Sparre v. State
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of a capital defendant's second successive 3.851 motion, which relied on an unpublished academic study (the 'Gau Study') to argue his jury violated fair-cross-section and related constitutional guarantees. The Court held the claim was both time-barred (the study's underlying data was available years earlier and does not qualify as newly discovered evidence) and procedurally barred (fair-cross-section claims must be raised on direct appeal), and also rejected the claims on the merits.
Key facts
- Capital defendant Sparre filed a second successive 3.851 postconviction motion arguing his jury violated fair-cross-section and related constitutional guarantees, relying on an unpublished academic study (the 'Gau Study') analyzing jury composition.
- The trial court summarily denied the motion; the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding the study did not constitute newly discovered evidence and the fair-cross-section claim was procedurally barred because it should have been raised on direct appeal.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces that studies or reports synthesizing historical, previously-available data cannot restart the newly-discovered-evidence clock under rule 3.851, a recurring issue in successive capital… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.