
Sgt. Nobles is a State witness, the State Attorney’s Office for the Fourth Judicial Circuit
(“State”) is now legally obligated to disclose this Court’s Order to the defendant as potential
impeachment information. This obligation is compulsory pursuant to the Federal Due Process
Clause of the 14th Amendment as applied by the United States Supreme Court in the case of
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Further, based on the holding in
Brady, the failure of the State to disclose favorable material information to a defendant can
result in the reversal of that defendant’s conviction.

4. Under Brady, the State is required to disclose any evidence favorable to the defendant that is
material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment. This requirement includes evidence that may
potentially be used to impeach the prosecution’s witnesses, including police officers. This
disclosure obligation encompasses judicial findings made by the court which implicate the
credibility of a state witnesses’ testimony made during the course of a legal proceeding. Thus,
the failure of the State to disclose this Court’s Order when Sgt. Nobles is a witness in a criminal
prosecution could result in a reversal should a conviction be obtained.

Page 1 of 3
5. Because the failure of the State to follow the requirements of Brady can result in such an
extreme outcome as the reversal of a conviction, the State Attorney’s Office generated an
internal list of recurring State witnesses (commonly known as the “Brady List”) for whom the
State is legally required to make Brady disclosures. The sole purpose of this list is to ensure
that assistant state attorneys are alerted to any recurring or frequent State witnesses, such
as experts and police officers, for whom the assistant state attorney must make a legally
required disclosure.

6. Importantly, these disclosures are legally required even if the State believes that the potential
Brady evidence is not admissible at trial or in any other legal proceeding.

7. Thus, as a result of the findings set forth in this Court’s Order, Sgt. Nobles’ name was placed
on the State’s list of recurring witnesses for whom the State is legally required to make a Brady
disclosure. Since being placed on the list, Sgt. Nobles has objected to his name being
maintained on this list.

8. Sgt. Nobles’ position is that while he readily admits to providing testimony during his
deposition regarding the defendant’s direction of travel that conflicted with the original arrest
report, he adamantly maintains that the discrepancy in his testimony was a “mistake,” and not
an intentional misrepresentation.

9. Sgt. Nobles’ position certainly finds support from the arrest docket, made at or near the time
of the arrest, which clearly sets forth the correct direction of the defendant’s travel prior to his
stop and arrest. A review of the March 1, 2017, deposition taken of Sgt. Nobles also
demonstrates that during questioning, significant confusion arose between Sgt. Nobles and
defense counsel regarding the defendant’s direction of travel before the stop. In his hearing
testimony, Sgt. Nobles readily acknowledged the mistake in his deposition testimony, and on
multiple occasions attempted to explain this error. In short, Sgt. Nobles’ position is that
although he may have failed to thoroughly review the necessary police reports in advance of
his deposition, the mistake in his testimony regarding the defendant’s direction in travel was
never an intentional misrepresentation, but instead, an honest mistake that he later attempted
to correct.

10. Regardless of the State Attorney’s Office’s view of Sgt. Nobles’ position, this cannot and does
not alleviate the State’s obligation to disclose this Court’s judicial findings set forth in its Order.

11. Consequently, in light of Officer Nobles’ objection and the record evidence supporting his
position, the State seeks clarification regarding this Court’s Order to determine whether the
findings made by this Court require continued disclosure. Specifically, with regard to this
Court’s statements in its Order that Sgt. Nobles “was not credible as it concerns the events
leading to the stop of the defendant’s vehicle,” and “that it will not believe the corrected
testimony of Sgt. Nobles at the motion hearing in the instant case,” the State seeks the
following clarification:

a. In rendering its Order finding the testimony of Sgt. Nobles as not being “credible,” did
the Court believe that Sgt. Nobles was lying or being intentionally deceptive?
Page 2 of 3
 b. In rendering its Order, did the Court believe that Sgt. Nobles lied in his hearing
testimony or in his sworn deposition?

12. While the term “credibility” can be defined in several different ways, for Brady purposes, there
is a significant difference between the Court having found that Sgt. Nobles lied or was
intentionally deceptive, as opposed to having made an honest mistake in his deposition, which
through his hearing testimony he attempted to explain. Certainly, based on the conflict in the
testimony alone, the Court could have found that the burden required to deny the Defendant’s
motion was not met. Thus, it is possible that this conflict standing alone may have
necessitated the Court’s Order granting the defendant’s Motion to Suppress. However,
because the basis on which the Court made its “credibility” determination remains unclear,
the State of Florida seeks further clarification of this Court’s Order to determine whether the
State is legally obligated to continue to disclose Sgt. Nobles name on the list of recurring
witnesses for whom the State is required to disclose exculpatory or impeachment information.

WHEREFORE, the State of Florida requests this Honorable Court to further clarify its Order dated
April 26, 2018, as it relates to the credibility of Sgt. Nobles.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been furnished by mail, to Anthony
D. Rosati, 25 North Market Street, Ste 100, Jacksonville, FL 32202-2802, this 8th day of April, 2022.

MELISSA W. NELSON
STATE ATTORNEY

By: /s/ L. E. Hutton

e-Service Address
Primary: [email protected]

Page 3 of 3