Short Morning Session - 6/21/13

[MJW]

I don't think "the witness is going to be out of state" without more cuts it as justification for a deposition to perpetuate testimony. In Knox v. State, 98 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) the court reversed when the trial court allowed a deposition to perpetuate testimony from an out-of-state witness who claimed traveling to Florida would be an economic hardship.

[MJW]

The state's motion is now on the court website. The witness's name is Gordon Pleasance.

[who007]

What else might he testify to?

I'm guessing the classes he taught GZ in, re: Criminal Justice, perhaps his knowledge of SYG, etc...

The name is  "Gordon Pleasants"

Seminole State College of Florida Professor

CJE 2566 Teaches Introduction to Domestic Violence, Stalking.../ Intro to Law.

https://www.myedu.com/Seminole-State-Seminole-State-College-of-Florida/Pleasants-Gordon/professor/4397126/

[MJW]

The name is  "Gordon Pleasants"

The state can't even get his name right.

[TalkLeft]

see my post here

He wrote an oped saying the case was political

Over the past decades we have seen hundreds of convicted persons, including those on death row, being freed based on newly discovered evidence or by misconduct by the police and/or prosecution. Part of the reason for this is the “win at all costs” attitude our judicial system has become. It isn’t always about the truth, as it is supposed to be, but in the politics (as in the Zimmerman case), the reputation and glory of getting a conviction or acquittal, and many times the honest quest to represent the victim and convict the person everyone “knows” is guilty of the crime he or she is accused of committing. (my emphasis.)

[MJW]

Another comment made by Pleasants, which more or less supports GZ or at least GZ's right to be presumed innocent:

It seems as though all we are hearing from uninformed citizens and commissionsers is as follows:

We are angry! We want justice! We wanted Chief Lee and the Sanford Police Department to arrest and convict George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin! However, Chief Lee, who himself felt the incident was morally reprehensible, failed to do what we wanted. Therefore, the Sanford City Commission made a majority vote of “no confidence” in Chief Lee which resulted in him temporarily stepping aside.

Chief Lee did not listen to our emotions. He refused to make an arrest when the family, citizens, commissioners and press demanded it. Why do we have a chief of police if he isn’t going to perform as we dictate? The answer is easy. Chief Lee is honest and morally sound. The Chief of Police is supposed to ensure the rights of the citizens are protected during criminal investigations. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that includes the suspect in this case. Chief Lee has an obligation to ensure a thorough investigation is conducted, ensure the rights of the suspect are not violated and to present the case to the State Attorney’s Office for determining prosecution; not determine guilt as many of have already done without a trial. Chief Lee has been the only person in Sanford who has stood up for the rights we cherish. The only problem is we tend to only want these rights to apply to “us” and not those we “think” are guilty.

Gordon Pleasants

Retired Casselberry Police Lieutenant and current Professor of Criminal Justice

[MJW]

Did the defense oppose taking a deposition to perpetuate testimony?

[cboldt]

Did the defense oppose taking a deposition to perpetuate testimony?

I don't think so.  O'Mara complained about not having enough time to do depo, investigate, then have the deposition to perpetuate; and he did raise a point that part of his deposition was to discern the justification the witness would state for being unavailable (that gap you identified).  But from my recollection, he didn't assert a formal objection.

[who007]

Another comment made by Pleasants, which more or less supports GZ or at least GZ's right to be presumed innocent:

I just saw that. He clearly supported Bill Lee and the SPD.

Curious that he also signed this petition:


Repeal Florida’s reckless “shoot first” law that shields Trayvon’s killer

    Gordon Pleasants signed the petition
    about 1 year ago

Repeal Florida’s reckless “shoot first” law that shields Trayvon’s killer


http://www.change.org/users/11552699

[cboldt]

Repeal Florida’s reckless “shoot first” law that shields Trayvon’s killer

    Gordon Pleasants signed the petition

I don't think the state wants to argue against the law.  That petition is pretty whacked out, too.

By sharp contrast, many “shoot first” laws permit the use of deadly force for self-defense in public places and shift the burden to prosecutors to show that the use of force was unreasonable.

As far as I know, Ohio is the odd duck when it comes to self defense, and requires defendant to obtain a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail on self defense.  Every other state has, for a long time, had the burden on the prosecution to show the use of force in self defense was not justified.

This guy has signed on to and supported some petitions that are at odds with one another.  Not that it has any relevance at all for this case, just an observation about the professor.

[MJW]

I don't think so.

Thanks. The various things I read were confusing on that point because they didn't clearly distinguish between the discovery deposition and the deposition to perpetuate testimony.

[MJW]

I just saw that. He clearly supported Bill Lee and the SPD.

Curious that he also signed this petition:

One of those things that make to go "hmm..."

[nomatter_nevermind]

But from my recollection, he didn't assert a formal objection.

I thought he was asking Nelson to delay ruling on the motion until he had done a discovery deposition.

[nomatter_nevermind]

The state can't even get his name right.

He's not the first.

The name of Tara Malphurs was spelled 'Malphrus' on a Notice of Deposition. That spelling is all over the internet now.

[cboldt]

I thought he was asking Nelson to delay ruling on the motion until he had done a discovery deposition.

I agree.  He didn't claim to have a basis, other than time, to object to the motion.  He thought he might learn a reason to object during a discovery deposition.