Author Topic: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses  (Read 16451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #45 on: February 23, 2013, 04:39:37 PM »
Obviously Crump does. If George isn't given immunity he can sue George for everything he might get from suing NBC and all the other media outlets.
The trouble with that scenario happening is the prosecution (by being much better than they have shown so far), judge and defense (by even worse than their recent public performance) will have to cooperate.  I don't see that happening.  However I notice that some very conspiratorial minded people on that other website do.  ::)

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #46 on: February 23, 2013, 05:51:22 PM »
Crump is not a listed witness at the Zimmerman trial yet so your reference does not make it clear he can't submit an affidavit instead of being deposed.

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure:

Quote
3.220(h)(1)(A) The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category A witness or listed by a co-defendant as a witness to be called at a joint trial or hearing. After receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged. The prosecutor may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the defendant to be called at a trial or hearing.

"The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged." Not, "the defendant may take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged, unless the witness would prefer to submit an affidavit."

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #47 on: February 23, 2013, 05:53:36 PM »
The trouble with that scenario happening is the prosecution (by being much better than they have shown so far), judge and defense (by even worse than their recent public performance) will have to cooperate.  I don't see that happening.  However I notice that some very conspiratorial minded people on that other website do.  ::)

What has the defense done that shows it to be inept?

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #48 on: February 23, 2013, 06:13:44 PM »
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure:

"The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged." Not, "the defendant may take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged, unless the witness would prefer to submit an affidavit."
3.220(h)(1)(A) gives the person that the defense wants to depose no choice in the matter?  Apparently the judge didn't see it that way.  In the October hearing she brought up a number of things that Crump was to be deposed about.  Crump's lawyer handed in an affidavit that claimed to cover those matters.  On Feb. 22, West complained he wanted to know more and the judge didn't see those things as anything he needed to know right now for the Zimmerman criminal case.  So, tough.   :D

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #49 on: February 23, 2013, 06:21:18 PM »
What has the defense done that shows it to be inept?
I have been saying that I don't know everything they have been doing but what they have shown publicly has been rather unimpressive.  I listed, a few posts back, 5 things they should be actively pursuing. 

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #50 on: February 23, 2013, 06:39:34 PM »
I have been saying that I don't know everything they have been doing but what they have shown publicly has been rather unimpressive.  I listed, a few posts back, 5 things they should be actively pursuing.

What have they done publicly that you find to be rather unimpressive? You list things they should be pursuing, but don't know whether or not they are pursuing them.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #51 on: February 23, 2013, 07:01:31 PM »
...
3. Police information about exactly where Zimmerman's car was parked wrt the cut through between TTL and RVC, including in which direction it was facing and whether the engine was running.
...

6. Was there any damage to the drink can and were fingerprints found on it?  When initially removed from Martin's pocket, was it still inside the bag from the 7-Eleven?


T,FTFY

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #52 on: February 23, 2013, 07:13:02 PM »
What have they done publicly that you find to be rather unimpressive? You list things they should be pursuing, but don't know whether or not they are pursuing them.
  • Refusing to interview DeeDee until they get her address so that a private eye, they can't afford to hire, can go ask the neighbors for dirt on her.  There is so much in her decipherable prior statements to ask about and I don't buy your paranoid nonsense about the judge refusing to grant a second depo if the defense can list reasonable follow up matters.
  • Going whoopdedoo about 3 cops who heard Tracy Martin say he didn't think or didn't know if that was his son screaming on the 911 tape.  Tracy Martin's lack of ability to identify the source of barely audible, distorted screams and his overall credibility has next to nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.
  • Spending a lot of time interviewing cops about their opinions as to whether Zimmerman should be charged or not.  I've listed important stuff the cops should be asked about.
  • Trying to build a criminal case against Crump.
  • Investigating the three stooges.
  • Letting Zimmerman give more conflicting accounts on Hannity.
  • Not making it clear to George and Shellie that they should be very clear at the bail hearing about what money they have been able to raise though paypal.
  • Not going after the Affidavit of Probable Cause before Judge Herr signed it.  O'Mara made his debut at that hearing.  There were plenty of lawyers who smelled a rat right away when reading it and said so in their blogs.
  • About twenty other things I've forgotten.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 07:24:25 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 #53 on: February 23, 2013, 07:32:26 PM »
Going whoopdedoo about 3 cops who heard Tracy Martin say he didn't think or didn't know if that was his son screaming on the 911 tape.

It's two officers, Serino and Erwin.

That Tracy said he didn't know is his own claim. Serino and Erwin say he was definite that the voice wasn't Martin's.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #54 on: February 23, 2013, 07:36:16 PM »
It's two officers, Serino and Erwin.

That Tracy said he didn't know is his own claim. Serino and Erwin say he was definite that the voice wasn't Martin's.
The number was raised to three at some point in the 2/22 hearing.  Fairly early IIRC.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #55 on: February 23, 2013, 08:39:49 PM »

I missed the 2/22 hearing when it aired. I haven't found video of it so far, except for State of the Internet. If anyone finds a better video I would appreciate a link.

Meanwhile, I'm watching the SotI version. It's not too bad so far. Since West started speaking he hasn't been talked over.

I stopped watching to post a comment because of West remarking that they still didn't have the paper work for the transmission of the W-8 recording from Crump to the FBI, and that they didn't know if the FBI had verified her identity. I think it's big news that the defense is making an issue of that. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that MSM ignored it.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #56 on: February 23, 2013, 08:40:56 PM »
  • Refusing to interview DeeDee until they get her address so that a private eye, they can't afford to hire, can go ask the neighbors for dirt on her.  There is so much in her decipherable prior statements to ask about and I don't buy your paranoid nonsense about the judge refusing to grant a second depo if the defense can list reasonable follow up matters.
  • Going whoopdedoo about 3 cops who heard Tracy Martin say he didn't think or didn't know if that was his son screaming on the 911 tape.  Tracy Martin's lack of ability to identify the source of barely audible, distorted screams and his overall credibility has next to nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.
  • Spending a lot of time interviewing cops about their opinions as to whether Zimmerman should be charged or not.  I've listed important stuff the cops should be asked about.
  • Trying to build a criminal case against Crump.
  • Investigating the three stooges.
  • Letting Zimmerman give more conflicting accounts on Hannity.
  • Not making it clear to George and Shellie that they should be very clear at the bail hearing about what money they have been able to raise though paypal.
  • Not going after the Affidavit of Probable Cause before Judge Herr signed it.  O'Mara made his debut at that hearing.  There were plenty of lawyers who smelled a rat right away when reading it and said so in their blogs.
  • About twenty other things I've forgotten.

1. They will probably have one chance to depose W8. They would be fools to do so before they had all the information they can get.

2. The only likely way the state could establish the element of malice necessary for a 2nd degree murder charge is if they can convince the judge, and later the jury, that it was Martin screaming. You may not like it, but the scream evidence is a key part of the case.

3. I don't know how much time the defense spent establishing the opinions of the police on whether Zimmerman should be charged, or what they plan to do with that evidence.

4. I didn't know they were trying to build a criminal case against Crump. What do you base this on?

5. If -- note I said if -- Martin was engaged in criminal activity shortly before he was shot, it a) renders implausible any claim the Zimmerman incorrectly suspected Martin; b) establishes a motive for Martin attacking someone who was keeping an eye on him; c) undermines the state's tale of an innocent child on a shopping trip for candy and a drink. The 3 stooges could be important witnesses.

6. I thought we were talking about current events, not ancient history. In an earlier colmment I said: "Nothing the defense has done recently has been inept." The Hannity interview was unwise, but I guess they must have thought raising funds for the defense was worth the risk.

7. Even further back in time. I'm not defending what was done at the beginning of the case, especially in regard to the testimony about the finances.

8. Still further back. I doubt O'Mara could have done anything to stop the judge from determining there was probable cause, but I, too, wish he'd tried.



« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 08:43:38 PM by MJW »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #57 on: February 23, 2013, 09:00:22 PM »
3.220(h)(1)(A) gives the person that the defense wants to depose no choice in the matter?  Apparently the judge didn't see it that way.  In the October hearing she brought up a number of things that Crump was to be deposed about.

No, 3.220(h)(1)(A) does not give the person any choice in the matter. None. If it did, most witnesses sympathetic to the state would submit affidavits to avoid being deposed. The judge made a ruling that was, in my opinion, clearly contrary to the law. It happens all the time. I'd be willing to bet that if Zimmerman is convicted, the DCA will say Judge Nelson's ruling was an error, though probably not, by itself, a reversible error.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #58 on: February 23, 2013, 09:09:59 PM »
I doubt O'Mara could have done anything to stop the judge from determining there was probable cause, but I, too, wish he'd tried.

In Florida, prosecutors have essentially unlimited discretion in charging cases. The details of the affidavit are a formality.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #59 on: February 23, 2013, 09:17:39 PM »
I actually thought of a recent example of what seems to me to be defense ineptitude: the proposal to combine the immunity hearing and trial. That strikes as a very bad idea, because it seems to give away the opportunity to appeal the immunity ruling. As a lesser example, I think the defense should have asked for a continuance of the immunity hearing, even though Judge Nelson had already indicated she wouldn't grant it. Better to have the request on the record, I think.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking