Posted on 04/06/2013 8:27:40 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
O’Mara, on April 04, 2013, filed a Writ of Certiorari asking the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District to overturn Judge Nelson’s decision denying a deposition for Benjamin Crump. A writ of certiorari is simply the legal vehicle for asking a higher court to overturn the decision of a lower court.
This is an interesting step. Lawyers generally do not, while a case is in progress, do such things. They want to stay on the good side of the presiding judge, and few things anger most judges more than having their rulings appealed, particularly if those rulings actually are reversed.
O’Mara may have decided that he has nothing to lose by aggressively challenging Judge Nelson, which may also mean that he has come to the conclusion that she will not do justice in this case. If this is indeed O’Mara’s decision, I suspect he may be correct. If so, he must also expect to have a good chance of losing the case through a biased conduct of the trial on the judge’s part regardless of the evidence. Building a strong record for an eventual appeal is a wise course of action.
I’ll not go into exhaustive detail on the writ, as it is, in most respects, identical to the original motion for a deposition of Crump denied by Judge Nelson. O’Mara builds a careful, well supported, and compelling case. The major elements are:
(1) Crump has information essential to the defense that cannot be obtained in any way other than a deposition.
(1A) De la Rionda knows how Dee Dee came to the attention of Crump and the Prosecution, but refuses to tell the Defense, thus a deposition with Crump is required.
(1B) ABC News kept only a short clip (5 minutes) of the Crump interview, therefore, Crump is the only person who can reveal information about many aspects of that interview.
(2) Crump deceived the Court, the public, the prosecution and the defense in his affidavit, therefore he must be deposed in order for the truth to be known.
(3) Crump is not a party to the case, therefore cannot be opposing counsel.
(4) Crump has no work product or other privileged protection, and even if he did, he has affirmatively and voluntarily waived that privilege in several significant ways.
(5) It is Crump’s insertion of himself into this case, his deceptions and manipulations, that have made it necessary to depose him, therefore, he should not be protected from the consequences of his own actions, and indeed, state law allows his deposition.
(6) Failing to depose Crump will cause irreparable damage to Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial, damage that cannot be addressed by appeals after the trial.
O’Mara’s motion also reveals a number of facts not previously widely known:
(1) Crump’s interview of Dee Dee was apparently conducted by phone. The entire call lasted about 26 minutes, but the portion provided to the Defense was only about 14 minutes long.
(2) Judge Nelson prevented O’Mara from questioning Crump about relevant matters telling him “these are questions that can be asked at a deposition,” and “the Court’s going to make [Mr. Crump] a witness for the purpose of taking a deposition regarding this issue. So, you can take his depo.”
(3) The Crump recording also exposes potential collusion and/or deceptions on the part of Dee Dee and/or Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton (Trayvon Martin’s parents):
This part of the recording also suggests that Witness 8 spoke with Tracy Martin and/or Sybrina Fulton denied in their statements to the prosecution two weeks later.
(4) O’Mara provides a section of Crump’s coaching of Dee Dee, a matter about which he lied in his affidavit, though O’Mara merely says it “contradicts” Crump’s affidavit:
.................
(5) O’Mara explained that his March 13 deposition of Dee Dee was incomplete:
Counsel for Petitioner took a partial deposition of Witness 8 on March 13, 2013 which only led to more questions and confusion as to her interaction with Mr. Crump.
As I earlier noted, it does appear that O’Mara plans a follow up deposition with Dee Dee, which, considering what has been happening, is entirely logical, but must wait for the gathering of more information, particularly that of Crump.
Though 42 pages long, the motion is readable and easily understood by the legal layman, and I recommend it to readers.
The Trayvon Martin drama was an example of another election year get out the black vote campaign. They did it in 2000 and 2004, there is always some white racists lurking around during presidential election years. First, they tried to get the black population worked up with the fake burning of black churches in the south, then they used the William Byrd murder to hang around George W. Bush neck because Texas does not have a hate crime law, never mind that it does have a death penalty which the murderers of William Byrd got.
This is ... law? To me, it's chicanery for Nelson to gloss this over.
The way to get this to go away is get a a large Hispanic crowd before the court house protesting the discrimination and unfair treatment of an Hispanic man. The Democrats cannot afford to have a full scale war between the blacks and Hispanics so something would quietly be worked out behind closed doors, besides the Trayvon case was a set up to get the black voters angry so that they would turn out in large numbers to reelect Obama—politics, politics, politics.
Florida has a statutory provision that grants "immunity" to people who are justified in the use of force. If that person is sued, civilly, the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's legals costs and all other costs and fees.
Usually, a criminal court judge finds immunity, but the same could happen in a civil court, even at the conclusion of the trial.
The burden of proof for finding immunity is "more likely than not" that defendant's story (in this case, Zimmerman) is correct. The opposition does not get to use conjecture, they must have positive evidence.
Well, I guess one is free to sue whenever they want. I would think if he were found not guilty they will go after him if he has or has the likely hood of getting any assets. Of course, he could also counter sue Da Travon’s estate but that is worth nothing. Zimmerman would have no actionable reason to go after the Martin’s unless for defamation but my sense is that would be a long shot. In essence, the Martin’s won the lotto, Zimmerman paid for the ticket. Hopefully Crump gets sued and loses his law license to boot, now, that would be justice. And icing on the cake would be in the prosecutor gets removed from office.
Good call.
I guess it all depends on the make up of the jury. If the civil lawsuit jury had a mix of white and Hispanic and other jurors, I think they would judge in Zimmerman’s favor of course there are always some idiots who would judge for the sympathy factor.
Thank you, very informative.
Do you know the standards in florida civil juries? Is it all voting one way or is there a majority for civil or something similar??
Sorry, I have no idea.
If the details of a sealed civil settlement become public then the Plaintiff’s ability to receive his damage award can be impacted. (or so I’ve been told) This is not to say that the award won’t ‘leak’. It will. But it will happen in a time & place that won’t be definitively traceable to the Martin family or their legal representatives.
I just looked it up, it must be unanimous amongst the jury size of 6.
That’s good, I don’t think they will find a jury that would 100% support the Martins.
Pam Bondi and Crump are friends, she was involved in the boot camp case. The reason Judge Nelson denied Crump’s deposition was simply because the powers that be told her to.
Assuming that the criminal trials that occur will feature juries with at least one white person and at least one black one it will be hung jury after hung jury.The civil trial that follows (regardless of the outcome of criminal trials) will surely result in an award of tens of millions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.