Author Topic: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)  (Read 32710 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #180 on: May 10, 2013, 12:37:04 PM »
Kasper makes no appearance.  Maybe is a ghost.

I think it may be an unfriendly ghost to the defense. It seems unwise to not address the implications of a very recent case, cited in the responses, that explicitly recedes to some degree from some of the cases the defense relies on. An advantage they have is that it was recent and en banc. When agreeing to the opinion of the court, the DCA judges probably thought about how it would apply to cases where there was no testimony to proffer.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #181 on: May 10, 2013, 03:39:05 PM »
I don't think the replies were bad, but they could have been a lot better. For example, the defense could have pointed out that in the Crump interview, W8 changed GZ's retort to Martin, seemingly at Crump's suggestion. They should have taken to opportunity to mock the state's assertion that at an appeal, the defense could proffer Crump's affidavit to show what is testimony would have been. In short, instead of mostly rehashing the arguments in the original petition, I believe they should have directly refuted the arguments in the responses.

Offline jeanmarc8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #182 on: May 12, 2013, 01:48:30 PM »
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.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #183 on: May 13, 2013, 04:36:37 PM »
The court entered a Miscellaneous Order in that docket. I'm assuming it accepts Zimmerman's resonse to Crump.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #184 on: May 13, 2013, 06:19:46 PM »
The court entered a Miscellaneous Order in that docket. I'm assuming it accepts Zimmerman's resonse to Crump.

The order is now available on gzdocs.com.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #185 on: May 13, 2013, 11:28:58 PM »
IANAL ...

Perhaps you should have been.

Or maybe even a judge.

Offline Raoul

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #186 on: June 03, 2013, 02:34:56 PM »
Nelson reversed. Crump can be deposed.
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/dca5_opinion.pdf

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #187 on: June 03, 2013, 02:49:03 PM »
Nelson reversed. Crump can be deposed.
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/dca5_opinion.pdf

Very good. I still think Florida law doesn't allow for any work-product privilege in a criminal case except for the defense and prosecuting attorneys. I wish the defense had made that argument. It's a shame the defense (and we) won't learn how Crump actually went about locating W8.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #188 on: June 03, 2013, 02:53:06 PM »
Unfortunately they're not going to be able to grill him about his unsubstantiated charge that Wolfinger and whoever went down to the police station that night and conspired in a cover-up.

If there's corruption in the department that conducted the initial investigation, the defense has a right to know about that.

(not saying there is, just want Crump to sweat over it)

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #189 on: June 04, 2013, 12:52:58 PM »
Please discuss Leatherman at his blog.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #190 on: June 04, 2013, 02:01:36 PM »
Please discuss Leatherman at his blog.

I did.

It was not well received.   ;D

 

Site Meter
click
tracking