Author Topic: Supposedly defense filing motion to stop release of witness 9 and tapes  (Read 4786 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
It seems that the defense will argue that the judge must rule on the motion to disqualify himself first since that was filed before the order to release witness 9 and the tapes. I wonder if that's part of the reason the defense filed the motion to disqualify. In part to try and block the release? Might the defense have a chance? It seems to me that it's just delaying the inevitable.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
We don't know the basis for the Motion to stay release.

IMO, I don't think a motion to disqualify would be filed just to prevent the release of 140+ jailhouse calls and W9's further statement.

The Grio says that W9 is a younger relative of Zimmerman's.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
According to @RoblesHerald the motion was filed just 3 minutes before the release. http://twitter.com/RoblesHerald/status/224880495840866305

Cutting it a bit close, isn't it? Does just filing the motion stop the release? This makes the State's blindside about revoking bond seem tame in comparison. State at least filed it a few hours ahead. This is just minutes. I'm wondering if it was intentional. Payback for the revoking bond blindside? I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of this kind of thing before this case is over.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
According to @RoblesHerald the motion was filed just 3 minutes before the release. http://twitter.com/RoblesHerald/status/224880495840866305

Cutting it a bit close, isn't it? Does just filing the motion stop the release? This makes the State's blindside about revoking bond seem tame in comparison. State at least filed it a few hours ahead. This is just minutes. I'm wondering if it was intentional. Payback for the revoking bond blindside? I'm guessing there's going to be a lot of this kind of thing before this case is over.

I was wondering if the court could even rule on the motion - which raises the question of the effect of a motion just lying there, waiting for disposition (after the motion to disqualify is ruled on).

On the "blindside" point, the timing here is between both parties (who agree the material should not be released) and the public.  IOW, the state has no objection to not releasing the material to the public.  Neither the state nor Zimmerman's case is being put at a "gotcha by surprise" disadvantage by the timing of this motion.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Well, evidently the State released them anyways. Too late I guess. A little bit of morning drama. http://twitter.com/JeffWeinerOS/status/224883061291106305

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Here's the motion courtesy of Jeff Weiner (@JeffWeinerOS).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100217807/Motion-to-Stay

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Here's the motion courtesy of Jeff Weiner (@JeffWeinerOS).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100217807/Motion-to-Stay

Thanks for that link.  The basis is essentially following the motion to disqualify, but does admit that the order of release was dated July 12, filed with the clerk after the motion to disqualify was filed on July 13th.  I think the logic in the motion for stay is flawed.  The law is the court can't rule on a motion before it, before ruling on the disqualification motion.  Lester ruled on the reconsideration of release on July 12.  The disqualification motion wasn't before him, then.

Put a "boneheaded motion" in O'Mara's column.

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Thanks for that link.  The basis is essentially following the motion to disqualify, but does admit that the order of release was dated July 12, filed with the clerk after the motion to disqualify was filed on July 13th.  I think the logic in the motion for stay is flawed.  The law is the court can't rule on a motion before it, before ruling on the disqualification motion.  Lester ruled on the reconsideration of release on July 12.  The disqualification motion wasn't before him, then.

Put a "boneheaded motion" in O'Mara's column.

I think it was a last-ditch effort to try and keep the information from being released. His motion to disqualify came before the order denying reconsideration (by 42 minutes or so) - so theoretically it shouldn't have been released anyway. Maybe I'm missing something though, you know more about that stuff than I ever will.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Why did Lester rule this evidence as admissible for rebuttal?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
I think it was a last-ditch effort to try and keep the information from being released. His motion to disqualify came before the order denying reconsideration (by 42 minutes or so) - so theoretically it shouldn't have been released anyway. Maybe I'm missing something though, you know more about that stuff than I ever will.

"Came before" only as far as when the clerk stamped it.  Lester completed and signed his order before O'Mara got to the courthouse with his motion to disqualify.  Lester isn't prescient.

If O'Mara had filed his motion to disqualify 24 hours sooner, he'd have a leg to stand on, on the direct argument.

Another argument he makes is that if the motion to disqualify is granted, he (O'Mara) has the right to request that a previous ruling be revisited, but if the discovery material is released, then he (O'Mara) can't unring that bell.

It's all a moot point, now.  Tricky procedural situation, as the parties who are against disclosure (and W9 might be in that cohort) have to take the initiative to make their objections heard, then appealed if they don't like the result.  I don;t believe ANY of the third parties filed paperwork with the court, only the press arguing for release, and both the state and O'Mara arguing against release.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Why did Lester rule this evidence as admissible for rebuttal?

Discovery and admissibility are two separate inquiries.  Both are covered by the notion of relevancy, but not all relevant things are admissible.

Discovery is supposed to be limited to relevant material, but the state has decided to produce irrelevant material in discovery too.  Lester told the state to stop producing irrelevant material in discovery.

There is no way the statements about unwelcome sexual contact are relevant in the case, so there is no way that material is admissible either in a Dennis hearing for immunity for justified use of force in self defense, or in a trial for murder.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
The state has the motion posted here for those that don't like Scribd viewing.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking