Author Topic: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)  (Read 45949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #135 on: April 26, 2013, 09:35:47 AM »
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, p. 21.

So not very well then?

I wish someone could subpoena ABC to find out what could possibly have scared them enough to destroy the rest, if they really did, of something which no other news outfit had, an event, to my knowledge, absolutely unprecedented in journalism (not counting outfits like Pravda).

And another subpoena for Gutman's own copy of it that ABC doesn't know about.  ;)

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #136 on: April 26, 2013, 10:12:16 AM »
Nobody should work themselves into a tizzy over the missing ABC footage.  Save it for when you learn about the missing GPS data from Martin's and Zimmerman's phones.   ::)

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #137 on: April 26, 2013, 10:28:07 AM »
Nobody should work themselves into a tizzy over the missing ABC footage.  Save it for when you learn about the missing GPS data from Martin's and Zimmerman's phones.   ::)

Yea, what's up with that? Is that why they filed this?

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/042513_discovery_demand.pdf

EDIT: The missing data is still missing after all this time?


Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #138 on: April 26, 2013, 10:57:53 AM »
Nobody should work themselves into a tizzy over the missing ABC footage.  Save it for when you learn about the missing GPS data from Martin's and Zimmerman's phones.   ::)

But that's okay, it's only missing for the 26th, not the entire weekend or anything.

 ::)

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #139 on: April 30, 2013, 12:33:37 PM »
Crump filed a proposed response and separate pleadings asking to be allowed to respond. (The link is to a MediaFire account that allows the PDF to be downloaded.)

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #140 on: April 30, 2013, 01:40:18 PM »
In the petition to allow a response, Blackwell cites Towers v. City of Longwood, 960 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) as a case where a non-party was allowed to file a response. If I were the defense, I'd say "thank you very much," because Towers is an excellent case for them. In Towers, the 5th DCA granted a writ of certiorari when the trial court issued a protective order preventing the plaintiff from deposing a witness. The witness claimed she had nothing relevant on the matter, but the DCA observed, "it would be utterly impossible to tell whether Ms. Putz has any information that is relevant to the suit if Mr. Towers is prohibited from asking any questions of her."

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #141 on: April 30, 2013, 02:29:09 PM »
In the petition to allow a response, Blackwell cites Towers v. City of Longwood, 960 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) as a case where a non-party was allowed to file a response. If I were the defense, I'd say "thank you very much," because Towers is an excellent case for them. In Towers, the 5th DCA granted a writ of certiorari when the trial court issued a protective order preventing the plaintiff from deposing a witness. The witness claimed she had nothing relevant on the matter, but the DCA observed, "it would be utterly impossible to tell whether Ms. Putz has any information that is relevant to the suit if Mr. Towers is prohibited from asking any questions of her."

WTH is a Proposed Respondent?  Why does he continue to meddle in a Criminal trial? has he even figured out that if he hadn't pulled this BS this wouldn't have been happening?

Quote
witness (8) whom Attorney Crump interviewed in anticipation of civil litigation before
Petitioner was ever arrested or charged with a crime.

So now she was there because of Civil Litigation rather than for the purposes of "connecting all of the dots?"  Blowing the case wide open?

This is between Zimmerman and the State.

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #142 on: April 30, 2013, 07:07:02 PM »
This is confusing to me. Wouldn't any respondent in opposition to the petition have to file before the deadline set for those who are mandated to file? It seems to me that it was filed a day late, but I don't know the rules on this. It would strike me as odd that, for example, Blackwell could have filed this on May 3rd leaving the defense no time to respond to it specifically.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #143 on: April 30, 2013, 08:42:09 PM »
That's a good point, AJ. I'm quite curious to see what the DCA will do about this pleading.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #144 on: April 30, 2013, 09:06:49 PM »
I think Crump's pleadings may have been filed on time. I believe time is computed in accordance with Rules of Judicial Administration, rule 2.514(a):

RULE 2.514. COMPUTING AND EXTENDING TIME

(a) Computing Time. The following rules apply in computing time periods specified in any rule of procedure, local rule, court order, or statute that does not specify a method of computing time.
(1) Period Stated in Days or a Longer Unit. When the period is stated in days or a longer unit of time
(A) exclude the day of the event that triggers the period;
(B) count every day, including intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays; and
(C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, or falls within any period of time extended through an order of the chief justice under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.205(a)(2)(B)(iv), the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday and does not fall within any period of time extended through an order of the chief justice.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #145 on: April 30, 2013, 09:42:19 PM »
It's made somewhat confusing because the time limit for a reply depends on the time the response was filed. If the response were filed in 8 days, then the time for a reply could expire before the end on the initial 20 days allowed for the response. The DCA probably didn't contemplate a second response, and I'm not sure what rule allows one. Blackwell cites a civil case, but civil cases allow parties to intervene for limited purposes. In criminal proceedings there are only two parties, the state and the defendant.

If the defense had been granted the right to depose Crump, then based on Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Morejon, 529 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), I believe Crump could have petitioned for a writ of certiorari, naming Zimmerman as the respondent. But if the DCA decides Crump can't respond in Zimmerman's petition for a writ of certiorari, and rules in Zimmerman's favor, I believe the principle of res judicata would probably prevent an attempt by Crump to seek relief in the DCA. As I understand it, res judicata basically says that a court won't relitigate an issue it's already decided.

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #146 on: April 30, 2013, 10:37:30 PM »
I was going off of the 5th DCA's appeal case docket:

04/08/2013    Order to Show Cause-Writs    04/28/2013    

The 4/28/2013 is the "Date Due" column

http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2013&p_casenumber=1233&psCourt=5&psSearchType=

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #147 on: May 01, 2013, 01:34:06 AM »
I was going off of the 5th DCA's appeal case docket:

04/08/2013    Order to Show Cause-Writs    04/28/2013    

The 4/28/2013 is the "Date Due" column

http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2013&p_casenumber=1233&psCourt=5&psSearchType=

But then, the 28th was Sunday so it would've held over until close of business Monday anyway. Well, at least now we know.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #148 on: May 03, 2013, 03:01:16 PM »
The defense moved for an extension of time:

05/03/2013    Motion for Extension of Time         Petitioner

Most likely, I assume, on the grounds that not only do they have to reply to both the state's and Crump's response, but the ten days allowed started with the state's response, yet Crump responded five days later.

So far, the court hasn't ruled that Crump can respond. I think it's likely he'll be allowed to, but I did a brief search, and couldn't find a comparable situation in a criminal case.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #149 on: May 03, 2013, 10:06:25 PM »
The defense moved for an extension of time:

05/03/2013    Motion for Extension of Time         Petitioner

Most likely, I assume, on the grounds that not only do they have to reply to both the state's and Crump's response, but the ten days allowed started with the state's response, yet Crump responded five days later.

So far, the court hasn't ruled that Crump can respond. I think it's likely he'll be allowed to, but I did a brief search, and couldn't find a comparable situation in a criminal case.

I don't see why he should be allowed to.  Everything being addressed is between the State and Zimmerman.  His  "proposed respondent" is horse hockey in my books.  He wanted to meddle in a criminal case.  He brought forth the witness that was to "blow the lid off and connect all the dots."  She has since been semi-discredited, so now he needed her for a civil case?

Seriously?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking