Author Topic: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery  (Read 18537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2013, 09:36:28 AM »
Bernie seems angry that the defense has such a long witness list, and it came up so late.

West says that the state's slow walking of its discovery has caused the defense to slow build its witness list.  West points out that many of the witnesses on the defense list are state witnesses.

Bernie wants to know why the defense took so long to disclose the state witnesses.  Hahahah.  West says the defense listed state witnesses as a precaution, in case the state didn't call them, and the defense found their testimony useful.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2013, 09:42:32 AM »
They have the ping logs.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2013, 09:43:42 AM »
West: "If you think the discovery violation rises to that level, then I think you should make a phone call."  LOL.  West made plenty of phone calls to the state, and the state stonewalled.  Did the state take any affirmative action to obtain discovery that it thought defense was withholding?

O'Mara on redirect.  Obtains list of evidence obtained by FDLE.  Includes a cell tower map of Martin's travels between 7-11 and RVC on the evening of February 26 ... frigging stream lapsed right in the middle of West's recapitulation of the cell-tower map.  Anyway, sounds like a ping-log from cell towers.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2013, 09:47:15 AM »
We learn that ping analysis determined that Trayvon wandered from the direct route from 711 to RATL on his way back.  So far, nothing about the more important GPS data.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2013, 09:51:28 AM »
Is there a violation? Is the defense prejudiced by the violation (has to be procedural prejudice, not substantive prejudice)?

O'Mara says the prejudice is to be unprepared for trial.  Nelson says, "you are asking for money."  Nelson cites a case as procedural prejudice, misidentification of a substantive fact at issue in the case.

O'Mara asks Nelson if the discovery issue has to be a surprise at trial in order to constitute a prejudice to the defense.  Nelson doesn't respond to that question, but it is a good question.  Nelson was inclined to find no prejudice, therefore no sanction.  Nelson said every complaint that O'Mara raised has been remedied by later discovery.  Now Nelson wants to limit the discussion to issues raised in the motion for sanctions.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #50 on: April 30, 2013, 10:02:04 AM »
O'Mara brings it back to the specific complaint, timing of learning Witness 8 was not hospitalized.  De la Rionda knew in August, but did not disclose until March.  What O'Mara is asking for is money spent chasing Witness 8's hospitalization.  O'Mara can cite the rules that support finding a sanction.

Nelson says there must be procedural prejudice in order to assign sanctions to counsel.  O'Mara says if he has to file motions in order to get what he should get, that is procedural prejudice based on workload to get to the information, and delay in being ready for trial.  O'Mara argues that his diligence should not be used against him.

De la Rionda suggests that the state didn't know about the absence of hospitalization (for sure) until calling Witness 8 the day before the motion hearing.

Nelson does not find a discovery violation.  O'Mara loses.  Further, no finding of prejudice to defendant.  Court reserves judgment as to monetary damages, hearing to be held post-trial.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2013, 10:02:50 AM »
I am getting audio crosstalk from some other transmission on the right channel.  Anybody else having this problem.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #52 on: April 30, 2013, 10:03:52 AM »
I am getting audio crosstalk from some other transmission on the right channel.  Anybody else having this problem.

Affirmative.

Just now I lost the feed completely.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #53 on: April 30, 2013, 10:06:54 AM »
Alternate feed.

They're discussing scheduling. Sounds like wrapping up.


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #54 on: April 30, 2013, 10:09:54 AM »
O'Mara says he will be filing an issue that will take an extended time.  Nelson does not want to get into the issues before a motion is filed.  She is offering Saturday hearing time, as late as May 28.  O'Mara seems to think this issue is one that needs to be filed, at least, by May 10.  Nelson agrees.

Counsel and Court will meet after lunch to discuss jury selection stuff.  West has an order to view and photograph evidence, the state has no objection.  Nelson signs the order.  The court is in recess.

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #55 on: April 30, 2013, 10:49:47 AM »
Thanks for the recap, guys. I wasn't able to watch it myself, but maybe I can catch it later on YouTube.

Witness 8 said she composed a letter with assistance from a friend, intending to give it to Sybrina.  The defense has identified a witness who is the person who assisted in writing the letter.  That witness is "[REDACTED]."  De la Rionda objects to the name being disclosed, the court agrees to redact it (real courts notice "cat out of the bag" and refuse to redact what has been made public even inadvertently).
Seriously? It took TWO people working together to write THAT note?

That statement and the other comment about the redacted version of a W8 interview having a missing "admission" really need some followup-- but I guess it should be on the W8 thread, rather than here.

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #56 on: April 30, 2013, 11:15:11 AM »
Actually, I guess it's appropriate to ask for clarification about one point on this thread, since it directly pertains to what was being said in the hearing:

West testified that W-8 said Jackson was present at BDLR interview. She said Sybrina was crying.
Jackson being Natalie Jackson?
So I assume. I only heard 'Jackson'.

Earlier, West testified that when they got an unredacted CD of the interview, they found several minutes were missing from the redacted one.
With the redacted portions including the admission.

Okay, this sounds like the interview in question is the one made 4/2/12 by BDLR, which had a small amount of material redacted before public release to protect W8's identity.

But then:

Bernie is arguing that the original CD of Crump's recording was "the same" as the digital material taken directly from Crump's recorder.  De la Rionda is playing semantic games.  Anyway, West says the CD from the state had all the audio run together, masking the length of delays, etc.

Bernie is trying to argue that the substance in both versions was the same.  West notes that the stop/start action is relevant because it conceals in-between.  West makes the better argument, that he could understand the direct digital, but could not understand the CD.  De la Rionda concludes by saying (intelligible vs. unintelligible) is no difference.

So now I'm confused, not having seen the actual hearing.

Were these separate discussions of BDLR's 4/2/12 interview and Crump's interview?

Or was it only Crump's interview being discussed throughout, even earlier about "the admission" being redacted?

And regardless of which interview-- what "admission" was included in the redacted portions? Did they ever say or imply what it was, or did they just state that there was an admission redacted?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #57 on: April 30, 2013, 11:22:22 AM »
Were these separate discussions of BDLR's 4/2/12 interview and Crump's interview?

Yes.

Quote
And regardless of which interview-- what "admission" was included in the redacted portions? Did they ever say or imply what it was, or did they just state that there was an admission redacted?

I didn't hear anything about an admission.

It wasn't until the unrecorded August interview that W-8 admitted to lying about the hospital visit.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #58 on: April 30, 2013, 12:14:47 PM »
After the hearing presser.  Crump, Parks and Jackson in fine fettle.  I agree with O'Mara that Jackson's claim was off the wall.  On the other hand, I don't believe O'Mara's reasons for not having a pre-trial immunity hearing.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Apr. 30 Hearing on Sanctions, Immunity, HOA Settlement and Discovery
« Reply #59 on: April 30, 2013, 12:29:04 PM »
After the hearing presser.  Crump, Parks and Jackson in fine fettle.  I agree with O'Mara that Jackson's claim was off the wall.  On the other hand, I don't believe O'Mara's reasons for not having a pre-trial immunity hearing.

Just for the record, O'Mara indicated that there will NOT be a motion for immunity before the jury is charged.  And, from the rationale he gave, there would not be a motion to dismiss for want of sufficient evidence.  O'Mara asserted that Zimmerman wants this case decided by a jury, not by a judge.  Part of the rationale is credibility, implying that the judge's credibility is in the toilet, compared with the credibility of a jury.  I don't mean that to disparage the judge, but rather as a remark about public attitude following an acquittal.  O'Mara said that he would not take this approach in a typical case, but instead that this case has taken on a huge public dimension, and he is playing to that.

Now, if he's playing to a huge public dimension, you can bet that Nelson is too.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking