Author Topic: May 23 Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Violations  (Read 2652 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
May 23 Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Violations
« on: May 23, 2013, 06:40:34 PM »
Motion for Sanctions against State Attorney's Office for Discovery Violations and Request for Judicial Inquiry Into Violations

On the state not turning over cell phone logs that it had, and forcing defendant to hire his own expert to extract the logs from the binary file copied from the phone memory.  The state was extracting information in January, and did not turn any of it over to defense, ever.  Bernardo told the court that the state had turned over every report it had on the subject, but this was not true.


Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: May 23 Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Violations
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2013, 06:44:00 PM »
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS AND REOUEST FOR JUDICIAL INOUIRY INTO VIOLATIONS
 
Quote
The defense has recently been made aware that the State has had access to certain discoverable information on the phone of Trayvon Martin, and that this information includes, specifically, relevant information for Mr. Zimmerman’s defense; relevant information for impeachment of State witnesses; and relevant information for potential rebuttal evidence from the State. Further, the defense is aware that the State had access to this information in January of 20l3.
and...
 
Quote
In the hearing regarding that motion, Mr. de la Rionda advised this Court that he had not received any further reports from anybody else regarding information resident on Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. This was false.

MR. WEST: We also include any other person that may have given them that information not limited just to Cellbrite

THE COURT: Have you received any information?

MR. DE LA RJONDA: No we have not talked directly to Cellbrite, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Or anybody else?

MR. DE LA RIONDA: No, Your Honor.
The State was fully aware at that time that there was information resident on Trayvon
Martin’s cell phone, including pictures of Trayvon Martin in possession of at least one
weapon, pictures of marijuana plants, pictures of Trayvon Martin smoking marijuana,
pictures of marijuana blunts, and texts discussing, securing or purchasing firearms, and
bragging about being involved in fights, etc.

I'm glad to see O'Mara continue to assert Zimmerman's right to discovery (in Florida) and preserve the record of the state's machinations.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 23 Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Violations
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2013, 06:44:54 PM »
Jeralyn, if/when you see this, you can delete this thread.  A better version on the same topic was started just after this one was started.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 23 Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Violations
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2013, 06:45:47 PM »
Jeralyn, if/when you see this, you can delete this thread.  A better version on the same topic was started just after this one was started.

Heh - pick one or the other.  Cylinder put his most excellent blockquotes on this thread too.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: May 23 Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Violations
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2013, 06:46:25 PM »
Grrr...you were first - let's use this thread.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: May 23 Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Violations
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2013, 08:57:06 PM »
I'm gonna go deep here, but it seems to me that the first time the defense complained the court was happy to take the state's word without inquiry. The second time, the court made an inquiry, then took the state's word. Maybe this is the third strike (not to mix sports metaphors.)
 
ETA: I guess I should point out that the state asserted 1) that it didn't talk to Celebrite and 2) it didn't talk to "anyone else." Those assertions do not include "I found this out on my own."
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 09:00:19 PM by Cylinder »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 23 Motion for Sanctions for Discovery Violations
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2013, 09:33:41 PM »
I'm gonna go deep here, but it seems to me that the first time the defense complained the court was happy to take the state's word without inquiry. The second time, the court made an inquiry, then took the state's word. Maybe this is the third strike (not to mix sports metaphors.)
 
ETA: I guess I should point out that the state asserted 1) that it didn't talk to Celebrite and 2) it didn't talk to "anyone else." Those assertions do not include "I found this out on my own."

The first two motions for money sanctions are still alive, to be decided after trial.

This one has much stronger assertions by defense, and so will serve to clarify the court's rationale for finding a violation in the first place.  Since the defense has the evidence, and she's willing to entertain continuance if necessary to process the evidence, she's going to be able to conclude there is no prejudice to the defense.

With the cell phone reports, the issue isn't finding out on his own, it's possession of the reports that flow from the BIN file.  Bernardo might skate on false statements grounds, but that doesn't save his bacon on withholding of evidence.

O'Mara renewed his complaint about the hospitalization lie.  I wish he would have reminded the court that the state has still not stated WHEN it learned of the existence of W8's written statement.  Not relevant in the Zimmerman case, but it sure does go to the integrity of the prosecutor, and by golly, the court should care about that.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking