Author Topic: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery  (Read 19357 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2012, 11:33:29 AM »
I don't understand why it would be an explanation. I don't understand what one has to do with the other.

I think the speculation would be that the state isn't doing the work because it knows that it won't be neccessary in the end. Delay the information getting to the media while the social outrage is high then you can dump the case after it subsides. I'm not sold on tat explanation but it makes sense and is a bit better than the others that come to mind.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2012, 01:41:55 PM »
The state's been playing games with the discovery all along to impede the defense's investigation. I see no other explanation for the fact that the first discovery release didn't include the evidence map, and omitted evidence photos that revealed the location where the struggle took place.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 01:44:14 PM by MJW »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2012, 02:04:57 PM »
I find it interesting that Brenton was deposed. He was listed by the state as a Category C witness. The defense cannot compel a Category C witness to be deposed. Did the state informally agree, or did Brenton volunteer on his own?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2012, 02:19:38 PM »
So if Brenton is the one who examined the SIM card and it was on March 26, and he gave it to Lee, and Lee is the one who directed FDLE on March 26 not to analyze the phone, does that mean the report by Brenton showed that TMobile phone was not Trayvon's?

Regardless of who DMS-7 belongs too, I think an investigator would want it tested for prints. The only reason I can think of for telling a lab not too, is that it was going to be done elsewhere, possibly by the FBI.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2012, 07:59:13 PM »
...
According to Santiago's report, Shor is the one who used the calabrite device ...

For those not getting anywhere on the Google with that spelling...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellebrite

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2012, 12:40:58 AM »
I'd just like to point out that months ago, when MOM was getting pilloried from both sides of the issue, MOM cautioned patience and pointed out that the defense had yet to have their throw. I think it's safe to say that Caspar Milquetoast has left the building.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2012, 01:05:02 AM »
I find it interesting that Brenton was deposed. He was listed by the state as a Category C witness. The defense cannot compel a Category C witness to be deposed. Did the state informally agree, or did Brenton volunteer on his own?

According to West, on August 8th, they were at FDLE examining the phone when Brenton came into the room and told them he had examined the phone and did his report, giving it to Investigator David Lee upon completion.  That was on March 26th, 2012.  He was deposed on Sept 26th.  He brought the entire file with photos and analysis and provided his copy to MOM/West at that time.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2012, 01:11:35 AM »
I don't understand page Ten.  Should those alphabetical notations match up to the blood tests that were done on Zimmerman's jacket?

I want to compare them but I need to go to bed...

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2012, 01:25:02 AM »
I don't understand page Ten.  Should those alphabetical notations match up to the blood tests that were done on Zimmerman's jacket?

I want to compare them but I need to go to bed...

Yes, that's the stain map from the FDLE Biology Lab report.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2012, 01:26:26 AM »
According to West, on August 8th, they were at FDLE examining the phone when Brenton came into the room and told them he had examined the phone and did his report, giving it to Investigator David Lee upon completion.  That was on March 26th, 2012.  He was deposed on Sept 26th.  He brought the entire file with photos and analysis and provided his copy to MOM/West at that time.

The question, though, is not why the defense wanted to depose him, but why they were able to. As I mentioned, Brenton was a Category C witness, and under Florida's discovery rules, Category C witnesses are not subject to deposition. Normally, the defense would either have to ask the court to change his witness category or ask the court to subpoena him. It's also quite interesting that he brought the files with him. To force him to turn over documents requires a subpoena duces tecum, which as we know, the state says must be issued by the court. Perhaps he agreed to be deposed, or perhaps the state knew it was in a losing position and decided to allow it.

I don't have a login that works on the gzlegalcase case website. If I did, I ask the question there.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 01:34:09 AM by MJW »

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2012, 02:14:57 AM »
Steve Brenton:

Graduated FDLE Academy in December 2011

Previously worked as a Department Of Legal Affairs Law Enforcement Investigator II for OCSD at $42,000/year.

Much of his work previus to FDLE seems to be with child sex crimes. A warning, if you do a Google search, they will have some NSFW links with indecent and racist content from 3rd parties not related to Brenton.

Brenton played a minor role in the investigation of the St. Lucie County Administrator and the St. Lucie County Parks Director spending aledgedly $18,000 of county money on a wedding reception for the SLC Assistant Attorney and Clerk of Court.

Other than his mother's obituary, that seems to be about it.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2012, 02:23:04 AM »
The question, though, is not why the defense wanted to depose him, but why they were able to. As I mentioned, Brenton was a Category C witness, and under Florida's discovery rules, Category C witnesses are not subject to deposition.

IANAL, by my layperson understanding is that once he admits to examining the evidence he becomes subject to deposition not only for his conclusions but what steps he may have taken that could alter the evidence for defense examination (not that it plays a role in this case.)
 
ETA: That's one of the issues - that by virtue of examining the phone SA Brenton is not a C witness at all, right?
« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 02:25:38 AM by Cylinder »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #42 on: October 16, 2012, 02:51:44 AM »
IANAL, by my layperson understanding is that once he admits to examining the evidence he becomes subject to deposition not only for his conclusions but what steps he may have taken that could alter the evidence for defense examination (not that it plays a role in this case.)
 
ETA: That's one of the issues - that by virtue of examining the phone SA Brenton is not a C witness at all, right?

I'm not saying that Brenton was properly classified as a Category C witness, but that's not something the defense gets to decide for itself:

Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h)(1)(C):
Quote
A witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category C witness shall not be subject to deposition unless the court determines that the witness should be listed in another category.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #43 on: October 16, 2012, 05:33:20 AM »
I find it interesting that Brenton was deposed. He was listed by the state as a Category C witness. The defense cannot compel a Category C witness to be deposed. Did the state informally agree, or did Brenton volunteer on his own?

I asked this question on the GZ Legal Case site.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: George Zimmerman Defense Files Demand for Specific Discovery
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2012, 07:12:31 AM »
Looking back through the filings, Steve Brenton did appear on the Notice of Depositions dated Sept. 25 for depositions to be taken Sept 26.
 
SA Brenton was listed as a Catagory C witness in the State's Redacted Second Supplemental Discovery dated June 14.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 07:22:14 AM by Cylinder »

 

Site Meter
click
tracking