The Commission on Capital Cases updates this information regularly. This information, however, is subject to change and may not reflect the latest status of an inmate’s case and should not be relied upon for statistical or legal purposes.
WATERHOUSE, Robert Brian (W/M)
DC # 075376
DOB: 12/16/46
Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Case #80-192
Sentencing Judge: The Honorable Robert Beach
Resentencing Judge: The Honorable Robert Beach
Attorneys, Trial: Paul Scherer & John Thor White – Assistant Public Defenders
Attorney, Resentencing: Larry Hoffman, Esq.
Attorney, Direct Appeal: Philip J. Padovano, Esq.
Attorney, Direct Appeal, Resentencing: Steven Bright, Esq. & Clive Stafford Smith, Esq.
Attorney, Collateral Appeals: Robert Norgard – Registry
Date of Offense: 01/02/80
Date of Sentence: 09/03/80
Date of Resentence: 04/11/90
Circumstances of Offense:
On the morning of 01/03/80, St. Petersburg police responded to a call that the nude body of an unidentified woman had been found in the mud flats of Tampa Bay. There was evidence that the woman had been dragged from a grassy area on shore into the water at high tide. An examination of the body revealed severe lacerations on the head and rectum, and bruising on the throat. Medical examiners determined that drowning was ultimately the cause of death. Additionally, there was an adequate amount of acid phosphotase found in the woman’s rectum to suggest the presence of semen. The lacerations in her rectum were determined to be cause by the insertion of a large object.
Unable to identify the body of the woman, St. Petersburg police turned to the public for help. An anonymous caller gave police of the license plate number of Robert Waterhouse and suggested that they should investigate him. The body of the woman was identified as Deborah Kammerer by her neighbors, Yohan Wenz and Carol Byers. Wenz and Byers reported that on the evening of 01/02/80 they accompanied Kammerer to the ABC Lounge. They later left the lounge, while Kammerer stayed behind. Kyoe Ginn, a bartender at the ABC Lounge, testified that he saw Kammerer talking to Robert Waterhouse and that the two left the lounge together around 1:00 a.m.
On the evening of 01/07/80, Robert Waterhouse was asked to go to the police station voluntarily for questioning. Waterhouse told the investigators that he did not know the victim and did not leave the bar with a woman. Waterhouse was permitted to leave the police station, but his car was impounded with a search warrant. A search of his car revealed bloodstains and a luminol test showed that more blood had been wiped up. The blood found in the car was consistent with the blood type of Kammerer and inconsistent with the blood type of Waterhouse. Additionally, investigators found strands of hair that were similar in characteristic to the samples taken from Kammerer. There were also fibers in the car that matched fibers from the Kammerer’s coat and pants.
Waterhouse was arrested on 01/09/80 for the murder of Deborah Kammerer. During a subsequent interrogation, Waterhouse was shown a picture of Kammerer and admitted that he did, in fact, know her.
Additional Information:
In 1966, Robert Waterhouse was indicted on charges of First-Degree Murder and Burglary in New York. He was charged with breaking into a home and killing 77-year-old Ella Carter. Waterhouse pled guilty to Second-Degree Murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was on lifetime parole at the time of the Kammerer murder.
Trial Summary:
01/31/80 Defendant indicted on the following:
Count I: First-Degree Murder
09/02/80 The jury found the defendant guilty of First-Degree Murder.
09/03/80 Upon advisory sentencing, the jury, by a 12 to 0 majority, voted for the
death penalty for the murder of Deborah Kammerer.
09/03/80 The defendant was sentenced as follows:
Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death
02/11/88 The Florida Supreme Court granted Waterhouse’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remanded for a new penalty phase consistent with the dictates of Lockett[1] and Hitchcock[2].
03/21/90 Upon advisory sentencing, the new jury, by a 12 to 0 majority, voted for the imposition of the death penalty.
04/11/90 The defendant was resentenced as follows:
Count I: First-Degree Murder - Death
Appeal Summary:
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal
FSC #59,765
429 So.2d 301
10/08/80 Appeal filed.
02/17/83 FSC affirmed the conviction and sentence of death.
04/27/83 Rehearing denied.
06/03/83 Mandate issued.
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC #83-5567
464 U.S. 977
07/29/83 Petition filed.
11/07/83 Petition denied.
State Circuit Court – Application for Stay of Execution
CC #80-192
03/15/85 Application filed.
03/15/85 Application granted.
Florida Supreme Court – Motion to Vacate Stay of Execution (Filed by State)
FSC #66,725
466 So. 2d 218
03/17/85 Motion filed.
03/18/85 Motion denied.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #80-192
04/22/85 Motion filed.
07/09/86 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal
FSC #69,557
522 So.2d 341
10/31/86 Appeal filed.
02/11/88 In a consolidated opinion with Waterhouse’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, FSC affirmed the denial of Waterhouse’s 3.850 Motion.
Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
FSC #70,459
522 So. 2d 341
04/30/87 Petition filed.
02/11/88 In a consolidated opinion with Waterhouse’s 3.850 Appeal, FSC granted
the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remanded for a new penalty proceeding consistent with the dictates of Lockett and Hitchcock.
U.S. Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC #87-7328
488 U.S. 846
06/27/88 Petition filed.
10/03/88 Petition denied.
Florida Supreme Court – Direct Appeal (Resentencing)
FSC #76,128
596 So. 2d 1008
06/08/90 Appeal filed.
02/20/92 FSC affirmed the conviction and sentence of death.
05/07/92 Rehearing denied.
06/08/92 Mandate issued.
Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Extraordinary Relief
FSC #77,106
581 So. 2d 1311
12/20/90 Petition and motion filed.
04/18/91 Petition and motion denied.
United States Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Certiorari
USSC #92-5354
506 U.S. 957
08/03/92 Petition filed.
11/02/92 Petition denied.
State Circuit Court – 3.850 Motion
CC #80-192
11/01/94 Motion filed.
01/22/98 Motion denied.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.850 Appeal
FSC #95,103
792 So. 2d 1176
03/15/99 Appeal filed.
05/31/01 FSC affirmed the denial of Waterhouse’s 3.850 Motion.
08/23/01 Rehearing denied.
09/24/01 Mandate issued.
Florida Supreme Court – Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
FSC #SC01-2845
838 So.2d 480
12/26/01 Petition filed.
11/21/02 Petition denied.
State Circuit Court – 3.853 Motion
CC #80-00192
09/30/03 Motion filed.
02/11/05 Evidentiary hearing held.
04/15/05 Evidentiary hearing held.
07/06/05 CC denied motion.
Florida Supreme Court – 3.853 Motion Appeal
FSC# 05-1404
942 So.2d 414
08/10/05 Appeal filed.
10/13/06 FSC affirmed denial of motion
Warrants:
02/22/85 Death warrant signed by Governor Bob Graham.
03/19/85 Execution set.
03/15/85 Stay of Execution granted by the State Circuit Court.
Clemency:
11/26/84 Clemency hearing held (denied).
Factors Contributing to the Delay in Imposition of the Sentence:
Waterhouse’s case was first delayed in 1988, when the Florida Supreme Court granted his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and remanded for resentencing. Waterhouse was again sentenced to death and began the capital appellate process over again. Waterhouse’s 3.850 Motion was pending for over 3.5 years before finally reaching a disposition in 1998.
Case Information:
On 10/08/80, Waterhouse filed his Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. Waterhouse claimed that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements he made on 01/07/80. Waterhouse argued that the statements were the result of an illegal arrest; however, it was noted that Waterhouse was not under arrest at that time and went to the police station voluntarily for questioning. Waterhouse also argued the admission of his statements made to police on 01/09/80 and 01/10/80. He contended that the statements were inadmissible because they were obtained after his request for an attorney. Additionally, he argued that the officers violated his Fifth Amendment right by questioning him after he had invoked his right to consult an attorney. Waterhouse also claimed that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant testimony of a jailhouse cellmate and in its consideration and application of mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court found no merit in Waterhouse’s claims and affirmed his conviction and sentence of death on 02/17/83.
On 07/29/83, Waterhouse filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied on 11/07/83.
On 02/22/85, Governor Bob Graham signed a death warrant for Waterhouse and set the execution date for 03/19/85. On 03/15/85, Waterhouse filed an Application for Stay of Execution in the State Circuit Court, which was granted on 03/15/85, pending the resolution of Waterhouse’s 3.850 Motion. The State responded by filing a Motion to Vacate the Stay of Execution. That was denied on 03/18/85.
Waterhouse filed his 3.850 Motion on 04/22/85, and it was denied on 07/09/86. He then filed an appeal of that denial in the Florida Supreme Court on 10/31/86. In a consolidated opinion with Waterhouse’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was filed on 04/30/87, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the 3.850 Motion, but granted the Habeas relief on 02/11/88. The Florida Supreme Court remanded Waterhouse’s case for a new penalty phase consistent with the dictates of Lockett and Hitchcock, which concern the consideration of mitigating evidence.
The State then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied on 10/03/88.
Waterhouse was again sentenced to death on 04/11/90. He then filed a Direct Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court on 06/08/90. In that appeal, he argued that he was denied the right to counsel by his lawyer’s refusal to make a closing argument at the resentencing hearing. Waterhouse also claimed that the trial court erred in refusing to answer two questions raised by the jury and in allowing the State to improperly introduce evidence regarding his prior Second-Degree Murder conviction in New York. Waterhouse further contended that the trial court erred in its application of the “committed for the purpose of avoiding arrest” and “cold, calculated, and premeditated” aggravating factors. The Florida Supreme Court agreed; however, they noted that even by eliminating these two aggravating factors, the presence of other aggravators and the lack of evidence in mitigation would have still resulted in a sentence of death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the sentence of death on 02/20/92.
After filing his Direct Appeal, but before its disposition, Waterhouse filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Extraordinary Relief in the Florida Supreme Court. The Habeas and the Motion for Relief were denied on 04/18/91.
Waterhouse next filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on 11/02/92.
Waterhouse again filed a 3.850 Motion in the State Circuit Court. Following the denial of that motion, Waterhouse filed a 3.850 Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court. The court found no merit in the claims raised by Waterhouse and affirmed the denial of his 3.850 Motion on 05/31/01.
Next, Waterhouse filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Florida Supreme Court that was denied on 11/21/02.
On 09/30/03, Waterhouse filed a 3.853 Motion for DNA Testing in the State Circuit Court. On 07/06/05, the court issued an order denying Waterhouse’s Motion for Post Conviction DNA Testing.
Waterhouse filed a 3.853 Appeal in the Florida Supreme Court on 08/10/05. On 10/13/06, the FSC affirmed the denial of the motion.
Institutional Adjustment:
DATE DAYS VIOLATION LOCATION
-------- ---- ---------------------------- -------------------
12/14/80 30 DISOBEYING ORDER FSP
02/08/83 0 DISORDERLY CONDUCT CENTRAL
08/25/84 15 DISORDERLY CONDUCT NEW RIVER
05/22/85 0 DISOBEYING ORDER FSP
04/17/86 15 DISRESP.TO OFFICIALS FSP
01/05/95 0 UNAUTH USE OF DRUGS UNION C. I.
________________________________________________________________
Reported 08/07/02 EW
Approved 08/08/02 WS
Updated 01/22/09 AEH
[1] Lockett v. Ohio – United States Supreme Court decision citing the unconstitutionality of limiting the mitigating evidence that can be heard on a defendant’s behalf. Predecessor to Hitchcock.
[2] Hitchcock v. Dugger – Florida Supreme Court decision that mandates the consideration of both statutory and nonstatutory mitigating evidence.