Justice denied: How the suppression of key evidence led to an accused killer’s release

An accused killer will soon be released after key evidence against him was ruled inadmissible at trial.

It’s a case NBC6 first brought to you in 2024 after North Miami Beach detectives reopened the 1986 murder of Shirley Brant.

Brant’s family finally received some answers in April 2025. Nearly 39 years after their mother’s murder, her children learned there had been an arrest.

“Hopefully, justice will be served,” said Benjamin Brant during a news conference announcing the arrest at the North Miami Beach Police Department.

On June 13, 1986, Brant was working in her real estate office when she was shot and killed in what police believe was an attempted robbery.

Two detectives who came out of retirement to help look into unsolved murders were able to crack the case.

“Yes, your fingerprints are on the phone that the victim was holding,” said Judge Mindy Glazer during the suspect’s first appearance.

Jeffrey Taylor, 65, who police call a career criminal, was arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder.

But as the case was moving through the judicial system, a judge ruled that key fingerprint evidence could not be introduced at trial because the crime scene technician who found the fingerprint was deceased and therefore could not be cross-examined.

The ruling was ultimately appealed, but in a major blow to the case, the appeal was denied.

Without presenting the key evidence to a jury, state prosecutors believe it would be difficult to prove Taylor’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ryan Backmann, Founder and Executive Director of Project: Cold Case, featured the Brant case on his database of unsolved cases as well as on playing cards given to inmates in the hopes of generating leads.

“This could be the end of the road for them being able to get accountability and justice for Shirley’s murder, and that’s devastating,” said Backmann.

Backmann said her case puts a spotlight on a significant challenge in prosecuting cold cases.

“One of the biggest problems is the health and wellness of the witnesses, of the investigators, of the crime scene technicians because all of those things can lead to something like what appears to have happened here,” he said. “Every day that goes by these cases don’t get better; they’re not easier to prosecute when we’re talking decades, that’s a real problem because witnesses die.”

Taylor remains incarcerated but will be released at some point as the case is now closed. NBC6 reached out to the public defender’s office, but they declined to comment.

Meanwhile, the state attorney’s office said the case could be revisited if new evidence comes to light.

If you know anything about the murder of Shirley Brant or other cold cases, you’re urged to call Crimestoppers at 305-471-TIPS (8477).

Brant’s children issued the following joint statement:

“We, the family of Shirley Brant, remain deeply grateful to the law enforcement officers who took the time to reopen a 40-year-old cold case to identify the man responsible for the murder of our beloved mother. She lost her life just before her 50th birthday while working in her real estate office. For decades, the crime remained unsolved. Armed with damming evidence, the new investigation ultimately led to the arrest of Jeffrey Taylor.

When we were informed that the person the investigators stated was responsible for this unimaginable act of violence was in custody, we were overwhelmed — not only by grief that resurfaced after so many years, but by relief. We believed that justice would finally be served based on the strength of the evidence – evidence that was not speculative. It was not circumstantial. It was direct, documented, and corroborated.

These are the facts…

On the night our mother was murdered, there was a living eyewitness present in the office. That witness saw an armed individual confront our mother. The assailant took the desk phone, ripped it from the wall and threw it to the floor. The eyewitness saw these events unfold. The assailant then shot our mother, soon after she plead with him shouting “Don’t Shoot, Don’t Shoot.” She died quickly thereafter.

This is the evidence…

The phone that was physically torn from the wall was dusted for prints. The fingerprints on that phone were preserved as evidence all these years. Those fingerprints were later matched to the individual who was arrested. Although the officer who dusted for the prints was deceased, the officer’s longtime partner, a former Chief of Police is alive. During pretrial, he testified in front of the judge that he and his partner dusted for fingerprints together, and his partner took and provided the proper validation of the phone fingerprints in an appropriate manner. Furthermore, the detective who dusted the phone prints was an experienced professional known and observed to expertly have gathered reliable evidence over many years.

In addition to the fingerprint match, the individual arrested has a documented long criminal history, including multiple stays in prison for violent crimes.

These are facts. They are documented pieces of physical and testimonial evidence collected by law enforcement.

This is the unimaginable conclusion of the case…

Before this case could even be presented to a jury, Judge Laura Stuzin ruled that key evidence would be excluded simply because the officer who collected the fingerprints had since passed away. The police investigative work was deemed inadmissible. Not because it was missing, damaged, incomplete, unsigned, or undated. It was because the officer was not alive to verify his pristine work. Evaluation of the veracity of the fingerprints should have been left up to the jury to decide, but Judge Stuzin did not allow the fingerprints with their location information present on the signed fingerprint card to be included as evidence. As a result of these rulings, this core evidence was excluded and therefore the case was dismissed.

What the public needs to know…

Once again, there was not a trial! No jury ever heard the fingerprint match. No jury heard the eyewitness account of the detective who witnessed the collection of the physical evidence. The judge’s ruling ended the case. The Attorney General’s Office did not agree with the judge and appealed the ruling, but the appeals court simply gave a denial but with no rationale whatsoever. The effect of these unfounded rulings was that the man charged with murdering our mother was released — not after being found “not guilty” by a jury of his peers, but because evidence gathered by experienced law enforcement professionals years ago was ruled inadmissible solely due to their inability to testify today. This was police work product. It was documented investigative evidence. It was physical evidence, routinely collected, and collected appropriately according to standard expert procedures. It was not hearsay. It was preserved forensic material and contemporaneous investigative documentation.

Our family has endured the pain of our mother’s murder for 39 years. To reopen that wound — to relive every detail — only to see the case dismissed without a trial has been devastating beyond words. We are eternally grateful to Detective Pam Denham, the North Miami Beach Police Department, the prosecutors in the State Attorney’s Office, and Attorney General James Uthmeier for their efforts and for pursuing an appeal. They stood by the evidence and by our family. But the reality remains: There was no opportunity for a jury to weigh the fingerprint evidence, the eyewitness testimony, or the composite sketch. Justice was never fully pursued in open court. This outcome is not only heartbreaking for our family — it is troubling for any family who waits decades for answers in a cold case. When documented physical evidence and investigative records are excluded solely because the officers who collected them are no longer alive to testify, it creates a profound legal gap. Cold cases, by their nature, often depend on evidence gathered long ago. We sought justice. Justice that allows evidence to be heard and evaluated not just for our family but all families who have endured the pain of waiting. Waiting for closure that seems to never come. Our mother, Shirley Brant, who moved to Miami from Boston as a one year-old, deserved that. Shirley’s children, grandchildren and most of all, our father, who met our mother at Miami High, the late retired Biscayne Boulevard dentist, Larry Brant, who missed our mother every remaining day of his 85 years, deserved that. And every family waiting for justice in a cold case deserves that.

At this time, we are exploring what steps, if any, can be taken to address this legal issue so that no other family endures the pain of seeing a charged suspect released without a trial because reliable, documented evidence was ruled inadmissible due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control.

It is a deeply sad day for our family. And it should be a concerning day for all when a murder case supported by fingerprint evidence, eyewitness testimony, and a detailed composite match never reaches a jury.

Justice was not allowed to run its course.

That is something we cannot ignore and neither should you.”