Replies

See Travelers Indemnity Company v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), where the appeals court denied petitioner's request to depose a witness. My take is that reversal of an order denying deposition (or introduction of evidence) is appealable and reversible when the petitioner does not have the evidence in the first place, or when the petitioner is the state (in that case, because the state is precluded from a second trial in the event of acquittal).

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.