1. 1
IN THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR LEVY COUNTY,
FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA, ) Case No. ##-###-DK
)
Plaintiff, )
) Judge Guinta
v. )
)
JOE SIMON )
)
Defendant-Movant. )
______________________________)
Defendant’s Motion for DNA testing
More than a quarter century ago, a jury convicted Joe Simon of murder of Katherine
Hoffman, and sentenced him to life in prison, based solely on the testimony of one man. That man
was John Bart. John Bart was the state’s sole eye-witness. He claimed to have not only witnessed
the rape and murder of Ms. Hoffman, he also helped. Mr. Bart testified that he held Ms. Hoffman’s
legs both times that Joe Simon allegedly raped Ms. Hoffman. He testified that he retrieved rope
from the truck so that the Simon brothers could tie Ms. Hoffman to a bed frame to rape her a
second time. All the while, Mr. Bart testified that he did not try to assist Ms. Hoffman in any way;
not during the initial rape or the subsequent rape and strangulation. Instead, Mr. Bart watched and
did nothing. Mr. Bart claimed that he did nothing because he was afraid that night, he was afraid
that the brothers might turn on him next. However, even after the perceived threat to his life was
over, Mr. Bart never came forward with information about the crime that he not only witnessed,
but by his own admissions, aided and abetted.

2. 2
The state recovered a significant amount of physical evidence, nothing linked Joe Simon
to the crime scene or to Ms. Hoffman. The inconsistencies of the eyewitness’s wildly varying
statements are troubling in and of themselves; coupled with the physical evidence collected from
Ms. Hoffman and at the alleged crime scene will prove that the eyewitness’s testimony was the
product of the coordinated effort by the state of Florida to close a case. The reason that the
eyewitness’s account changed eight times is because, he wasn’t there, he didn’t witness Joe Simon
or anyone else for that matter, murder Ms. Hoffman. Joe Simon wasn’t in Florida the night Ms.
Hoffman went missing, nor was he in the state when she was murdered.
Unfortunately, 32 years ago the forensic testing was not as advanced as it is today, and all
that was determined was that the hair samples didn’t microscopically match Joe Simon in color or
texture.
Fortunately today, with the advancements in DNA testing we are not only able to
conclusively rule out Joe Simon as the donor of any of the DNA found at the scene or on Ms.
Hoffman but we will be able to determine who the samples actually belonged to so that we can get
a killer off the streets.
Statement of Facts
Ms. Hoffman’s known actions the weekend of June 14, 1990
At 2:30pm on Thursday, June 14, 1990 Ms. Hoffman headed off to a nursing convention
in Indiana, or at least that is the story that she told her parents.(R. at 903) In actuality, Ms. Hoffman
left her home in Shivley, Kentucky and was headed south; her final destination was Daytona,
Florida, where she was going to meet a boy she had met while visiting the area a month prior.(R.
at 908) Ms. Hoffman called her mom at 4:30pm from Franklin, Georgia to tell her mom that she

3. 3
had arrived at the convention in Indiana.(R. at 903) From that point Ms. Hoffman continued south
on I-75. At 3:30am, in the early morning hours of Friday, June 15, 1990 Ms. Hoffman’s car was
found with a flat tire and its hazard lights on, on the southbound side of I-75 just south of Jennings,
Florida.(R. at 861) Ms. Hoffman was nowhere to be found.(R. at 862)
Joe Simon’s known actions on the weekend of June 14, 1990
That same day, in Macon, Georgia Joe Simon went to work as usual, and then headed
straight from work to his grandmother’s house where there was an impromptu celebration for her
birthday.(R. at 1162) The entire family was there, some had even come up from Florida to
celebrate.(R. at 1186) Joe stayed at the party a little too long that evening; that didn’t sit well with
his girlfriend, with whom he was residing, who expected him home at 9:00pm and not 9:30 that
evening.(R. at 1169) Nevertheless, after the quarrel was over they tucked in because Joe Simon
had to be up again at 7:00am to report to the construction site where he worked with his father,
Charlie.(R. at 1172) Joe Simon arrived at work around 7:30am on June 15, 1990; Joe, Charlie and
Gary Bonnet were working on the framing of a house located at 396 Riverdale Road in Macon,
Georgia.(R. at 1152) Per a typical Friday, they received their paychecks before noon and headed
to the bank to cash them during their lunch break.(R. at 1187) They went back after lunch and
worked the remainder of the day.(R. at 1188) After driving a coworker home, Joe headed straight
to his girlfriend’s house, arriving at 5:30pm that evening and remaining there the rest of the
evening.(R. at 1164)
A body is found in Levy County, off SR 24
Shortly before noon on Saturday, June 16, 1990 a passerby finds the body of a female at
the edge of the Waccasassa River.(R. at 798) She had been strangled and dumped off of the

4. 4
Waccasassa River Bridge on SR 24. The police that investigate quickly determined that they had
discovered the body of Ms. Hoffman who had gone missing and been killed shortly after her car
broke down on I-75 near the 141 overpass just south of Jennings.(R. at 934) The Levy County
Sheriffs removed her body.(R. at 812) She was taken to the Medical Examiner for an autopsy
which revealed that, although she had a ruptured spleen1
, the cause of death was manual
strangulation.(R. at 840) The Medical Examiner also found double array of lines going across the
wrists, indicative of tight binding of the wrists by something like handcuffs.(R. at 842) The
Medical Examiner collected fingernail scrapes and swabs from Ms. Hoffman’s mouth, vagina and
rectum.(R. at 847)
The Investigation
The homicide investigators set up a road block near the bridge where Ms. Hoffman was
found on the time and day they believed that she had been dumped.(R. at 941) They also spoke
with truck drivers who frequented I-75 at the time and day that Ms. Hoffman’s car was abandoned.
Their hopes were to find someone who had seen something.(R. at 941) Much information was
gathered and numerous suspects were thoroughly investigated. Initially the prime suspect was
Ken Mathias, a wrecker driver whose inconsistent stories caught the attention of the
investigators.(R. at 942) Mr. Mathias became the prime suspect when he divulged to police that
he had seen Ms. Hoffman’s car broken down on I-75 as early as 8:30pm on June 14, 1990.
Investigators became suspicious because it was physically impossible for Ms. Hoffman to have
made it to Jennings, Florida by 8:30pm2
. Further, when pressed about his whereabouts on June
15, 1990 Mr. Mathias was more than evasive about his alibi and the one person he provided as an
1
A fist sized organ located under your left rib cage near your stomach. A ruptured spleen can occur when that
area is inflicted with a “severe and direct blow”. http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/ruptured-spleen
2
Via I-75, 8 hrs 9 min, 535.88 miles http://www.mapquest.com/#a75b02134435cd585e930da8

5. 5
alibi witness didn’t want to alibi Mr. Mathias. Mr. Mathias’s original alibi witness actually moved
out of his house, stating that he was in fear that Mr. Mathias might come after him for not providing
him with an alibi.(Supp. Rep) Mr. Mathias provided a second alibi witness, coincidentally the first
and the second alibi witnesses were not at the same location with Mr. Mathias on June 15, 1990.
(Supp. Rep) Coupled with the fact that an older married couple who were walking home on SR
24 told investigators they saw a blue 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass on the bridge the night before Ms.
Hoffman’s body was discovered; Mr. Mathias coincidentally owned a 1986 blue Oldsmobile
Cutlass.(R. at 944) The investigators secured a warrant for Mr. Mathias’s car, inside they found
and collected numerous long blonde hairs in the car.(Prop. rep 69) Unfortunately, that hair was
never sent to be tested and therefore investigators were never able to conclusively link their prime
suspect to the crime.(R. at 946)
The police who investigated the broken down Honda on I-75 found nothing suspicious
about it being broken down, but did located and “unknown” piece of blue cloth which they
collected.(Prop. rep. 62)
John Bart’s revelation
Fast forward to the following year when, out of the blue, John Bart reveals to Katie Smith
that he was involved with two other men, Joe and Charlie Simon, in the rape and murder of Ms.
Hoffman.(R. at 981) Due to the information Mr. Bart divulged to Ms. Smith, the investigators
from Ms. Hoffman’s murder followed up with Mr. Bart, in order to question him.
The homicide detectives officially questioned Mr. Bart eight times on eight separate
occasions. Detective Shewey also unofficially spoke with Mr. Bart numerous times over the
course of the investigation. Mr. Bart’s recollection of events from the night that he allegedly

6. 6
helped two men rape and kill a woman evolved each time he spoke to the investigators; sometimes
contradicting himself within the same interview.(Bart Interviews June 27, 1991 – July 17, 1992)
John Bart’s ever evolving stories
Initially Mr. Bart told investigators that he had heard about the girl that was strangled and
dumped in the Waccasassa River, but had never seen the body. He claimed that Joe Simon’s
brother, Charlie was the one who told him about the body – two days after she was found. He also
claimed that Charlie also said he “wished they would catch the guy who did that to the girl.” In
the same interview, Mr. Bart also told investigators that Charlie told him about the body, while at
the Circle K3
that Saturday night after the body was discovered.(Bart Interview June 27, 1991)
In the next interview, Mr. Bart outlined for the investigators that Charlie told him how they
were heading back to Georgia when they saw Ms. Hoffman broken down on the side of I-75 and
how they had turned around to get her, telling her that they would take her to her destination.
According to Mr. Bart, Charlie told him how she had fought with the brothers so they had raped
and killed her before throwing her over the bridge.(Bart Interview Jan. 23, 1992)
The following interview, Mr. Bart outlined how he himself, had seen Ms. Hoffman’s
pocketbook on the floor of the vehicle that Charlie Simon was driving.(Bart Interview Jan. 24,
1992)
Subsequent to that interview Mr. Bart again changed his story to then tell investigators that
he had actually seen Ms. Hoffman with both Joe and Charlie Simon. That she was with them in
3
Circle K was one of the local “hang outs” in Gulf Hammock. Kids would gather there on weekend nights, hang out
in the parking lot, talking and drinking beer, while possibly making plans for what else they might get into that
evening.

7. 7
the truck, and that they had invited Mr. Bart to go out drinking with them, which he did.(Bart
Interview Jan. 24, 1992)
The story that he told investigators after that was that the Simon brothers picked up Ms.
Hoffman on I-75, drove her down to SR 24 where they exited the highway toward Bronson.
Someplace outside of Gainesville on SR 24 he says that both Joe and Charlie Simon raped Ms.
Hoffman on the front seat of the truck. He claims to have only first seen Ms. Hoffman at the Flat
Branch Grade4
and at that time she seemed ok, but seemed to get more nervous as time went on.
He also stated that Ms. Hoffman had gotten out of the vehicle and was walking around
unrestrained. However in the same interview Mr. Bart says that he didn’t know what the Simon
brothers did between the time they picked Ms. Hoffman up until the time that Mr. Bart met them
at the Circle K in Gulf Hammock. Mr. Bart stated to investigators that he went riding around with
them for a little bit, but that Charlie had asked Mr. Bart if he “wanted to do it to her?” and Mr.
Bart said that he didn’t want to get in trouble so he asked that they please take him back to his
father’s house. Mr. Bart said that as they drove Charlie asked him if he would want to go to the
Watermelon Festival5
the next day, and Mr. Bart indicated that he could not because he had to
work. Mr. Bart told investigators that when the Simon brothers had dropped him off that Ms.
Hoffman was still alive and sitting between Joe and Charlie. Mr. Bart relayed that he did not see
Joe or Charlie until late in the evening of the following night, where they were present at the Circle
K. At this time, according to Mr. Bart, Charlie pulled him aside and told him of all the details that
happened after they had dropped Mr. Bart at his father’s house the night before. Those details
4
Also known as “The Grade”, similar to Circle K in that local kids would gather there on weekend nights and hang
out and drink.
5
The Watermelon Festival is held annually on the first weekend in June, as it has been since 1954. It is held the
first weekend in June because that is when watermelons are harvested. http://chieflandwomansclub.org/festival-
exhibitors

8. 8
included that the brothers had raped and strangled Ms. Hoffman, she put up a good fight and they
had to hit her. Charlie also divulged to Mr. Bart that they stopped on SR 24 at the Waccasassa
River and they were going to make it look as if Ms. Hoffman had accidentally fallen off the bridge
but they saw headlights coming, which made them panic, and they threw her off the bridge. Mr.
Bart said that Charlie again warned him not to tell anyone.(Bart Interview Jan. 31, 1992)
In an interview in April, Mr. Bart’s recollection of events was that he had met Ms. Hoffman
at the Circle K where she was seated in the truck, between Joe and Charlie Simon; Joe was driving.
That they had asked Mr. Bart if he wanted to go have a few beers at “The Grade”. They followed
Mr. Bart to his house so he could drop off his truck, he got into the bed of their truck and made
their way back to “The Grade”. Ms. Hoffman asked Mr. Bart if he lived in the area long and how
long he had known the Simon brothers. When they got to “The Grade” Ms. Hoffman was out and
walking around, then she was sitting on the hood of the truck talking to Joe. Mr. Bart said that
Charlie pulled him aside and asked “if he wanted a piece of her?” Mr. Bart said no, and tried to
talk Charlie out of raping Ms. Hoffman but Charlie would not listen so Mr. Bart requested to be
taken home. He said that they dropped him off at his house around 10:00pm. Ms. Hoffman was
still alive. The next day when Charlie and Joe arrived without Ms. Hoffman, Mr. Bart inquired to
her whereabouts and Charlie pulled him off to the side and told him that they had killed her. Mr.
Bart said that at this time, he told Charlie to stay away from him.(Bart Interview April 14, 1992)
Subsequent polygraphs given to Mr. Bart indicated that he was not being truthful.
Investigators took that to mean that he was not giving investigators the complete story.
In the interview following the polygraphs, Mr. Bart told investigators that he had thought
that he had talked Charlie into not hurting Ms. Hoffman. However he further went on to state that
he had seen Charlie earlier the following day and that Charlie told Mr. Bart that he and Joe had

9. 9
raped Ms. Hoffman on a road that cuts off Old Lebanon Road and after they had raped her, Charlie
got into an argument with Ms. Hoffman at which point he hit her and grabbed her by the throat;
she went down and never got back up. So they took her to the bridge on SR 24 and threw her over.
When pressed about where the Simon brothers had kept Ms. Hoffman, Mr. Bart said that they had
kept her in an abandoned house off Old Lebanon Station Road, tied to a bed with one of them
keeping watch.(Bart Interview April 14, 1992)
In the next interview Mr. Bart reiterated how Joe, Charlie and Ms. Hoffman had picked
him up at the Circle K to go drink. After they took Mr. Bart’s truck home, the four of them
proceeded to “The Grade” where they all exited the vehicle and began drinking. Charlie and Mr.
Bart walked away from the vehicle and at this point in time Charlie confided in Mr. Bart that he
and Joe intended to rape and kill Ms. Hoffman. Mr. Bart tried to convince Charlie not to hurt Ms.
Hoffman. When they returned to the vehicle Charlie and Joe grabbed Ms. Hoffman and put her on
the front seat of the truck. Charlie held her hands, and told Mr. Bart to hold her feet while Joe got
on top of her and pulled her shorts off. Joe couldn’t go through with it, so Charlie and Joe switched
places, and Charlie raped Ms. Hoffman using a condom from his wallet, and afterwards let Ms.
Hoffman redress herself. They then proceeded to an old abandoned house off of Old Lebanon
Station Road where the Simon brothers carried Ms. Hoffman inside. He also instructed Mr. Bart
to get the rope out of the back of the truck, which he used to tie Ms. Hoffman to the bed frame.
The Simon brothers then pulled down her shorts and Joe raped her with a condom, when she
wouldn’t open her legs Joe burnt her thigh twice with a cigarette. Then Charlie raped her. Mr.
Bart said that once they were done, Ms. Hoffman began arguing with the brothers so Charlie
punched Ms. Hoffman6
in the face three or four times, and Joe punched her two or three times.
6
Ms. Hoffman was 5’3” and 100lbs

10. 10
Charlie then began choking Ms. Hoffman and after a few minutes she fell to the floor. The Simon
brothers redressed her and then the three of them got back in the truck and propped Ms. Hoffman
on Joe’s shoulder to make it appear that she was sleeping. They proceeded to the bridge on SR 24
where they threw Ms. Hoffman over the bridge. Mr. Bart indicated that he was dropped off at his
house around midnight that night and he didn’t see Charlie again until the next afternoon.(Bart
Interview July 17, 1992)
All in all, Mr. Bart told the detectives at least eight different versions of what allegedly
transpired the night that Ms. Hoffman was murdered. Why would it take Mr. Bart eight times to
tell the investigators about a crime that he was actively involved in? Because he wasn’t. He wasn’t
with Joe and Charlie Simon on the night of June 15, 1990 when Ms. Hoffman was killed, because
both of the Simon brothers were in Georgia celebrating their grandmother’s birthday.
John Bart
The state’s sole witness, John Bart was 33 years old at the time of trial.(R. at 1008)
According to Mr. Bart himself, he was in special education classes all throughout high school;
failing both 9th
and 10th
grade causing him to finish in 6 years, instead of 4.(R. at 1053) Mr. Bart
also testified that he cannot read or write.(R. at 1010) Mr. Bart actually never graduated high
school, and chose to drop out due to a discrepancy in credit hours.(Bart Dep. 1 at 11) Mr. Bart
was never really steadily employed, according to him leaving one job without having secured
another job,(Bart Dep. 1 13-30) and at 33 years old couldn’t even remember his own social security
number.(Bart Dep. 1 at 2) According to Mr. Bart he was working for his brother during 1990,
hauling stuff in his brother’s dump truck, while his brother worked at Florida Rock.(Bart Dep. 1
at 25) He was also working for Stephen Blad taking care of the cows, where sometimes he worked
from 7:00am – 6:00pm; the earliest he would be done with the cows was 4:00pm.(Bart Dep. 1 at

11. 11
19) However at trial he testified that he wasn’t really sure who he was working for in June of
1990.(R. at 1056)
Mr. Bart also states that he has a difficult time with remembering things for long periods
of time.(R. at 1054) He has great difficulty remembering anything past a year’s time.(R. at 1058)
He further testified that he drinks very frequently and that he drank thirty beers, between 7:00pm
and 12:00am on the night of the alleged rape of Ms. Hoffman; 24 of which he consumed prior to
the initial rape.(R. at 1061)
The case against Joe Simon
Based upon Mr. Bart’s statements, both Joe and Charlie Simon were arrested and charged
with the kidnapping, sexual battery and murder of Ms. Hoffman. The investigators collected
various hair and fingerprint samples from both brothers.(Prop rep 75) Copious amounts of
evidence was collected from the cabin where the alleged rape occurred. Further, investigators
tracked down Charlie Simon’s repossessed truck, in order to comparison test carpet samples with
the known DNA of Ms. Hoffman.(Prop rep 72) The hair and fingerprints collected from Joe Simon
did not match any evidence found on Ms. Hoffman.(R. at 1220) The state went forward with the
charges based on nothing more than one man’s contradictory testimony. After a short trial in a
county that was already biased7
, a jury found Joe Simon guilty of the kidnapping, sexual battery,
and murder of Ms. Hoffman.(R. at 1369)
The DNA
7
Joe Simon moved for a change of venue after his brother was convicted in the same small county. His motion
was denied.

12. 12
The Medical Examiner testified that he collected fingernail scraps from both hands, hair
samples, as well as swabs from Ms. Hoffman’s mouth, vagina, and rectum.(R. at 847) The Medical
Examiner also preserved Ms. Hoffman’s clothes for possible testing.(R. at 848) Multiple latent
fingerprints were collected from Ms. Hoffman’s car as well as the owner’s manual8
. (Prop. rep.
65) FDLE further collected hair from Ms. Hoffman’s clothing,(R. at 823) as well as collecting
various beer cans, cups, the bed frame and various trace hair and fibers from the bed from the cabin
where the rape allegedly occurred.(Bart Interview April 14, 1992)
Testimony pertaining to DNA and what testing revealed
Under direct examination Carol Hanna9
testified that none of the latent prints found on the
notebook owned by Ms. Hoffman were found to match Joe Simon.(R. at 1214)
Under direct examination Mary Ann M. Hildreth10
testified that she received known hair
samples from Joe Simon. She further testified that none of the hair recovered from the body and
clothing of Ms. Hoffman was microscopically similar to Joe Simon.(R. at 1220)
There was no testimony at trial concerning the fingernail scrapes, the swabs and slides that
were collected by the Medical Examiner, nor was there any testimony regarding the analysis of
the evidence collected from Charlie Simon’s repossessed truck or the cabin.
8
Owner’s manual was presumably used because the car had a flat tire when found.
9
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Jacksonville Regional Crime Laboratory, latent print section.
10
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Orlando Regional Crime Laboratory, microanalyst.

13. 13
DNA to be tested
The evidence that the Joe Simon seeks to have tested is as follows:
Right and left fingernail scrape of Ms. Hoffman
Oral swab and slide of Ms. Hoffman
Vaginal swab and slide of Ms. Hoffman
Rectal swab and slide of Ms. Hoffman
White tank top of Ms. Hoffman
Bra of Ms. Hoffman
Black shorts of Ms. Hoffman
Pair of sandals of Ms. Hoffman
Black belt of Ms. Hoffman
Peach colored panties of Ms. Hoffman
Sanitary pad of Ms. Hoffman
Hair strands found on Ms. Hoffman’s shorts11
Handcuffs recovered near the cabin
Trace evidence found on the bed frame from the cabin
Blue piece of cloth found near Ms. Hoffman’s vehicle
Seven long blonde hairs recovered from Ken Mathias’s Oldsmobile12
Location of the Evidence
11
Hildreth testified at trial that these hairs were inconsistent with Joe Simon, Charlie Simon, and Ms. Hoffman
12
Ken Mathias was originally the prime suspect in the disappearance and murder of Ms. Hoffman.

14. 14
The evidence’s last known location was in the custody of the Levy County Sheriff’s Office
and the Clerk of the Court.
Conviction, Sentence and Appeal
On February 1, 1994 Joe Simon was found guilty of kidnapping, sexual battery and murder.
He was sentenced to life in prison. Mr. Simon appealed his conviction, his appeal was denied.
Memorandum
Contents of Motion. The motion for post-conviction DNA testing must be under oath and must
include the following:
1. a statement of the facts relied upon in support of the motion, including a
description of the physical evidence containing DNA to be tested and, if
known, the present location or last known location of the evidence and how
it originally was obtained;
2. a statement that the evidence was not previously tested for DNA, or a
statement that the results of previous DNA testing were inconclusive and
that subsequent scientific developments in DNA testing techniques likely
would produce a definitive result establishing that the movant is not the
person who committed the crime;
3. a statement that the movant is innocent and how the DNA testing requested
by the motion will exonerate the movant of the crime for which the movant
was sentenced, or a statement how the DNA testing will mitigate the
sentence received by the movant for that crime;
4. a statement that identification of the movant is a genuinely disputed issue
in the case and why it is an issue or an explanation of how the DNA evidence
would either exonerate the defendant or mitigate the sentence that the
movant received;
5. a statement of any other facts relevant to the motion; and
6. a certificate that a copy of the motion has been served on the prosecuting
authority.

15. 15
1. Please find the statement of facts located above. Items containing DNA to be tested are:
a. Right hand fingernail scrape of Ms. Hoffman
b. Left hand fingernail scrape of Ms. Hoffman
c. Oral swab and slide of Ms. Hoffman
d. Vaginal swab and slide of Ms. Hoffman
e. Rectal swab and slide of Ms. Hoffman
f. White tank top of Ms. Hoffman
g. Bra of Ms. Hoffman
h. Black shorts of Ms. Hoffman
i. Pair of sandals of Ms. Hoffman
j. Black belt of Ms. Hoffman
k. Peach colored panties of Ms. Hoffman
l. Sanitary pad from the panties of Ms. Hoffman
m. Pubic hairs found on Ms. Hoffman’s shorts
n. Hair strands found on Ms. Hoffman’s shorts
o. Handcuffs recovered near the cabin
p. Trace evidence found on the bed frame in the cabin
q. Blue piece of cloth found near Ms. Hoffman’s vehicle
r. Seven long blonde hairs recovered from Ken Mathias’s Oldsmobile
The last known location of the evidence, as stated above and certified by Charles Bastak13
is in the custody of the Levy County Sheriff’s Office and the trial evidence at the Clerk of
the Court. The Medical Examiner collected evidence from Ms. Hoffman’s body, and
FDLE collected evidence from Ms. Hoffman’s clothing as well as the evidence from
Charlie Simon’s14
truck and the cabin where the alleged rapes occurred.
2. The only evidence that was tested previously, as testified to at trial, was the latent
fingerprints found on the owner’s manual and the hair that was found on Ms. Hoffman’s
clothing.(R. at 1214 & 1220) The latent prints analysis revealed that none of Joe Simon’s
fingerprints matched fingerprints found on the numerous documents and paper items
submitted to the FDLE.(R. at 1214) The pubic hair that was found on Ms. Hoffman’s
clothing was similar to Ms. Hoffman’s known sample and the analyst ruled that it likely
13
Notarized document dated December 15, 2003.
14
Brother of Joe Simon, also convicted in this case.

16. 16
came from the same source.(R. at 1219) The hairs that were recovered from Ms. Hoffman’s
shorts were determined to be different from Ms. Hoffman, and both Charlie and Joe
Simon.(R. at 1220) Not available at the time, and available to Mr. Simon now are testing
methods such as Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism(RFLP), Polymerase Chain
Reaction(PCR), Short Tandem Repeats(STR), and Mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA). The
only “forensic” test done on any of the hair evidence that was collected from Ms. Hoffman
or from the alleged crime scene was the microscopic comparison of the known head hairs
of Joe Simon and the unknown head hairs found on Ms. Hoffman’s shorts. Microscopic
comparison consists of placing the hair on a slide, and viewing it under a microscope in
order to simply determine if it is similar in color, and texture.15
The lab analyst determined
that the head hairs supplied by Joe Simon did not match, in color and texture to those head
hairs that were found on the clothing that Ms. Hoffman was wearing the night that she was
murdered. Considering the advances in DNA testing, we move that these previously
performed tests are not necessarily inconclusive, but basic at best. We submit that mtDNA
tests be performed on the unknown hair samples as the DNA can be extracted from the
shaft of the hair without the necessity of the root end. We conclude that, had the current
mtDNA test been available in 1991 the results would have definitively shown that Joe
Simon was not the person from which the specimen came, and further would have provided
law enforcement with the DNA of the true perpetrator, as is true today.
Further the state never tested the oral, vaginal or rectal swabs and slides taken from Ms.
Hoffman, albeit possibly because they didn’t see any evidence to test; whether or not the
slides were viewed microscopically is unknown. We submit that not only should the above
15
http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/trace/how.html

17. 17
mentioned swabs and sides be submitted for mtDNA testing but that the lab should also be
tasked with testing all of Ms. Hoffman’s clothing for any possible microscopic biological
fluids that could have been transferred between Ms. Hoffman and the perpetrator during
the attack. Evidence was collected from under Ms. Hoffman’s fingernails which is
indicative of a struggle, and given that she was wearing black shorts, trace blood located
on the shorts could have easily been overlooked.
The state collected fingernail scrapes from Ms. Hoffman; either they were not tested or
they came back inconclusive as they were never introduced as evidence at trial. Again, we
request that they be tested using mtDNA, and the Y-STR analysis. mtDNA testing has
been shown to produce the most significant results on degraded DNA16
. Ms. Hoffman was
found partially submerged in a water, further the testing was not done immediately and
therefore presumably the samples are somewhat degraded. Further we would request to
also submit the scrapes for STR testing which is not as dependable in producing results on
degraded samples. However STR can be done as a Y-STR test which, if the sample
submitted is determined to not be too degraded, will extract only the male DNA from the
sample17
to conclusively link any male perpetrator.
The state also collected and never tested handcuffs found near the cabin where the alleged
rape occurred, as well as the bed frame from inside the cabin. We ask that said evidence
be mtDNA tested, as any epithelials left on the evidence can produce a DNA profile of
anyone who came in contact with those items. Further we would like the blue cloth found
near Ms. Hoffman’s car to first be tested for any trace chemicals that could have been used
to render a person unconscious. If the lab secures a positive reading for chemicals that
16
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=theses
17
http://www.cellmarkforensics.co.uk/forensic_services/major_crime/forensic_biology/y-strs.html

18. 18
could render a person unconscious we further request mtDNA testing for epithelials or any
other trace or biological evidence.
Lastly, we request that the hair samples retrieved from suspect Ken Mathias’s car likewise
be mtDNA tested to determine if those hairs recovered from the car seat match those of
Ms. Hoffman.
3. Joe Simon has proclaimed his innocence from day one, and continues to proclaim his
innocence. He has never wavered, and he never attempted to take a plea agreement because
he has an alibi, he was in Georgia the night that Ms. Hoffman was murdered. The above
requested DNA tests will definitively prove that Joe Simon had no contact with Ms.
Hoffman and that none of his DNA will match anything from the alleged crime scene. The
mtDNA test on the hairs found on Ms. Hoffman’s shorts will determine the identity of the
person who strangled and then dumped Ms. Hoffman into the Waccasassa River. mtDNA
testing on the pubic hairs located on Ms. Hoffman’s shorts will also help to prove if she
was in fact raped. The Y-STR on the fingernail scrapes will determine the DNA of the
person with whom Ms. Hoffman struggled, and was ultimately killed by. Biological
evidence located on her clothing and undergarments will determine if she was raped, and
by whom. If the blue cloth comes back positive with any DNA or chemical residue it can
also be further mtDNA tested to determine who the DNA belongs to, and what chemicals
were found on the cloth. DNA testing on the trace evidence located on the handcuffs and
the bed frame will prove that Joe Simon had absolutely no contact with either item. Lastly
mtDNA testing of the hairs recovered from Mr. Mathias’s car will determine if Ms.
Hoffman was in fact abducted by Mr. Mathias. The results, taken alone will at the very
least cause one to speculate that the correct man was tried. However, if the results of any

19. 19
one item tested, match the DNA found on any other item tested, that evidence would lead
any reasonable person to conclude that the DNA recovered was the DNA of the person
who actually murdered Ms. Hoffman. Furthermore, while the DNA evidence is not only
relevant to prove who killed Ms. Hoffman, it is equally important to disprove that Joe
Simon killed her. Otherwise we have an innocent man in prison for the rest of his life while
a murderer walks free – free to kill again.
4. The identification of Joe Simon is genuinely an issue because Joe Simon was in Georgia
the entire weekend that Ms. Hoffman was murdered in Florida. There are multiple
eyewitnesses that put Mr. Simon in Georgia on numerous occasions that weekend, the
defense introduced evidence of a bank photograph taken of Mr. Simon in Macon, Georgia
on Friday June 15, 1990. The only plausible reason that the jury chose not to find the
numerous witnesses reliable is because they were Mr. Simon’s family. The only non-family
member who could place Mr. Simon in Georgia on Friday night was Anton Wise and he
was not allowed to testify because he was not notified in a timely fashion and therefore he
showed up late to trial.18
Further there is not one other person from the Circle K, who can
put Joe Simon at the Circle K on the weekend of June 15, 1990. There is not one Circle K
employee, not one other person who was hanging out at the Circle K on a Friday night; that
Friday night was a big weekend in this town – Saturday was the Watermelon Festival. Yet
no one other than Mr. Bart can testify to seeing Joe Simon anywhere near Gulf Hammock
that weekend.
When confronted with evidence that Joe Simon was in Georgia on the afternoon of June
15, 1990 John Bart testified that he might have been mistaken about the identity of Joe
18
Mr. Wise is an OTR truck driver who gave specific instructions to counsel that they would have to notify him for
trial through his dispatcher and not his wife. For both trials counsel notified him through his wife.

20. 20
Simon. John Bart is not even sure who he says he saw that night because he also claimed
to have seen Charlie Simon with his ex-girlfriend Angel Hamilton. Except Angel Hamilton
was in the hospital with her newborn son that weekend.19
(R. at 1195) John Bart isn’t even
sure who he was employed by in June of 1990. John Bart was an unreliable witness. We
don’t need John Bart to testify as to what he remembers or who he saw, DNA testing has
evolved to such a degree that we can let the DNA evidence speak for itself. And the DNA
evidence will conclusively show that John Bart was wrong, or that he flat out lied. Joe
Simon is not the person who kidnapped, sexually battered and murdered Ms. Hoffman. Let
the evidence to speak for itself – people are mistaken and people lie, DNA does not.
5. Pursuant to 3.853(c)(7) we do respectfully request that the DNA be sent to the Orchid
Cellmark lab20
, testing at the expense of Mr. Simon. The Orchid Cellmark lab has much
more advanced DNA testing than does the FDLE lab. Also Orchid Cellmark is not
backlogged with pending criminal pretrial DNA analysis and therefore the results favoring
Mr. Simon will be obtained sooner, therefore expediting his exoneration.
Conclusion
We therefore request that The Court require the state to release the evidence to the Orchid
Cellmark in order for Joe Simon to have it tested. It is our contention that Joe Simon is innocent
of the crime of which he has been convicted. The tests will conclusively exclude the DNA of Joe
Simon as ever being at the scene of the crime, and due to the advancements in DNA testing as well
as the DNA record-keeping of known offenders it will determine who actually murdered Ms.
Hoffman.
19
Receipt from Shands Hospital and Clinics at the University of Florida. Admission date 6-13-90; Discharge date 6-
16-90
20
13988 Diplomat Drive Suite 100, Dallas, TX 75234 214-271-8400

21. 21
VERIFICATION
Under the penalties of perjury, I Joe Simon, declare on this _____ day of
______________, 2015, that I have read the foregoing Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing
and state upon personal knowledge that the facts stated in it are true and correct.
_______________________
Joe Simon
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Postconviction
DNA Testing and the attached Verification have been furnished via United States Mail, first class
postage prepaid, to the State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, William P. Cervone, Post
Office Box 1437, Gainesville, Florida 32602-1437, on this _____ day of _________, 2015.
_________________
Dhana Clark
Copies furnished to:
Joe Simon, DC
Avon Park Correctional Institution
8100 Highway 64 East
Avon Park, Florida 33825