Author Topic: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues  (Read 12770 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 #90 on: February 09, 2013, 07:30:55 PM »
Is the defense prohibited by law from asking the FDLE or FBI for expert assistance in gathering or interpreting data, pleading that they don't have the funds to hire private experts?  In other words, making the same sort of requests the prosecution makes?  I promise not to bring up what happens in other countries.  :-X  ;D

Offline jupchurch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #91 on: February 09, 2013, 10:40:18 PM »
Yes. His phone was given to him when he left the police station after the shooting.

They subponaed his phone records (call detail records, not content) early on.

Then they asked him to bring his phone in on March 22 so they could do the download. He again left with his phone that day. I think this is also the day they did the voice exemplar test on George.

There are FDLE reports explaining all this in the discovery.

This would indicate that the prosecution doesn't have any GPS records from Zimmerman's phone from the 2/26.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #92 on: February 09, 2013, 10:47:03 PM »
This would indicate that the prosecution doesn't have any GPS records from Zimmerman's phone from the 2/26.

How so?

Offline jupchurch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #93 on: February 10, 2013, 01:51:04 PM »
because the records obtained from the phone are for 3-7 to 3-22. The records 2-20 to 2-28 are from the phone company, which wouldn't include the GPS data.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #94 on: February 10, 2013, 02:08:12 PM »
I'd assume, if they had GZ's GPS data, it would likely be viewed as either inculpatory and part of the prosecutions evidence, or exculpatory.  In either case, the prosecution would be required to provide them to the defense if they existed. 

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #95 on: February 10, 2013, 05:27:12 PM »
Is it possible that the prosecution has supplied Zimmerman's GPS data for the NEN call to the defense but in such a format that the people currently working on the defense case can't understand it?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #96 on: February 10, 2013, 05:42:38 PM »
Is it possible that the prosecution has supplied Zimmerman's GPS data for the NEN call to the defense but in such a format that the people currently working on the defense case can't understand it?

Unless the prosecution is really trying to get around the discovery requirements (something I don't discount), someone should have prepared a report on the results, and that should have been turned over. Perhaps it's been given to the defense, but isn't public I get the feeling, based on the public discovery we've seen, that anything remotely connected to a telephone is being withheld under the telecommunication privacy exemption. That seems to me to stretch that exemption way beyond what it's intended to apply to, but until someone takes the issue to court, it probably won't change.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #97 on: February 10, 2013, 06:03:07 PM »
Perhaps it's been given to the defense, but isn't public I get the feeling, based on the public discovery we've seen, that anything remotely connected to a telephone is being withheld under the telecommunication privacy exemption.

I've been getting the same feeling.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #98 on: February 10, 2013, 07:27:21 PM »
I am confused about whether the police copied the contents of Zimmerman's phone memory when it was taken from him temporarily on 2/26/12.  It is as simple as making a USB connection to a computer and performing a copy command? 

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #99 on: February 10, 2013, 08:10:15 PM »
I am confused about whether the police copied the contents of Zimmerman's phone memory when it was taken from him temporarily on 2/26/12.  It is as simple as making a USB connection to a computer and performing a copy command?

Maybe they used the Cellibrite.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #100 on: February 10, 2013, 11:26:23 PM »
Maybe they used the Cellibrite.

I don't think so.  I think they only used it for him to get that contact number for the HOA person.  There was the question as to the cameras in the vicinity and whether they were working or not.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 5 Hearing on Subpeona, Continuance, Discovery Issues
« Reply #101 on: February 10, 2013, 11:40:59 PM »
I don't think so.  I think they only used it for him to get that contact number for the HOA person.  There was the question as to the cameras in the vicinity and whether they were working or not.

I misread RickyJim's comment. I thought he was referring to Mar. 22.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking