Author Topic: June 6th Hearing  (Read 11598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2013, 10:21:16 AM »
Zimmerman is clearly no Kruidbos.  I can't conceive the O'Mara would allow his client to undergo this sort of thing.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2013, 10:26:07 AM »
Bernardo now tries to get Kruidbos to say that the purpose of Kruidbos work was to facilitate SAO "cataloging" work.  Kruidbos says that the filter and search functions were only part of what he'd done.

Bernardo says that O'Mara was releasing things to the public.  Bernardo is saying that O'Mara had all the information.  O'Mara says that "he (Bernardo) just makes it up."  Bernardo modifies this to O'Mara having some but not all information.  I think this is Bernardo trying to conflate the BIN file and the contents of a SIM card.

Kruidbos clarifies somewhat, that this information was on .DB files  Was able to extract without Kruidbos or FDLE.  Bernardo succeeds in conflating these again.  A third party application generated the .DB file.

Bernardo needs a moment to review his notes.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2013, 10:37:16 AM »
So O'Mara explains that he had info on the gun sale from a Feb. 2013 report from the FDLE.  However other texts and photos were only in the bin and not possessed by the defense until later.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2013, 10:41:26 AM »
Bernardo next goes off on breach of confidentiality.  Objection from White on relevance.

Redirect by O'Mara.  Kruidbos asked if he knew that the state had a phone report in March 2012, but did not turn it over to defense until September 2012?  No.  Defense got nothing from the phone until after an August evidence review where they saw the phone was working.

If Kruidbos suspicion was incorrect, this issue would resolve simply.

O'Mara asks whether Bernardo reached out to Kruidbos?  No.  Turn of the tables.  If Kruidbos is to be dinged for not communicating, so should the boss be dinged.

O'Mara clears up the April 25 deposition question.  The texts relating to the gun appeared in February production by the state.  O'Mara now asks Kruidbos to describe the advice O'Mara gave Kruidbos as to testimony.  None.

Was Kruidbos questioned about any financial information, in particular the retirement funding.  That had been "leaked," or a public records request right at the time the funding increase.  Corey didn't think Kruidbos had been a source of a leak.  Kruidbos prepared an e-mail to O'Steen and Bernardo about the difference between the report sent to defense and the report Cellebrite prepared by Kruidbos.  Subject does not identify the case name, due to SAO policy to avoid making traceable information in e-mail.  Sidebar.   Hahahahah.  Nelson does not want sunshine.

O'Mara allowed to ask if the e-mail was sent. Yes, January 23rd.  So, O'Steen and Bernardo knew the reports were different.  Witness is excused.  Break for lunch.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #34 on: June 06, 2013, 10:49:58 AM »
Only the Frye hearing left on the agenda? 

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #35 on: June 06, 2013, 12:00:55 PM »
West says defense still hasn't received Kruidbos's big report of the extracted data from Martin's phone

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #36 on: June 06, 2013, 12:08:14 PM »
O'Mara calls co-counsel West to the witness stand.  Going through the timeline of defense discovery.

August, 2012 - see the phone, it works, assume they can get stuff from SIM card.
Sept 26, FDLE provides the report that it had prepared.  This is the first time this report is seen.
Defense knew or was told that phone internal memory was locked out.  Learned in November, December timeframe that the phone had been shipped to Santa Barbarba Sheriff office, where phone was unlocked.  Late December, early January got a disk represented as a data file, but it wasn't of any value.  The state and FDLE advised that data recover was a practical impossibility.  Cellebrite came into the picture.

West says that defense was told it couldn't participate (not sure if this comes from Cellebrite or the SAO), so no sense in going just to stand around and watch.  Report is January 14 or thereabouts.  West describes history of information receipt.

Sept 2012 - short report from FDLE on SIM card
Dec 2012 - short report from SB Sheriff on "swipe code" unlocking
Jan 2013 - report from FDLE, but did not contain the source/BIN file
Feb 22, 2013 - 2nd report from FDLE, including data/source/BIN file

Brenton directed West to Bernardo, for all discovery issues.

Difference between January and February reports was all in the nature of formatting, titleblock, according to Brenton.  Brenton was deposed.

Defense did make an unavailing effort to view source data.

West was looking for text messages based on Witness 8's representation that some of her text messages were missing.  West mentioned to O'Mara that some information may be missing from state production.  So, April 25 Motion for specific discovery.

How would having the complete phone reports in January have assisted us?  Hard to estimate how much time that would have saved us, or how much prejudice?  Defense still doesn't have the reports generated by Kruidbos and provided to Bernardo.  Defense spent a lot of time and money trying to obtain information from the source file.  This guy is a licensed Cellebrite analyst, but not using same version of software.  Maybe government agencies get more "access" than private purchasers of the software.  West estimates 50-100 hours, over a long interval, by many different people.

Defense received additional information on June 4.  More than 1000 pages.  Certain bookmark/tabs to facilitate cross referencing between reports.  More than 4000 images.  West says that this production has not been reviewed.

O'Mara says he will be filing another motion to continue.  Defense still doesn't have a handle on what information was contained on the phone, nevermind follow-up investigation, such as locating and interviewing witnesses, etc.

Cross exam by Bernardo.  Who was the consultant.  Connor.  When was he listed as a witness?  Bernardo asks if defense has Connor's report.  West says that the reciprocal discovery includes reports prepared by Connor, probably in the last two or three weeks.  Bernardo sounds as though he is going to argue that this is late production.  What a bizarre burden shift - nonsense.  The state had the information in the first place.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2013, 12:17:08 PM »
uh oh. west is pissed.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2013, 12:22:09 PM »
BDLR is arguing like a 5 year old!

I can't believe BDLR is trying to justify his withholding evidence by trying to claim the defense did the same thing after the fact. If the state truly believed there was any withholding THEY WOULD/SHOULD HAVE FILED FORMALLY!

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2013, 12:23:25 PM »
Anybody think Bernie's, "The defense does it too." is working?

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2013, 12:24:27 PM »
I was pleased to see West finally tell Bernardo that the defense has a different burden wrt discovery.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2013, 12:25:57 PM »
Anybody think Bernie's, "The defense does it too." is working?

In a perfect world it wouldn't. In the world where Nelson is looking for any sort of flimsy reason to grasp on to--it's working fine.

Of course, in Nelson's world they didn't even need to have the hearing.


Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #42 on: June 06, 2013, 12:29:28 PM »
Nelson is a  [redacted].


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #43 on: June 06, 2013, 12:30:16 PM »
Bernardo is trying to make all digital files equivalent.  The 2.3Gb phone data file being the same as a pdf of 10 pages of text.  Bernardo insinuating that if information is produced on a CD, then it isn't human readable.

Bernardo's bottom line is "the evidence is in there," referring to the source file.  Apparently, depending on the skill of the person and capability of the software, more or less of the data in the source file is visible.  Now Bernardo is insinuating that the failure of defense expert Connor to extract information isn't the state's problem.  Bernardo says "you considered this your work product, right?"  West says, "No, we produced it to you."  Now he says it took 6 months to disclose, and maybe the state should be seeking sanctions.

West was laughing, then, sort of called on it, said this situation wasn't funny.  "We caught you hiding information," says West, "and confronted you with that."  Pretty heated.

Brenton will be called to present the state's defense to this issue.  Again with the threat of "we ought to file for sanctions too."  sh*t or get off the pot Bernardo.

Bernardo has no further questions.  Redirect by O'Mara.  How did defense get report from FDLE?  West doesn't recall, but thinks it came from SAO in electronic format the day of a hearing.  This was about a month after Bernardo told Kruidbos that FDLE would prepare a report for defense.  O'Mara asks if Bretton has prepared any report.  West says the February version, and the recent June 4 submission.

How long did Mr. Connor work on extraction?  West doesn't know, but is confident it is in excess of 25 hours.

O'Mara wants to call Bernardo to the stand.

Nelson now complaining that this has gone on too long (it's her fault for letting irrelevant testimony), and all this motion is about is money - this hearing is concluded.  O'Mara says this is not just money damages.  If Bernardo in fact lied, it is criminal contempt.  Nelson says that can happen after trial too.  It's not an issue of witness or evidence exclusion.  She concludes the sanctions portion of the hearing sua sponte.  She's pissed!!

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 6th Hearing
« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2013, 12:31:31 PM »
In a perfect world it wouldn't. In the world where Nelson is looking for any sort of flimsy reason to grasp on to--it's working fine.

Of course, in Nelson's world they didn't even need to have the hearing.

Or she can just put a stop to this matter and push it off until after the trial.

They had plenty of time to go after George and Shellie for a matter that was a more likely candidate for post trial but not for the state prosecutor committing outright fraud?!?!?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking