Author Topic: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)  (Read 31771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #60 on: April 05, 2013, 03:08:09 PM »
Denying a defendant access to the testimony of a witness is, of course, contrary to the 6th Amendment.

Oh, I meant to remark in my previous, but forgot.  On skimming through an exchange between Nelson and West, I notice Nelson being very focused on the question of "relevancy."  Crump is not a witness to the event, and his take of Witness 8's remarks is "the jury's job," not his.

Anyway, not to argue the point, just to say that Nelson was focused on the relevance of Crump's observations, to the question of whether or not Zimmerman's use of force was justified, vs. Zimmerman being guilty of murder.  Generally, there are many other angles of relevance.  Relevance isn't a matter that pertains only to the ultimate question, it can also pertain to any number of included sub-issues.  I don't think West "connected" with Nelson's thought process, to make that simple point, and she is apt to think/believe that Crump simply doesn't possess any information that is relevant.

THis is sort of related to your observation about the 6th amendment and witnesses.  What is Crump a witness to?  Not to say he isn't a relevant witness - he is, I think, to the credibility of Witness 8 - just to say that another way to view the thought I'm trying to get out is that Nelson may view Crump as "not a witness" because he has no first hand knowledge of the incident, or of Martin, or of Zimmerman.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #61 on: April 05, 2013, 03:14:34 PM »
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.

I don't know that Crump has any right to respond, since the issue is between the defense and the court, and the state represents the other side, not Crump. In the arguments over the deposition, BDLR basically said, "What he said," endorsing Crump's lawyer's argument and not adding much of his own.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #62 on: April 05, 2013, 03:25:30 PM »
Oh, I meant to remark in my previous, but forgot.  On skimming through an exchange between Nelson and West, I notice Nelson being very focused on the question of "relevancy."  Crump is not a witness to the event, and his take of Witness 8's remarks is "the jury's job," not his.

I was actually thinking about the same thing -- the question of to what degree the DCA will deem Crump a "material witness." Many of the interlocutory appeal decisions seem to focus on the issue of excluding a material witness. The defense needs to emphasize the fact that Crump's interactions with W8 went a long way beyond passively listening to her tell her story.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #63 on: April 05, 2013, 03:25:44 PM »
I don't know that Crump has any right to respond, since the issue is between the defense and the court, and the state represents the other side, not Crump. In the arguments over the deposition, BDLR basically said, "What he said," endorsing Crump's lawyer's argument and not adding much of his own.

It was Crump, and not the state, that objected to the deposition.  The court heard Crump's argument.  Sure, the state can adopt or agree with Crump's argument; but it wasn't the state's argument in the first place.

If the argument was over production by the press, the press would be the party to argue its case of privilege.  I think the same holds here.  It is Crump asserting privilege on various grounds.  The argument is entirely his to make.  The trial court erred, says petitioner, by siding with the person who is asserting privilege to avoid being deposed.

I'd have to look at my collection of documents, and elsewhere, but I don't recall the state filing ANY argument or even "we agree" paper, in the exchanges that relate to Crump being deposed.  I think all the written submission indicates a battle between Crump and the defendant.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #64 on: April 05, 2013, 03:28:24 PM »
If the argument was over production by the press, the press would be the party to argue its case of privilege.  I think the same holds here.  It is Crump asserting privilege on various grounds.  The argument is entirely his to make.

That's a good point. You're probably right.

The "What he said" comment was made in the oral arguments, not in a written document.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 03:30:23 PM by MJW »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #65 on: April 05, 2013, 07:21:11 PM »
Unfortunately, the opinion in Eutsay v. State, 103 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) is similar to what I expect in the Zimmerman appeal:

Quote
In some civil cases, this Court has found irreparable harm based, at least in part, on the lack of a practical way to determine after the judgment how the denial of certain discovery materials would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See, e.g., Queler v. Receivership of Cumberland Cas. & Sur. Co., 1 So. 3d 1140, 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Baldwin v. Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 45 So. 3d 118, 122-23 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). However, this consideration is less compelling in a criminal case, given the differing standards between civil and criminal cases concerning the burden to show harmful error. In a civil case, the burden is on the appellant to establish a reasonable probability "that a result more favorable to the appellant would have been reached if the error had not been committed." Webster v. Body Dynamics, Inc., 27 So. 3d 805, 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). In contrast, in an appeal from a criminal conviction, once the appellant exposes a preserved error, the State has the burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986). Under this test, the lack of a practical way to determine the effect of the denied discovery would increase the likelihood of reversal.

In truth, as anyone whose read many appellate opinions in criminal cases knows, is that the "harmless error" standard is regularly used to ignore errors which put the defense at a disadvantage during trial.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #66 on: April 05, 2013, 07:25:33 PM »
Oh, probably just wishful thinking on my part. I just hate to think Crump may walk away from this without a scratch.

Considering today's insurance payout news, I'd say he's walking away with lots of scratch.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #67 on: April 05, 2013, 07:39:29 PM »
The case history for Eutsay v. State shows the petition was filed Oct. 21, 2011, and dismissed May 24, 2012. I don't know if that's typical or if the trial was continued during the delay.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #68 on: April 05, 2013, 07:47:39 PM »
The way that Gutman, Crump, and W-8 have intertwined, is like nothing I have seen before. To the best of my knowledge, we have been in uncharted waters ever since that bizarre interview on 3/19/12.

ETA: If someone at ABC deliberately destroyed evidence, I would think there was something damning there. Maybe evidence of a more serious felony?

If there's anything damning in there, that makes it extra news-worthy, and therefore more valuable to ABC, since no other network or news outfit has it.

Unless it is ABC itself that the evidence damns.

But I can't think of anything they'd think profitable to do that they'd be stupid enough to do.

And then stupid enough to try to cover up.

Although by now, if this was a preserve/present typo, you'd think ABC would have said something to tamp down the speculation that they tampered with evidence.


Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #69 on: April 05, 2013, 07:55:36 PM »
... What is Crump a witness to?...

Well, apparently he's a witness to a massive coverup conspiracy between Lee and Wolfinger.

In fact, so far he seems to be the only witness--although he hasn't actually produced any evidence yet--but he's got plenty of people out there convinced that it happened.

And some of those people didn't even see Elvis working down at the Tastee-Freeze last night.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #70 on: April 05, 2013, 08:07:05 PM »
If there's anything damning in there, that makes it extra news-worthy, and therefore more valuable to ABC, since no other network or news outfit has it.

Unless it is ABC itself that the evidence damns.

I thought it was clear that I meant damning to whoever saw to it that the recordings were not preserved. That wouldn't have to be 'ABC', by which I take it you mean the top brass.

There was a suggestion upthread regarding ABC's incentives.

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 cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #71 on: April 06, 2013, 03:50:01 AM »
Unfortunately, the opinion in Eutsay v. State, 103 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) is similar to what I expect in the Zimmerman appeal:

In truth, as anyone whose read many appellate opinions in criminal cases knows, is that the "harmless error" standard is regularly used to ignore errors which put the defense at a disadvantage during trial.

Assuming the opinion filed a few months later, on a motion for clarification, contains similar logic, the opinion gets to the point I was trying to make earlier, relating to "final judgment."  If the appellate court sees no harm in retrial, then it is inclined to reject a defendant's petition, pending the outcome of trial.  The appellate court can remedy the error below, with a new trial.  From Eutsay:

When considering whether a particular type of harm may be remedied by appeal, we bear in mind that the burden of enduring a trial that may ultimately have to be repeated is not the type of harm certiorari exists to prevent.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #72 on: April 06, 2013, 04:18:39 AM »
04/04/2013    NOCI    NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WITHIN COURT FILING

Might actually be close to being on-topic.  I think this is a filing by Crump, of the settlement agreement between the Martins and the HOA and HOA insurer.  Had no reason to guess that before the recent news came out about the months-old settlement, but the timing, circumstances, and title of the filing fit perfectly.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #73 on: April 06, 2013, 05:04:24 AM »
Might actually be close to being on-topic.  I think this is a filing by Crump, of the settlement agreement between the Martins and the HOA and HOA insurer.  Had no reason to guess that before the recent news came out about the months-old settlement, but the timing, circumstances, and title of the filing fit perfectly.

But why would any of that have anything to do with the criminal case as far as the criminal court is concerned?

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)
« Reply #74 on: April 06, 2013, 05:21:29 AM »
But why would any of that have anything to do with the criminal case as far as the criminal court is concerned?

I've been thinking about this question and something I've come up with (though quite possibly incorrectly) is maybe it's going to be used in response to the petition? Would Judge Nelson require it be filed with her in order to point to it and say "See, he's opposing counsel because he's going to be filing suit soon!" .. as odd as it seems that such a leap in logic would be orchestrated by a judge?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking