Click here for more on how prosecutors used Skalnik’s testimony to secure convictions.
At the center of James Dailey’s case was a gaping hole. All that connected him to the crime was the words of his co-defendant, who refused to testify against him.
The state attorney’s office needed a conviction. The papers had called the murder one of the county’s “cruelest.”
The state attorney’s office needed a conviction. The papers had called the murder one of the county’s “cruelest.”
Skalnik worked with at least *11* prosecutors over a roughly eight-year period in Pinellas County.
Here’s what was going on in Florida at the time:
Here’s what was going on in Florida at the time:
In the 1980s, appearing soft on crime was a surefire way to be voted out of office.
When Gov. Bob Graham ran for reelection in 1982, he needed to combat his nickname “Governor Jell-O,” which he’d gotten for being weak.
He reinvented himself by signing death warrants.
When Gov. Bob Graham ran for reelection in 1982, he needed to combat his nickname “Governor Jell-O,” which he’d gotten for being weak.
He reinvented himself by signing death warrants.
Even still, Pinellas County stood out. The demand for convictions and long, tough sentences made Sklanik’s testimony incredibly valuable to prosecutors.
Skalnik was so valuable, in fact, that he was often released after assisting the state, only to commit more crimes.
Skalnik was so valuable, in fact, that he was often released after assisting the state, only to commit more crimes.
Example:
His grand-theft case in 1981 was supposed to go to trial.
Instead, he got a deal: he gave prosecutors information about three defendants charged with murder.
Then, they recommended that he spend no more than three years in prison — two fewer than he was facing.
His grand-theft case in 1981 was supposed to go to trial.
Instead, he got a deal: he gave prosecutors information about three defendants charged with murder.
Then, they recommended that he spend no more than three years in prison — two fewer than he was facing.
Then, he snitched *again,* and ultimately his sentence was reduced to just probation.
Then he got out.
Then he was charged with "lewd and lascivious conduct on a child" after sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl.
Then he got out.
Then he was charged with "lewd and lascivious conduct on a child" after sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl.
But, prosecutors worked with him *again.*
They dismissed the molestation charge completely, and he got five years for new crimes.
They didn’t send him to prison. He stayed in jail, where he got back to work as an informant.
They dismissed the molestation charge completely, and he got five years for new crimes.
They didn’t send him to prison. He stayed in jail, where he got back to work as an informant.
By now, Skalnik was well known to inmates as a jailhouse snitch.
When Skalnik was moved into defendant Terry Van Royal's cell, Van Royal protested.
He later said: “I told the guard I would not be in the same cell with him because I knew who he was and what he did.”
When Skalnik was moved into defendant Terry Van Royal's cell, Van Royal protested.
He later said: “I told the guard I would not be in the same cell with him because I knew who he was and what he did.”
Skalnik was moved into a cell with one defendant, Richard Cooper, and later into a cell next to another, Kenneth Gardner.
Both were sentenced to death, partly based on his testimony.
Both were sentenced to death, partly based on his testimony.
The next case was prosecuted by an Assistant State Attorney against Freddie Gaines.
Skalnik’s testimony was essential to establishing that Gaines committed not a crime of passion, but a premeditated killing
Skalnik’s testimony was essential to establishing that Gaines committed not a crime of passion, but a premeditated killing
Same playbook:
Prosecutor asks Skalnik on the stand if he will get anything in return for testimony, he says no.
Three months after the Gaines trial, Young wrote to the Florida Dept of Corrections to request leniency.
Prosecutor asks Skalnik on the stand if he will get anything in return for testimony, he says no.
Three months after the Gaines trial, Young wrote to the Florida Dept of Corrections to request leniency.
(In subsequent interviews and investigations, for this story and otherwise, prosecutors continue to emphasize that they would not have used Skalnik’s testimony if they did not believe it to be true).
But here’s the big plot twist:
But here’s the big plot twist:
For years prosecutors worked with Skalnik to secure prosecutions.
In 1988, after he is arrested and they don't offer him a deal, he turns on them.
He says he was rewarded for giving false testimony and files a motion claiming extensive prosecutorial misconduct.
In 1988, after he is arrested and they don't offer him a deal, he turns on them.
He says he was rewarded for giving false testimony and files a motion claiming extensive prosecutorial misconduct.
He claims to have given information in more than 50 cases and suggests that much of that evidence was tainted.
So prosecutors had to respond, and they did it essentially like this:
So prosecutors had to respond, and they did it essentially like this:
They denied everything, saying his motion was filled with “falsehoods, ranging in degree from gross exaggeration to preposterous fabrication.”
A richly paradoxical about-face for an office that had asked scores of jurors to take Skalnik at his word.
Guess how this resolved..
A richly paradoxical about-face for an office that had asked scores of jurors to take Skalnik at his word.
Guess how this resolved..
Prosecutors give Slaknik a plea deal, he withdraws the motion.
Then, he is charged with sexually assaulting ANOTHER girl.
Then, he is charged with sexually assaulting ANOTHER girl.
The assistant district attorney in Texas who prosecuted that case did not hold back.
“It’s hard to believe prosecutors relied on him,” she told us recently.
Skalnik gets put away for 10 years.
“It’s hard to believe prosecutors relied on him,” she told us recently.
Skalnik gets put away for 10 years.
The next time he’s arrested, in 2015, an investigator told us Skalnik offered to be useful inside the jail.
The investigator declined. And here’s why:
The investigator declined. And here’s why:
‘‘I would never be able to say on the stand that I believed the information he gave me was true and credible.”
The investigator in 2015 was emphatic about why he wouldn’t want to work with Skalnik.
The investigator in 2015 was emphatic about why he wouldn’t want to work with Skalnik.
Skalnik, to this day, claims that he never lied on the stand.
A spokeswoman for the Pinellas County sheriff’s office declined to comment for the story, noting that the cases in question took place long ago.
A spokeswoman for the Pinellas County sheriff’s office declined to comment for the story, noting that the cases in question took place long ago.
Click here to return to the main thread:
