Author Topic: Second, Amended Witness List Filed  (Read 4854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« on: April 18, 2013, 05:34:36 PM »
Here.
I am still wondering why Stephen Martin Jr. (Boobie) is not explicitly on the list but Sr. is.   

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2013, 06:39:05 PM »
The SPD list more than doubled.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2013, 03:48:14 PM »
Here.
I am still wondering why Stephen Martin Jr. (Boobie) is not explicitly on the list but Sr. is.

Stephen Martin Jr. is W25 (GZW25 on defense list).

Offline DiwataMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2013, 04:31:57 PM »
Here.
I am still wondering why Stephen Martin Jr. (Boobie) is not explicitly on the list but Sr. is.

I wonder that as well. I've forgotten now Lester's order regarding witness names, I'm sure Jeralyn can correct me but I thought at least the spirit of it was that anyone who has not been in the media should be redacted. Stephen, Trayvon's cousin, has been in the media so I see no need to redact his name really. I think anyone who has put themselves in the media, W8, W6 and W18 are other examples, shouldn't expect to have their names redacted. And really, the only threat is coming from one side regardless of how they attempt to flip the script on that one so W8 or Stephen have nothing to worry about, on the other hand I've seen death threats against even the likes of Mark Osterman of all people from the other side. It was George and his entire family that have had to run and hide, lives completely disrupted while the other side gets to travel the world telling their tales without fear of repercussion.

Witness List
http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/witness-list-2/
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 04:38:45 PM by DiwataMan »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2013, 06:18:00 PM »
Stephen Martin Jr. is W25 (GZW25 on defense list).

How do you know?


Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2013, 06:52:27 PM »
How do you know?

In the 2nd discovery supplement, Gilbreadth is listed as interviewing three redacted witnesses: W18, W19, and W25. The 284 page discovery PDF contains three redacted-witness interviews by Gilbreadth: W18 (page 16),  W19 (page 21), and the cousin (page 9).
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 06:54:10 PM by MJW »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2013, 06:54:04 PM »
ORDER ON THE STATE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND THE MEDIA INTERVENERS' MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AND TO OPPOSE THE CLOSURE OF JUDICIAL RECORDS HEARD ON JUNE 1, 2012 (6/12/12)

PP. 3-4
Quote
The media interveners may provide to the parties the name of any person who has voluntarily appeared or given a statement in a media outlet . . . The State shall, within fifteen days, provide the person's full identity.

Someone has been giving a break to witnesses who have given statements without revealing their identities. It could be the media. I haven't heard any complaints from that quarter.

Stephen isn't in that category. He gave an interview to Esquire, and they used his name. Strictly speaking the article doesn't state his last name, but it identifies his father as a 'Martin brother', one of three.

Maybe he is getting the break because of that, or because he has only given an interview for a print article, and hasn't shown his face.
   

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2013, 07:14:00 PM »
ORDER ON THE STATE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND THE MEDIA INTERVENERS' MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AND TO OPPOSE THE CLOSURE OF JUDICIAL RECORDS HEARD ON JUNE 1, 2012 (6/12/12)

PP. 3-4
Someone has been giving a break to witnesses who have given statements without revealing their identities. It could be the media. I haven't heard any complaints from that quarter.

Stephen isn't in that category. He gave an interview to Esquire, and they used his name. Strictly speaking the article doesn't state his last name, but it identifies his father as a 'Martin brother', one of three.

Maybe he is getting the break because of that, or because he has only given an interview for a print article, and hasn't shown his face.
 

Judge Lester's witness-confidentiality ruling is unclear. He seems to hold that any witness who voluntarily appears relinquishes his or her right to remain anonymous (footnote 1); however, he doesn't seem to take into account witnesses who appear without revealing their names. The order provides that the media "may" provide the names of witnesses they've interviewed. So if the witness doesn't give a name, or if the particular media outlet who interviews a witness wants to keep the identity secret, the name won't be revealed.


Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2013, 07:33:12 PM »
Judge Lester's witness-confidentiality ruling is unclear.

I don't agree that it's unclear. A witness who has 'given a statement in a media outlet' isn't protected. There's nothing about whether the statement includes the witness's identity.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2013, 07:34:51 PM »
Judge Lester's witness-confidentiality ruling is unclear. He seems to hold that any witness who voluntarily appears relinquishes his or her right to remain anonymous (footnote 1); however, he doesn't seem to take into account witnesses who appear without revealing their names. The order provides that the media "may" provide the names of witnesses they've interviewed. So if the witness doesn't give a name, or if the particular media outlet who interviews a witness wants to keep the identity secret, the name won't be revealed.

It doesn't matter that it is unclear.  Judge Nelson has allowed his rulings to stand.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #10 on: April 19, 2013, 07:53:12 PM »
I don't agree that it's unclear. A witness who has 'given a statement in a media outlet' isn't protected. There's nothing about whether the statement includes the witness's identity.

The problem is, the only method the order provides for making the names known is for the media interveners to provide the name of the interviewed person:

Quote
The media interveners may provide the parties the name of any person who has voluntarily appeared or given a statement in a media outlet, including the time and date of the appearance or interview. The State shall, within fifteen days, provide the person's full identity as required by Fla. R Crim P. 3.220 and shall identify which statement in evidence was provided by the person.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2013, 08:02:20 PM »
The problem is, the only method the order provides for making the names known is for the media interveners to provide the name of the interviewed person:

Darn, you're right. I missed that Catch-22, right in front of my face.

ETA: We are still left wondering why cousin Stephen is still W-25.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 08:04:11 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2013, 08:27:14 PM »
ETA: We are still left wondering why cousin Stephen is still W-25.

I think it's more or less that no one has pursued the matter. There are other witnesses who are still identified by witness numbers even though they've been interviewed under their names, such as W4 (Cheryl Brown), W7 (Brandy Green), W10 (Chad), W14 (Austen McLendon), and W15 (Sierra McLendon).

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Second, Amended Witness List Filed
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2013, 09:34:58 PM »
I agree Stephen is witness 25 and he has appeared in media interviews and his identity does not require redaction.

I think the media has been very lax in pointing out which witnesses have appeared in the media so that they can be referred to by their real names. Several of those being referred to by number or letter fit within the court's exemption for those who have made public statements.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking