At this point, after losing direct appeal, must hire new attorneys, re-investigate crime 10+ years later, hire experts that cost $10k-$20k, all from prison cell depending on others.
In the immediate aftermath after the murder, law enforcement obtained video from several surveillance cameras that captured individuals in the immediate vicinity of Catherine’s apartment. For a brief period of time, law enforcement erroneously believed that Paul’s image was captured fleeing the location of the homicide. This faulty information was reported by several news outlets and communicated to several witnesses by the prosecutor. By the time of the trial, however, the prosecution had conceded that Paul’s image was not on any of the surveillance footage. That surveillance video, to the detriment of Paul, would play little role at trial.
One of the surveillance videos obtained by law enforcement was from a camera adjacent to the entrance of Catherine’s apartment. Ten years later, Paul’s current attorney finally received a copy of that video (included in countless boxes of case-related materials previously in the possession of Dawn Florio and Laura Miranda).
Upon review of this surveillance video, alternate suspect David Haughn is clearly depicted leaving the scene at 6:37 pm after the time of Catherine’s murder. This evidence breakthrough unquestionably contradicts Haughn’s trial testimony and places him at the scene of the crime during the crime. Further, the prosecutor’s theory on the timeline is unquestionably wrong. Did Dawn Florio, Laura Miranda and the prosecution not watch this surveillance video or did they choose to keep it from the trial? They each had possession of this verified, timestamped surveillance footage. Shockingly, the prosecutor actually presented an earlier time sequence from this same surveillance video to show David and Catherine walking the dog earlier in the evening.
The 440 motion also included numerous reports from forensic experts. Most importantly, four different leading fingerprint experts all provided affidavits and scientific analysis to demonstrate that the “bloody fingerprint” was a pre-existing print subsequently covered at the time of the crime. The expert reports also show that there also existed a separate partial fingerprint on the crime scene wall that was never identified or introduced at the trial (by either side).
A cell phone expert also provided analysis to show that only 3 phone calls between Paul and Catherine actually connected on the day of the murder – thus, undermining the prosecutor’s narrative about the continuous, jealous rage phone calls from Paul to Catherine on the day of the murder.
Also, after the trial, CBS 48 Hours Mystery reported that it had interviewed the witness who purported to identify Paul’s footwear at trial. In a portion of the CBS interview that did not make it to air, this witness told CBS that he he had no recollection of Paul’s footwear that evening, especially since they were in a dark bar. Somehow, several months later, this witness’s recollection inexplicably became clearer and he definitively testified on the specifics of Paul’s footwear. Interestingly, this witness moved out of the country after the trial.
The 440 motion detailed numerous other deficiencies in the case against Paul and the mind boggling, conflicted defense put forward by Dawn Florio and Laura Miranda.