Author Topic: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues  (Read 12765 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #45 on: February 05, 2013, 09:36:51 PM »
The argument from Crump's attorney that in gathering information on W8, Crump was acting as a "private prosecutor" for the state, and the law is clear that a prosecutor can't be deposed, is about the stupidest legal argument I ever expect to hear.
You mean there isn't a stupid law in Florida that a prosecutor can't be deposed?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #46 on: February 05, 2013, 09:41:12 PM »
You mean there isn't a stupid law in Florida that a prosecutor can't be deposed?

I mean there's no law that prevents "private prosecutors" from being deposed.

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 #47 on: February 05, 2013, 09:44:10 PM »

But while that strikes me as a transparent excuse, I think it's way "out there" to imagine the stakes in the Zimmerman case are high enough for ABC to "hide" a correspondent by sending him out of the country.

No one said it was an excuse, or implied he was being hidden. Gutman has spent a lot of time this year reporting from out of the country. And yes, ABC would want  to sit down with him and have him assist in preparing a motion to oppose the subpoena. Only he knows how often he spoke to her, when, what was said, which recordings exist, what promises, if any, he made to her about confidentiality, whether there are outtakes and notes, etc. That's not a 10 minute phone call or e-mail. They are not going to file a half-as*sed reply.

I don't know where he is today, I reported what my understanding is as to why ABC needed more time.  He may have just returned. He tweeted Feb. 3 he would be on a flight for the entirety of the Superbowl. He was in Brazil on Jan. 28 having flown there on January 27 (probably for the night club fire.) 

Offline whonoze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #48 on: February 05, 2013, 09:50:19 PM »
Anybody catch this from Gutman TODAY:
"Martin, 17, was shot and killed while walking home unarmed on Feb. 26, 2012, from a deli near his father's fiancee's house. "

From a deli? That's not kosher. The link didn't work for me. If it's a text story, I smell an intern posting a routine update under Gutman's byline. Maybe 7-11's lawyers have asked ABC to not use the corporate name in the context of a controversial story, or are worried that people knowing TM shopped there will slow Slurpee sales in Mississippi.

Offline whonoze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2013, 09:56:43 PM »
No one said it was an excuse, or implied he was being hidden.

NMNM implied he was being hidden. And _I_ said (say) it was (is) an excuse. If he was covering the nightclub fire, he was in a major city, and would have had access to much more than e-mail and a cell phone. He works for ABC TV, for heavens sake. They have video cameras, video conferencing, their own satellite uplinks and other stuff like that.

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2013, 10:34:59 PM »
Hey everyone, long time no talk. Been lurking for a bit and this question is bugging me, so I thought I'd ask it to see if anyone can set me straight.

I understand Judge Nelson "postponed" it, but I don't understand how it's a postponing if the defense has to have a hearing to be granted permission (again) to depose. That sounds more like a cancellation with a stipulation that it could be reinstated based upon whether or not the defense can convince the judge that they have valid questions which are not answered in the affidavit. Is this an accurate description, or is "postpone" the accurate description? Am I missing something here?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 10:38:23 PM by AJ »

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2013, 10:50:31 PM »
The argument from Crump's attorney that in gathering information on W8, Crump was acting as a "private prosecutor" for the state, and the law is clear that a prosecutor can't be deposed, is about the stupidest legal argument I ever expect to hear.

Am I the only one who finds the mere concept of a "private prosecutor" despicable and offensive and outrageous, no matter what the case or who the defendant?

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2013, 11:24:08 PM »
The argument from Crump's attorney that in gathering information on W8, Crump was acting as a "private prosecutor" for the state, and the law is clear that a prosecutor can't be deposed, is about the stupidest legal argument I ever expect to hear.

Meanwhile, BDLR gets to sit back and complain about MOM and his press conferences when Crump has been playing de facto Prosecutor and Private Assistant Attorney General all along.  Oh, the irony.

And I think it is going to work.  The judge will think all of her questions, and thus the Defenses, will be answered in those 15 pages.

What I don't quite understand is the Motion for Protection.  She told the Defense they could depose Crump.  Do they have to/ Or could they submit questions in advance to the court in order to determine the scope in which they want to follow?  It seems that his lawyers big objection was how broad the scope was and how it would interfere with Client/Attorney and Work Product.

They have the right to depose him.  West read the statute to her in court.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2013, 11:29:21 PM »
From a deli? That's not kosher. The link didn't work for me. If it's a text story, I smell an intern posting a routine update under Gutman's byline. Maybe 7-11's lawyers have asked ABC to not use the corporate name in the context of a controversial story, or are worried that people knowing TM shopped there will slow Slurpee sales in Mississippi.

It could be Gutman doing the update.  I pointed out a couple of errors to him, the deli being one of them after I read the comment here by RealityCheck.  Told him he needed an editor.  His response:  you are so right. we all need editors

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 #54 on: February 05, 2013, 11:59:08 PM »
That "deli" reference is really odd. I saw Deb's tweet to him, he actually answered, how about that! Good work Deb. The article could have been written by him or Seni after one of them watched the hearing tape.  I didn't watch the video which seemed like an old one, but read the text of the article.


Offline AghastInFL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #55 on: February 06, 2013, 06:17:47 AM »
Hey everyone, long time no talk. Been lurking for a bit and this question is bugging me, so I thought I'd ask it to see if anyone can set me straight.

I understand Judge Nelson "postponed" it, but I don't understand how it's a postponing if the defense has to have a hearing to be granted permission (again) to depose. That sounds more like a cancellation with a stipulation that it could be reinstated based upon whether or not the defense can convince the judge that they have valid questions which are not answered in the affidavit. Is this an accurate description, or is "postpone" the accurate description? Am I missing something here?
Bumping this again, I am asking myself the same question... The OS made it out as a great win for the prosecution, but like AJ that is not what I heard.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #56 on: February 06, 2013, 09:19:52 AM »
O'Mara starting about 18:26 here:
Quote
But, we will not and cannot ignore the avalanche of information flowing through the blogosphere about this case.  Because I think, I mentioned this to you before, I think that if it is not malpractice in 2013, it is about to be.  That is just ignoring information out there we have to disclose.
Sounds like he reads us among other blogs.  Could he also be posting?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #57 on: February 06, 2013, 09:30:08 AM »
Listening to the recording.

Starting about 27:35, de la Rionda indicated that the most popular candidate for twittering Dee Dee 'turned out not to be' W-8.

Is this the first time this has been explicitly said in court?

I've always been skeptical about anyone having gotten the right twitter handle, but now I'm wondering how it has been proven that this one isn't correct.

Offline whonoze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #58 on: February 06, 2013, 09:44:10 AM »
I've always been skeptical about anyone having gotten the right twitter handle, but now I'm wondering how it has been proven that this one isn't correct.

Not 'proof' exactly, but the list of Witnesses 1-22 is in alphabetical order by last name. This means W8's last name must begin with 'G'-'J'. The last name of the young woman the CTH supposedly 'outed' as DeeDee begins with 'M'.

I would also assume that after her name was made public by the CTH, that individual contacted authorities and established that she was not W8.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #59 on: February 06, 2013, 09:46:35 AM »
O'Mara starting about 18:26 here:Sounds like he reads us among other blogs.  Could he also be posting?

I doubt MOM himself keeps track of the various blogs or social media or makes posts. I think he has an intern keeping track and pointing out to him any interesting tidbits. He's well aware of the enormous amount of information (right or wrong) on blogs/SM. I doubt he came to that conclusion just by reading this forum or any specific source of info on the internet.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking