Author Topic: Gag Order Hearing Oct 26  (Read 12541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Gag Order Hearing Oct 26
« on: October 25, 2012, 02:51:24 PM »
The media briefs have been posted on the court's Zimmerman webpage.

]Edited by TalkLeft to change title to thread to the hearing which encompasses the media motions.]
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 07:55:33 PM by TalkLeft »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2012, 11:32:29 PM »
One of the more interesting parts of the media response is a quotation from the supreme court opinion in Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 US 1030 (1991).

Quote
An attorney's duties do not begin inside the courtroom door. He or she cannot ignore the practical implications of a legal proceeding for the client. Just as an attorney may recommend a plea bargain or civil settlement to avoid the adverse consequences of a possible loss after trial, so too an attorney may take reasonable steps to defend a client's reputation and reduce the adverse consequences of indictment, especially in the face of a prosecution deemed unjust or commenced with improper motives. A defense attorney may pursue lawful strategies to obtain dismissal of an indictment or reduction of charges, including an attempt to demonstrate in the court of public opinion that the client does not deserve to be tried.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2012, 12:40:11 AM »
One of the more interesting parts of the media response is a quotation from the supreme court opinion in Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 US 1030 (1991).

The State made a huge mistake in trying to make motions and hearings secret and requesting gag orders. They put the media on the side of the defense team. Very bad move.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2012, 01:16:27 AM »
The State made a huge mistake in trying to make motions and hearings secret and requesting gag orders. They put the media on the side of the defense team. Very bad move.

I'm eager to see how Judge Nelson treats the gag motion. I expect she'll listen to each side, then simply announce that Judge Lester's earlier ruling stands. I'd love to see her treat the motion with the disdain it deserves. I'll be surprised and disappointed with the judge if she grants the motion. If that did happen, I think the media would appeal to the 5th DCA, and the gag order would be overturned.

I reread the state's motion to see if they were suggesting the Martin family's attorneys be included in the gag order. They were not. So Crump and company could continue to spout off and call Zimmerman a murderer, and O'Mara would be prohibited from responding. I hope O'Mara and West come armed with examples of  the more outrageous statements Crump and his associates have made.

I wonder how often it's been the state that seeks a gag order in a criminal case. The defense at least has the justification that they're protecting the defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial, including his presumption of innocence. Those justifications seem to apply less or not at all when the state seeks the order.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2012, 01:37:32 AM »
I wonder if Crump will be in court during the Oct. 26 hearing. I'm sure he'd like to be, but will he risk facing another impromptu deposition?

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2012, 02:08:26 AM »
I wonder if Crump will be in court during the Oct. 26 hearing. I'm sure he'd like to be, but will he risk facing another impromptu deposition?

He can refuse, right? Can a judge just demand that anyone in the courtroom answer their questions? IANAL, but I don't think a judge can do that. Why did Crump decide to speak during the Oct 19th hearing? He wasn't compelled by law to do so (AFAIK). Any lawyers around?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #6 on: October 26, 2012, 02:13:10 AM »
He can refuse, right?

I think he could. It might not look too good, though.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #7 on: October 26, 2012, 02:23:50 AM »
I think he could. It might not look too good, though.

A judge demanding, or even asking, someone sitting in the courtroom to speak may not look good. Although she did make him a witness.

Speaking of which, I have no idea what the judge making Crump a witness means. What category does Crump get put in since the Judge made him a witness? He's not category A for the state. What access does the State or defense have to him now? What rules apply when a judge decides someone is a witness?

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2012, 02:36:51 AM »
State's Brief in support of its motion, not yet on the court's website.

Here is my post on it , Zimmerman Gag Order: The Defense is Not the Problem, with examples of Crump and Jackson statements that are far more problematic than O'Mara's.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2012, 03:08:12 AM »
The only case the state cites is a State ex rel. Miami Herald Pub. v. McIntosh, 340 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1976).

The case
a) Is prior to Gentile v. State Bar of Nev..
b) Concerned a gag order to prevent information adverse to the defendant from getting out, which certainly implicates constitutional rights more than an order to prevent favorable information from getting out.
c) Overturned the decision to issue the gag order.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2012, 06:27:48 AM »
So I had to go to Twitter to ask Jeff W how he got his mittens on an undated/unsigned copy of that Memorandum prior to it getting posted on the 18th web site?   I couldn't help myself. 
 :D

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #11 on: October 26, 2012, 06:48:52 AM »
Speaking of which, I have no idea what the judge making Crump a witness means. What category does Crump get put in since the Judge made him a witness? He's not category A for the state. What access does the State or defense have to him now? What rules apply when a judge decides someone is a witness?

The category issue doesn't play, as categorization is something the state (and only the state) does in it's witness disclosure.  The point of categorization in the witness disclosure is efficiency.  There is no sense is using resources to depose people who will not testify, etc.

Crump will be equally accessible to both sides.  His role is fairly limited to "authenticating" DeeDee's recorded interview - scare quotes as he has more to say than it was her.  He may also be questioned as to conduct that might be taken as shading or influencing her testimony.

The rules that apply when a judge decides a person is a witness are up to the judge.  At this point, Crump has been ordered to produce a list of people present during the recorded interview, and has ordered that he may be deposed.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #12 on: October 26, 2012, 06:58:17 AM »
The category issue doesn't play, as categorization is something the state (and only the state) does in it's witness disclosure.  The point of categorization in the witness disclosure is efficiency.  There is no sense is using resources to depose people who will not testify, etc.

Crump will be equally accessible to both sides.  His role is fairly limited to "authenticating" DeeDee's recorded interview - scare quotes as he has more to say than it was her.  He may also be questioned as to conduct that might be taken as shading or influencing her testimony.

The rules that apply when a judge decides a person is a witness are up to the judge.  At this point, Crump has been ordered to produce a list of people present during the recorded interview, and has ordered that he may be deposed.
That Dee Dee was "found" shortly after Corey replaced Wolfinger, I find to be highly convenient. 

I know you hate to speculate but I have to ask.  If Crump got information as to what the State needed to file charges, could he have set some guidelines as to what BdlR could ask her?  The interview with Dee Dee was leading to the point of near ridiculousness, IMO.

Also at one point he was asking her if TM was excited.  Is that so he could use her testimony as an excited utterance(s) and thereby admissable rather than hearsay?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #13 on: October 26, 2012, 07:25:44 AM »
That Dee Dee was "found" shortly after Corey replaced Wolfinger, I find to be highly convenient. 

I know you hate to speculate but I have to ask.  If Crump got information as to what the State needed to file charges, could he have set some guidelines as to what BdlR could ask her?  The interview with Dee Dee was leading to the point of near ridiculousness, IMO.

Also at one point he was asking her if TM was excited.  Is that so he could use her testimony as an excited utterance(s) and thereby admissable rather than hearsay?

Even more convenient, DeeDee's recorded remarks came after the town of Sanford published the contents of the 911 calls.  Not saying that DeeDee's story is made up, but knowing what the contemporaneous record says is helpful to prevent making a statement that is directly contradicting a 911 call or Zimmerman's NEN call.

I don't think Crump set guidelines as to what de la Rionda could or would ask.  My impression is that the state had predetermined the narrative it was going to pursue, and limited itself.

i think your hunch on excited utterance is sound.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Media Respond to Motion for Gag Order
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2012, 08:15:57 AM »
Here is a list of links to live broadcast of today's hearing.  Should this thread be used for live blogging or should a new one be started?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking