Zimmerman Gag Order: The Defense Is Not the Problem

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:30:00 AM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The State's Attorney's Office has filed this Memorandum in support of its second motion for a gag order on attorneys in the George Zimmerman case. The pleading is not on the court's website yet, but Jeff Wiener of the Orlando Sentinel has posted it. He describes it here. The hearing on the motion is today at 1:30 p.m. Fox 35 Orlando will be live-streaming it.

It's not the defense that needs gagging. While I don't think Judge Nelson will issue a gag order, as opposed to just reminding all the lawyers they are subject to disciplinary rules for improper prejudicial extra-judicial comments, it's important to note that that the State asks in its Memorandum, as it did in its Second Motion for Gag Order (and its first motion in April) that the court restrict not just prosecutors, O'Mara and defense lawyers, but all lawyers "involved" with the prosecution or defense. [More...]

The State would renew its Motion for Gag Order and pursuant to Rule 3.220 (1)(1), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 4-3.6 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, ask this Honorable Court to enter an order prohibiting any attorney involved with the prosecution or defense of this cause, any personnel employed or affiliated with said attorneys, and law enforcement personnel from making or releasing any extrajudicial statements to the media about the following: facts of this case, any evidence or the lack thereof in this case, the strength or weakness of the case, the credibility or the lack of credibility of any potential witnesses, opinions about guilt or innocence, and any appropriate or anticipated penalty.(my emphasis)

As I wrote here, the Martin family lawyers are clearly involved with the prosecution. They gathered evidence for the investigation of Zimmerman -- such as Witness 8's statements about her telephone calls with Trayvon Martin the night he was shot. The state relied on Witness 8's statements for probable cause in its affidavit to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder. Crump's interview of Witness 8 was released in discovery along with the state's later interview of her. The state was unaware of Witness 8 until Crump announced her existence at a press conference on March 20 and played a recording of his interview with her, which he described to some reporters as an affidavit. The state has listed Witness 8 as a trial witness. Their clients, Trayvon Martin's parents, are listed as trial witnesses. Angela Corey, in her press conference announcing charges, thanked the Martins' lawyers for their "daily assistance" communicating updates from their office to the Martins. She said:

I want to especially thank Mr. Crump and Mr. Parks, who have stayed in touch daily with us on behalf of our victim's family. Remember, it is Trayvon's family that are our constitutional victims and who have the right to know the critical stages of these proceedings.

Judge Lester warned all lawyers associated with the case in his April 30 order denying the request for the gag order. He wrote that the lawyers for the parties (the state and Mr. Zimmerman) have acted with the utmost professionalism and no gag order on them is warranted. He then reminded lawyers "connected to" the case and "their agents" that they are also subject to Florida ethical rules for lawyers on extrajudicial comments and are subject to discipline if they violate the rules. He wrote:

All attorneys are ethically obligated to follow the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and may be subject to discipline for violating those rules. With regard to those attorneys connected to this case (or their agents) who choose to speak to the media must keep specifically in mind Rule 4-3.6, which states:

a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited.

A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

b) Statements of Third Parties.

A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule.

Let's compare the state's list of public comments by O'Mara to just a smattering of those by Benjamin Crump and his associate, Natalie Jackson. (All transcripts via Lexis.com):

Benjamin Crump, March 20, 2012 Press Conference

“George Zimmerman, this neighborhood association loose cannon”

....“So this claim that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor is preposterous. And it cannot be allowed to stand because we have all the evidence now. We have three independent witnesses who say in their backyard -- and they came forward, they don't know the Martin family at all, they don't have a dog in this fight. They are just good people telling what they observed. What they heard. And what they heard was it was the kid Trayvon Martin, screaming out for help on that 911 call.”

.... “This young lady connects the dots. She connects the dots. She completely blows Zimmerman's absurd defense claim out of the water. “

....“ She says he is his regular self, all this stuff about him being high and stuff is preposterous. It's what Zimmerman wants you to believe so he can justify killing this kid in cold blood.”

....“Now, you go back and listen to George Zimmerman's 911 call, I request, I implore and I beg you on behalf of Sabrina Martin and Tracy Martin, I implore you to listen to him, listen how he's talking, how his words slur and you scratch your head and ask yourself, why didn't the Sanford Police Department do a drug and alcohol analysis on him?”

....“We have three independent witnesses who say in their backyard -- and they came forward, they don't know the Martin family at all, they don't have a dog in this fight. They are just good people telling what they observed. What they heard.”

“And what they heard was it was the kid Trayvon Martin, screaming out for help on that 911 call.”

Natalie Jackson on Nancy Grace New Developments in Trayvon Martin Case, CNN March 27, 2012: (Opining on George Zimmerman's supposedly different versions of the shooting and whose voice is on a 911 call):

JACKSON: The first story was Trayvon dragged him out of the car and attacked him. The second story was he was looking at -- he was looking for street signs to tell the police where he was, and Trayvon attacked him. Now we hear that Trayvon had somehow attacked him from behind and knocked him down.

Trayvon was found dead -- his body was found face down in the ground with his arms under him. That is not someone who was on top of a person beating them. It`s more consistent with the witnesses statements that Mr. Zimmerman was on top. There are witnesses that state that.

When they say there`s a 13-year-old boy who says that Zimmerman was there, we have evidence that the police told witnesses that it was Zimmerman, not who they thought, Trayvon on the ground. The police have totally -- they`ve totally been very inappropriate and conducted this so- called investigation...

Natalie Jackson on The Last Word for MSNBC April 9, 2012: (Opining on Gunshot and Voices on 911 Tape)

Lawyers Natalie Jackson and Benjamin Crump insisted then that they could hear two shots on one 911 call, a warning shot and a kill shot, and that that proved Zimmerman was a murderer.

"You hear a shot, a clear shot then you hear a 17-year-old boy begging for his life, then you hear a second shot," Jackson said.

GUN IN TEEN'S SLAYING FIRED ONCE, NOT TWICE Sun-Sentinel,March 20, 2012 (Natalie Jackson Claiming Police Coverup;and Opining on Evidence; and advancing theory as to why Zimmerman shot Martin):

“This is amazing,” family attorney Natalie Jackson said. “The police have been covering up from the start. The most alarming thing was hearing a 17-year-old pleading for his life and someone still pulling the trigger.”

She said calls from other witnesses who heard or saw the incident from their window appeared to back up their claim that it was Zimmerman who had the upperhand throughout the altercation. “Racism doesn’t make you go get a gun and shoot someone,” Jackson said. “Racism makes you profile them. What made him shoot was that he was one of them; he felt he was a cop.”

The state is completely ignoring its obligation under Florida's Special Rules for Prosecutors and ABA standards (adopted by Florida)(" Florida has adopted the American Bar Association Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to Prosecution Function. This is the product of prolonged and careful deliberation by lawyers experienced in criminal prosecution and defense and should be consulted for further guidance."):

b) A prosecutor should exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under this Standard.

The state should be complying with its obligation to exercise reasonable care in preventing those associated with the prosecution from making prejudicial comments prosecutors are not allowed to make by moving for an order restricting the comments of the Martin family lawyers. While the state's motion, if granted today, could well include the Martin family lawyers, the state has not once referred to their inflammatory, prejudicial and in many instances, highly disputed and dubious comments, and Judge Nelson said she hasn't watched or read the news coverage of the case. So on her own, she would have no idea.

There is no need for a gag order on the defense. If one is issued, it should include all lawyers associated with the case. And the state should be taken to task for not alerting the court to the need for the Martin family lawyers' comments to be restricted.

Nor should the order, if granted, prevent Mark O'Mara from continuing to post publicly available pleadings on his website and inform the public as to the course of court proceedings. As the media points out and the commentary to Florida's Rule 4-3.6 states:

[The public] has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy.

Don't be fooled by those claiming the Judge has no authority to restrict the comments of lawyers not representing parties to the case. It's done frequently. Examples: Roger Clemens and Kobe Bryant. Some judges even gag witnesses but not the lawyers. From the Kobe Bryant order:

A lawyer or law enforcement agency or officer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of this matter, the alleged victim, Defendant and witnesses shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer, law enforcement agency or officer, alleged victim or Defendant knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of (1) materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in this matter; or (2) interfering with the fair trial of the pending charges; or (3) otherwise prejudicing the due administration of justice.

Earlier posts on gag order issue:

No Bond Increase Today, No Gag Order in Zimmerman Case

< Thursday Night Open Thread | Friday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Zimmerman Gag Order: The Defense Is Not the Problem | 62 comments (62 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Underpants Gnome (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:04:11 AM EST

De la Rionda's motion is biased and conclusory. While he cites various remarks by O'Mara, he does not flesh out why they are unfairly prejudicial. Some of O'Mara's remarks are observations that de la Rionda agrees with - Zimmerman has damaged his own credibility, for example. Others invite withholding of a conclusion until all of the evidence has been reviewed, or set forth the legal standard for finding self defense.

Crump, Corey and de la Rionda poisoned the well, and now the state wants to prevent a clean up.

Whoa (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:04:21 PM EST

O'Mara openly challenges the reason for bringing the charge. "It was reasons other than evidence." "There is something afoot. Political influence."

a perfect argument (none / 0) (#1)
by LeaNder on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:49:21 AM EST

Ok, a perfect argument. Yes without Witness #8, or DeeDee, and media activities to raise awareness George Zimmerman wouldn't have been arrested. And as you seem to suggest, like no less but Alan Dershowitz, shouldn't have been. Strictly I agree with you concerning Angela Corey's statement, among others that she prayed with the parents. I didn't know prosecutors do such things. ;)

Are you suggesting, beyond the fact that it strange DeeDee did not contact police on her own, given what she says, that Crump withhold the cell phone data and thus hindered prosecution?

Let's survey the chronology:

Officer Joseph Santiago:
On March 5, 2012, I contacted Mr Martin (victims father) via cell phone and asked if I could obtain the pin number from the victims cell phone. Mr. Martin stated he would contact his lawyer before releasing that information.

Sun-Sentinel,March 20, 2012 (Natalie Jackson Claiming Police Coverup;and Opining on Evidence;

Natalie Jackson on Nancy Grace New Developments in Trayvon Martin Case, CNN March 27, 2012:

Interview with witness #8 April 2, 2012.

On April 11, 2012 charged, and arrested.

Basically, I agree DeeDee may well be the weakest link. On the other hand Trayvon can't witness anymore.

Sorry to be a bit off topic but... (none / 0) (#2)
by DebFrmHell on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:52:17 AM EST

You also don't have a chase, who threw the first punch, or whose voice it is yelling for help.

Take out Dee Dee and you really don't have much to hang your hat on.

On the other hand, Zimmerman has injuries, noted by photographs and medical reports, DNA on Martin's clothing, ME-8 Stain A and not excluded from Stain D, and two adult witnesses, W3 and W6, that place Martin on top of Zimmerman during the altercation.

You have the State admitting that at some point Martin did indeed hit Zimmerman. They never said the same about Zimmerman landing a blow to Martin.

Martin may be speaking louder than you give him credit for.

Just saying.


Two state witnesses (none / 0) (#3)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:18:36 AM EST

DeeDee doesn't assert that Martin was the one screaming for help. That is Sybrina Fulton, as well as (not listed as a witness, from my recollection) Ronquavis.

You are correct about DeeDee being potentially useful for the implication that Zimmerman endeavored to close distance with Martin, to get close enough to him to touch or hold him. I believe DeeDee is the only witness who has been held out for the proposition that "Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex," and for the proposition that "Zimmerman confronted Martin."

De la Rionda's questioning of DeeDee was awful.


dead people (none / 0) (#7)
by LeaNder on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:21:46 AM EST

dead people can't witness


you've already said that (none / 0) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:33:08 AM EST

The state and the forensic evidence speak for the the deceased.

Please stay on topic of the gag order. Off-topic comments will be deleted.


A question about a part of this hearing (none / 0) (#39)
by Jello333 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:49:03 AM EST

It's not specifically on the gag order, but it was in this hearing, and I'm not sure where else to ask this. Anyway, re. the arguments they had with the judge about the "chain of custody" of Crump's Dee Dee tape. Most people seem to be thinking the whole reason MOM/West are pushing that, is that they're hoping to get that tape, and maybe even ALL of the Dee Dee stuff, thrown out. Could be, but I have a different theory, and I was wondering what you think. I feel like it's almost the opposite of trying to get the stuff thrown out. I feel that they might be wanting to collect all the info they can, in the hopes of when it's all put together it'll show that at least part of the Dee Dee narrative was a creation of Crump (and maybe others). In other words, while getting all the Dee Dee stuff thrown out would be bad for the state, in that it would likely get the charges dropped against George, it could even be worse for the state if the Dee Dee stuff is NOT thrown out, in that it could lead to something much bigger.


Fabrication isn't a chain of custody issue (none / 0) (#43)
by cboldt on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 05:10:05 AM EST

If I have my logic right, your suggestion is [partly] that getting an accurate chain of custody will lead to evidence of alteration of the DeeDee recording. I don't think that's the situation. My take is more that the defense is showing either that the state and prosecution (broadly taken to include DOJ, FBI, FDLE, etc.) is sloppy in obtaining or handling critical evidence (did ANYBODY get a faithful reproduction of the digital file in Crump's recorder?); or that the prosecution is sandbagging the defense.

As far as DeeDee's recorded remarks (around March 19) being truthful vs. being coached by Crump, any evidence of that will come through deposition. Crump is now a court witness, and may be deposed; likewise DeeDee may be deposed.

The bigger fish of alleging and finding prosecutorial misconduct might be facilitated by a finding that the prosecution is deliberately sandbagging exculpatory evidence, but the usual remedy for sandbagging the defense is to allow them to enjoy the ordeal of trial over and over again.


no, that's not what I meant (none / 0) (#44)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:05:26 AM EST

your suggestion is [partly] that getting an accurate chain of custody will lead to evidence of alteration of the DeeDee recording.

No, that is not among my larger mediations. It may be among the defenses somehow, I am guessing. What exactly does their statement about the bad quality suggest?

The chain of custody could prove influence peddling though. Whom exactly did Crump give it to, you know? Wouldn't this have to be acknowledged before it was passed on.

Both O'Mara and West obviously seem to move inside the larger "Crump, media pressure, race riot threat" narrative. From GZ's side they have to, he never looked for a lawyer since he did not expect it. After all he had the former vice police chief on his side, he may well have assured him in this context.

My take is more that the defense is showing either that the state and prosecution (broadly taken to include DOJ, FBI, FDLE, etc.) is sloppy in obtaining or handling critical evidence (did ANYBODY get a faithful reproduction of the digital file in Crump's recorder?); or that the prosecution is sandbagging the defense.

Admittedly I was a bit confused about the cell phone and recorder, and I didn't look into Diwataman's passionate defense efforts closely.

But does Crump have a better reproduction or is there a better reproduction because ABC was present during her phone interview by Crump, and they have tools to enhance the sound?

I am not sure what you mean by "sandbagging", hiding matters defense has to confront at trial, that would have consequences. Or as you seem to suggest below, hiding exculpatory matters?

They say that everything they have can be regarded as exculpatory, as you and Jeralyn suggest too, so what else would they need? What could they mean by more exculpatory matters? A witness that actually saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman by jumping out of the bushes? Irony alert!

I always thought that the prosecution would one day profit from the huge public brainstorming in defense of Zimmerman, De la Rionda clearly isn't up to the challenge. Only if he is faining weak motions and a somehow unordered confuse and highly emotional presentation, and suddenly turns into a tiger, it feels he could make the Zimmerman's team efforts more difficult. Something I find hard to believe. But as a detail person, I understand they want everything there is. Really hard to decide what is important and what is not.

All data is open to them, SPD's, State's, FBI's they can study it to their straight heart's delight.

I can easily admit that O'Mara is pretty well prepared and highly impressive.


I can understand though (none / 0) (#45)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:33:35 AM EST

They want a clear recording. Many of Crump's questions sound in fact suggestive. He thanks her and her mother for allowing the interview. Is that simply a standard or does it allude to hesitation on her side, mother, parents that wanted her to stay out of matters?

Somehow there seems to be the suggestion that Tracy Martin passed on the phone number he found on his accounts immediately on to Crump.

I find that enormously hard to believe, put yourself into his shoes. Would you have waited for Crump to make that call? Your son was shot and you found out he was having a phone call only minutes (1 to 2) before he is shot, and you wait to ask that person what he said?

A good US "Internet friend" of mine, is more of an expert on females, and has a lot of experience with woman and the law, especially with minorities. She doesn't think that her hesitation to contact police means anything. At least not necessarily that she was manipulated.

All DeeDee made me think of, the first time I heard about her call was: she must feel terribly guilty. You know the whole chain of obvious what if associations, like, would he have been faster hadn't I called back again, was she interested in what type of man that was, why he thought he was observing and following him, did she doubt it, after all she couldn't see what Trayvon saw, why should he be following you? ... did she delay him with her call, her questions? ...


Sandbagging and burdens (none / 0) (#46)
by cboldt on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 07:22:48 AM EST

-- No, that is not among my larger mediations. It may be among the defenses somehow, I am guessing. What exactly does their statement about the bad quality suggest? --

My comments about chain of custody were in response to jello333's remark.

The statement about bad quality suggests that the defense is unable to hear what was said (by DeeDee), and DeeDee's remarks on March 19th might be useful to guide deposition questions, and perhaps to impeach some parts of her statements.

At this point, we don't know, and I think the defense doesn't know, the "copy of a copy of an original" nature/chain of the recording provided to it by the prosecutor, of Crump's March 19 interview with DeeDee. They can find that out, either by a paper trail, or via deposition.

-- But does Crump have a better reproduction or is there a better reproduction because ABC was present during her phone interview by Crump, and they have tools to enhance the sound? --

Crump has the original digital recording of his interview with DeeDee. He replayed that during his press presentation. ABC's recording of Crump's interview with DeeDee would be a recording of a recording; but their recording of the press presentation would be an original of that event. Either of those originals might benefit from enhancement, or might not need any enhancement.

-- I am not sure what you mean by "sandbagging", hiding matters defense has to confront at trial, that would have consequences. Or as you seem to suggest below, hiding exculpatory matters? --

By sandbagging, I mean either to hide, or to provide a reproduction that is unintelligible. At this point, the unknowns affect the defense's ability to structure details of deposition, and details of a defense presentation and argument.

-- All data is open to them, SPD's, State's, FBI's they can study it to their straight heart's delight. --

I agree. Part of the argument is over burden of production. The defense is arguing that it's the state's burden to turn over "best evidence" (e.g., a copy of the original digital file on Crump's recorder, of his interview with DeeDee), and the state says it is obliged only to provide access. The rule sides with the state, "permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph ..."

-- What could they mean by more exculpatory matters? --

The defense is claiming that the state attorney's (and some members of SPD) opinion that there is insufficient evidence to charge is exculpatory. The prosecutor did not disclose this deviation from Serino's written statement, although I don't know if it could have from written records, and I think it could not have.

The defense doesn't know, I gather, whether DeeDee's March 19th remarks contain exculpatory content. It hasn't argued yet that her statement to de la Rionda contains exculpatory content. For example, one statement can be interpreted as Martin being able to break the chain of events too - or initiating the confrontation - by dint of having been at or near Brandy's condo, and choosing to approach Zimmerman.

If the state has any evidence that Martin had ever initiated violence in the past, that would be exculpatory too. I doubt the state has any such evidence, as it is in the prosecution's interest to avoid probing Martin's past, as a precaution just in case there is any negative incident. Not saying there is (any negative incident), just that the prosecution is better off putting the burden of discovery on the defense, for ALL matters that facilitate a finding of self defense.


thanks, you are always reliably precise (none / 0) (#47)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:20:45 AM EST

First, Cboldt, sorry for interfering. And thanks for your as always precise answers.

The prosecutor did not disclose this deviation from Serino's written statement, although I don't know if it could have from written records, and I think it could not have.

Could Serino, at least theoretically, charge manslaughter without a decision further up in the chain of command? Not sure what the precise term would be. In other words would he have as the lead investigator have the right to deviate from his superiors? Passing it on without consultation?

My main problem with calling this deviation from disclosure duties (they already knew, didn't they?)is, it always was and still is stable public opinion.

For example, one statement can be interpreted as Martin being able to break the chain of events too - or initiating the confrontation - by dint of having been at or near Brandy's condo, and choosing to approach Zimmerman.

Concerning Trayvon's "intiation of the confrontation", I doubt that this bit of narrative can ever change. I also doubt that there is anything DeeDee said, even in better sound quality that would support it. Although yes, it feels, she may not be up intellectually to O'Mara's challenges in a disposition.

Not saying there is (any negative incident), just that the prosecution is better off putting the burden of discovery on the defense, for ALL matters that facilitate a finding of self defense.

I am not sure, if they are better off not looking into these matters. What it feels like though, notice pure hypothesis, they have their regular office hours and based on that may not want to bent over backwards. But strictly I would side with Serino, you hardly ever start a fight for nothing, e.g. I have never heard of anyone being attacked for harmlessly going about his business searching for a street number completely unrelated to the matters at hand.


Knick Knack Paddywack (none / 0) (#49)
by cboldt on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 09:18:25 AM EST

-- Could Serino, at least theoretically, charge manslaughter without a decision further up in the chain of command? Not sure what the precise term would be. In other words would he have as the lead investigator have the right to deviate from his superiors? Passing it on without consultation? --

He doesn't have the power to charge, but the police department does have the power to arrest pursuant to probable cause. The PD chain of command generally supports decisions to arrest.

As for recommending a charge, but without arrest, obviously he is able to do so - it was done. Going against a superior or against consensus is his prerogative, I believe. If the usual course had been taken (Wolfinger takes to a grand jury, grand jury no bills the case), then Serino's recommendation has no effect on defendant.

-- My main problem with calling this deviation from disclosure duties (they already knew, didn't they?)is, it always was and still is stable public opinion. --

The formal disclosure doesn't include any representation that SPD thought NO charge should be brought. The formal record of conclusion is what Serino produced. I don't know if the Mayor and Town Manager's representations to the public were part of the discovery produced by the prosecution - where Chief Lee said there was not probable cause to arrest, etc. But you are right that substantial parts of the history are matters of public knowledge and record.

That something is public, or that something forms public opinion (and there is plenty of public opinion on BOTH sides of this case) does not make it part of discovery. See the recent example where the prosecution formally noticed Zimmerman's appearance on the Hannity show.

In the prosecution's defense, I don't think there are meeting notes for SPD's deliberations, and there is no means for disclosing what is only in a person's memory, other than deposition.

Also in prosecution's defense, their case is on a different foundation from SPD. SPD did not have DeeDee's statement, and SPD (assuming it had it) discounted or rejected Sybrina's conclusion that Martin was the one screaming for help.


sorry, that's what I meant (none / 0) (#50)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 09:47:21 AM EST

Yes, indeed I meant recommendation, not charge.

Thanks, since I never heard of the meetings, I never missed notes in this context-- ;)--, I also know much less about US police routines than you do as a lawyer.

Also in prosecution's defense, their case is on a different foundation from SPD. SPD did not have DeeDee's statement, and SPD (assuming it had it) discounted or rejected Sybrina's conclusion that Martin was the one screaming for help.

I wish, I knew what is associatively on your mind concerning the first sentence? Well yes, it obviously was.

Do you mean Zimmerman shouldn't even have gone through an immunity hearing on SYG either? Or to slightly change the perspective, should Wolfinger have dealt with these contradictory signals from SPD by simply ordering an immunity hearing, and let, if I understand correctly, let a grand jury decide and can simply close the case? I understand the main the reason for SYG may well be saving the state money and time. So that may be true.

That they never bothered to contact DeeDee without pressure from Crump was exactly what puzzles me. We don't have a trace of when they got the phone records. Do we? So while we will never hear the complete truth and nothing but the truth, obviously and unfortunately, I always pondered why they were not interested in her, considering the closeness of her call to the events.


Rehash of a rehash of a rehash of old news (none / 0) (#51)
by cboldt on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:13:09 AM EST

-- Do you mean Zimmerman shouldn't even have gone through an immunity hearing on SYG either? Or to slightly change the perspective, should Wolfinger have dealt with these contradictory signals from SPD by simply ordering an immunity hearing, and let, if I understand correctly, let a grand jury decide and can simply close the case? I understand the main the reason for SYG may well be saving the state money and time. So that may be true. --

Immunity hearings are always before a judge.

My comment was that Serino's recommendation (to charge manslaughter) is mooted, if no charges are brought; and that if the facts had been presented to a grand jury by an objective prosecutor, no charge would have been brought. The prosecutor knows the elements of the criminal law, and is allowed to proffer evidence to the grand jurors. If the grand jurors find that the facts don't support a claim of self defense, then they indict.

The motivator for passing the self defense law, in FL, including immunity, was not just to conserve state resources. It was also to spare individuals who had justifiably used self defense from being put to the ordeals and expenses of arrest, incarceration and trial.

-- That they never bothered to contact DeeDee without pressure from Crump was exactly what puzzles me. --

AFAIK, they were unaware of her. And by the time she was "produced," Crump refused to produce her to SPD, on the grounds that the SPD is not trustworthy.

But even if they were aware of her, the SPD may have put more credibility on the on-scene witnesses who came forward promptly. DeeDee's delay, coupled with the possibility of her to review the 911 and NEN call before offering her version, make her statements less credible as a prosecution moves forward. Not saying she's not telling the whole truth, just that her testimony can be attacked in ways that may be persuasive to a judge or jury (why did she wait? Of course she's protecting her boyfriend, etc.).

I'd bet that SPD wishes DeeDee would have come forward on March 1 or thereabouts. Their story is that they didn't know what calls had been placed or received on Martin's phone because the phone didn't work by the time the PD took custody of it; and that the Martin's deferred a request for access to the contents of the phone memory to Crump.

Separately ...

[CRUMP] Mr. Martin, on Sunday evening, was working with his cell phone account, trying to figure out Trayvon's password. And he looked on it, and he saw who the last person was that Trayvon Martin talked to while he was alive.
He called me late Sunday night and told me that he had called the young lady ...
And I'll share with you some of the audio. We're going to turn this over to the Department of Justice and their investigation because the family does not trust the Sanford Police Department in anything to do with the investigation.

CNN NEWSROOM - March 20, 2012 - 11:00 a.m.


Any New Hash About Grand Juries? (none / 0) (#52)
by RickyJim on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:11:34 AM EST

Since the 1980s when Judge (and later convict) Sol Wachtler made his (in)famous remark about Grand Juries and ham sandwiches, have there been any studies to determine to what extent Grand Juries do the prosecution's bidding? Just where does the opposition come from, in this country, to adopting the European model of having a judge, who will hear all sides, run the police investigation from the start? IMHO, under that system, this case would have been disposed of already after the judge issued his detailed report on his decision not to hand down an indictment. Of course, the decision could be appealed, but it might be difficult to do so with the actual evidence well documented. So far, this case has been all about misstating and hiding evidence.


What Opposition? (none / 0) (#54)
by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:52:25 AM EST

Just where does the opposition come from, in this country, to adopting the European model of having a judge, who will hear all sides, run the police investigation from the start?

It can't be opposed until it's proposed.

I'm sure there are some Americans who agree with you, but not enough that I can recall ever hearing the issue discussed.


: According to the ABA (none / 0) (#58)
by RickyJim on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:03:34 PM EST

only about half the states use grand juries. I couldn't find a quick answer to what the other half do. I hope it is not leave it up to the prosecutor whether or not to indict.

I haven't sought any studies (none / 0) (#56)
by cboldt on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 12:11:23 PM EST

-- have there been any studies to determine to what extent Grand Juries do the prosecution's bidding? Just where does the opposition come from, in this country, to adopting the European model of having a judge, who will hear all sides, run the police investigation from the start? --

I suppose there have been studies, but I don't know of any. If I get your drift, it's that a grand jury can be persuaded to bring a case when the evidence doesn't support a conviction. I don't think a conviction/acquittal study would get to the bottom of that, but a review of the malicious and wrongful prosecution cases might.

As for adopting the European model, the only barrier I know of is inertia. There are many vested interests in the system, as it is. For some cases, a judge will appoint a special master, which has a similar effect but without cutting the opposing parties out.

I think the Zimmerman case is an anomaly, and as such, should not serve as justification for making sweeping revisions to the system. The system will probably sort this case out fine, even though by design, the case should have been concluded months ago - assuming Zimmerman's account is generally correct and he was justified in his use of force. Any time there is a situation that involves unjustified violence, there can't really be a winner. The best any legal system can do is dispense justice.


Meaning late on March 11 (none / 0) (#53)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:24:13 AM EST

Thanks for paying close attention on the case. As I told you before my main interest may well be a childhood trauma, or more precisely a trauma as a juvenile that you are ultimately helpless against adult power. So Tracy only contacted Crump on March 11?

SPD "put ... credibility" on matters that ultimately don't tell us anything about the start, apart from the fact there was a verbal argument before, as far as I remember, which it ignores? Am I wrong this was recorded or testified close to the events?

I agree, it would have been helpful if Dee Dee would have come forward immediately. But given she was talking to him closely before he died, is it very likely that Trayvon switched from taking to someone on the phone, which needs attention, to switching to someone attacking someone that simply passed by?


More rehashing (none / 0) (#57)
by cboldt on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 12:30:18 PM EST

-- So Tracy only contacted Crump on March 11? --

Tracy contacted Patricia Jones, his sister-in-law, who, in turn, contacted Crump. The below press account has that chain of communications taking place in February, with Crump engaging Julison for press advocacy on March 5th.

Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries | Reuters - April 3, 2012

-- SPD "put ... credibility" on matters that ultimately don't tell us anything about the start, apart from the fact there was a verbal argument before, as far as I remember, which it ignores? --

I don't believe SPD ignored the testimonial evidence. The problem with charging Zimmerman was an absence of evidence that his ultimate use of force was not justified. Even if DeeDee's account is perfectly accurate (i.e., Zimmerman shoved Martin), Martin does not obtain a justification for a beat down, or even a return blow, unless he thinks Zimmerman is going to strike him again. But SPD didn't have DeeDee's account. Hence my observation that Corey is working from a different foundation than SPD was working from.

My comment was purely speculative as to SPD's action if SPD had DeeDee's testimony. They would have [additional] conflicting evidence, which doesn't necessarily mean they would find DeeDee to be credible.

-- But given she was talking to him closely before he died, is it very likely that Trayvon switched from taking to someone on the phone, which needs attention, to switching to someone attacking someone that simply passed by? --

I don't think the event lends itself to resolution by "likelihood" or probability. Resolution will come via the witnesses who are found to be more credible, coupled with the contents of their statements; plus the evidence that Martin landed blows, and absence of evidence that Zimmerman landed blows.

Taking my experience for example, the likelihood of my being injured by a bank robber during a bank robbery is darned low.


: yes one thing one can always rely on (none / 0) (#59)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:58:24 PM EST

Yes, one thing one can always rely on that the other side makes a mistake.

Cbolt: Separately ...
[CRUMP] Mr. Martin, on Sunday evening, was working with his cell phone account, trying to figure out Trayvon's password. And he looked on it, and he saw who the last person was that Trayvon Martin talked to while he was alive.
He called me late Sunday night and told me that he had called the young lady ...
And I'll share with you some of the audio. We're going to turn this over to the Department of Justice and their investigation because the family does not trust the Sanford Police Department in anything to do with the investigation.
CNN NEWSROOM - March 20, 2012 - 11:00 a.m.
One thing one can probably always rely on as a lawyer ... I looked at my calender, had a used my head, I wouldn't have picked the wrong line, obviously, I simply wanted to know what day March 19 was:

LeaNder-- So Tracy only contacted Crump on March 11? --
CboldtTracy contacted Patricia Jones, his sister-in-law, who, in turn, contacted Crump. The below press account has that chain of communications taking place in February, with Crump engaging Julison for press advocacy on March 5th.
I know about the genesis of the contact between Crump and Martin. Of course the correct time would have been:
March 18th, 2012 TM called Crump. If we take a look at the log of custody and inquiry of Trayvon's phone and its records ("alleged phone" Diwataman) inside SPD, that means Tracy Martin contacted Crump after he had called DeeDee 13 days after SPD asked Martin for the pin code (March 5), and 2 days after Serino via the Orlando Sentinal telling the world, that there is no proof against Zimmerman (March 16), and that was 4 days after Lee closed the case and handed it over for review to Wolfinger.
By that time obviously nobody thought DeeDee or his last phone call would matter. The suspicion obviously was that Wolfinger would deliver the final deathblow to the case handing matter over to the archives or whatever is the way of handling it.

Well, sorta... (none / 0) (#60)
by Jello333 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:52:07 AM EST

"If I have my logic right, your suggestion is [partly] that getting an accurate chain of custody will lead to evidence of alteration of the DeeDee recording."

But "alteration" of not just the recording. If, big IF, they get an "accurate chain of custody", I think they believe that will show that Crump is lying about how the tape came into being, who he passed it on to, etc. In other words, I don't think they believe what Crump is currently saying about the tape. And I don't think they believe he'll suddenly tell the truth. I think they feel that they can PROVE that the details re. the tape are not as Crump says, which will lead to other problems for Crump and his Dee Dee storyline... it'll start a chain-reaction as far as the whole narrative goes.

Now of course all this implies that Crump is lying about at least some parts of the Dee Dee story. That is my opinion only, and I may not be right about MOM/West feeling the same as I do. But I really think that's where this is heading.


stay tuned (none / 0) (#61)
by LeaNder on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:12:57 AM EST

Now of course all this implies that Crump is lying about at least some parts of the Dee Dee story. That is my opinion only, and I may not be right about MOM/West feeling the same as I do. But I really think that's where this is heading.

I think you will be disappointed about Crump lying. All you may get is that Crump at one point mirrored the suspicion of his client that SPD hook, line, and sinker accepted the story of GZ, that they intended to silently close the case. You are gonna die tonight! Isn't that enough if George says so? Not for me and several others.

Personally GZ's reenactment of the cry did not convince me. That are really "tiny" cries compared to the roar on the 911 tapes. Can your body forget the way you cry when you feel in mortal danger? I somehow doubt.

The only thing that would help team Zimmerman, would be if Crump advised Tracy to not pass on Trayvon's pin code.

If SPD in fact had the pin numbers before March 16, 2012, when it released GZ's 911 call, but did not contact DeeDee than it is not Crump's/the family's but the police's problem.

Obviously the best would have been to interview DeeDee before the release, considering the proximity of her call to the dead of Trayvon. One could also argue, they had the duty to do so.


Not A 911 Call (none / 0) (#63)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:57:20 AM EST

If SPD in fact had the pin numbers before March 16, 2012, when it released GZ's 911 call . . .

Not a 911 call.


Pin Code (none / 0) (#64)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:03:21 AM EST

If SPD in fact had the pin numbers . . .

The record shows that SPD did what they could to get information from the phone, including asking Tracy Martin for the pin code.

It makes no sense that they would ask for the code, receive the code, and then make no use of it.


makes sense (none / 0) (#65)
by LeaNder on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:06:09 AM EST

let's see.

Yes, I was careless, but it doesn't make a difference to me if it was an emergency call or not.

The core of the problem for me lies in the menatal connection between "suspicious" and "suspect". Ever turned around since you felt somebody was watching you, or turned around, and caught someone watching you? Now what exactly do you have to do to not appear suspect, without knowing what makes you suspicious to start with?


menatal means mental (none / 0) (#66)
by LeaNder on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:08:48 AM EST

I am not well, maybe Trayvon is better off to not have to face all the good and righteous out there?


911 Vs. Non-Emergency Does Matter (none / 0) (#67)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 11:25:38 AM EST

it doesn't make a difference to me if it was an emergency call or not.

I don't care if it makes a difference to you or not.

Inaccurate statements about Zimmerman's history of making emergency and non-emergency police calls has been a part of the anti-Zimmerman campaign from the beginning.


not watching US media (none / 0) (#68)
by LeaNder on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:07:51 PM EST

I am not watching US media, if an old internet friend, mind you, from your perspective, hadn't mentioned the issue. (He deleted most of the entries by now, maybe all.) I wouldn't have known about the case. Thus nothing "team Crump", or the respective derogatory term you favor, ever did has reached me via their media efforts. I in fact as non-US citizen learned about the story rather late.

Media beyond the Orlando sentential reached me only via links, which may be 5%, not adding official life court procedures of my complete data base of the information. And I am mainly reading the right view since it seems to be prevalent. Thus my use: good and righteous.

I am afraid, considering to what extend I respect Pat Lang's wisdom and experience, this was the first time, I begged to differ with him. Completely uninfluenced by "team Crump's" campaign, but responding as a human being, responding to the "human story". And there is no chance Crump would have succeeded without "human beings" out there. Now we are back to PR, and I am sure team Zimmerman manages to revert the "human story" to what it should be.

We may err, that's true. Trayvon may in fact have been a 17-teen year old killer machine, soldiers that age can be, "he didn't belong" in the community after all, but he in fact planned to kill the first best Whitey out there. I prefer to give him the benefit of doubt, and I respect the dead generally. As a German, if you like.


deeply ashamed (none / 0) (#69)
by LeaNder on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:10:20 PM EST

life court procedures

of course I meant "live court proceedures.

I am shutting up now, and won't look at the rest.


: shit (none / 0) (#70)
by LeaNder on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 12:11:13 PM EST

that looks wrong too: procedures but proceedings.

One of my favorites is when... (none / 0) (#71)
by Jello333 on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 03:39:03 PM EST

.... they say, "Zimmerman even called the cops on a 6-yr-old kid!!" Hmmm, yeah. Only problem is, the cops listed it as a "welfare check", since what George was reporting was a little kid walking down the side of the road (a city street, NOT inside RTL) at night, by himself. So yeah, George was worried about the SAFETY of that kid! That is all. Some of these people just hate George so much that they WANT every detail about him to be negative.


So you're saying you believe... (none / 0) (#72)
by Jello333 on Tue Oct 30, 2012 at 03:51:00 PM EST

... those cries and screams were from Trayvon, not George? Alright, well, I totally, TOTALLY disagree. Many reasons why I feel that way, but here's one that's not often mentioned. It's "circumstantial" only, but I think it's still pretty strong:

Watch the 2nd bond hearing when they're playing the 911 "scream" tape for George's Dad. Most people have focused on how emotional both Robert Sr. and George acted. But instead, check out Sybrina and Tracy. Watch THEIR reactions. Almost nothing, in fact (if I recall correctly) one of them even whispers something to a person beside them at the time. But not one iota of negative (sad, scared, angry, etc) emotion while that tape is playing. Now ask yourself this: If you are sitting there listening to the screams of your son, with him crying and pleading for his life, knowing that seconds later he would die, how would you feel? You hear your own son begging for his life! I don't know about you, but I'd either break down, or I'd have to jump up and run out of the courtroom. Or, I might even go for my son's killer. He was, after all, only a few feet away. I might TOTALLY lose it and jump up and charge the guy. If, that is, I believed that what I was listening to was the screams of my son pleading for his life.

So yeah, what I'm saying is that by the reactions of Sybrina and Tracy, I think they know full well those are not the screams of Trayvon. They KNOW it.


Jeralyn? (none / 0) (#11)
by DebFrmHell on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 12:14:20 PM EST

So I went and tweeted Jeff W to ask how he got an undated/unsigned copy of the Memorandum. Below is his response. Does this sound right? TIA.

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS

@DebFrmHell Was served to the media outlets that have filed formal opposition to the motion, as well as the defense. Standard procedure.

Sounds right to me (none / 0) (#12)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:03:11 PM EST

The state response that I saw has a final page with a signature, certifying that the response was served on the press.


Don't they (none / 0) (#24)
by DebFrmHell on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 08:12:17 AM EST

have to file with the County Clerk first before handing out copies to the media that have joined together to fight gag order?

I am referring to the time/signature stamp that should be on the upper right corner. Not the final page signature.

It just seemed odd. I think I may have become a conspiracy nutter. 8-)


: Nothing hinky (none / 0) (#25)
by cboldt on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 08:44:29 AM EST

The tendering of a copy to the clerk of the court is near simultaneous with serving the parties, albeit a little later because the person signing is certifying (to the court) that copies have been served on the parties.
Then there is whatever processing delay is involved in the clerk's office.
I'd have to check if O'Mara has done similar, posting a version accessible from gzlegalcase that lacks a "received" or "filed" stamp from the clerk of the court; but I think he has. Okay - just checked - the "Motion to Schedule Standing Hearings ..." from the gzlegalcase site doesn't have a clerk stamp, but does have a signed Certificate of Service.

Watching the Court Proceedings (none / 0) (#13)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:11:25 PM EST

Caveat: No effort on my part to capture details here.

O'Mara's motion for specific discovery (arguing in essence that he doesn't have all the FBI, FDLE, etc. evidence) was put back in his lap. The state risks mistrial or reversal of conviction if it withholds, and the state represents it is withholding nothing. O'Mara is allowed to craft a proposed order listing specific items he thinks he doesn't have, from FBI and DOJ, and the court will consider it.

De la Rionda arguing for the gag order. I wish he'd get to the [legal] point.

The judge is doing a good job faced with a couple of long-winded attorneys. She gets to the point, and she has a very respectful but firm method.

Snippets of the state's gag order argument (none / 0) (#14)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:20:30 PM EST

De la Rionda argues that the suggestion to "Put yourself in defendant's shoes" is an improper extrajudicial remark, in the website solicitation for financial support.

De la Rionda also argues that O'Mara is projecting racism onto Crump. IOW, de la Rionda is arguing that O'Mara's criticism (of Crump calling the case a case of racism) is an example of something that is inappropriate, i.e., taints the jury pool. It's an example of counsel reacting to public remarks.

More self-selected snippets (none / 0) (#15)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:33:24 PM EST

De la Rionda said, "It's not just defendant's right to get a fair trial, it's also the state's right to get a fair trial." What has the defense said, other than "it was self defense."?

De la Rionda finds a place where O'Mara wrote that speculation about the evidence is inappropriate, outside of court. He uses this to imply that O'Mara is in favor of the gag order request.

De la Rionda sort of faces the issue of whether or not any of the O'Mara's statements are afoul of the ethical rules. He says he' not accusing O'Mara of unethical behavior, except for the few examples he's noted in his response.

The state's argument here is sloppy and conclusory. De la Rionda doesn't connect the dots to reach the conclusion that O'Mara's remarks are prejudicial.

72 percent (none / 0) (#16)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:00:53 PM EST

O'Mara cites an Orlando Sentinel story today, that includes a poll where 72% of the respondents did not think Zimmerman could get a fair trial.

Prior to that, he really hit out at Crump and Jackson for labeling Zimmerman a "racist murderer" and otherwise setting up a public perception of Zimmerman and the case.

Press argues (none / 0) (#18)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:34:28 PM EST

I think correctly, that what O'Mara said in open court today was more prejudicial to the case than anything O'Mara has on his website, or on media appearances, etc.

: fox (none / 0) (#22)
by LeaNder on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:49:25 PM EST

O'Mara is a clever fox. Has he hired PR advisers too? Or are there some in the defense-team-collective? Reverse action. Good narrative, although we heard it before, but surely never thus elegantly dilivered.
Serino again. I hope he is well on night patrol.
Preparing media and the right type of jury: Always remember, it could be you!
How to feed matters into media past a Gag order.
No matter what perspective, there is one part of the narrative that always remains the same: police is corrupt, it can't be trusted.

Closing argument on gag order (none / 0) (#19)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:37:16 PM EST

De la Rionda up to rebut. There was a contempt ruling against one of the lawyers in the Casey Anthony case.

De la Rionda aims to put distance between the prosecution and Crump.

The judge reserves ruling on the motion for gag order until later, Monday, hopefully.

Disposition of Sequestration Motion (none / 0) (#20)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 02:48:11 PM EST

On the phone, Sanford person says SPD witnesses were approached by a member of the prosecution team as a series of depositions was being taken, and at least one of the witnesses did not appreciate that.

The judge rejects O'Mara's motion for sequestration.

Get the hook (none / 0) (#21)
by cboldt on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 03:01:06 PM EST

O'Mara should use the hook and pull West away from the podium.

: I thought that too! (none / 0) (#23)
by FroggieLeggs on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:48:08 AM EST

While I like Mr West, I think he is too abrasive at times and I think he irritates the Judge a little with his persistence after she makes her rulings.

What West Wanted (none / 0) (#26)
by RickyJim on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 09:56:03 AM EST

My impression was that he was asking for the paperwork for the chain of custody of the DeeDee tape that Crump prepared. Early in the hearing O'Mara was arguing with the judge about discovery in general and complaining that stuff was obviously withheld that should have been included in discovery. I think that the judge finally said that the defense should make a specific motion including particulars on what they think is missing. So when West got up at the end, she seemed to say it should be handled as in her previous suggestion to O'Mara. I side with the judge here.

sorry (none / 0) (#31)
by LeaNder on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:14:52 PM EST

Of course the demand of the question of the handling of the tape is legitimate. But obviously that is not the task of the judge, and in this context she clearly stated that it isn't hers and she won't interfere beyond what she already ruled. Correct me if I am wrong. I would have wished the live-feed sound was less low. And I had turned up to the limit.

Mind you I am a blood voyeuristic foreigner, and don't really know what laws surround the FBI. Would they need to reveal all their paperwork too? If not than that would be a perfect way to connect the case to some superior conspiracy. Maybe it can then be tied to Obama?

Besides if I am to believe prosecution it wasn't even clear if FBI or State was involved, mind you a state that originally, supposedly didn't want to prosecute. So we have a reality cliffhanger now.

stay tuned (none / 0) (#32)
by LeaNder on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:17:44 PM EST

I will


Leander you can listen (none / 0) (#36)
by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:49:04 PM EST

to the entire hearing with clear audio here, courtesy of Diwataman. I suggest you take this questions to the forums. They are for those who are intensely following the facts who want to discuss the details in depth that goes beyond the interest of general readers following the news of the day. The law is discussed there as well. Conspiracy theories are pure speculation and not welcome either place. Either are attacks on the parties.


Prophylactic Sequestration (none / 0) (#38)
by LeaNder on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 03:28:30 PM EST

Thanks Jeralyn,

this bloody foreign nitwit appreciates the feedback and help.

I was simply puzzled by the fact, that we are now via the defense confronted with a new cover up, this time against Zimmerman, in all it's urgency with a Prophylactic Sequestration motion.

Now didn't we know this before? Initially there was a cover up to not prosecute Zimmerman and now we have a cover up to prosecute him?

I am aware that you follow Dershowitz in believing this has been the case from the start. So since it is a fact, it a real conspiracy, called political pressure and no theory? ;)


: Bloody Foreign Legal Procedure (none / 0) (#48)
by RickyJim on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:25:28 AM EST

Are you familiar with the way things are done in analogous situations in your country LeaNder? Depositions to lawyers in criminal cases is, AFAIK, something found only in America, Canada a a few other countries. It is forbidden elsewhere, as discussed for example in the movie, "A Fish Called Wanda". Outside places where the adversary system rules, my reading tells me that a judge would have been in charge of the investigation, almost from the start and if the defense or prosecution wanted a witness' testimony, the judge would send the appropriate level of police investigator to interview that person and the results would be given to both sides. Obviously that tends to level the playing field for the side with less money. Also obvious are the deficiencies of having somebody like Crump or BDLR doing the investigation.

by the way (none / 0) (#42)
by LeaNder on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 05:07:17 AM EST

this was irony:

If not than that would be a perfect way to connect the case to some superior conspiracy.


Are you sure about the secrecy? (none / 0) (#33)
by MJW on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:32:55 PM EST

I'm not aware that the law guarantees secrecy. I know depositions aren't public records unless they're filed with the court, but that, in itself, doesn't say they can't be made voluntarily be made public by either side.

: ...can't voluntarily be made public.. (none / 0) (#34)
by MJW on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:35:59 PM EST

Wish this had the forums' "modify" feature

: I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#37)
by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:51:47 PM EST

for containing false information. Depositions are not secret. They just aren't filed publicly. But anything one says in a deposition can be used to impeach that person at trial, and thus what they say at the deposition is not "secret."

your last coment was deleted. If you inject (none / 0) (#35)
by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:41:08 PM EST

race-baiting into your comments here you will be banned.

Ex Vice Chief? (none / 0) (#55)
by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:55:00 AM EST

Remember he was accompanied by an earlier SPD vice police chief.

I can't 'remember' this because I've never heard of it. Do you have a link?

FDLE Got The Phone Records (none / 0) (#62)
by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:52:49 AM EST

Why is there no trace of the cell phone records on the log.

The SPD wasn't able to get a court order for the records before they passed the case to Wolfinger. In the discovery, the phone records are attached to FDLE documents.