Author Topic: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses  (Read 16365 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
The court will hold a hearing Friday, February 22 at 1:30 EST. Zimmerman has waived his appearance.
 
Motions to be heard:
 
Defendant ís Motion for Subpoenas Duces Tecum to State Witnesses, Tracy Martin, Sybrina Fulton, Jahvarius Fulton, and Stephen Martin: Zimmerman is seeking any recordings made of Trayvon Martin in the last 3 years.
 
Defendantís Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum to State Witness, Civilian Witness 8: Zimmerman is seeking audio recordings of Trayvon Marton's voice made over the last 3 years.
 
Defendantís Motion Regarding Deposition of Benjamin Crump, Esquire: Zimmerman is seeking to depose Mr. Crump regarding the circumstances surrounding his discovery of and interview with W8. Mr. Crump disagrees.
 
Defendantís Motion for Production of Witness Addresses: This motion is well-worth the read. Zimmerman is seeking the disclosure of the addresses of various state witnesses and points out SCOTUS and FSC opinions that requires these disclosures in all but very narrow circumstances of actual - not implied - threat to the witnesses. The cite also seems to indicate that a failure by the court to order witness addresses to be disclosed is an issue that can be appealed.
 
 

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2013, 11:35:36 AM »
I can't find a working link to the hearing video.  Has it been postponed? 

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2013, 11:44:30 AM »
Thanks.  West and the judge are discussing what relevant information Crump has.  Have I missed much?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2013, 01:47:56 PM »
Motion for deposition of Crump denied.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2013, 02:18:09 PM »
My opinion of the hearing is that the defense has made some progress since they, prior to it, obtained W#8's social media handles.  I think that is quite a bit more important to them than having her address, information that was denied to them at the hearing.  I sort of agree with the judge that some of their requests don't have that much to do with the criminal case.  However, certainly what Ben Crump says in a deposition is quite important for future civil action.  The defense also has spent time deposing policeman about what opinions they had about whether Zimmerman should be charged and what Tracy Martin said about whether he could identify the screaming voice on the 911 call.  I don't regard either matter as important evidence for the criminal case.

So this hearing didn't satisfy my desire for more insight into the evidence.  The GPS data from the phones didn't come up. 

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2013, 02:48:35 PM »

More on the hearing from Local 6.

Quote
Nelson did grant the defense's motions for subpoenas of voice samples from Martin over the last three years.

Quote
Nelson interrupted West, saying that talking to the media doesn't subject lawyers to being deposed.

West replied, saying that Crump is a "fact witness" because of the interaction with Witness 8.

"What is the relevant information that you think Mr. Crump has?" Nelson said, asking the defense to specify the information, not speculate. "You have to provide the court with what relevant information he has."

West said that the relevant information in the taped interview with Witness 8 are the gaps in the interview, but Nelson said the best evidence is taking the deposition of Witness 8.

Quote
West said the defense doesn't accept the affidavit in place of speaking with Crump and that Crump should have to show why he shouldn't have to be deposed.

West also said Crump should be deposed over his allegations of the Sanford Police Department "conspiracy to cover up" Martin's death. Crump further accused officers of lying, West said, along with Sanford police lying about whether Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin's father, identified the screaming in the background of the 911 call.

Quote
Blackwell said it would be "absolutely inappropriate" to depose Crump and called the defense's attempt to depose Crump a "sideshow" with no support under the law.

Quote
Blackwell also said the Martins will be filing a lawsuit against Zimmerman.

Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda spoke next, saying that the prosecutors "completely agree" with Crump and have no intention of calling him as a witness.

"The bottom line is Mr. Crump has not been listed as a witness by the state," de la Rionda.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2013, 03:35:41 PM »
I sort of think the judge is an idiot. And I sort of agree with the Supreme Court and Florida law that the defense is entitled to the addresses of witnesses so they can investigate to determine the witnesses' credibility.
There really are Supreme Court decisions and Florida law saying that opposing council can have witnesses' addresses before deposing them, without citing probable cause why that information is relevant?  What about their psychiatric records too?  Your characterization of the judge is OK for the CTH but out of place here.   :(

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2013, 04:15:09 PM »
I sort of agree with the judge that some of their requests don't have that much to do with the criminal case.

I sort of agree with the Supreme Court and Florida law that the defense is entitled to the addresses of witnesses so they can investigate to determine the witnesses' credibility.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2013, 04:17:08 PM »
There really are Supreme Court decisions and Florida law saying that opposing council can have witnesses' addresses before deposing them, without citing probable cause why that information is relevant?  What about their psychiatric records too?

The Supreme Court decisions aren't specifically in reference to depositions, since depositions aren't a part of most states' discovery process. The Florida law is that addresses must be turned over within 15 days. See, for example, State v. ROLACK, (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Fifteen days have long since passed.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2013, 04:20:15 PM »
Just to keep RickyJim (and perhaps TalkLeft) happy, I reposted my comments without any reference to my unfavorable opinion of Judge Nelson. TalkLeft is welcome to delete my original comment.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2013, 05:10:08 PM »
The Supreme Court decisions aren't specifically in reference to depositions, since depositions aren't a part of most states' discovery process. The Florida law is that addresses must be turned over within 15 days. See, for example, State v. ROLACK, (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Fifteen days have long since passed.
The case you cite seems to depend on another one.  The latter case decision seemed to say that if the state fails to disclose name and address information within 15 days and as a result, defendant's right to a fair trial has been adversely affected by that, the defendant has a right to apply for sanctions, like causing the witness to be excluded.  Judge Nelson appears to view that the address information is not so important to have before hand (i.e. doesn't effect the defendant's right to a fair trial).  She earlier agreed that getting her social media handles was important to the defense and as BDLR mentioned today they were able to get them, without difficulty, in a conference call.  Maybe if West had explained his vague reference to needed "demographic information" more fully, the judge would have been more sympathetic.

Having said that, if I were the defense I would have deposed W#8 as soon as possible, even without a priori possession of her postings on Facebook and Twitter.  IMHO,  if her story didn't disintegrate under careful questioning of internal inconsistencies, it would have at least served as a basis for more requests from the defense for information or money to hire experts.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 05:12:23 PM by RickyJim »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2013, 06:00:52 PM »
Having said that, if I were the defense I would have deposed W#8 as soon as possible,

I disagree. They are very unlikely to get a second deposition. W-8 is a crucial witness. They need to be sure the ducks are lined up before they depose her.


Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2013, 06:05:41 PM »
The case you cite seems to depend on another one

I don't think so. The Richardson case isn't even cited. It's mentioned in passing as the source of a nickname.

Several other cases are cited in State v. ROLACK, (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2013, 07:18:59 PM »
The case you cite seems to depend on another one.
Judge Nelson appears to view that the address information is not so important to have before hand (i.e. doesn't effect the defendant's right to a fair trial).

Judge Nelson hasn't got the slightest idea what information the address may lead to. The requirement that witness address be given to the defense within 15 days doesn't depend of the defense demonstrating an need; it's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(1). Her flies in the face of case law and the written rules. Unfortunately,  I don't think it can be appealed at this stage.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking