Posted on 12/10/2012 12:36:19 PM PST by Uncle Chip
Edited on 12/10/2012 2:31:37 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
In a blistering response to a recent filing by George Zimmerman's defense team, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda accuses the second-degree murder defendant of attempting "to co-opt the mantle of victimhood for himself."
Zimmerman's legal team had asked Circuit Judge Debra Nelson to force an attorney for the family of Trayvon Martin, the Miami Gardens teen shot by Zimmerman Feb. 26 in Sanford, to turn over a recorded interview of a witness described as the teen's girlfriend.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
I love paragraph 7 in that response. “Put up or shut up”. He’s baiting them.
Note: These prosecutors are not from Seminole County....they were brought in from Duval County (Jax) by Gov. Scott and AG Bondi. The State Atty in Seminole was removed from case
Perhaps just as important...after told ‘we don’t need you to do that’, Zimmerman did in fact stop following Martin. You can hear his heavy breathing stop; and, he turns his attention to giving the dispatcher directions on where to find him.
Not only is it incorrect to state that an ‘order’ was given...its complete fantasy that he disobeyed the phantom ‘order’.
He’s on the neighborhood watch, and, gasp, he follows a stranger in the complex...and this vigilante calls the police. Then he does exactly what the dispatcher tells him to do.
I wonder if Zimmerman had been beaten to death, with Martin’s identity unknown...would the headline be:
“Young Hispanic Man Beaten to Death in White Neighborhood”.
Zimmerman’s response to the dispatcher (not an LEO) was “OK.” People assume that Z continued to follow Martin, but is that in fact true? Martin was bashing Z’s head against a concrete sidewalk and not soft grassy turf. The evidence is clear. Therefore I can only assume that Z left the site and was returning to his car parked along the sidewalk. Martin turned around and approached Z from behind and initated the attack which ended up with Zimmerman on the ground/sidewalk with his nose broken and his skull cracked.
I’m new in my law school career, but with regards to the discovery process, I don’t even think the courts allow to admit a third hand account. A lawyer’s interpretation of the an interview with a third party would be considered work product, if I’m not mistaken. However, maybe since Krump is not actually involved in this trial from a legal standpoint, then they could admit his testimony regarding the DeeDee interview.
Either way, I’m pretty sure if they are going to use the DeeDee evidence, that have to provide the actual conversation to the defense team, and not just Krump’s account.
Check this breakdown out. It has the timeline combined with the phone call.
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
<>He’s baiting them.<>
And he’s doing the same thing here with regard to the recording:
Bernie’s about to have a religious experience: Confirmation Day
Will he or will he not confirm what he knows that Crump has been monkeying with???
OS wanting money now to read their articles.
Too bad, I’ve linked a lot of folks to their pages...no more.
In the same hearing prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda states that Martin bought a can of tea at the 7-11 and Gilbreath agrees, under oath. We know Martin didn't buy tea.
If the shoe fits.........
Dee Dee is still around, right?
I would hope that they would:
1) Depose her
2) Compare her testimony to the Krump tape
3) Call her as a witness (I think she is such a train wreck, the prosecution probably won’t call her)
I know nothing about legal proceedings; but, this all seems logical to me...unless the prosecution does not bring up her account at all...then I suppose the defense would be best served to leave her out of it as well.
I have no legal experience whatsoever, but wouldn’t the defense have every right to interview DeeDee in consideration of possibly calling her as a witness, AND have the right to see a statement she gave near the time of the killing, to see if her statements are consistent?
“We know Martin didn’t buy tea.”
Yep, the evidence phot shows ‘Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail’.
Its a small detail...but it shows how the prosecution has gotten wrapped up in the media frenzy, and ignores its own evidence photos.
Until the end of time, the meme will be ‘tea and skittles’
The best way to do it if possible is to read the OS article from other newsources — like the LA Times or Chicago Tribune.
“I hope this prosecutor will lose his job, be sued for everything he has”
Thanks to several supreme court decisions, suing a prosecutor has been made next to impossible (ask the Duke lacrosse team if you think otherwise).
“We have to protect the independence of our prosecutors”, is the court’s line.
Wow, I just listened to la Rionda’s interview of Dee Dee. She only knows what she heard in the media:
1. Mentions he said he bought iced tea
2. Said he wanted to get home to watch the rest of the NBA All Star game
Both of these are false - the beverage wasn’t tea, and the game hadn’t yet even started. But, both items were widely reported in the media.
Discovery is wide ranging, and seeks evidence which may be relevant. Relevancy and admissibility are two -VERY- different standards. Much discoverable material isn't admissible, for one reason or another.
-- I'm pretty sure if they are going to use the DeeDee evidence, that have to provide the actual conversation to the defense team, and not just Krump's account. --
The issue here is the quality of what is represented as a contemporaneous audio recording of an interview with DeeDee. Assume for the sake of argument that the state never turns over the recorded evidence, but introduces DeeDee at trial, and she is allowed to testify. The only risk to the state is retrial, on the basis that defense was denied evidence that might be used to impeach DeeDee's trial testimony.
IOW, the "actual evidence" at trial will come from a personal appearance by DeeDee. The recorded interview has play in that, in that it limits how much she can now change her story.
“Florida republicans are a particularly yellow breed indeed.”
Yeah, the only Florida Republican with any stones was Alan West, and the voters of Florida decided they didn’t need a man with principles in office, so they voted him out. Hence, that is the story of why Florida went for Obamugabe the last two elections.
I use a primitive text-only browser, most of the time. It's called "lynx," but there are others. I use firefox and chrome too, but quite a bit of what I enjoy is just reading, and there are far fewer distractions in a text-only environment.
Anyway, my primitive browser is too stupid to see the OS website paywall. When I get the paywall blocker in firefox, I just cut 'n' paste the URL into lynx.
“Florida republicans are a particularly yellow breed indeed.”
Yeah, the only Florida Republican with any stones was Alan West, and the voters of Florida decided they didn’t need a man with principles in office, so they voted him out. Hence, that is the story of why Florida went for Obamugabe the last two elections.
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.