Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Motion to continue

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf

Interesting read on quite a few issues the state (according to the defense) has been less than cooperative on. Including witness 8 (deedee), TMs cell phone records, etc.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf

This really makes the state appear to be playing some serious games with evidence:
(bolding mine)
p.9:
As an illustrative example, while the analysis includes GPS records for Mr. Martins phone for all of the time he was in the Sanford area, specifically absent is any such data for February 26, 2012, the date of the event.
10. Similarly, there seems to be missing entries regarding phone calls made to the phone or texts made to or from the phone in the evening hours of February 26, 2012.

That seems awfully curious. I can't wait to hear an explanation from the state.

 

[Dan O.]

TMs cell phone records, etc.

He says he received that information. So, where is it? How does he expect the social media sites to process this data for him if he doesn't release it?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'll buy that. Trayvon's headset was white but the functions will be the same.

If we exclude that any of those overlapping calls in the 6 minutes from 18:43 to 18:49 were destined for another phone on the family plan then there is some serious juggling going on here.

 18:30 - 18:43	North Dade, FL	(F)	13	to DeeDee
 18:41*- 18:45	Incoming	(F)	4	interruption from third party
 18:45 - 18:50	North Dade, FL		5	call back (3rd party?)
 18:46*- 18:48	North Dade, FL		2	overlapping call to 4th party
 18:49*- 18:53	Incoming	(F)	4	from DeeDee (overlaps with 3rd party)

There would need to be some conversation while juggling these calls and I don't here anything except the hello's so I don't think any of this exchange happened in the store. The 18:53 termination of DeeDee's call was followed by a calllback from Trayvon. This couldn't be a 1 button redial because Trayvon's last call was to another party. There are two more terminations in the 18:54 minute. These could be 1 button redials but only 1 is evident in the store so I'm leaning towards excluding them too.

The 19:12 interruption has to be the one DeeDee says was at the mail boxes. But that is also at least 30 seconds after George says Trayvon was running. I'll need to listen again to what DeeDee was trying to say while Bernie was interrupting her with his facts.

19:04*- 19:05	Incoming		1
19:08		North Dade, FL Incoming (S)

Some have said that the 19:04 call was from Chad asking Trayvon to pick up the Skittles. If we accepted that, some might claim that Travon was walking suspiciously fast back from the store

Perhaps it is chad wondering why he didn't have them after almost an hour ?

The 19:08 SMS could be DeeDee. I think she says Trayvon didn't text her back when questioned. Anyhow, Trayvon would have been almost back in the neighborhood when he stopped to read it. Would this be suspicious looking? It's about 1-2 minutes before George stops his truck to call SPD.

None of that seems to address why the 18:30 call could not have been the one on the security tape ?

BTW, here are a couple of random videos I searched for this evening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQEBiYryO8U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfXAlGSsYeI

We'll see if anyone has been following along and recognizes the significance.

I'll give - I don't think I do...

 

[Mumbles]

In his interview, Serino explained to the FBI agents that African-American gangs in the community "typically dressed in black and wore hoodies," the report said.[/QUOTE]

Hearing that makes me much less confident in Serino. This is a bit like the folks who claim that they never hire black people to jobs, because black people are more likely to sue for discrimination. It's openly and actively racist to freak out over a guy walking down the street because he's black and wearing warm clothing in the cold, and to claim otherwise is absurd.

Granted, much of our government abides by an absurd definition of "racism", but that does not mean that I need to agree to their absurd definition.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

state responds to motion to continue

The state responds to the motion to continue ....

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/states_response_to_dmtc.pdf

3....While Defense Counsel was provided voluminous amounts of discovery material, and has proceeded with taking depositions, the State cannot force Defendant to move at a faster pace

Acknowledgement there is a voluminous amount of data, and the defense is moving forward. But the motion to continue was specific about lots of data what was just given to the defense almost a year later... this is not addressed

4. The State has repeatedly asked Defense Counsel to stop holding media interviews, and focus on reviewing the discovery provided...The State again reiterates —this case should be tried in the courtroom and not in the media.

As if it is impossible to do both ? The motion to continue has nothing to do with trying the case in the media.

5. The State understands, based on recent media reports and interviews by Defense Counsel that they are almost out of money and in desperate need of an infusion of money. Perhaps this is the real reason why there have been so many delays and why Defendant is again moving to continue the trial.

We have no money ... keep delaying ? How does that make any sense ??? We're not getting paid, so we would like to drag this out even longer...

7. The State has provided Defense Counsel with over ninety CD's, of which over sixty were provided in the initial discovery provided on 5/14/2012. In addition, numerous reports from various agencies, as well as other documents were provided as part of the original and supplemental discovery replies.

This statement says nothing of when the remaining 30 CDs of data and other reports and evidence were actually delivered to the defense.

10. The State also arranged for Defense Counsel to look at all the physical evidence at FDLE ...

That's because the judge told them to at the last hearing.

15. In light of the extensive and cataloged discovery provided to Defendant, for Defense Counsel to
now blame the State for some of the delays and the need to continue the case is inaccurate

Because we already gave you some stuff, the specific items outlined in the motion to continue are irrelevant ?? Huh ?

19. Defendant apparently wants the State to provide him with a roadmap of what the evidence shows and to connect the dots before depositions of certain witnesses are taken.

Where did the motion ask for that ? More straw.

I think the state did a poor job answering the specific points the defense made in the motion to continue.

It will be interesting to hear how judge Nelson rules, and what her thoughts are on this.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

He says he received that information. So, where is it? How does he expect the social media sites to process this data for him if he doesn't release it?

I am not sure I understand - was that supposed to be sarcasm directed at MOM ?

Shouldn't the state be releasing that data under its sunshine laws ? Much less actually releasing it to the defense:
p.9:
As an illustrative example, while the analysis includes GPS records for Mr. Martins phone for all of the time he was in the Sanford area, specifically absent is any such data for February 26, 2012, the date of the event.
10. Similarly, there seems to be missing entries regarding phone calls made to the phone or texts made to or from the phone in the evening hours of February 26, 2012.

Certainly MOM can't release info that he doesn't wasn't given....

 

[Cylinder]

For those interested, Zimmerman's hearing is today (Tuesday, Feb. 5) at 9:00 AM EDT. Motions being heard are:

Defendant ’s Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum to American Broadcasting Company (ABC): Zimmerman is asking for their copy of the W8 interview. In the motion, MOM seems - in my layperson reading of it - to argue that because the recording was made on the behest of Mr. Crump with Matt Gutman as an observer, that is not protected as a journalism product. This should be an interesting legal question.

Defenadant’s Motion for Order Issuing Subpoena Duces Tecum to 7-Eleven, Inc: Zimmerman is seeking credit card records surrounding the time of Martin's visit to that store, possibly to identify witnesses to the events leading up to Martin's return to the RATL.

Dcfendant’s Motion for Specific Discovery From Florida Department of Law Enforcement: Zimmerman is asking for biogrphical reports of the several witneeses prepared by FDLE for which they have claimed privilege.

Defendant's Motion to Continue: Zimmerman is asking to delay the trial (and presumably the immunity motion by extension, since it was scheduled in the court's order 45 days before the trial date) until November, citing prolonged discovery issues. In my layperson opinion, the dirty tricks surrounding the photos alone should merit this relief. This undoubtedly will feature BDLR at his hysterionic best.

Defendanfs Motion for Specific Discovery: Zimmerman is asking for social media identifiers in the state's posssesion, information regarding any test done by an unkonown outside agency of Martin's phone and information regarding the disclosure of W8 to the state.

Expect the media to be breathless regarding the timing of todays' hearing, which would have been Martin's 18th birthday.

 

[Unabogie]

Looks like George will face the music in four months.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Fla-judge-No-trial-delay-in-Trayvon-Martin-case-4250930.php

So much for him stringing this out for years.

 

[johnny karate]

And in other news, apparently Georgie Boy is a stress eater:

Anyone wondering where he's been hiding out might to check HomeTown Buffet.

 

[This is The End]

Zimmerman is asking to delay the trial (and presumably the immunity motion by extension, since it was scheduled in the court's order 45 days before the trial date) until November, citing prolonged discovery issues. In my layperson opinion, the dirty tricks surrounding the photos alone should merit this relief.

http://www.freep.com/article/201302...n-s-18th-birthday-now-just-another-court-date

In court today, Judge Debra Nelson denied a motion by Zimmerman lawyer Mark O'Mara to delay the trial date.

"We're four months away from trial," Nelson said. "The court has no reason to continue the case."

There is also information about the other motions at that link.

 

[Bob001]

Defenadant’s Motion for Order Issuing Subpoena Duces Tecum to 7-Eleven, Inc: Zimmerman is seeking credit card records surrounding the time of Martin's visit to that store, possibly to identify witnesses to the events leading up to Martin's return to the RATL.

Theoretical question here, not necessarily about this particular case: My understanding is that in any criminal trial, the prosecution is obligated to give the defense access to all the evidence it has, particularly including anything that might be exculpatory. Is there any requirement that information flow in the other direction? Suppose the defense searches for witnesses that will strengthen its case, and they actually find witnesses who would support the prosecution? Or suppose after subpoenaing files or records, the defense finds documents that would help prove the defendant's guilt? Can the defense keep mum and hope the prosecution doesn't discover them on its own? Can the defense make witnesses inaccessible to the prosecution (maybe by paying them to leave town for awhile)? Can the defense conceal incriminating documents? Destroy them? If the defense can get everything from the prosecution, what can the prosecution get from the defense?

 

[quadraginta]

Theoretical question here, not necessarily about this particular case: My understanding is that in any criminal trial, the prosecution is obligated to give the defense access to all the evidence it has, particularly including anything that might be exculpatory. Is there any requirement that information flow in the other direction? Suppose the defense searches for witnesses that will strengthen its case, and they actually find witnesses who would support the prosecution? Or suppose after subpoenaing files or records, the defense finds documents that would help prove the defendant's guilt? Can the defense keep mum and hope the prosecution doesn't discover them on its own? Can the defense make witnesses inaccessible to the prosecution (maybe by paying them to leave town for awhile)? Can the defense conceal incriminating documents? Destroy them? If the defense can get everything from the prosecution, what can the prosecution get from the defense?

I think that the conditions for reciprocal discovery vary from state to state, but in Florida it's pretty much all or nothing.Most of the relevant stuff can be found here, and here's an excerpt;

RULE 3.220. DISCOVERY

(a) Notice of Discovery. After the filing of the charging document, a defendant may elect to participate in the discovery process provided by these rules, including the taking of discovery depositions, by filing with the court and serving on the prosecuting attorney a “Notice of Discovery” which shall bind both the prosecution and defendant to all discovery procedures contained in these rules. Participation by a defendant in the discovery process, including the taking of any deposition by a defendant or the filing of a public records request under chapter 119, Florida Statutes for law enforcement records relating to the defendant’s pending prosecution, which are nonexempt as a result of a codefendant’s participation in discovery, shall be an election to participate in discovery and triggers a reciprocal discovery obligation for the defendant. If any defendant knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a codefendant, the defendant shall be deemed to have elected to participate in discovery.

... and a little bit more.

(d) Defendant’s Obligation.
(1) If a defendant elects to participate in discovery, either through filing the appropriate
notice or by participating in any discovery process, including the taking of a discovery deposition, the following disclosures shall be made:
(A) Within 15 days after receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit furnished
by the prosecutor pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this rule, the defendant shall furnish to the prosecutor a written list of the names and addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant expects to call as witnesses at the trial or hearing. When the prosecutor subpoenas a witness whose name has been furnished by the defendant, except for trial subpoenas, the rules applicable to the taking of depositions shall apply.
(B) Within 15 days after receipt of the prosecutor’s Discovery Exhibit the defendant
shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to and permit the prosecutor to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material that is in the defendant’s possession or control:
(i) the statement of any person listed in subdivision (d)(1)(A),
other than that of the defendant;
(ii) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the
particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and
(iii) any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the
hearing or trial.

The rest of the statute can be found at the site I linked to above, but it's pretty straightforward. The act of accepting discovery from the prosecution "triggers a reciprocal discovery obligation for the defendant" to share everything they have any intention of using in the trial, same as the prosecution.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Theoretical question here, not necessarily about this particular case: My understanding is that in any criminal trial, the prosecution is obligated to give the defense access to all the evidence it has, particularly including anything that might be exculpatory. Is there any requirement that information flow in the other direction? Suppose the defense searches for witnesses that will strengthen its case, and they actually find witnesses who would support the prosecution? Or suppose after subpoenaing files or records, the defense finds documents that would help prove the defendant's guilt? Can the defense keep mum and hope the prosecution doesn't discover them on its own? Can the defense make witnesses inaccessible to the prosecution (maybe by paying them to leave town for awhile)? Can the defense conceal incriminating documents? Destroy them? If the defense can get everything from the prosecution, what can the prosecution get from the defense?

The prosecution and defense have entered into a recipricol discovery agreement under rule FL rule 3.220

This FL law site has a good list of what each site is obliged to do.

I think it answers your questions, but it doesn't really go into the 'what ifs' you listed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

deedee timeline and questions

Last year (March 2012), Ben Crump gave a press conference, and introduced the world to 'DeeDee', TMs supposed 16yr old girlfriend:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html
I will ask you -- her parents does (ph) not in any way want to reveal her identity.She is a minor. Her parents are very worried about her. She is traumatized over this. This was her really, really close personal friend. They were dating. And so it's a situation where to know that you were the last person to talk to the young man who you thought was one of the most special people in the world to you, and know that he got killed moments after he was talking to you, is just riveting to this young lady.

BDLR flew to Miami and deposed 'DeeDee' on april 2, 2012.

• Why was the cell phone not in her name at some point ?

(BDLR: OK, what was your telephone number back in February of this year, 2012?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: And is that a cell phone?
BDLR: OK, and is that phone number under your name or under somebody else’s name?
Dee Dee: Now, it should be now under my name.

Much time passes, and info about DeeDee is closely guarded. Speculation abounds on certain sites..

In October, judge nelson declares Crump a witness for the purposes of allowing the defense to obtain more in formation on the circumstances surrounding his (crumps)recording of DeeDee.

In November:

Don West has filed a new motion revealing that Dee Dee, the telephone witness was actually 18-years-old at the time of the shooting and documents the state's refusal to submit a usable copy of Crump's original interview.

Witness eight is 18 years old and was 18 at the time of Mr. Crumps interview of her according to her sworn statement to the prosecutor on April 2, 2012. Her unedited statement to the prosecutor was not released to the defense until September, and only after repeated requests.

Wait, what ? Didn't Crump repeatedly call her a minor ?

Now, instead of being able to depose Crump as the judge directed, Crump has had his attorney file an affidavit.

In said affadavit, Crump basically denies that he knew anything other than the vaguest of details about her, and only learned what we all know about her, i.e that which is heard on the call he had with her. And it said he needed her parents permission to interview her. And then he has never spoken to her again since that call.

• How is it that Crump knew she was a minor ?
• How is it that Crump needed her parents permission to interview her ?
• Why is he so insistent he does not know her last name or address ?
• Why can't the defense be allowed to have her address ?
• Doesn't the defense have her phone records, and don't her phone records have her address ?

Additionally, according to the second discovery dump (page 37):
Sybrina talked with DeeDee on the phone, spoke with DeeDees mother, spoke with DeeDee in her (Sybrinas) own apartment, and drove her home.
So even if Crump never spoke with her and doesn't know her address, Sybrina did and does. But she has never ever told her attorney this information ?

These are many of the same questions being asked at another site and I think they are good questions.

Are there people here following this case that can plausibly address why crump calls her a minor, and the other questions ?

For those interested, Zimmerman's hearing is today (Tuesday, Feb. 5) at 9:00 AM EDT. Motions being heard are:
<SNIP>
Defendanfs Motion for Specific Discovery: Zimmerman is asking for social media identifiers in the state's posssesion, information regarding any test done by an unkonown outside agency of Martin's phone and information regarding the disclosure of W8 to the state.

Judge Nelson granted West a phone call to determine 'DeeDee' social media information (twitter, facebook) prior to the deposition.

 

[Locknar]

Noting the good behavior over the last few pages, and after discussion by the Mod Team, I am removing this thread from Moderated status. That given, fair warning that if the bickering, personal attacks, off topic, uncivil behavior returns...so will the Moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Press conference from MOM after hearing Tuesday.

A few interesting things came out:

-he believes there was interaction between TM and the 'other 3 guys who are on the security tape after TM
- he has a map of where TMs cell phone was all day based on the cell tower communications
-he believes ABC will fight the motion to turn over the tapes of witness 8 interview, and he says ABC had a camera there

 

[Cylinder]

Theoretical question here, not necessarily about this particular case: My understanding is that in any criminal trial, the prosecution is obligated to give the defense access to all the evidence it has, particularly including anything that might be exculpatory. Is there any requirement that information flow in the other direction? Suppose the defense searches for witnesses that will strengthen its case, and they actually find witnesses who would support the prosecution? Or suppose after subpoenaing files or records, the defense finds documents that would help prove the defendant's guilt? Can the defense keep mum and hope the prosecution doesn't discover them on its own?

A defendant doesn't have any affirmative responsibility to provide inculpatory evidence to the government. Their obligation is to simply allow the state to examine whatever evidentiary material they plan on using at trial. The Fifth Amendment prohibits a defendant from being "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" which would be what a disclosure requirement would be. A defense attorney is responsible to the defendant. The state is responsible to the truth.

Can the defense make witnesses inaccessible to the prosecution (maybe by paying them to leave town for awhile)?

That sounds perilously close to witness tampering to me. IANAL, though.

Can the defense conceal incriminating documents?

They don't have to bring them the attention of the state. They probably can't make things disappear - especially things outside the defendant's control.

Destroy them?

No - that's tampering with evidence.

 

[Unabogie]

Press conference from MOM after hearing Tuesday.

A few interesting things came out:

-he believes there was interaction between TM and the 'other 3 guys who are on the security tape after TM
- he has a map of where TMs cell phone was all day based on the cell tower communications
-he believes ABC will fight the motion to turn over the tapes of witness 8 interview, and he says ABC had a camera there

For such a thin case that was destined to be thrown out before trial, Omara sure seems worried about going to trial in 4 months. As I'm listening, he's whining about not being able to afford experts.

I still maintain that when the DA gets George on the stand and walks him through all his contradictory statements and the location of the body, he's toast. I don't see how he testifies. He'll get chewed up.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

For such a thin case that was destined to be thrown out before trial, Omara sure seems worried about going to trial in 4 months. As I'm listening, he's whining about not being able to afford experts.

I still maintain that when the DA gets George on the stand and walks him through all his contradictory statements and the location of the body, he's toast. I don't see how he testifies. He'll get chewed up.

That state has to prove he's guilty. And they haven't shown us that they have any evidence that proves it. GZ doesn't have to take the stand.*shrugs*

You have no thoughts on the states star witness, Deedee ? You think all she is all set to testify , minor, not a minor, etc ?