Whether Florida unconstitutionally limits post-verdict contact between former jurors and attorneys

No question identified. : i C A PI T A L C A S E Q U E S TI O N P R E S E N T E D Aft er l e ar ni n g t h at a m e m b er of t h e j ur y t h at c o n vict e d P etiti o n er K a yl e B. B at e s of fir st -d e gr e e m ur d er w a s r el at e d t o t h e victi m, B at e s s o u g ht t o i nt er vi e w t h e j ur or t o c o nfir m t h e r el ati o n, a n d t h u s, hi s bi a s. D u e t o a Fl ori d a l a w t h at f or bi d s d ef e n d a nt s f r o m i nt er vi e wi n g j ur or s, h o w e v er, B at e s h a s b e e n pr ecl u d e d fr o m d e m o n str ati n g t o t h e c o urt t h at t h e j ur or i n q u e sti o n f ail e d t o di scl o s e t h e r el ati o n s hi p d uri n g v oir dir e at B at e s ’ 1 9 8 3 j ur y tri al. H a vi n g s uff er e d t h e d e ni al of hi s ri g ht s, B at e s pr e s e nt s t h e f oll o wi n g q u e sti o n: I. W h et h er Fl ori d a u nc o n stit uti o n all y li mit s p o st -v er dict c o nt act b et w e e n f or m er j ur or s a n d att or n e y s. ii P A R TI E S T O T H E P R O C E E DI N G S P etiti o n er, K a yl e B arri n gt o n B at e s, w a s t h e P etiti o n er/ A p p ell a nt i n t h e Fl ori d a Circ uit C o urt i n a n d f or B a y C o u nt y, Fl ori d a a n d t h e Fl ori d a S u pr e m e C o urt. R e s p o n d e nt, St at e of Fl ori d a, w a s t h e R e s p o n d e nt/ A p p ell e e i n t h e Fl ori d a Circ uit C o urt i n a n d f or B a y C o u nt y, Fl ori d a a n d t h e Fl ori d a S u pr e m e C o urt. N o c or p or ati o n s ar e i n v ol v e d. iii LI S T O F DI R E C T L Y R E L A T E D P R O C E E DI N G S T ri al a n d S e nt e n ci n g Circ uit C o urt of t h e F o urt e e nt h J u dici al Circ uit, B a y C o u nt y, Fl ori d a D oc k et N u m b er: 0 3 -1 9 8 2 -C F -6 6 1 C a s e C a pti o n: St at e of Fl ori d a v. K a yl e B arri n gt o n B at e s D at e of E ntr y of J u d g m e nt: C o n vict e d, J a n u ar y 2 0, 1 9 8 3; J ur y A d vi s or y R ec o m m e n d ati o n, J a n u ar y 2 1, 1 9 8 3; S e nt e nc e of D e at h, M arc h 1 1, 1 9 8 3. U nr e p ort e d Di r e ct A p p e a l Fl ori d a S u pr e m e C o urt D oc k et N u m b er: S C 6 3 5 9 4. C a s e C a pti o n: K a yl e B arri n gt o n B at e s v. St at e of Fl ori d a D at e of E ntr y of J u d g m e nt: O pi ni o n J a n u ar y 3 1, 1 9 8 5 r e m a n d e d f or r e s e nt e n ci n g; R e h e ari n g D e ni e d M arc h 2 5, 1 9 8 5; M a n d at e, A pril 2 9, 1 9 8 5. B ates v. St at e, 4 6 5 S o. 2 d 4 9 0 ( Fl a. 1 9 8 5). A p p e al aft e r N e w S e nt e n ci n g H e a ri n g Fl ori d a S u pr e m e C o urt D oc k et N u m b er: S C 6 7 4 2 2. C a s e C a pti o n: K a yl e B arri n gt o n B at e s v. St at e of Fl ori d a D at e of E ntr y of J u d g m e nt: O pi ni o n A pril 1 6, 1 9 8 7 ; R e h e ari n g D e ni e d J u n e 3, 1 9 8 7 ; M a n d at e, J ul y 6, 1 9 8 7. B ates v. St ate , 5 0 6 S o. 2 d 1 0 3 3 ( Fl a. 1 9 8 7). P etiti o n f o r W rit of C e rti o r a ri U nit e d St at e s S u pr e m e C o urt D oc k et N u m b er: N o. 8 7 -5 2 1 5 C a s e C a pti o n: K a yl e B arri n gt o n B at e s, P etiti o n er, v. Fl ori d a D at e of E ntr y of J u d g m e nt: Oct o b er 5, 1 9 8 7 B ates v. Fl ori d a , 4 8 4 U. S. 8 7 3 ( 1 9 8 7). P o st c o n vi cti o n M oti o n Circ uit C o urt of t h e F o urt e e nt h J u dici al Circ uit, B a y C o u nt y, Fl ori d a D oc k et N u m b er: 0 3 -1 9 8 2 -C F -6 6 1 C a s e C a pti o n: St at e of Fl ori d a v. K a yl e B arri n gt o n B at e s D at e of E ntr y of J u d g m e nt: P o stc o n victi o n r eli ef gr a nt e d i n p art ( n e w p e n alt y p h a s e tri al), d e ni e d i n p art. J ul y 2 5, 1 9 9 0; St at e’ s r e h e ari n g d e ni e d o n S e pt e m b er 2 4, 1 9 9 2. U nr e p ort e d. i v A p p e al f r o m d e ni al of p o st c o n vi cti o n r eli ef, C r o s s -A p p e al of g r a nt of p o st c o n vi cti o n r eli ef a n d C o n s o li d at e d St at e H a b e a s P etiti o n Fl ori d a S u pr e m e C o urt D oc k