Author Topic: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses  (Read 16437 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #60 on: February 23, 2013, 09:18:34 PM »
In Florida, prosecutors have essentially unlimited discretion in charging cases. The details of the affidavit are a formality.

Thanks for reminding me of that.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #61 on: February 23, 2013, 10:35:00 PM »
DiwataMan's YouTube video of the hearing.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #62 on: February 23, 2013, 11:04:08 PM »
DiwataMan's YouTube video of the hearing.

Thank you.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2013, 11:21:55 PM »
I didn't know they were trying to build a criminal case against Crump. What do you base this on?

I second the question.

I don't have an opinion on whether that would be a good or bad thing for them to do. But this is the first time I've heard that it was happening. I would like to know more.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #64 on: February 24, 2013, 02:08:12 AM »

West said three police witnesses to Tracy Martin's alleged statement at 30:45 on DiwataMan's video. He didn't name the third witness.

Sgt. Ciesla heard part of the conversation, but not the contested statement by Tracy Martin (20/184). I thought West may have been confused by that. But he said they have sworn statements from all three witnesses, so it seems more likely they found the third witness while taking a deposition.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2013, 03:35:32 AM »
De la Rionda said that O'Mara asked W-8 for her address in the telephone deposition, and she declined to give it (1:20:30-21:07).

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2013, 08:32:59 AM »
Quote
Quote from: MJW on February 23, 2013, 08:40:56 PM

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

I second the question.

I don't have an opinion on whether that would be a good or bad thing for them to do. But this is the first time I've heard that it was happening. I would like to know more.
At the 2/22 hearing, when trying to explain why he still wanted to depose Crump, West listed several slanderous statements Crump made against the police and Wolfinger.  Crump has, of course, has made damming statements about Zimmerman.  I should have said civil case.  I am also sure that they have witness tampering and subornation of perjury in mind as something they might bring up later.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2013, 08:55:39 AM »
Quote
Quote from: MJW on February 23, 2013, 08:40:56 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.
There were Florida lawyers who opined at the time that the APC was beyond the pale.  The scenario I had in mind was that O'Mara made an impassioned denunciation of the document as insufficient to show probable cause for murder 2, in front of Herr.  The Judge decides to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter (I would be surprised if he didn't have the authority to do that even though it is not the norm in Florida.)  One factor in the judge's decision is that such a hearing might focus public attention away from the possibility of street violence and instead on legalities.  At the hearing, the prosecution is forced to put on the stand the three witnesses they mentioned in the APC: Sybrina Fulton, and the ones now known as Witness 2 and Witness 8.   I have my doubts whether the prosecution's case would have survived that hearing at all, but I think it would have at least caused a reduction of charges.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2013, 09:14:02 AM »
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.
I don't think the identification of screams by relatives and friends will make it into the case.  Can you cite a single case where it has, in particular from a bad cellphone transmission?  Can you imagine the following happening?

West - Mr. Martin, how many times in the past 5 years had you heard Trayvon scream like that?
Martin - About every month when I beat the living cr*p out of the pun .....   Oh, I didn't mean that.   ;D

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2013, 11:43:33 AM »
I don't think the identification of screams by relatives and friends will make it into the case.  Can you cite a single case where it has, in particular from a bad cellphone transmission?

Off the top of my head, I don't know of a case; but even if there isn't one, there are many cases where voice identification has been allowed, and many cases where eye witness identification under poor viewing conditions has been allowed. The conditions, I believe, will be seen as going to credibility, not admissibility. I think there's hardly any chance that the judge wouldn't allow it in. If it's not introduced by the state, it will be because the defense has undermined it to the point that it's too risky. I think the state will use it, however.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #70 on: February 24, 2013, 11:49:55 AM »
De la Rionda said that O'Mara asked W-8 for her address in the telephone deposition, and she declined to give it (1:20:30-21:07).

When O'Mara was getting permission from the judge to conduct the mini-depo, he asked permission to inquire about several other matters, which the judge refused to allow. I don't believe he asked if he could get W8's address. He should have. I think that request might have been granted.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #71 on: February 24, 2013, 04:12:08 PM »
The Judge decides to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter (I would be surprised if he didn't have the authority to do that even though it is not the norm in Florida.)

I think he could hold a hearing. I don't think he could dismiss any charge in the information, without being overruled.

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 3.140(o), p. 57.

ETA: One thing O'Mara could have done, was to request a statement of particulars. I don't know if that was worth doing or not.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2013, 04:15:20 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #72 on: February 24, 2013, 06:35:51 PM »
I think he could hold a hearing. I don't think he could dismiss any charge in the information, without being overruled.

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 3.140(o), p. 57.

ETA: One thing O'Mara could have done, was to request a statement of particulars. I don't know if that was worth doing or not.
Have you found the section which gives the grounds under which a judge may refuse to sign the "information"?  I gather that the indictment is not completed until he does that.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #73 on: February 24, 2013, 07:21:48 PM »
ETA: One thing O'Mara could have done, was to request a statement of particulars. I don't know if that was worth doing or not.

A statement of particulars was requested in the first demand for discovery, but I never heard any more about it. Shellie's lawyer just filed a motion for a statement of particulars.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #74 on: February 25, 2013, 03:08:43 AM »
A statement of particulars was requested in the first demand for discovery, but I never heard any more about it.

Thanks.

Somehow I had the idea that the defense hadn't done that.

ETA: Maybe it was because they never got it, that I thought they hadn't asked for it.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 03:10:20 AM by nomatter_nevermind »

 

Site Meter
click
tracking