Writ of Certiorari (Crump Deposition)

[MJW]

As cboldt points out, the document was filed with the criminal court, and given the timing of the filing and the content, seems to have been filed in response to  the motion for certiorari -- presumably in an attempt to make it part of the lower court record. Though any discussion of the details of settlement belong in the civil law suit thread, the circumstances of the filing belong here.

[RickyJim]

The timing could be just a coincidence, MJW; you are just speculating.  Is anybody disputing that Crump is representing the parents in civil actions?  The WoC is all about whether Crump should be deposed because he has important evidence concerning Witness #8, and this overrides any privilege he might have because he represents the parents,

[MJW]

The timing could be just a coincidence, MJW; you are just speculating.  Is anybody disputing that Crump is representing the parents in civil actions?  The WoC is all about whether Crump should be deposed because he has important evidence concerning Witness #8, and this overrides any privilege he might have because he represents the parents,

If it isn't connected with the petition for cert, why did Crump file a settlement agreement with a court that has already ruled he can't be deposed?

[FromBelow]

If it isn't connected with the petition for cert, why did Crump file a settlement agreement with a court that has already ruled he can't be deposed?

Diwataman points out:

Not only does it not make sense for that reason, I agree it seems to me it is an attempt as you say to avoid being deposed, but the problem is IT’S THE WRONG COURT! BWAHAHAHA! O’Mara went to the 5th DCA not the Seminole County Courthouse!

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/blogging-and-such/#comment-9653

Don't people have to give reasons for filing a document? Could Crump just file his latest effort at poetry with the court with no explanation whatsoever?

[cboldt]

Don't people have to give reasons for filing a document? Could Crump just file his latest effort at poetry with the court with no explanation whatsoever?

Crump has been filing in the criminal case, so the clerk would not find him a stranger to action on the murder case against Zimmerman.  Heck, Bernardo filed poetry and Shakespeare recitations, and believe it or not, there have been pleading and even court opinions filed in verse form.  The clerk is the barrier to people filing their own poetry in legal cases.  Lawyers are more likely to get their material past the clerk, and for the most part, they don;t file completely unrelated and unnecessary material.  Which tells me the objective here was not a legal one - I think the court was just used to give Crump plausible deniability for making the settlement public.

I think the filing, being superfluous and generally out of rig anywhere, defies pigeonholing in "this is the civil case" or "this is the criminal case."  I just had those few observations for anybody who was interested, I put them where the question and discussion had taken place, mostly, in the days preceding, and at this point, I am honesty indifferent if the remarks persist, anywhere.

[MJW]

The following entry was added to the Case Docket:

04/08/2013    Order to Show Cause-Writs    04/28/2013         20 DYS;REPLY 10 DYS

[Cylinder]

So the deadline is 20 days or 10 days? Thanks for the update, BTW.
ETA: 4/28/2013
Read then post.
 

[cboldt]

The following entry was added to the Case Docket:

04/08/2013    Order to Show Cause-Writs    04/28/2013         20 DYS;REPLY 10 DYS

Makes me feel like hiring a runner ;-)

So, somebody has 20 days to rebut the petition, and O'Mara has 10 days after the rebuttal appears, to reply to any argument raised there.  Who is called on to show cause?  That is the [first] question.

[Cylinder]

Who is called on to show cause?  That is the [first] question.

The court and the state would be the obvious answers with an uncertainly about Mr. Crump, right?

[FromBelow]

John Galt had this to say about the "Order to Show Cause":

Yeah, seems to me that Crump will be deposed. I thought that getting the DCA to review a discovery order before trial was the main hurdle.


FRAP 9.100

(h) Order to Show Cause. If the petition demonstrates a preliminary
basis for relief, a departure from the essential requirements of law that will cause
material injury for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal, or that review of
final administrative action would not provide an adequate remedy, the court may
issue an order directing the respondent to show cause, within the time set by the
court, why relief should not be granted. In prohibition proceedings such orders
shall stay further proceedings in the lower tribunal.

http://randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=862&p=30489#p30489

[cboldt]

John Galt had this to say about the "Order to Show Cause":

http://randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=862&p=30489#p30489

I think he's reading too much into the terminology.   All the DCA is saying is that the appeal merits a response from the other side.  It is not signaling that O'Mara's argument is strong.

Based on the Eustay or whatever case that MJW put up, I think O'Mara is the one blowing smoke, this time.  Bully for him, and maybe the DCA will side with him.  But Eustay says that defendant can have another trial, after the (alleged) error is cured.  IOW, Eusatay says that if the only loss to defendant is a guilty verdict, even if the trial court wrongly excludes evidence, then the time for appeal is after conviction, not before conviction.

[TalkLeft]

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.

The petition for writ of cert is in the DCA, not the trial court's criminal case.  You can start a new topic for Crump's filing of the letter in court matters if you'd like. But please keep this thread to the petition for writ of cert. I can't move individual comments to another thread. Thank you.

[MJW]

I think showing the order for a response and reply as a show-cause order may just be the standard way the court does things. The order for a response for the petition to recuse Lester was also listed as a show-cause order.

Sadly, I agree with cboldt on the chance of success. I'd say ten percent, at very best, unless the defense comes up with some argument I haven't seen yet in the case law. The only one I can think of that might distinguish this case is that GZ is being denied the ability to confront a witness, which implicates his 6th Amendment rights. That's sketchy, though, because Crump isn't a state witness against GZ, and I'm not sure denying access to possible impeachment evidence for W8 is enough to qualify as a 6th Amendment violation.

Added: Actually, there is the argument that denying access to Crump violates GZ's right of a compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his favor.

[DebFrmHell]

I think he's reading too much into the terminology.   All the DCA is saying is that the appeal merits a response from the other side.  It is not signaling that O'Mara's argument is strong.

Based on the Eustay or whatever case that MJW put up, I think O'Mara is the one blowing smoke, this time.  Bully for him, and maybe the DCA will side with him.  But Eustay says that defendant can have another trial, after the (alleged) error is cured.  IOW, Eusatay says that if the only loss to defendant is a guilty verdict, even if the trial court wrongly excludes evidence, then the time for appeal is after conviction, not before conviction.

The only loss is a guilty verdict?  Why not cut to the chase and allow the information so that there doesn't have to be another trial? 

Anything that is in the (future) deposition is not a guarantee that it will even make into the upcoming trial.  If the Prosecution drops W8 as a witness, then Ben Crump's deposition would be a moot point.

Could this just be Defense strategy to pressure the State to drop W8?

[cboldt]

The petition for writ of cert is in the DCA, not the trial court's criminal case.  You can start a new topic for Crump's filing of the letter in court matters if you'd like. But please keep this thread to the petition for writ of cert. I can't move individual comments to another thread. Thank you.

I know which filings are in which courts.  I have no hard feelings when my remarks are deleted, as this is your space, not mine.  I hope you have no hard feelings if I post a respectful remark in the wrong space.