Author Topic: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae  (Read 5581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« on: July 24, 2013, 08:25:51 AM »

Detailed Case View has three items for 7/23.

Bond Discharged.

Motion to file Amicus Curiae Brief.

Amicus Curiae Brief.

Nothing on who filed the brief, or the subject.

Trial's over. What's to amicus about?

Nothing new at GZ Legal.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2013, 09:11:41 AM »
Detailed Case View has three items for 7/23.

Bond Discharged.

Motion to file Amicus Curiae Brief.

Amicus Curiae Brief.

Nothing on who filed the brief, or the subject.

Trial's over. What's to amicus about?

Nothing new at GZ Legal.

A few guesses what it could be related to.  There are a few loose ends.  It could be related to the length of time the juror names are ordered to be kept secret; or to having the Settlement Agreement unsealed/sealed (right now O'Mara holds the key to that); or it could be related to the hold on / unlawful seizure of evidence; or it could be related to sanctions against the prosecutor for Brady violations.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2013, 11:16:24 AM »
I am hoping for Brady violations.  Their pattern of releasing evidence just before they were getting legally called out on it was ridiculous.  The 12th that they dropped on the podium just before the hearing was one of those things that will stick in my mind for a good long time.

Offline Raoul

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2013, 01:42:17 PM »
5 min mark of this video O'Mara asked about amicus filings.
Done buy someone out of State (Ga) not esq after mane requesting new trial based on improper jury instruction. Frivolous.

Mark O'Mara pressor about family in overturned SUV that GZ helped July 24 2013... http://fb.me/1RMxmhynS

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2013, 06:20:28 PM »
I heard the reporter ask about someone filing a motion for new trial based on the prosecutor not doing a good job. O'Mara said he doesn't think the filer was an attorney because there was no Esq. after his name. He also said there's no foundation for it.

It will be thrown out. There is no vehicle through which the court can grant a new trial after an acquittal. It would violate double jeopardy, for one thing. It's a waste of time.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2013, 06:29:23 PM »
There is no vehicle through which the court can grant a new trial after an acquittal. It would violate double jeopardy, for one thing.

I thought this could happen in extreme circumstances, such as proof of jury tampering, which justify declaring a mistrial retroactively. The theory is that double jeopardy isn't violated if the defendant wasn't really in jeopardy.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2013, 09:12:39 PM »
If evidence of jury tampering by the defense came up after an acquittal, the remedy in federal court in Florida is to charge the defendants with that, not vacate the verdict. See the infamous case of Sal Magluta and Willie Falcon. More here. Here's the Government's brief after they were both charged and convicted of different crimes, including witness tampering. It contains the entire chronology of events. One absconded, was later caught and went to trial on the new charges, lost and got life. The other pleaded guilty to the new charges and got 20 years. The jurors were also charged and got prison terms.

Jeopardy attached when the jury was sworn in. There can be no after-verdict mistrial because the state didn't do a good job. And there is no standing in Zimmerman's case for a third party to challenge the state's performance at trial or vacate a verdict or declare a mistrial.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 11:56:33 PM by TalkLeft »

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2013, 06:31:15 PM »
The court has released the amicus curiae brief asking the court to retry Zimmerman.

Quote
WHEREFOR and in addition to a new trial, I recommend that the prosecution team be disqualified and Gov. Scott allow [the] Martin family to chose its replacement

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2013, 07:32:34 PM »
Apparently Cleve Molette knows a thing or to about being the aggressor: LINK.
An inmate with access to legal books or the internet? LINK

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2013, 08:20:52 PM »
The court has released the amicus curiae brief asking the court to retry Zimmerman.

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

3.580 (p. 176)
Quote
When a verdict has been rendered against a defendant or the defendant has been found guilty by the court, the court on motion of the defendant, or on its own motion, may grant a new trial or arrest judgment.

Emphasis added.

The brief is frivolous. Why did the court accept it?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Post Trial, 7/23/13, Bond Discharged, Amicus Curiae
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2013, 09:16:58 PM »

I think the brief is frivolous from the start because of improper citation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.580. But it's amusing to note what are, in my opinion, its other errors.

The brief ignores the word 'independent' in 'independent forcible felony' (pp. 1-2).

The trial court ruled there was not sufficient evidence for an aggressor instruction, after hearing argument from both parties. The brief cites no grounds for revisiting the question (p. 2).

The brief misreads Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(a)(2) [p. 178], by failing to read it in light of Rule 3.580 (p. 176). It ignores Rule 3.600(b)(7) [p. 178] (p. 2 of the brief).

 

Site Meter
click
tracking