George Zimmerman judge denies 2nd request to question Crump

cfnews13 ^ | March 27, 2013 | Jeff Allen

[Uncle Chip]

A judge has denied a motion from the defense team for George Zimmerman to question Trayvon Martin's family attorney Benjamin Crump about the young woman believed to be Trayvon's girlfriend.

We’re told Judge Debra Nelson issued a written ruling denying Zimmerman’s defense attorneys’ motion for the judge to reconsider an earlier ruling. In that ruling earlier this month, the judge said the defense could not depose Crump because it is not necessary and would violate Crump’s attorney-client privilege with the Martin family.

The defense asked Nelson to reconsider, and allow them to question Crump under oath before the trial, based on what they say is new evidence. However, in this written ruling, Nelson is once again refusing to allow the defense to depose Crump.

[tennmountainman]

The fix appears to be still in.

[Uncle Chip]

The following ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 4, 2013 has been filed by the Court:

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/order_denying_reconsideration.pdf

[Uncle Chip]

The following ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 4, 2013 has been filed by the Court:

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/order_denying_reconsideration.pdf

[kevkrom]

Well, this has “grounds for appeal” written all over it, should Zimmerman be convicted.

[Uncle Chip]

Time to file another Motion to hold Ben Crump in contempt for filing a false affidavit with the court.

[fella]

Da Judge says that a kangaroo can't jump backwards.

[Navy Patriot]

George Zimmerman judge denies 2nd request to question Crump

[Red Badger]

would violate Crump’s attorney-client privilege with the Martin family.

SHE'S NOT A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY........

[Diogenesis]

Sounds like a KANGAROO COURT.

How Holder is that?

[Mr. K]

Crump became PART OF THE CASE when he broguth the ‘witness’ in and push that fraud

As such he needs to be removed from the case by the judge and held accountable and possibly dis-barred for his actions

[Uncle Chip]

Judge Nelson makes this decision in chambers without a hearing even though a hearing was scheduled for Tuesday April 2nd.

“Zimmerman’s defense said the court canceled a hearing Tuesday without consulting them first.

“There’s not another scheduled hearing in the case until April 30, and the defense said with only a little more than two months left until trial, they need to have a hearing before the 30th in order to address pending matters in the case.

“A court spokesperson said the judge has made it clear she is available whenever needed, and she will make time available if Zimmerman’s attorneys need it. “

Of course she was MIA on the 13th for 5 hours when the state stalled for 5 hours the deposition of the prosecution’s star witness.

[clintonh8r]

Exactly. Either this judge has an agenda or is just another idiot in black robes.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Is the judges ruling appealable under Florida law? Anybody know?

[IrishBrigade]

Judge Nelson makes this decision in chambers without a hearing even though a hearing was scheduled for Tuesday April 2nd.

...Judge Nelson’s actions to date are indeed quite, um, unusual...

[House Atreides]

“....Of course she was MIA on the 13th for 5 hours when the state stalled for 5 hours the deposition of the prosecution’s star witness.”
*****************************************************************
And her office canceled the Tuesday hearing. So much for the “..the judge has made it clear she is available whenever needed...” canard put forth by her office.

[Cboldt]

I don't think the action of making a decision without further hearing is unusual. She had all the argument and facts. What's "unusual" is that she did not address the arguments. Not at all. None of her remarks, oral or written, cover the issue or waiver of privilege; for example.

Scare quotes around "unusual" because I've read plenty of cases where the appellate court, and even the Supreme Court, dodge issues by misrepresenting precedent and/or ignoring the argument that is being made. In short, conclusory judgments.

That's the way the law works.

The only thing the courts are is risking is the legitimacy of the institution, and if you dare question that, you are a barbarian standing against society.

[Cboldt]

I think your question isn't simply appealable or not (the issue is appealable), I think your question is can O'Mara appeal this before the trial. He cannot appeal this before the trial. The losing side at trial can use any decision of law by Nelson as the basis for appeal.

Nelson is protecting the grievance industry here. There is no legal basis to deny the defense the right to ask Crump the questions it has in mind, all of which involve Witness 8, and all of which spring from Crump's public statements.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, this judge is as bad as the one before. GZ isn’t going to get an even break because he’s not black. As you put it, “The fix is in.”

[Uncle Chip]

Check out the photos at the link — they have Trayvon Martin’s 7-Eleven photo instead of the Hollister photo and others of the 12 year old cherub.