Author Topic: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses  (Read 16436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #75 on: February 25, 2013, 03:19:44 AM »

Video, 11:54-12:18
Quote
West: I don't know, frankly, that Mr. Crump through Mr. Blackwell is claiming a work product privilege. The motion and affidavit suggest just the opposite, when Mr. Crump says he, through some reflection and consultation with his clients, decided that he would waive those privileges as to this issue. 

Crump's affidavit (pp. 12-13)
Quote
The decision to conduct the Interview in the manner that I did was made only after careful consideration and consultation with my clients - including, in particular, but not limited to, the risk of potentially making a limited waiver of what, in my opinion, was privileged and otherwise protected confidential material.

I don't think 'he would waive those privileges as to this issue', is an accurate paraphrase of 'the risk of potentially making a limited waiver'.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2013, 03:21:32 AM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #76 on: February 25, 2013, 02:48:09 PM »

"...privileged and otherwise protected confidential material..." that he made sure to invite ABC to be around to hear and record?

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #77 on: February 25, 2013, 02:55:02 PM »
I'm pretty sure that what was going unspoken here was that you need witnessess addresses to aid in finding out if there's any dirt to be dug up on them, like are they known liars, or are they in a position where the outcome of the trial might affect them financially one way or the other.

But of course you don't want to come right out and say that in court because it would be such horrible PR.

Which means you can't really provide an answer to the judge of why you need the addressess.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #78 on: February 25, 2013, 03:15:26 PM »
I'm pretty sure that what was going unspoken here was that you need witnessess addresses to aid in finding out if there's any dirt to be dug up on them, like are they known liars, or are they in a position where the outcome of the trial might affect them financially one way or the other.

But of course you don't want to come right out and say that in court because it would be such horrible PR.

Which means you can't really provide an answer to the judge of why you need the addressess.

Actually, that is already in the FDLE bios.  I think they requested those in a motion long ago.  Not sure but it was probably denied.   

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Feb. 22 Hearing on Subpoenas, Crump Deposition and Production of Addresses
« Reply #79 on: February 25, 2013, 04:00:44 PM »

"...privileged and otherwise protected confidential material..." that he made sure to invite ABC to be around to hear and record?

That lowered the confidentiality quotient.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Responding to post on another thread.

IF Crump was given opposing counsel status and declared a surrogate for the state

Order Denying Motion Regarding Deposition of Benjamin Crump, Esquire, p. 2
Quote
As a preliminary matter, the Defendant argued that Mr. Crump is not opposing counsel because this criminal proceeding is between the Defendant and the State and Mr. Crump does not represent the state. However "documents are subject to the work product privilege even when litigation is neither pending nor threatened so long as there is a possibility that a suit might ensue." Barnett Bank of Polk County v. Dottie-G Development Corp., 645 So. 2d 573, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). It is without dispute that Mr. Crump was retained to explore the possibility of seeking civil damages from the Defendant, so he must be deemed to be "opposing counsel" for purposes of this motion.

Judge Nelson didn't explain why 'documents are subject to the work product privilege' implies 'must be deemed to be "opposing counsel" for the purposes of this motion.'

It is clear that the judge did not find that Crump represents the State in the criminal case. She found that he did not have to represent the State in the criminal case, in order to be 'deemed to be "opposing counsel" for purposes of this motion.'

The Order nowhere addresses West's argument that privilege had been waived by voluntary disclosure.

This raises a legal question to which I don't know the answer. In court, West said that work product privilege regarding certain matters, if it ever existed, had been waived by Crump. I think he was being careless in his wording, because I would think that work product privilege, like attorney-client privilege, inheres in the client and cannot be waived by the attorney.

If an attorney discloses confidential matters without the client's consent, the attorney is in trouble, and no privilege has been waived. Only if the client consents to or makes the disclosure, is privilege waived. That's how attorney-client privilege works, and I would think it would be the same for work product privilege. Am I wrong?

In this case it's probably not an issue, because Martin/Fulton consented to the relevant disclosures, as far as I know. But, as I said, I think it was careless wording for West to say that Crump had waived privilege.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
I think the "opposing counsel" designation just prevents Crump from having the defense subject him to a general fishing expedition deposition.  Nelson asked West about what additional information he needed about the Witness #8 interview they wanted from Crump and wasn't satisfied with the answer.  However, if they want further information now, based on information that has recently come to light, I think they could file a request for a limited deposition.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
I think the "opposing counsel" designation just prevents Crump from having the defense subject him to a general fishing expedition deposition.

The "opposing counsel" designation is just some garbage Crump and his attorney threw out that the judge, for some reason, bought.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Even if the work product exception as applied to Crump overcomes Zimmerman's Sixth Amendment rights (I don't believe it does), it still wouldn't justify Judge Nelson's decision. Work product privilege is waived if the information is substantially disclosed. Most of what the defense wanted concerned information that Crump had substantially, though selectively, disclosed.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
I just noticed nomatter_nevermind already mentioned the work-product waiver. For some reason, I neglected to read his comment before responding to RickyJim.   

 

Site Meter
click
tracking