Author Topic: May 28 Court Hearing  (Read 18443 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2013, 07:39:59 AM »
MOM just mentioned she's not well informed--he said she's even said it.

I think that is just an introduction to saying something in open court.  Nelson says she doesn't see how it (evidence she is aware of) is possibly relevant or admissible under the rules of evidence; O'Mara opens his argument by describing the evidence, then moving on to argue how he would use it in defense.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2013, 07:44:56 AM »
Next up is admissibility of toxicology.  Nelson grants the motion as far as opening statements, and will reserve ruling on admissibility during the trial.  She reserves allowing it until she hears from an expert witness as to the timing of ingestion and level of impairment consistent with the toxicology report.

Clickorlando dumps me again.

Offline AghastInFL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2013, 07:47:04 AM »
I have had a good complete no loss feed HERE

Offline IgnatiusJDonnelly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2013, 07:50:28 AM »
Yes. Yes he did.


Where did it come from?

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2013, 07:51:48 AM »

Where did it come from?

Thin air I guess. Must have been one of the redacted things.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2013, 08:04:51 AM »
Next up is anonymous jury.  O'Mara's concern is that the jury will be at risk due to community pressures, and will not be willing to acquit.  O'Mara says Zimmerman is entitled to an anonymous jury so he will get a fair trial.  O'Mara says that a convicting jury might be at similar risk (I call baloney).

O'Mara brings up sequestration, and he is asking for the venire to be housed at state expense, 500 people!  I didn't expect that, but may as well ask for more, and see what the court grants.  O'Mara says this is about a fair trial, and if the public perceives this as an important civil rights case that is not decided fairly, the consequences redound to the court.

Bernardo on anonymous jury.  He doesn't know how to sequester 500 people through jury selection.  As to anonymity, he is not sure what the defense is asking for - is it asking for media exclusion?  Media counsel argues that voir dire is an open process, and the media can't be excluded.  Outer limits of Fl law allows the clerk to withhold names of prospective jurors from the public.  He knows of no Fl precedent for anonymous jury.  Another press counsel notes that Fl law does not allow juror secrecy, although it does allow for delayed release, see Anthony trial.

Nelson says that voir dire will proceed on juror number, not name.  No photos or moving pictures of prospective jurors.  No sequestration of the venire.  The press wants the right to photo jurors outside the courtroom.  O'Mara is concerned that limiting the prohibition to courtroom only will not.

Next up, visit the scene.  Nelson jabs at O'Mara, "isn't this a little disingenuous, given your motion for juror anonymity?"

Clickorlando dumps me during O'Mara's argument as to the value of going to the scene.  I'm going to switch to a different stream.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2013, 08:13:59 AM »
So Owen has become an A witness.  Apparently this is the first official notice of that.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2013, 08:14:40 AM »
please stay on topic of today's hearing. Comments about other legal systems deleted.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2013, 08:23:03 AM »
Switched to WESH, missed whatever was between my last post and West's motion for fees to expert.  At Nelson's suggestion that the fee has to cover travel, West would accommodate travel, either by going to NJ, or by doing deposition by video.

I think this motion wasn't well brought.  Nelson says the defense ought to talk with Owen about getting a reduced rate for less than a day.  Nelson doesn't know what the usual range of fees is in NJ.  She says the defense should make a $3,300 deposit, and then be reimbursed for hours not used.  She won't set an hourly rate.  There is no authority, says Nelson, that the court has any duty to establish a rate for a private litigant.

Press back up on juror anonymity.  Citing case law setting standard - has to be a finding that the effect of publicly on the juror must be qualitatively different on the person's being photographed.  Nelson says she is going to reserve ruling.  O'Mara wants to know if the court is ready to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the qualitative effect standard.  She sets a hearing for this Friday at 1:30 so she has time to read the precedents.

Next up are the mutual discovery motions.  Richardson hearing time.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2013, 08:25:07 AM »
Bernie has some brass ones, complaining about the defense being less than timely with discovery.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2013, 08:26:09 AM »
West mentioned the price of several experts in NJ, all of whom had PhDs or other advanced certification Owen doesn't have.

Prices are around $100/hr.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2013, 08:26:59 AM »
State's motion first.  Looking for a court order.  Bernardo compliments the defense on its recent disclosures, but reiterates his remark about a map claimed to have been drawn by a witness.  Bernardo says either the witness lied, or is mistaken.

Nelson reminds the parties about the obligation of 3.220 to disclose.  Nelson grants the state's order for court ordered disclosure.  Next up is the defense motion for sanctions.  This is on the phone data.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2013, 08:37:17 AM »
Frye Hearing on June 6 and June 7.  Video witnesses are OK.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2013, 08:38:03 AM »
Ex state attorney testifying as a witness, that a client of his informed him that he (the client) had prepared a report for the state on the Cellbrite.  He contacted O'Mara and asked if O'Mara had received 3 photos, a gun, an underage female, and drugs, as well as deleted text messages.  O'Mara asks the witness when this report was given to the state, Bernardo objects as hearsay.  Nelson grants the objection.  Client is Ben Criboss, IT director for the state attorney's office.

Based on Bernardo's objections, O'Mara moves to suspend the hearing, and a court ordered subpoena to Criboss.  Nelson continues the hearing to Friday.

Bernardo has a conflict on Friday.  His daughter is getting married.  June 6 and 7 is set aside for the Frye hearing.  She wonders if that is a good time to continue on the defendants motion for sanctions.  She will sign a subpoena for Criboss.

Court will allow experts to appear via video, at the Frye hearing.

Motion for gag order is next.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: May 28 Court Hearing
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2013, 08:48:08 AM »
Bernardo arguing for his gag order.  He stresses credibility of a witness has been discussed by defense.  He says that now there is an attempt to prejudice the jury.  O'Mara responds to the allegation that his team disclosed sequestration.  Nelson is pissed at West for telling the press that the jury would be sequestered, 1) because she didn't rule that and 2) she specifically said that nothing said in chambers was to be discussed outside.

O'Mara points out that the Gentile case comes after the authorities cited by the state, as to what attorneys are allowed to say/discuss outside of the court context.

Nelson denies motion for gag order.  She'll allow the state and the press to reply.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking