Special Master’s Final Report
The Honorable Paul Renner
Speaker, The Florida House of Representatives
Suite 420, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Re: HB 6003 - Representative Gottlieb
Relief/Sidney Holmes/State of Florida
SUMMARY
This is an equitable claim for $1,722,000 to compensate Sidney Lamar Holmes for 34 years of
wrongful incarceration under a 400-year prison sentence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Crime and Initial Investigation
On June 19, 1988 (Father’s Day), at around 6:30 p.m., Vincent Wright and Anissia Johnson
were robbed at gunpoint while at the OneStop convenience store located at 2525 NW 6 th Street,
in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Johnson was pregnant with Mr. Wright’s child at the time of the
robbery. The two victims had stopped at the OneStop to put air into one of the tires of Mr.
Wright’s 1983 Mercury Cougar vehicle. Mr. Wright was putting air in the right rear passenger
side tire of the vehicle while Ms. Johnson remained in the locked vehicle. Two armed men
approached Mr. Wright and demanded money while each brandished a semi-automatic
handgun (with a magazine, not a revolver). Mr. Wright informed the perpetrators that he did not
have any money and they proceeded to forcibly remove the gold chain he was wearing around
his neck.
Around that same time, a third perpetrator arrived driving a brown Oldsmobile vehicle. Mr.
Wright informed police that the brown Oldsmobile had a hole in the trunk where the lock should
be and looked as if someone could use a screwdriver in the hole to open the trunk. According to
police reports and subsequent depositions, the driver instructed the two armed men to take Mr.
Wright’s vehicle since he did not have any money to steal. Mr. Wright instructed Ms. Johnson to
get out of the vehicle and let the men take it. The first two perpetrators proceeded to get into Mr.
Wright’s vehicle and drove eastward, while the third perpetrator, driving the brown Oldsmobile,
drove off toward the North. Ms. Johnson called the police while Mr. Wright left the scene with an
acquaintance to attempt to follow the men and retrieve his car. No shots were fired and neither
of the victims were injured. Mr. Wright’s necklace, some change from his car, and his car were
stolen at the scene. Mr. Wright’s car was found abandoned the next morning and was
subsequently returned to him with extensive damage. No fingerprints were taken from Mr.
STORAGE NAME: h6003a.CJS
DATE: 1/25/2024
Wright’s vehicle upon its location and return.
Following the incident, Mr. Wright told his brother, Milton Wright, about the robbery and
described the three men and the brown Oldsmobile. Milton Wright told Mr. Wright that the same
thing had happened to him earlier on the same day while he was stopped at a stoplight about
five minutes away from the OneStop. However, Milton Wright explained that four perpetrators
attempted to rob him, with three passengers getting out of a brown Oldsmobile with a “busted”
lock on the trunk while the fourth man stayed in the vehicle. Milton Wright was not at the
OneStop during the incident in question and did not witness the robbery of Mr. Vincent Wright
and Ms. Anissia Johnson.
Under the belief that the same perpetrators who tried to rob him earlier in the day were the ones
who attempted to rob his brother, Milton Wright began to drive around the area in search of the
suspect vehicle, the brown Oldsmobile. After locating what he suspected to be the brown
Oldsmobile in question, he informed Mr. Vincent Wright of the license plate number. Mr. Vincent
Wright called the police with the information gathered by Milton Wright and was subsequently
told by the police that it was not the car involved in either incident. Two weeks later, Milton
Wright found himself driving behind another brown Oldsmobile Cutlass and wrote down the
license plate number. The second vehicle did not have a broken lock or a hole in the trunk and
Mr. Milton Wright told his brother that the vehicle’s “lock was fixed.” He provided that second
license plate number to Mr. Vincent Wright, who reported the same to the police.
Upon a search of the license plate number, the police learned that the vehicle belonged to Mr.
Sidney Lamar Holmes, Jr., a black male who had previously pled guilty to two armed robberies
which occurred on August 31, 1984, four years earlier. Based solely upon Mr. Milton Wright’s
identification of Mr. Holmes’ Oldsmobile, Mr. Holmes became the only suspect in the armed
robbery incident.
Immediately following the incident, Ms. Johnson admitted that she did not get a good look at any
of the three perpetrators and was unable to make an identification throughout the case. A
number of photo lineups were conducted and Ms. Johnson consistently was unable to make a
single identification. Mr. Wright was not present during the initial police report taken by Deputy
Kenneth Smith on the date of the incident. In fact, Deputy Smith took Ms. Johnson’s statement
after the incident and was unable to locate Mr. Wright to take his statement. Subsequently,
Deputy Smith was never contacted by Mr. Wright per the Deputy’s request to speak with him
about the incident.1
Claimant’s Identification and Arrest
Following the robbery, Ms. Johnson described the first two perpetrators as black men in their
twenties.2 Ms. Johnson stated that she saw a brown car pull up but did not see the driver. 3 As
Mr. Wright left the scene of the incident to pursue his stolen vehicle, Ms. Johnson was the only
victim/witness at the scene to offer a statement and description of the perpetrators. Mr. W right
first spoke with police after the incident on June 28, 1988, nine days after the robbery, and did
not offer a description of the driver in question. On July 25, 1988, during a recorded sworn
statement, Mr. Wright only described the driver as a black man.4 During the July 25th statement,
Mr. Wright was able to offer a description of the other two perpetrators in more detail, including
the clothing they were wearing and a more specific description of their skin color.
During his first deposition on January 12, 1989, Mr. Wright described the driver of the vehicle as
being short, dark-skinned, with big lips.5 During a second deposition on March 23, 1989, Mr.
Wright described the driver as a short dark-skinned man around 5’6” and weighing around 170
1 Deposition of Deputy Kenneth Smith, Jan. 12, 1989 at 15.
2 Smith Dep. at 11.
3 Sworn Statement of Anissia Johnson, July 28, 1988.
4
Sworn Statement of Vincent Wright, July 25, 1988.
5 Wright S.S. at 2.
STORAGE NAME: h6003a.CJS
DATE: 1/25/2024
pounds. He further described him as being muscle-bound, having big lips, a lot haircut,
muscular arms, and being a little overweight.6 This second deposition occurred after three photo
lineups, a live lineup, and Mr. Holmes’ arrest.
First Photo Lineup
Detective Robert Campbell, of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, made contact with the
victim, Mr. Wright, on June 28, 1988, approximately 9 days after the date of the incident.
Detective Campbell presented Mr. Wright with a photo lineup book of about 250 photographs.
The photographs in the book were of people who had previously been arrested for robbery or
had been contacted in connection to any possible robberies. Detective Campbell asked Mr.
Wright to look through the lineup book and see if he was able to identify anyone in the book as
one of the perpetrators from the June 19th robbery. Mr. Wright was unable to make an
identification from the lineup book. Mr. Holmes’ photograph was not included in the initial lineup
book of 250 photos.7
Ms. Johnson was also presented with the 250-photo lineup book and was unable to make an
identification.
Second Photo Lineup
After Mr. Holmes’ vehicle was identified by Mr. Milton Wright and Mr. Holmes subsequently
became the only suspect in the case, a second photo lineup was compiled. On July 1, 1988,
Detective Campbell presented a 6-photo lineup to Mr. Vincent Wright. A photo of Mr. Holmes
from his arrest in 1984 was included as one of the 6 photographs. Mr. Vincent Wright was given
the opportunity to examine the photo lineup and was unable to make an identification. Ms.
Johnson was provided with the 6-photo lineup and was unable to make a single identification.
Third Photo Lineup
After making contact with Mr. Holmes in regards to the robbery, Detective Campbell requested
to take a new photo of him to use in the investigation. Mr. Holmes complied with the request and
agreed to speak with Detective Campbell, asserting his innocence throughout the investigation.
Detective Campbell used the new photo of Mr. Holmes and created a third lineup, consisting of
6 photographs. In creating the third lineup, Detective Campbell chose five other photographs of
similar looking black males to include in the lineup. Mr. Holmes was the only person from the
first 6-photo lineup to appear in the second 6-photo lineup.
On July 25, 1988, Detective Campbell provided the third photo lineup to Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright
identified Mr. Holmes as one of the three perpetrators from the June 19th robbery. Detective
Campbell presented the third lineup to Ms. Johnson and she, again, was unable to make an
identification. Detective Campbell did not pursue any additional leads or suspects and
proceeded to focus his attention arresting Mr. Holmes. 8
Live Lineup
On October 6, 1988, Mr. Holmes was arrested for the robbery at the OneStop. On October 20,
1988, Mr. Wright attended a live lineup at the Broward County Jail to identify the suspect in the
robbery. During a live lineup of six men, Mr. Wright positively identified Mr. Holmes as the driver
and third perpetrator of the robbery. At the time of the live lineup, Mr. Wright had previously
seen Mr. Holmes’ photo two times in two photo lineups. No other person in the live lineup had
been included in the prior photo lineups. No other arrests were made and the remaining two
perpetrators were never identified.
6 Deposition of Vincent Wright, March 23, 1989 at 9, 19-21.
7
Deposition of Detective Robert Campbell, Jan. 12, 1989 at 5.
88 Campbell Dep. at 17.
STORAGE NAME: h6003a.CJS
DATE: 1/25/2024
At the first day of Mr. Holmes’ trial on April 24, 1989, Mr. Wright positively identified Mr. Holmes
in court as the driver of the brown car.
Ms. Johnson was informed of the live lineup on October 20 but did not attend and, thus, did not
make an identification. Ms. Johnson continued to be unable to make an identification throughout
all three photo lineups and maintained that she was unable to make an identification throughout
the remainder of the investigation and trial. At trial, Ms. Johnson, who previously stated that she
did not see the driver inside of the brown car, testified that she saw a black, heavyset man in the
driver seat of the car.
Arrest
Mr. Holmes was arrested by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office on October 6, 1988, at his
mother’s home. Pursuant to transcripts reviewed by the Special Master, Mr. Holmes fully
complied with the investigation while asserting his innocence throughout. Mr. Holmes did not
resist the arrest and did not have any significant sums of money or jewelry on him at the time of
the arrest.9
Claimant’s Alibi
Mr. Holmes maintained that he was not involved in the crime as he was at his parents’ home the
entire day on June 19, 1988. The date in question was Father’s Day and Mr. Holmes spent the
entire day at his family’s house with neighbors, friends, and family members celebrating the
holiday with a large family meal and driving a go-kart around the street. Six witnesses from the
Father’s Day festivities corroborated Mr. Holmes’ alibi, noting that he was present at the house
from the morning until late into the evening. Further, the witnesses provided that Mr. Holmes’
brown Oldsmobile was parked under a tree in the yard of the house and did not move the entire
day.
At the original trial and throughout the CRU and IPF’s investigation, the witnesses from the
Father’s Day picnic at Mr. Holmes’ family’s house confidently asserted that he was present at
the house the entire day. The consistency in the witness statements and confidence that Mr.
Holmes was present for the entirety of the day strongly supports Mr. Holmes’ alibi and his
inability to have perpetrated the robbery.
Trial and Conviction
During the pre-sentence investigation, the prosecutor, Mr. Peter Magrino, asked the court to
impose an 825-year prison sentence for Mr. Holmes. Prosecutor Magrino argued that Mr.
Holmes’ prior criminal conviction for armed robbery combined with his alleged actions in this
matter required a sentence greater than the term of life so that “Mr. Holmes could not be
released from prison while his body was still functioning.” 10
Prosecutor Magrino further rationalized that he had given Mr. Holmes numerous opportunities to
come clean about the robbery and implicate the other two perpetrators but he “chose not to
accept it” and refused to offer any helpful information.11 It is the Special Master’s belief that Mr.
Holmes’ was not simply refusing to assist the investigation but truly did not have any knowledge
of the incident and was unable to offer information with respect to an incident he was not a part
of.
Mr. Holmes’ trial took place on April 24-26, 1989, before a jury of his peers, where he was found
guilty of armed robbery. During the sentencing hearing, Judge Grossman indicated that the 825-
year sentence requested by the prosecution was an overreach, stating that it was, “a little bit
much,” and sentenced Holmes to 400 years in prison.
9 Campbell Dep. at 24.
10
Transcript from the Pre-Sentence Hearing of Mr. Holmes on May 17, 1989.
11 Id.
STORAGE NAME: h6003a.CJS
DATE: 1/25/2024
CRU Investigation
CRU Background
The Broward County Conviction Review Unit (CRU) is a specialized unit within the State
Attorney’s Office of the 17th Judicial Circuit which was created in 2019.12 The purpose of the
CRU is to identify whether innocent defendants have been wrongfully convicted. 13 In those
cases, the CRU works to promptly remedy the wrongful conviction. Mr. Holmes’ case is only the
second exoneration since the CRU was created in 2019. The Unit has had several inculpations
in which they found the petitioner did commit the crime. However, the vast majority of petitions
submitted to the CRU end up being closed out after a preliminary review reveals that not
grounds exist for further investigation.14
The CRU reviews felony convictions where there is a plausible claim of innocence and
prioritizes cases where the petitioner is incarcerated and was convicted of a serious or violent
felony.15 The claim must be capable of being substantiated by credible, factual information and
evidence not previously considered by the original fact finder. 16 The CRU utilizes the guidelines
for its screening process provided by the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice,
the preeminent national research and policy organization that advises CRUs across the country
on best practices.17
Once the CRU determines a petition for request to review a case meets the required conditions,
the unit conducts an extensive review and reinvestigation of the evidence in the case.
Additionally, the CRU impanels an Independent Review Panel comprised of legal professionals
and citizens to take an unbiased look at the evidence in the case and identify their own
conclusions as to the reasonable doubt and actual innocence of the specific case.
CRU and Innocence Project Investigation
Mr. Holmes contacted the CRU in November of 2020 asserting his actual innocence for the
1988 armed robbery at the OneStop in Broward County. During the screening stage, Mr.
Holmes asserted his a plausible claim of innocence. Subsequently, the CRU asked the
Innocence Project of Florida (IPF) to assist Mr. Holmes in his case. The CRU and the IPF then
conducted an extensive collaborative, post-conviction investigation during 2021-2022.18 19
The CRU and IPF conducted a thorough post-conviction investigation, reviewing all existing
materials from the original case, consulting with experts in eyewitness identification, alibi
composition, and re-interviewing victims, witnesses, and law enforcement who were involved in
the original case. Following the review, the CRU concluded that there was reasonable doubt as
to Mr. Holmes’ guilt and that it was highly likely that he was factually innocent of the armed
robbery. Further, based on the totality of the evidence known today, the CRU concluded that the
Broward State Attorney’s Office would not have charged Mr. Holmes if the case were presented
today.20
12
Broward County State Attorney, FAQs, https://browardsao.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/HP-FAQs-re-
ConvictionReviewUnit.pdf (last visited Jan. 21, 2024).
13 Id.
14 Email from Arielle Demby Berger, Assistant State Attorney, Conviction Review Unit with the Office of the State
Attorney for the 17th Judicial Circuit (Jan. 22, 2024), on file with the House Civil Justice Subcommittee.
15 Supra note 12.
16 Id.
17 Arielle Demby Berger, Conviction Review Unit Final Memorandum , Feb. 20, 2023, on file with the House Civil
Justice Subcommittee.
18 Id. at 2.
19 The collaboration between the CRU and IPF was in furtherance of a multi -year U.S. Department of Justice grant
between the CRU and IPF to screen and investigate cases of wrongful conviction. The goal of the congressionally
authorized program is to create a non-adversarial approach to identifying and remedying wrongful convictions in a
more time and cost-effective manner.
20 CRU Final Memorandum at 2.
STORAGE NAME: h6003a.CJS
DATE: 1/25/2024
After reaching its own conclusion from the extensive reinvestigation, the CRU convened an
Independent Review Panel (IRP). The specific IRP for Mr. Holmes’ case was composed of six
Broward County residents. Five of the members were attorneys from the community, including a
retired career prosecutor, former public defenders, defense attorneys, civil attorneys, a former
president of the Florida Bar Association, a hearing officer, and a former City Commissioner and
Vice Mayor.
The IRP was given all transcripts, sworn statements, case docket, post-conviction motions,
evidence, memorandums, legal research, and the joint investigation by the CRU and IPF. The
panel was given the opportunity to ask questio