Witness 8' s deposition was taken on March 13, 2013. During that deposition, Witness 8 testified under oath that she had advised Mr. de la Rionda in the above referenced August interview that she was an adult, and had not, in fact, gone to the hospital; that she had lied about going to the hospital when she advised Mr. Crump of that statement, and that she had also lied to Mr. de la Rionda when she told him in the April2, 2012 sworn interview that she had gone to the hospital. The reason Witness 8 gave for lying to Mr. Crump was that Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, was present during the interview. Similarly, Witness 8 stated that she told Mr. de la Rionda the same lie because during Mr. de la Rionda's sworn interview of Witness 8, for unknown reasons, Ms. Sybrina Fulton was sitting next to her, and Witness 8 similarly felt the need to deceive as to the reason for not going to the wake or funeral.
That defense counsel made initial inquiry in this regard by email to the State, attached hereto as Exhibit "E", requesting information regarding those hospital records in orderto save time and resources. No response was forthcoming.
After receiving no response to the request in the email, defense counsel followed up with a letter, attached hereto as Exhibit "F", requesting that information again. Similarly, no response was forthcoming.
In addition, undersigned counsel avers that several conversations occurred between undersigned counsel and Mr. de la Rionda or Mr. Guy on behalf of the State Attorney's
Office, where the issue of hospital records documenting Witness 8 's hospitalization were discussed and requested. No response was forthcoming.
Since these letters and conversations proved to be of no avail, on or about February 21, 2013 undersigned counsel filed a motion for issuance of a Subpoena Duces Tecum to Witness 8 to accomplish receipt of these medical records. To the motion, no response was forthcoming.
This is significant because Mr. de la Rionda knew this information well before even the first email referenced above as Exhibit "E" was sent, and before the second correspondence listed above as Exhibit "F", yet continually failed to inform undersigned counsel. It was in that context that the State failed to inform undersigned counsel of this significant and exculpatory information until such time as the evening before the Subpoena Duces Tecum motion was to be heard by this Court.
It was not until approximately 7:00p.m. on March 4th, the evening before the hearing that the undersigned counsel was contacted by Mr. Guy who advised that, in fact,
Witness 8 was not truthful about her hospital stay, and had lied to Mr. Crump and Sybrina Fulton. It is also now known that Witness 8lied to Mr. de la Rionda during his April2, 201 interview of her, which, for unknown reasons, occurred under the unique circumstances of being conducted in the presence of other state witnesses such as Sybrina Fulton. Based upon this evidence, it is apparent that the State Attorney's Office was fully aware that Witness 8 lied about the relevant and significant parts of her testimony, and the State knew this no later than August 2, 2012.4 In addition, the decision to conduct the interview in the living room of Ms. Fulton's home, and to allow any other state witness, particularly the decedent's mother, to be sitting next to the witness during the interview, when Mr. De la Rionda had to know the potential influence that could occur, places the legitimacy and veracity of the entire statement at issue.
