Author Topic: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)  (Read 31829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #45 on: April 05, 2013, 06:48:07 AM »
Purely speculating, ABC has no real interest in keeping anything exculpatory and a PR nightmare if it ever sees light. To one demographic (in the marketing sense) they would appear to have been hiding news to fit a narrative. To another they would appear to be cooperating with Zimmerman's defense.

I'll defend ABC by pointing out that they aired this bit of the conversation (back-room deal to avoid deposition?) and they also aired the injury photo at a time Zimmerman was being excoriated in the media.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #46 on: April 05, 2013, 06:51:00 AM »
Two questions:

1. What are the possible dispositions? Can the District Court punt and not consider the appeal at all?

2. Is it sur-she-are-ee or sur-she-are-eye?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #47 on: April 05, 2013, 06:56:35 AM »
Two questions:

1. What are the possible dispositions? Can the District Court punt and not consider the appeal at all?

2. Is it sur-she-are-ee or sur-she-are-eye?

They have to consider it and rule on it.  They can reject it, saying the time to bring this type of appeal is after the trial, or they can reject it for other reasons.  Or, they can agree with petitioner, and order the trial court to withdraw its order precluding O'Mara from deposing Crump, and replace it with an order that Crump sit for deposition.

Certiorari - I pronounce it SUR-she-oh-RAHR-ee (long 'e' at the end), and I've heard others pronounce it SUR-she-OH-ree (also long 'e' at the end).

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #48 on: April 05, 2013, 07:41:47 AM »
O'Mara moved for a subpoena to ABC, with that motion being presented on 18 January 2013.  I haven't yet searched for a Court order on that motion ...

ow I've searched for it, and can't find a court order in response to O'Mara's "Motion for Subpoena ... to American Broadcasting Company (ABC) ...".  There is a notation at 11 February 2013 at the www.flcourts18.org site, for an Order Granting Issuance of a Subpoena, but the link renders a 404-Not Found error.  I've also searched for news reports (using google) respecting that Motion, and haven't found any information, one way or the other.  The absence of news leads me to think that Judge Nelson has not yet ruled on the motion, because a ruling would likely result in legal action in the form of ABC objection and so forth, that would appear in the docket.  Well, let me condition that, if she rules unfavorably to the defense, ABC would have no reason to get involved, so either Nelson ruled against O'Mara, or hasn't ruled.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #50 on: April 05, 2013, 12:04:25 PM »
Certiorari - I pronounce it SUR-she-oh-RAHR-ee (long 'e' at the end), and I've heard others pronounce it SUR-she-OH-ree (also long 'e' at the end).

So I guess "Certy O'Rarey" was just that colleen they were talking about that had a wee drop too much on St. Paddy's Day last.  ;)

And the most important thing to remember when pondering the mysterious actions of ABC is that ABC is owned by Disney, and Disney has a HUGE financial stake just a stone's throw from Sanford in Orlando.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #51 on: April 05, 2013, 12:13:51 PM »
It would be very clever to give Crump the impression there isn't any more of ABC's version of the interview available prior to his deposition. He might end up being caught in a number of lies if more of ABC's version happened to became available after and contradicts what he said.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #52 on: April 05, 2013, 12:23:41 PM »
It would be very clever to give Crump the impression there isn't any more of ABC's version of the interview available prior to his deposition. He might end up being caught in a number of lies if more of ABC's version happened to became available after and contradicts what he said.

I don't think this is happening.  The world isn't that perfect.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #53 on: April 05, 2013, 12:25:49 PM »
I don't think this is happening.  The world isn't that perfect.
Oh, probably just wishful thinking on my part. I just hate to think Crump may walk away from this without a scratch.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #54 on: April 05, 2013, 01:33:35 PM »
This is probably off-topic, but I don't want to start a separate thread for such a non-specific item. There's a new entry in the detailed case information:

04/04/2013    NOCI    NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WITHIN COURT FILING

I hope we find out what that's about soon. There has been confidential information in other filings without a special notice. The NOCI code isn't used elsewhere, but it seems to me they kind of make them up as they go along. I'm pretty sure I've seen identically labelled entries with differnt codes.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #55 on: April 05, 2013, 01:49:32 PM »
I'm pretty sure I've seen identically labelled entries with different codes.

E.g.,
12/13/2012    SUDI    STATE'S 11TH SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY
12/11/2012    SUPP    STATE'S 10TH SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #56 on: April 05, 2013, 02:06:30 PM »
10th Supplemental: Early drafts of Serino's reports.

11th Supplemental: Audio of Crump/W-8 interview on 3/19/12.

Maybe it's paper documents vs. audio recordings that makes the difference.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #57 on: April 05, 2013, 02:10:56 PM »
04/04/2013    NOCI    NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WITHIN COURT FILING

I'm puzzled by that too, have been since seeing it yesterday.  We don't know who filed it, if defense, the state, or a third party.  I figure it isn't the usual hiding of [some] witness names and addresses, because the court has set up and is using a protocol to accommodate that.  I thought it might be the filing of the Witness 8 video deposition; I don't recall if the court ordered it to be filed, or what the definite meaning of "kept under seal" (or whatever the court's order was) is.  It seems odd that any deposition would be filed, as doing so creates a possibility of motion by the press, under Florida Sunshine Law, to make public what has been filed with the court.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #58 on: April 05, 2013, 02:38:52 PM »
Another interesting case on interlocutory appeal of discovery denial:

Baldwin v. SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. & CLINICS, 45 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

It contains the possibly helpful comment:

Quote
We also find significant, on the question of jurisdiction, that petitioners claim the denial of a constitutional right guaranteed to them under Amendment 7. "[C]ertiorari is an appropriate remedy where constitutional rights are deprived or delayed during the pendency of a legal proceeding." Williams v. Spears, 719 So.2d 1236, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Denying a defendant access to the testimony of a witness is, of course, contrary to the 6th Amendment.

I still believe the odds are against the 5th DCA allowing the appeal. I think in the petition the defense should have tried to distinguish Zimmerman's situation from Bill Kasper Const. Co., Inc. v. Morrison rather than waiting for the state to bring it up.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 02:41:07 PM by MJW »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #59 on: April 05, 2013, 02:57:16 PM »
I still believe the odds are against the 5th DCA allowing the appeal. I think in the petition the defense should have tried to distinguish Zimmerman's situation from Bill Kasper Const. Co., Inc. v. Morrison rather than waiting for the state to bring it up.

Assuming Crump refers to authority that is opposing the petition, O'Mara can respond to the argument raised by Crump.  I don't recall any remarks by the state, taking a position on defense being afforded the right to depose Crump, so I'm not sure the state would even respond.

Thanks for the many case citations, including the most recent.  I don't have much faith that the court system does the right thing when the case is a political one.  But, the courts of appeal are one step removed from public pressure, compared with the trial court, and I would not be surprised to find that Judge Nelson is deliberately tossing issues up for appeal.  I've generally figured she'd do so when called on to render an opinion as to 776.032 immunity, finding that the evidence doesn't admit a decision, and then tossing it to the jury.

Talk about messy, the court will seat a jury, O'Mara, if he doesn't get a favorable decision on an immunity motion, would appeal.  What to do with the jury?  Have them wait the time it takes the DCA to review the lower court's order?  Heck, even waiting for the lower court to compose an opinion and order is a delay between case presentation and charging the jury.

Anyway, back to the subject you raised, I think the DCA will order Nelson to allow Crump to be deposed.  It's a low risk decision, in that it doesn't represent any particular direction in favor of or against Zimmerman.  It's just allowing defendant access to information that may be relevant for trial.  Crump himself expressed, in open court, that he wanted to be helpful, that he had nothing to hide, and similar sentiment.  Seems that everybody's stated principles are in perfect harmony - get the truth out, or as much as is humanly possible, to facilitate reaching a just conclusion.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking