Author Topic: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues  (Read 12768 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2013, 08:09:28 AM »
What happened with the motion regarding ABC?  I didn't hear anything about it today.

It wasn't mentioned.


Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2013, 08:16:35 AM »
Maybe ABC asked for more time to respond?

There's nothing new at GZLegal.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2013, 08:42:14 AM »
Not alot of information on Perry Kuhl, the investigator that examined Martin's phone.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2013, 08:50:34 AM »
As a personal note, I would have been taken into custody about 60 seconds after BDLR questioned why Zimmmerman needs the actual photos of his injury instead of the one purposefully doctored by the state. Nelson seems to be trying her best to make Lester look like Blackstone.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2013, 08:57:14 AM »
Not alot of information on Perry Kuhl, the investigator that examined Martin's phone.
The reference to him went by too fast.  Did he manage to find the password so the New Jersey company could read the memory?  Did spoofing have anything to do with it?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 08:59:11 AM by RickyJim »

Offline AghastInFL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2013, 08:59:48 AM »
Not alot of information on Perry Kuhl, the investigator that examined Martin's phone.

First link; HTCAC- High Technology Crime Advisory Committee; (meeting minutes)
Sec V.
Quote
D.   Cell Phone Forensics/Investigations

Detective Perry Kuhl from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department gave a presentation about the new cell phone forensics course at the DOJ Advanced Training Center. The course is designed to train law enforcement officials on how to find information on seized cell phones and extract it for use in the prosecution of suspects.
No doubt this is what brought him to the attention of the SPD.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 09:01:21 AM by AghastInFL »

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2013, 09:16:36 AM »
The reference to him went by too fast.  Did he manage to find the password so the New Jersey company could read the memory?  Did spoofing have anything to do with it?

Working from memory, BDLR claimed that it came to his attention that Kuhl had experience with that particular phone/access issue. The phone was sent to the agency in California, then to the Cellebrite office in New Jersey. I have the impression at least that they were successful. MOM did get a CDROM with some kind of data presumably.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 09:18:30 AM by Cylinder »

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2013, 09:17:02 AM »
Didn't Tracy claim he found out about Dee Dee and told Crump? When was that?

Jeff Weiner @JeffWeinerOS
In his affidavit, #TrayvonMartin atty Crump says he learned of Witness 8 on 3/18, day before phone interview. #GeorgeZimmerman

https://twitter.com/JeffWeinerOS/status/298826863642546176

EDIT: Found it. http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2225.msg103534.html#msg103534
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 09:20:51 AM by FromBelow »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2013, 09:22:07 AM »
How does Jeff get these documents ahead of everybody else?  Crump's affidavit is not here yet.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2013, 04:03:21 PM »
Here is my recap of the hearing. I also uploaded Crump's affidavit and the other orders signed today ( I think they were ruled on orally previously) so that you don't have to read them inside Scribd.

You can watch a clean copy of the hearing here.

This is the Order to the FBI in which it must disclose documents showing whether its investigation has been completed.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2013, 04:11:45 PM »
It is my understanding that ABC asked to continue the supboena matter because Guttman is in Brazil and was unavailable to assist in preparing a response for today's hearing.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2013, 06:13:01 PM »
Many people, including me, probably wondered if the denial of a continuance could be appealed to the 5th DCA. It appears it can't. In Smith v. State, 187 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), the court said:

Quote
We shall not discuss the merits vel non of the motion for a continuance as we are of the view that under the factual situation in this case certiorari will have to be denied. The motion for continuance was, in effect, an interlocutory order and any error that might have been committed by the trial judge can be properly reviewed in the appeal pending in the case.

I can understand the courts not wanting the attorneys running to the court of appeals every time a ruling doesn't go their way. But it sure seems unfair that a defendant must go through a trial before his or her right to due process can be protected. Especially since "harmless error" analysis often results in trial errors being acknowledged then ignored.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2013, 06:19:22 PM »
It is my understanding that ABC asked to continue the supboena matter because Guttman is in Brazil and was unavailable to assist in preparing a response for today's hearing.

And, hey, what's the hurry?

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2013, 06:42:39 PM »
And, hey, what's the hurry?
I thought they sent him to Turkey, Israel  or somewhere after he said Serino was a leak.  ABC's way of handling things seem to involve spiriting Gutman out of the country.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2013, 07:14:07 PM »
And, hey, what's the hurry?

If Gutman runs out of things to investigate in Brazil, there's Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina . . .

 

Site Meter
click
tracking