Posted on 04/04/2013 5:10:09 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
The following PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI has been filed with the Fifth District Court of Appeal ...
A civil lawyer with a vested interest in the outcome of the case should not beallowed to keep evidence from law enforcement; potentially influence significant witnesses; speak on national television about evidence he claims to exist and witnesses he has spoken with; accuse several law enforcement agencies of dishonesty; otherwise play a central role in the media persecution; and then gather evidence to further the prosecution of the Petitioner and, as a result, significantly threaten Mr. Zimmerman’s chance of having a fair trial, yet claim he is not subject to a deposition regarding non-privileged matters....
Preventing the Petitioner from taking Mr. Crump's deposition on matters that are not privileged creates irreparable harm in this criminal case. Mr. Crump is the only person who truly knows the circumstances surrounding how Witness 8 came to be involved in this case, what she has told him on and off the recorded portions of the interview Mr. Crump had with her, and what other involvement Mr. Crump has had with this material witness.....
It is now clear that the affidavit filed by Mr. Crump is not only incomplete, but it is also inaccurate in its description of the critical events of the interview.....
Out of the 25-minute clear recording ABC News took of the interview, ABC has only preserved the 5-minute clip referenced supra....
Mr. Crump should not be able to hide behind his own technical incompetence and now claim that he cannot be deposed on these very relevant issues; certainly not when his actions created the issues that now must be investigated......
In denying the Petitioner's discovery request to take the deposition of Mr. Crump, a witness who possesses relevant, non-privileged information about the most significant witness in this case, the trial court's order has departed from the essential requirements of the law regardless of the fact that Mr. Crump happens to be an attorney.
The Petitioner has already experienced material injury, in that subsequent depositions have been hindered and rendered incomplete.
Further, if this issue is not corrected before trial, the Petitioner will be exposed to irreparable harm, as there is no practical way to determine after judgment how the requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings - an issue that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal.
Docs here:
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/appendix.pdf
ABC had not obligation to retain is, so the destruction would be inadvertent, not intentional. The important thing is that the segment they still have, and recently released, conflicts with a number of Crump’s claims and raises some significant questions about witness 8.
The prosecution is trying to get Crump’s activity pinned down so it’s clear what he’s been up to. He, and the State are trying to hide it. If the role of a prosecutor really is to see justice done, the state’d be on board with the defendant in this effort. Even from a tactical standpoint, it’d make sense, because some of Crump’s claims got to the credibility of the potential law enforcement witnesses.
Wow...did Sundance from TCTH slap some sense into O’Mara?
Great move. That Blck Racist Ben Crump is a racist liar and needs to be depo’d.
Judge Nelson obviously is being bribed by someone to lynch George Zimmerman. Her rulings are absolute BS
In other news — regarding those videotaped depositions:
STATE’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (RE: MIAMI VIDEO DEPOSITIONS)
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/state_response_sanctions.pdf
O’Mara should have done this months ago.
The ironic thing is that if judge has an ounce of integrity Crump’s shenanigans should undermine the prosecution’s case.
“Mr. Crump led the effort to pressure the State of Florida to charge Mr.
Zimmerman with the murder of Trayvon Martin. To fuel his effort, Mr. Crump
solicited the help of a public relations firm. With the firm’s help,
Mr. Crump made several high-profile television appearances where he made
accusations about law enforcement corruption, speculated about the evidence in
this case, and accused Mr. Zimmerman of an egregious act by stating repeatedly that George Zimmerman “profil[ed], pursu[ed], and confront[ed] Trayvon Martin
and then kill[ed] Trayvon Martin in cold blood.” More significantly, Mr. Crump sequestered Witness 8, coordinated her first interview, misstated the circumstances regarding the taking of the statement, and shared select portions of the interview with the press while simultaneously refusing to reveal the witness’ identity or testimony to law enforcement or provide any other information to the agencies responsible for the investigation.”
In most situations, you can’t appeal a trial court’s pretrial rulings on evidence and discovery. Instead, you have to appeal after the trial. What are the grounds in Florida for appealing a pretrial ruling? If O’Mara fits into the proper grounds for an appeal, I think it quite likely he will win the appeal.
According to the above:
“... the Petitioner will be exposed to irreparable harm, as there is no practical way to determine after judgment how the requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings - an issue that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal.”
There would be case law on whether the failure to allow discovery of a defense witness could be irreparable harm. In most cases, the answer is no, you can’t appeal, because otherwise every pretrial ruling would be subject to appeal and you’d never get a case to trial. All rulings that don’t go the defense’s way could potentially result in a conviction that would not have occurred. To appeal a pretrial ruling there is usually required to be something other than a typical loss of a motion. Each state has its own rules and case law, so I can’t say what would suffice in Florida.
We just wanted to bring it to you now before the trial so you have a chance to prevent the damage, so that when we bring it back again after the trial after the damage, you can't give us the lame excuse that we should have brought it to you before the trial.
When an order striking testimony is entered, the aggrieved party can proffer the stricken testimony, thereby enabling this court, on final appeal, to determine how the testimony could have affected the result of the trial. Indeed, we have routinely reviewed a trial court's decision to strike an expert witness when considering cases on direct appeal.In this case, O'Mara can't proffer Crump's testimony. The issue is whether or not defense is entitled to the evidence, as a function of preparing for trial.
I think O'Mara has the better argument(s), by far.
But isn’t the point that discovery that wasn’t produced/allowed isn’t and can’t be part of any appeal?
Again and again in the writ O’Mara/West point out that Crump is so inextricably intertwined with Witness 8 that he needs to be deposed to separate fact from fiction, what she heard from what Crump wanted her to hear.
Anyway, I hope that under Florida law, he has good grounds to get it to the appeal court, because if he does, the court should be horrified at the travesty that is going on below. They may even be willing to stretch the grounds a little if he makes a good enough showing. But it has to be more than, "We are getting screwed down below, Judges. Please help."
Good. Based on that, it seems he has a good argument for appealability of the order denying discovery. I hope he wins.
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.