IANAL but will offer the following:
I find interesting the suggestion by the Florida Attorney General for depositions of ABC personnel and others in place of deposition of Mr. Crump. I think that legal opinion missed the mark. This is particularly true after the initial guidance “to leave no stone untouched” ( http://www.newsmax.com/US/BondiTrayvonZimmermanSanford/2012/03/23/id/433729
). There just seems to be a lot of rocks unmoved. The state and their prosecutors look like they are afraid they may reveal more exculpatory information if they overturn the wrong rock. The unrevealed information on W8 is a small boulder in their rock pile.
As noted by Mr. O’Mara in his response, the legal question to be answered is not IF
Mr. Crump should answer questions regarding his involvement in the case. The real question is WHY
he has not already answered those questions, specifically those related to his knowledge about W8. That would include documentation to back up his claims well beyond matters stated in his affidavit. The state and their prosecutors should have required detailed statements from all involved (including Mr. Crump and the ABC newsman) from the initial telephone interview with W8, so they would have the appropriate background information on their critical witness. The state and their prosecutors should have demanded audible copies of all the voice recordings, and had them fully analyzed. With their reliance on “ear witnesses”, the state and their prosecutors should have ensured all telephone data were fully collected and analyzed, including the information contained on the cell phone found at the scene. The apparent lack of “due diligence” by the state and their prosecutors evidenced by”cherry-picking” of information have left many rocks untouched. Now the defense must turn over those rocks while getting push back in the process. This information should certainly have been fully collected and analyzed before charges were filed on any Citizen of the United States of America.
I sense that the state and their prosecutors have “outsourced” their constitutionally defined role in this case, thus “opposing counsel”. Rather than conduct a full and thorough investigation before submitting the Affidavit of Probable Cause to charge a Citizen of the United States of America, they have accepted information from Mr. Crump et al, without fully verifying accuracy or truthfulness. Examples include the statements on the age of W8 and her claim of a hospital visit, which reflect negatively on her credibility and thus critical for the Affidavit of Probable Cause. The note from W8 (?) that recently came to light is another example of rocks not adequately turned. The state and their prosecutors have allowed Mr. Crump and his staff to make provocative claims in front of news cameras without demanding facts and backup documents. Freedom of speech would not be lost by allowing those claims to be repeated after a person has sworn “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”.
In doing so, the state and their prosecutors have violated GZ’s right for due process and equal protection afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Violation of such a basic, Constitutional right of a Citizen cannot wait to be addressed by appeal after the trial. The best and only sufficient, remedy is to allow the lawyers for GZ to depose any person they reasonably believe may have pertinent information in this case, to include Mr. Crump and his entire staff. Fully turning the W8 “rock” may require deposition of BDLR since he was a witness to the interview with W8, and the surrounding uncertainty on that critical witness’s testimony.
The decision by the DCA on deposition of non-party lawyers will be precedent for future criminal cases. The DCA decision to limit such depositions would encourage actions that may encroach on criminal cases. Such encroachment may subvert Brady protection, since inculpatory evidence may be highlighted or enhanced; while exculpatory evidence may be obscured or hidden. Conversely, the DCA decision to allow such depositions will likely cause such lawyers to more carefully consider their involvement in criminal cases.
In conclusion, the DCA should proceed expeditiously to grant the request from Mr. O’Mara in the Writ of Certiorari, as well as approve deposition of others as deemed needed by Mr. O’Mara in his defense of Mr. Zimmerman.
Again IANAL, and I certainly could be wrong.