State of Florida v. Leo Schofield

Lakeland, Florida criminal defense lawyer represented Defendant charged with first-degree murder.



Leo Schofield, age 21, was accused of stabbing his wife, Michelle Saum Schofield, age 18, 26 times in a fit of rage.



he case began on Feb. 24, 1987, when Michelle clocked out of work at around 8:15 p.m. from Tom's Drive-In restaurant but never returned to her Lakeland, Florida, home.



Michelle's body was found face down under a piece of plywood in a canal in Bone Valley, a region in Central Florida know for its fossil beds and prehistoric history. Michelle had suffered extensive blood loss, with many stab wounds to her neck and back.





Defendant was arrested more than a year after his wife's death.



The evidence against Defendant was entirely circumstantial.



Alice Scott, testified of hearing the couple fighting on the night of Michelle's disappearance were challenged in court because the timeline didn't fit.



Finger prints inside Michelle's vehicle that were not identified.



The prints proved to be those of one Jeremy Scott, convicted of another murder in 1988, for killing Donald Morehead, 37.



It claimed that Scott admitted killing Michelle.



Scott later denied that he killed Michelle.



District Court of Appeals of Florida Second District,

Case No.: 2D10-2918

July 1, 2011







chofield was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife Michelle in 1989. Michelle Schofield left work at 8:15 p.m. on February 24, 1987. Her car was found on the side of I-4 on February 25, 1987. The car was not in running condition as the flywheel had come off and there was only a small amount of water in the radiator. Her body was found on February 27, 1987, in a canal in an area near the intersection of SR33 and I-4 in Lakeland. She had been stabbed twenty-six times. Fingerprints that did not match the defendant were found in the car. The newly discovered evidence at issue is a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) report of December 26, 2004, revealing that the previously unidentified fingerprints were matched to a person named Jeremy Lynn Scott.





In 1989, Schofield was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of his wife, Michelle, in February 1987. At the time of Schofield's trial, he was aware that there were several unidentified fingerprints found in Michelle's abandoned car, and he used those unidentified fingerprints to support his defense that someone else, namely the person who left those fingerprints, was the perpetrator of the crime.





In 2004, through an unusual series of events,2 the previously unidentified fingerprints were identified as belonging to one Jeremy Scott. Based on that identification, Schofield filed a motion for postconviction relief seeking a new trial based on the "newly discovered evidence" of the identity of the individual who left the fingerprints. The postconviction court initially summarily denied relief on the ground that this evidence was not "newly discovered." This court, however, found that the identity of the individual who left the fingerprints was properly characterized as "newly discovered evidence," and we therefore remanded for the postconviction court to hold...





On remand, the postconviction court held an extensive evidentiary hearing. During this hearing, Schofield offered copious evidence concerning Jeremy Scott's prior criminal offenses, the factual details of those offenses, Scott's prior violent interactions with his girlfriends and others, and evidence concerning Scott's alleged reputation for violence. The State objected to the postconviction court's consideration of this evidence, noting that it was inadmissible as improper character evidence. In response, Schofield made a number of arguments as to why he believed such evidence should be admissible despite the clear provisions of the evidence code to the contrary.





In a lengthy written order denying Schofield's motion, the postconviction court stated that "for purposes of the court's analysis," it would consider Schofield's proffered evidence concerning Scott's criminal history, reputation, and prior bad acts as if it was admissible. The court then found that, even if it considered that evidence, it could not say that the evidence weakened the case against Schofield to the point that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Schofield then appealed that ruling to this court.







In a lengthy written order denying Schofield's motion, the postconviction court stated that "for purposes of the court's analysis," it would consider Schofield's proffered evidence concerning Scott's criminal history, reputation, and prior bad acts as if it was admissible. The court then found that, even if it considered that evidence, it could not say that the evidence weakened the case against Schofield to the point that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Schofield then appealed that ruling to this court.

Defendant was found guilty and was sentence to life in prison. Affirmed on appeal.