Author Topic: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery  (Read 16976 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #75 on: October 25, 2012, 02:28:03 PM »
O'Mara was describing why Martin's social media activity was potentially relevant, and noted the state's argument relating to Zimmerman's motive of animus (the state of mind element of 2nd degree murder), noted that so far there is no evidence of animus or anger on Zimmerman's part . . .

I think what Cboldt is referring to is between 29:56 and 30:18 on the video.

Quote
O'Mara: The state decided to say that Mr. Zimmerman acted with ill will and hatred towards Trayvon Martin. You haven't had the luxury of reviewing the probable cause affidavit yet. I encourage you to, to see if in that document there's any evidence of ill will or hatred. And as we go through the rest of this discovery, you may become more aware of whether or not it's there.

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #76 on: October 29, 2012, 05:35:34 PM »
Crump is now claiming the recording is best available and that it was provided to the FBI. Crump has 10 days to provide a list of people present ast the recording.
Did he produce a list today? Or was that "10 work days" rather than "10 calendar days"?

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #77 on: October 29, 2012, 05:45:15 PM »
Did he produce a list today? Or was that "10 work days" rather than "10 calendar days"?
10 calendar days. The judge confirmed last Friday that it was due today. I don't see any listing for it on the county clerk website but knowing Crump, he probably submitted it at 4:59 if at all.

http://www.seminoleclerk.org/CriminalDocket/case_detail.jsp?CaseNo=592012CF001083A

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #78 on: October 29, 2012, 06:10:48 PM »
10 calendar days. The judge confirmed last Friday that it was due today. I don't see any listing for it on the county clerk website but knowing Crump, he probably submitted it at 4:59 if at all.
Thanks for confirming it was due today.

If he failed to produce one by her deadline, can he be charged with contempt of court?

Offline jeanmarc8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #79 on: October 31, 2012, 05:35:53 PM »
From Cylinder: "Crump has 10 days to provide a list of people present at the recording."

I don't believe this list has been made visible on the court website yet.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #80 on: October 31, 2012, 06:10:07 PM »
From Cylinder: "Crump has 10 days to provide a list of people present at the recording."

I don't believe this list has been made visible on the court website yet.

It could have been sent via email/hand-delivered/Snail Mail or UPS directly to MOM.  I am not sure there was a motion in place to require a court filing.  I even think that BdlR gets a copy, also.  I haven't listened to the hearing videos again so I am doing this from a "Not always a good" memory.  LOL!

I suspect if he hadn't received it by now MOM would have made a motion to compel by now and gone through the court system to achieve his goal.

IAsooooNAL.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #81 on: October 31, 2012, 06:13:38 PM »
From Cylinder: "Crump has 10 days to provide a list of people present at the recording."

I don't believe this list has been made visible on the court website yet.

I hope I'm wrong, since I'd really like to see the list, but I think it may be treated like a deposition, and not made public.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking