Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)

[cboldt]

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

I don't think it has anything to do with the criminal case.  It bolsters the contention that Crump is opposing counsel, which is a factor in deciding whether or not the law compels him to disclose what he knows about the criminal trail - in this case, to disclose what he knows about Witness 8's appearance on the prosecution's witness list.

Even on that point, I think it is an unnecessary filing, because his proffer that he represents the Martins and intends to sue Zimmerman is sufficient to make that point.

[cboldt]

From Zimmerman's Criminal Case Docket ...

04/05/2013    LETT    LETTER FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO ATTORNEY BENJAMIN CRUMP REGARDING NOTICE OF
04/05/2013    LETT    CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

So, I guess that firms up the finding that the Confidential filing of April 4 originated with Crump.   I suspect the letter is an invitation to withdraw the filing (as it is irrelevant to the case), or, in the alternative, take 10 days to explain why it should not become a matter of public record.

[MJW]

So, I guess that firms up the finding that the Confidential filing of April 4 originated with Crump.   I suspect the letter is an invitation to withdraw the filing (as it is irrelevant to the case), or, in the alternative, take 10 days to explain why it should not become a matter of public record.

I hope we get a look at the clerk's letter soon.

[DebFrmHell]

I hope we get a look at the clerk's letter soon.

I want to read that 5 pager...even with the redactions!  The letter is icing...Begged Rene...nothing...Seni T...nothing.  Jeff W is next in line.  My cyber knees are getting worn out.

[cboldt]

I want to read that 5 pager...even with the redactions!  The letter is icing...Begged Rene...nothing...Seni T...nothing.  Jeff W is next in line.  My cyber knees are getting worn out.

It's not cheap, but you can hire a "runner" to go to the Courthouse and obtain copies of whatever is filed.  From what I read in the news, I think the 5 pager is no longer provided on (pay for copies) request.  The clerk of the court should have a list of local runners.

[DebFrmHell]

It's not cheap, but you can hire a "runner" to go to the Courthouse and obtain copies of whatever is filed.  From what I read in the news, I think the 5 pager is no longer provided on (pay for copies) request.  The clerk of the court should have a list of local runners.

HA!  Can someone run from San Antonio for me?  Ooooh.  Maybe Aghast would do it.  That poster lives in Sanford.  Nevermind...you said expensive.

[cboldt]

HA!  Can someone run from San Antonio for me?  Ooooh.  Maybe Aghast would do it.  That poster lives in Sanford.  Nevermind...you said expensive.

When I hired a runner in DC, to get papers filed at a federal appeals court (Libby case - I don't trust the press to make anything that resembles a complete and accurate report), it cost fifty dollars.  If you know somebody local, they might do it out of their own curiosity.

The only thing in the settlement agreement that I'm curious about is the date it was entered into.  I'm curious about when the press knew there was a settlement.  From the Orlando Sentinel report, I think the press knew in February, when it conducted some unspecified interview with O'Mara.

[DebFrmHell]

When I hired a runner in DC, to get papers filed at a federal appeals court (Libby case - I don't trust the press to make anything that resembles a complete and accurate report), it cost fifty dollars.  If you know somebody local, they might do it out of their own curiosity.

The only thing in the settlement agreement that I'm curious about is the date it was entered into.  I'm curious about when the press knew there was a settlement.  From the Orlando Sentinel report, I think the press knew in February, when it conducted some unspecified interview with O'Mara.

That is what I gathered from that too.  Maybe lobbed a softball question after the 2/5 (I suck at dates) hearing?

[Cylinder]

I hope we get a look at the clerk's letter soon.

Letter of Seminole County Clerk of Court

Pursuant to the Judicial Rules of Administration 2.420(d)(2), we are notifying you that we do not agree that the information contained within this document is subject to confidentiality as contained within subdivision (d)(1)(A) or (d)(1)(B) of this rule. We will maintain this information as confidential for a period of ten days but it will become public information after that time unless you file the appropriate motion pursuant to subdivision (d)(3).

[cboldt]

I hope we get a look at the clerk's letter soon.

It's up at the Court's "Document" website.  April 5, 2013 Letter of Seminole County Clerk of Court

It advised Crump that the court does not agree that the document is subject to confidentiality, and gives him 10 days to file a motion pursuant to Judicial Rules of Administration 2.420(d)(3).

RULE 2.420.  PUBLIC ACCESS TO JUDICIAL BRANCH RECORDS

(d) Procedures for Determining Confidentiality of Court Records.
(3) Any person filing a document with the court shall ascertain whether any information contained within the document may be confidential under subdivision (c) of this rule notwithstanding that such information is not itemized at subdivision (d)(1) of this rule. A person filing information that he or she believes in good faith to be confidential but that is not described in subdivision (d)(1) of this rule shall request that the information be maintained as confidential by filing a "Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records" under the procedures set forth in subdivision (e), (f), or (g), unless (A) the person filing the information is the only individual whose confidential information is included in the document to be filed or is the attorney representing all such individuals; and (B) a knowing waiver of the confidential status of that information is intended by the person filing the information. Any interested person may request that information within a court file be maintained as confidential by filing a motion as  provided in subdivision (e), (f), or (g).

2.420(e), (f) and (g) describe the handling of the motion, that is, the legal procedure for making argument and for the court to reach a finding.  Most everything is conducted in secret, but there will be docket entries that show activity while not disclosing the confidential information.  There are time limits for making decisions, but I don't think Florida courts adhere to any time limit rule that is not embodied in a court order; or that is useful for an appellate court to use to reach the desired outcome in a case at hand.

[cboldt]

It advised Crump that the court does not agree that the document is subject to confidentiality, and gives him 10 days to file a motion pursuant to Judicial Rules of Administration 2.420(d)(3).

If I understand the process (and there's a chance I don't), the clerk's initial determination as to confidentiality is limited to looking at certain limited grounds, which are listed at (d)(1).  The list at (d)(1)(A) includes items listed at (c)(1) through (c)(6).  There are other areas of court-respected confidentiality, most listed at parts (c)(7) through (c)(9), but the clerk is not empowered to rule on assertions of confidentiality not listed at part (d)(1), that is for the judge.

Quick aside, (c)(9)(A)(ii) allows for protection of a trade secret.  A private settlement is in the nature of a business deal, where the parties agree to secrecy.  Trade secrets aren't only "how to," they can also be customer lists, and other business deals.  I'm not sure how Crump (and the HOA insurer) will pigeonhole the information within the rules framework, and that doesn't really matter.  What matters is that the clerk did not find the information to be protected under (d)(1).

Anyway, this information being outside of (d)(1), we get to the process to get the issue before the judge, which is the "Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records" (this title must be used in the filing, if the rules are followed).  The parties that want to keep this confidential have 10 days within which to file this motion, and the motion must be substantive both legally, and as applied to the information alleged to be confidential.

An interesting question, to me, is who are the "interested parties" for purposes of this motion.  Is that just the HOA, Crump, and Sybrina?  Or do O'Mara and the state have a part in this sideshow?  I don't know.  The simpler situation is only the HOA, insurer, Crump, and Sybrina are involved in the sideshow, and all of them will agree that the information they promised to keep secret, should be kept secret.

I bet the HOA, insurer, and Judge Nelson are pissed.  This is a totally unnecessary sideshow in the criminal case.

[cboldt]

Separately, it appears the clerk erred by making 5 pages of this filing public, albeit for a short time.  The court has some 'splainin' to do.

Seminole clerk: I'll unseal settlement with Trayvon's parents -  Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel - 11:02 a.m. EDT, April 8, 2013

Part of the 12-page settlement popped into public view for a few minutes Friday. The day before, Crump had made it part of the official court record ... Crump had instructed the clerk's office to seal the settlement, but for a few minutes Friday morning, the first five pages were available for public review. The clerk's office then blacked out all but the first page, which is a cover sheet filed by Crump.

After further consideration, however, Morse decided that none of it should be kept secret, so she wrote Crump, telling him she would unseal it in 10 days.

Fairly misleading presentation by Stutzman, as to the clerk's actions.  When material is filed under a "Notice of Confidential Information within Court Filing," the clerk does not have the authority to make it public, until after the rules-based time periods (5 days to give notice to the filter, of disagreement; 10 days for the filer to move for confidentiality; plus time for the court process).  All Stutzman would have to do is look at and understand the rule cited by the clerk.

The clerk of court shall review filings identified by filers as containing confidential information to determine whether the purported confidential information is facially subject to confidentiality under the identified provision in subdivision (d)(1)(B). If the clerk determines that filed information is not subject to confidentiality under the identified provision, the clerk shall notify the person who filed the document in writing within 5 days of the filing and thereafter shall maintain the information as confidential for 10 days from the day such notice is served. The information shall not be held as confidential for more than 10 days, unless the filer has filed a motion pursuant to subdivision (d)(3).

So, how often does this clerk handle items that are filed under a Notice of Confidential Information within Court Filing?  How many such items are filed and kept confidential for at least those 10 days?  Why was this one made public?  Who knew it was there and asked for it?  Who found out it was asked for, and put the kibosh on providing a complete copy to the Orlando Sentinel?

I think this inadvertent release deserves an inquest of its own.

[RickyJim]

The settlement with the RATL HOA has no close connection with the Writ of Certiorari.  I think the recent posts about it belong on the CIVIL LAW SUITS thread (under Other Case-Related Topics) or maybe a brand new one.

[TalkLeft]

Ricky's right. If you have a comment in this thread about the civil lawsuit, please repost in the correct thread so I can delete them. I will delete any that are still up in this thread tonight.

This thread is for the writ of cert petition only.

[cboldt]

Ricky's right. If you have a comment in this thread about the civil lawsuit, please repost in the correct thread so I can delete them. I will delete any that are still up in this thread tonight.

This thread is for the writ of cert petition only.

The item being discussed was filed in the criminal lawsuit.  I'll copy the remarks I made here (for my own reference), but I have no intention of reposting them in the civil lawsuit thread.  You can move them wherever you want.