Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

I note that you didn't address the lack of exemplars of TM voice ? I am unaware of any entered into evidence. You ? That might make it a wee bit difficult for voice experts to say much of anything about whether it's TM screaming or not.

How about the scenario where voice experts can't confidently identify who is screaming ... do you think the Martins testimony would be worthless in that scenario ?

Also, I'm all aboard the science train with you ... choo choo. But there was much debate in the first thread about the scientific validity of the voice analysis. And the jurors are still people who can have emotions affect their decisions.

So, back to the original point - TMs parents testimony could be very relevant, I don't think we know enough to rule it unimportant at this point.

Even alllowing for all that, it's still still nonsensical to assert the Martins need to be impeached as witnesses through the unsealing of their HOA settlement as opposed to just simply establishing their bias under cross examination.

As far as bias, being a parent isn't listed by the state of FL as a factor that could impeach testimony, financial gain is. If I were MOM, the more things I can demonstrate that could impeach any potential testimony, the better.

Being the parents of the victim absolutely establishes bias and can impeach a witness' credibility. And that can easily be covered under cross examination. No need to unseal any documents.

Are you simply nitpicking, or just pulling my leg, or what ?

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/27/cops-zimmerman-wasnt-afraid
The documents written by Sanford Police investigators also state: "Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him."

Well, we definitely interpret that statement differently, and to avoid an irrelevant semantic debate, I'll concede the point.

And it's irrelevant because a police detective won't be offering medical analysis as testimony.

Really, you don't think the defense will use that statement by serino, we'll only hear from doctors ? Or will we hear both ?

If O'Mara has even a shred of competency he'll call doctors and not Serino to testify about Zimmerman's injuries. Serino's opinon would very easily be undermined under cross examination ("Detective Serino, do you have any medical training?"), and therefore would carry no weight.

I understand that Zimmerman's defenders have become very attached to Serino's opinion on this issue because the actual medical documentation doesn't support what they want to believe. But it is a fantasy to think that somehow what a layperson thinks about Zimmerman's injuries will be relevant to this case.

It's bizarre that you admit you don't know what the defenses strategy is, don't know what's in the agreement, but yet claim to know it's completely irrelevant.

Not bizarre at all.

We both know there's nothing in that agreement that has any bearing on the events that transpired the night Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed teenager.

We both know that is has been repeatedly asserted Zimmerman has a strong case for self-defense.

We both know O'Mara is running out of time and out of money.

It's perfectly reasonable to query why an attorney with dwindling resources is wasting his time on something that has nothing to do with his client's self-defense claim that supposedly has all this evidence to support it.

But maybe you're right.

Maybe the attorney whose one major court appearance in this case so far resulted in his client's bond being revoked and his client's wife being charged with perjury, maybe that guy has got some genius legal strategy up his sleeve to exonerate his client of a year-old crime that somehow revolves around a civil suit agreement that didn't exist a month ago.

Or maybe a desperate attorney is just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.

I guess we'll find out.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, because there has never been a jury member to be skeptical, or totally dismiss what a so-called "expert" has to say, especially in regards to something with such solid scientific backing as comparing background screams in a 911 call to a foreground speaking voice. Not to mention, didn't the FBI already do their own "expert" analysis on the voice samples and conclude that the samples had too few words, were of too poor quality, and not similar enough (screaming vs. speaking) to conclude whether or not it was GZ's voice? Doesn't appear the FBI was able to "prove" this, so I'm not sure who the prosecution might offer that has even greater expertise.

Speaking of, it's been over a year later, and still no word of any voice samples of TM having been given to the defense, or existing at all. Where are these voice samples? Have they not had enough time to locate any? One of the original "experts" that made the news saying the voices weren't GZ's was supposed to be receiving a sample from TM's reps and releasing his findings upon doing so. Why have those findings never been released?

Silly like the jurors at the OJ case dismissing the following?

I'm sure the jurors came up with a much more accurate explanation for OJ's socks having 20 stains of his ex-wife's blood on them, and the odds of that blood NOT being his wife being 1 out of 21 billion people (when there were less than 6 billion people on the entire planet), than OJ having anything to do with the murder.

If science like that can be dismissed, then it's just "silly" to think that any sort of science conclusively linking (or separating) the voices in the background of a 911 call to a foreground speaking voice could also be dismissed. Especially when factoring in that "hearing", rather than DNA blood analysis, IS something that humans can inherently identify/detect.

The bias is understandable, but to assume they're lying should not be the default assumption of a jury member. It seems the defense may imply Tracy Martin is lying about not initially telling the officers that he did not recognize the screaming voice in the background of the 911 calls as his son.

If my understanding of the FBI's previous analysis is accurate, then I doubt that's the case. If the prosecution does go that route, then they can easily reference the FBI's failed attempts to link the voices, and the reasons why they failed.

Taking a page out of your past book "Oh, we both know that Serino was talking about GZ's story", and not some random, hypothetical "life-threatening event" (which is closer to Serino's quote).

The jury isn't supposed to assume anything, nor should the attorneys leave it up to faith that the jurors will assume anything. Not to mention, this isn't just about "bias", it's about lying about past statements, specifically Tracy Martin's, in regards to who he felt wasn't screaming.

This isn't really that difficult.

Prosecutor: Mr. Martin, is that your son screaming on the 911 call recording?

Tracy Martin: Yes it is.

Defense Attorney: Mr. Martin, do you believe George Zimmerman murdered your son?

Tracy Martin: Yes I do.

Defense Attorney: And would you do anything to see that he is puinished for that crime?

Tracy Martin: ....

Witness impeached.

 

[phonebook]

This isn't really that difficult.

Witness impeached.

For this example you seem to imply that you're naive to how jurors might consider certain aspects of the case as it's laid out before them. You imply that jurors minds are somewhat binary in thought, where if a witness qualifies for impeachment status, they will disregard anything they've said, and if they don't qualify, the jurors will then arrange their thought processes accordingly, to allow themselves to find the witness' testimony potentially credible.

In other examples, you like to argue that the jurors have freedom of thought beyond the confines of what they are and aren't supposed to consider, such as if GZ tries for immunity and is denied somehow, and the jurors discover this fact. They are required to not take this into consideration at all, yet you don't imply the same naivety in this instance.

. . . I doubt the jurors could resist being swayed by something so compelling as the denial of a motion.

So do you believe jurors can, or cannot be influenced by details of the case beyond the scope of what they're permitted to consider? Or do you believe yourself to hold some sort of universal clarity in determining what a random juror will or won't take into consideration, regardless of instructions?

 

[Mumbles]

So what? Who cares who TM was living with before the events of the night of February 26, 2012, when GZ shot and killed TM?

I think this is what I find most amazing in this case. Trayvon supposedly was living with other relatives. So what? It happens, and it's not a reason to chase and shoot a person who was just walking down the street, going home from a local convenience store, even if you know it.

And as a reminder, Zimmerman knew nothing about Martin (not implicating you personally, KatieG). He just saw Martin walking down the street, with his hoodie up on a rainy winter night, and decided that this was unacceptable. And the local cops/prosecutor have a tape of Zimmerman literally chasing Martin down the street, and decide that this is "self-defense"? Ridiculous.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Even alllowing for all that, it's still still nonsensical to assert the Martins need to be impeached as witnesses through the unsealing of their HOA settlement as opposed to just simply establishing their bias under cross examination.

Being the parents of the victim absolutely establishes bias and can impeach a witness' credibility. And that can easily be covered under cross examination. No need to unseal any documents.

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DETERMINE CONFIDENTIALITY OF COURT RECORDS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO UNSEAL

It is understandably dangerous ground to tread upon the trauma a family suffers when a son is lost, but that loss cannot counter the common sense application of our Well founded and necessary rules of evidence. The civil settlement was accomplished by presenting to the Homeowner’s Association the argument that it Was liable because Mr. Zimmerman Was an agent of it, and that he acted in a Way the lead to the association’s civil liability, in causing the death of Trayvon Martin. The issue of causality is wrapped up inextricably in the facts of that night. This includes their relative injuries, forensic evidence and Witness evidence regarding who ‘caused’ the events to unfold the Way they did. While that issue is the primary decision for the criminal jury, it is undeniable that Mr. Martin’s initial decision that the voice screaming for help Was not that of his son would significantly reduce the family’s argument regarding causality, and would diminish, if not extinguish, their claim. His change in testimony had undeniable effect on the civil settlement, accomplishing a settlement in excess of one million dollars. In addition to that one obvious change in testimony, the jury is entitled, and required, to consider potential bias of a Witness and how that may affect that witness” entire testimony. Not only has the family already received significant sums, Mr. Crump has stated on numerous occasions that they intend to continue to sue, including Mr. Zimmerman himself. Such future potential financial gain cannot be ignored by this court, nor should it be hidden from the jury. The bias of a Witness is not limited to one isolated event, such as Mr. Martin’s change in testimony. It goes to the heart of all the testimony presented to this jury, from whose voice it was, to Trayvon Martin’s history and reputation regarding relevant issues for the jury to consider. A jury must weigh testimony in these regards through the rule-appropriate filter of financial bias

But maybe you're right.

Maybe the attorney whose one major court appearance in this case so far resulted in his client's bond being revoked and his client's wife being charged with perjury, maybe that guy has got some genius legal strategy up his sleeve to exonerate his client of a year-old crime that somehow revolves around a civil suit agreement that didn't exist a month ago.

Or maybe a desperate attorney is just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks.

I guess we'll find out.

That's not a fair or valid summary of MOM body of work in this case. But you knew that.

I wonder how you would describe BDLRs performance to date, since it's quite possible he'll get sanctioned tomorrow for his body of work.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You are wrong now, what exactly does it have to do with a 'preponderance' in demonstration of a character and behaviors.

None.

It would be easier to admit that fishing is fishing.

Well, what it has to do "with a 'preponderance' in demonstration of a character and behaviors " would depend on the reason he isn't living with either parent, wouldn't it ?

As I don't have the benefit of the evidence from investigators, police documents and depositions, I don't know if there is any actual inquiry into this issue or not. I am not sure what fishing you are referring to.

 

[johnny karate]

For this example you seem to imply that you're naive to how jurors might consider certain aspects of the case as it's laid out before them. You imply that jurors minds are somewhat binary in thought, where if a witness qualifies for impeachment status, they will disregard anything they've said, and if they don't qualify, the jurors will then arrange their thought processes accordingly, to allow themselves to find the witness' testimony potentially credible.

In other examples, you like to argue that the jurors have freedom of thought beyond the confines of what they are and aren't supposed to consider, such as if GZ tries for immunity and is denied somehow, and the jurors discover this fact. They are required to not take this into consideration at all, yet you don't imply the same naivety in this instance.

It has been argued that the unsealing of the HOA settlement is necessary to impeach the Martins as witnesses.

The Martins can very easily be impeached under cross-examination.

Therefore, the reason offered for the unsealing of the HOA settlement is rendered redundant and unnecessary.

The question then becomes why an attorney with dwindling time and resources would waste them pursuing something redundant and unnecessary.

So do you believe jurors can, or cannot be influenced by details of the case beyond the scope of what they're permitted to consider? Or do you believe yourself to hold some sort of universal clarity in determining what a random juror will or won't take into consideration, regardless of instructions?

I'm not sure why you failed to recognize the post of mine you quoted as a mockery of the silly arguments offered by Zimmerman's defenders in their post hoc rationalizations for why O'Mara cancelled the immunity hearing.

Because I thought the mockery was fairly obvious.

 

[johnny karate]

It goes to the heart of all the testimony presented to this jury, from whose voice it was, to Trayvon Martin’s history and reputation regarding relevant issues for the jury to consider. A jury must weigh testimony in these regards through the rule-appropriate filter of financial bias[/I]

I'm not sure to what rule O'Mara is referring, but this statute quite clearly says a witness may be impeached through a demonstration of any kind of bias, not just financial:

90.608 Who may impeach.—Any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by:
(1) Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony.
(2) Showing that the witness is biased.
(3) Attacking the character of the witness in accordance with the provisions of s. 90.609 or s. 90.610.
(4) Showing a defect of capacity, ability, or opportunity in the witness to observe, remember, or recount the matters about which the witness testified.
(5) Proof by other witnesses that material facts are not as testified to by the witness being impeached.

As parents of the victim, the bias of the Martins can very easily be established under cross-examination.

So why is O'Mara wasting his precious time and resources pursuing something that can be very easily accomplished during the trial?

That's not a fair or valid summary of MOM body of work in this case. But you knew that.

I didn't characterize it as a summary of O'Mara's body of work in this case. But you knew that.

I characterized it as a summary of his one major court appearance in this case. Which, in case you forgot, was an embarrassing face-plant that made him look clueless and his client look like a liar.

I wonder how you would describe BDLRs performance to date, since it's quite possible he'll get sanctioned tomorrow for his body of work.

Perhaps we should let those chickens hatch before we count them.

The last time any of Zimmerman's defenders were crowing about sanctions it was regarding that blatantly illegal and unethical probable cause affidavit filed by Corey.

Whatever happened with that, anyway?

Oh, that's right. Nothing.

 

[Cylinder]

Today's hearing is scheduled to begin a 9:00 AM EDT. A live web feed can usually be found at WKMG. HLN (Headline News) will also broadcast the hearing for those who prefer to watch via cable/satellite.

Mark O'Mara revealed during this weekend's press dinner that George Zimmerman will attend the hearing.

Discovery:

Demand for Specific Discovery (Zimmerman phone data): Zimmerman is seeking any downloads or information in the state's possesion regarding any phone or phone number connected to George or Shellie Zimmerman.


Demand for Specific Discovery (Trayvon Martin phone data): Zimmerman is seeking any downloads of information in the state's possesion regarding any phone or phone number connected to Trayvon Martin.


Demand for Specific Discovery (Enhanced Audio): Zimmerman is seeking information regarding any cleaned up, edited or enhanced audio of 911 calls listened to by Tracy Martin. This is in response to Mr. Crump's claim that Tracy Martin changed his opinion of the identity of the person screaming in the 911 tape after hearing an enhanced version.


Redacted Motion to Allow Addition Witness Disclosure: Zimmerman is asking to add 6 redacted witnesses to its list past the agreed-upon deadline.


Sanctions:

Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Against State Attorney's Office for Payment of Attorney Fees and Costs: This is regarding the state's refusal to allow W8's deposition to be videotaped. The state has filed a response.

Defendant's Motion for Sactions Against State Attorney's Office for Discovery Violations: This is regarding the state's failure to disclose in a timely manner the fact that W8's had lied about visiting the hospital. The state has filed an entertaining response to this motion, complete with quotes from the bard. Mark O'Mara replied to that response, asking that it be stricken from the court file as argumentum ad hominem. In his reply, MOM cites examples from the Florida Bar of similar tactics being subject to sanction.

State's Motion Objecting to the Release Of Victim's Family Personal Information: The state complains that O'Mara inadvertently released personal information for Martin in his Motion to Unseal.


HOA Settlement:

Motion to Unseal Information Listed as Confidential: Zimmerman is seeking to unseal the HOA settlement with the Martin Estate, arguing that the settlement contains information relevant to Zimmerman's defense. Crump opposes, O'Mara replies to that opposition.


Immunity Hearing:

State's Motion Requesting Court Inquiry of Defendant: The state would like the court to inquire into Zimmerman's plans to invoke immunity in this case or waive that process.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Finally, the State is going to try and prove that the Defense really did "waive" the immunity hearing when the Judge ordered** that any such hearing be both "filed" and "heard" by April 26th.

You forgot the important word pre-trial.

Basically, Judge Nelson questioned GZ and asked him if he agreed that he consented to counsel not filing a pre-trial motion for immunity and not having a pre-trial hearing, which GZ did agree.

Since that is only 1 day away, we can now conclusively say that the Defense has waived their chance at immunity.
<snip>

As has already been pointed out in the other thread numerous times, defendant has not waived his right to immunity, nor missed the opportunity to file for it.

We can conclusively say the defense may still file for immunity before the end of the trial, or after the trial, just not before the trial.

 

[Unabogie]

And in other news, water is still wet.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/article/George-Zimmerman-won-t-seek-immunity-hearing-4475725.php

The former neighborhood watch leader charged with fatally shooting Trayvon Martin told a judge Tuesday that he agrees with his defense attorneys' decision not to seek an immunity hearing under the state's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, what it has to do "with a 'preponderance' in demonstration of a character and behaviors " would depend on the reason he isn't living with either parent, wouldn't it ?

As I don't have the benefit of the evidence from investigators, police documents and depositions, I don't know if there is any actual inquiry into this issue or not. I am not sure what fishing you are referring to.

Discovery is not a fishing contest, now is it?

You indicated something about where TM lived as evidence, that is fishing.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

post hearing presser by MOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WJyf6LPOawU

Crump and Jackson until about 5:45, then MOM.

MOM states GZ wants to be in front of the jury and have the jury, (not a judge in an immunity hearing) to state his non-guilt. That is why no pre-trial immunity hearing.

Also he states he thinks that Judge Nelson said there were discovery violations, but needs to see her order because it was unclear, although he doesn't see why else she would have retained jurisdiction to impose sanctions.

About 12:00 minutes in, he mentions suppression in conjunction with some of witness 8 testimony.

At 12:30 minutes in, he says cell phone tower data suggests TM was North and West of 7-11 "quite a ways" - so although he implies it is not complete, there do have some cell tower data (ping logs). Implies "in a car."

At 14:00 minutes in, he references an incident with the non-weapon (as apparently determined by the school board?) that was brought up in the hearing by BDLR, and says ask BDLR, he doesn't think they are supposed to be talking about it, but it will absolutely come up in the trial.

 

[Unabogie]

That was completely brutal for the defense. Watching BDLR doing his cross on West was just a taste of what's going to happen to George up there. After watching his own lawyer get shishkabobbed by Bernie, George had that deer in the headlights look and there's no way he takes the stand. Not a chance!

But in addition, the judge denied the motion to impose sanctions for discovery violations and pretty much everything else. The only thing she left open was the question of repaying the defense for time lost regarding the video depositions.

So we're still on track for a June 10th, and I just read that the jury will be sequestered.

This is not going well for the accused.

 

[Unabogie]

Another thing that came out today was that O'Mara directly asked Witness 8 about why she lied about going to the hospital instead of the funeral. She allegedly answered that she couldn't bear to see the dead body of her friend. I really question the sanity of the defense team if they think that eliciting that answer on the stand is good for George.

First they will berate this witness because she couldn't bear to see her friend lying dead, then they will berate the grieving mother because she sued the pants off the HOA for letting this cretin patrol the neighborhood like a vigilante and they think that's helpful to a guy pleading self-defense for murdering an unarmed teenager? That kind of victim blaming is going to bite them big time for any decent person on the jury. I know the Conservative Treehouse and their echo chamber of conspiracy nuts thinks that this will blow the case wide open, but O'Mara seems over his head here and I think he's going to fall flat on his face next month if he listens to them.

 

[johnny karate]

Also he states he thinks that Judge Nelson said there were discovery violations, but needs to see her order because it was unclear, although he doesn't see why else she would have retained jurisdiction to impose sanctions.

It's weird that O'Mara would say that because Judge Nelson actually said the opposite of what he claims:

The court does not make any finding that there was a discovery violation.

The court finds that there was not a discovery violation.

O'Mara was sitting right in front of her when she said those things, and even appeared to be looking at her as well. Perhaps he zoned out. I'm sure someone will explain to him later that he lost the motion.

As to this previous query:

I wonder how you would describe BDLRs performance to date, since it's quite possible he'll get sanctioned tomorrow for his body of work.

Yeah, I still feel pretty good about de la Rionda's performance.

 

[KatieG]

Fancy my surprise last night when I was watching a show that addressed cellphones and cell towers. I learned that a cellphone doesn't always ping off the closest tower. It can depend on how much activity a particular tower is experiencing at a particular time.

I hope MO'M doesn't pin all his hopes for what TM was doing on cell tower records. Nor GZs either.

 

[johnny karate]

MOM states GZ wants to be in front of the jury and have the jury, (not a judge in an immunity hearing) to state his non-guilt. That is why no pre-trial immunity hearing.

Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?

August 2012:

Now that the State has released the majority of their discovery, the defense asserts that there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense. Consistent with this claim of self-defense, there will be a “Stand Your Ground” hearing.

Today:

We want a jury to decide this case. Criminal immunity doesn't matter.

Hmmm... I wonder what changed?

And it gets better:

We want a jury to say that's non-guilt, because then maybe the country will listen to that better than they would listen to a judge.

Oh, now I see what changed. Zimmerman has chosen to forgo presenting his strong claim for self-defense at a pretrial immunity hearing in order to soothe a divided nation.

"George, your self-defense claim is very strong. We can schedule a pretrial immunity hearing and end this whole nightmare."

"No, Mark. This is bigger than me now. It's not good enough that I be acquitted of these heinous charges as quickly as possible so I can get on with my life. People need to believe I am innocent, and the only way to do that is to needlessly drag this thing out with a lengthy and expensive trial, and then leave my freedom in the hands of an unpredictable jury. And when they acquit me, I will finally be exonerated in the eyes of the public, because look how well that worked out for O.J."

Here's my guess for what O'Mara will be saying a year from now:

Mr. Zimmerman is enjoying his time in prison, and he couldn't be more pleased with his conviction. This was the exact result we wanted.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html

Trayvon was not disciplined because of the discovery, but was instead suspended for graffiti, according to the report. School police impounded the jewelry and sent photos of the items to detectives at Miami-Dade police for further investigation.
...
Trayvon, who was a junior at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School, had never been arrested, police and the family have said.

“We think everybody is trying to demonize him,” Crump said.

No evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen.

Martin receive absolutely no disciplinary action for possessing the jewelry, despite the fact that it was supposedly evidence of a potential felony.

In case you haven't been following, in a nutshell:

The Miami Herald article kicked off an internal investigation by M-D SPD Police Chief Hurley against his own officers to find out who leaked the police report, which in turn led to :
SRO Dunn never filed a criminal report, nor opened a criminal investigation, surrounding the stolen jewelry. Instead, and as a result of pressure from M-DSPD Chief Hurley to avoid criminal reports for black male students, Dunn wrote up the jewelry as “found items”, and transferred them, along with the burglary tool, to the Miami-Dade Police property room where they sat on a shelf unassigned to anyone for investigation.

Now, according to the CTH:
On October 21st 2011 a burglary took place a few blocks from Krop Senior High School where Trayvon Martin attended. The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.

Note: there was no copy of the police report attached
---

So, it seems that there was a report of stolen jewelry matching that found on TM, and that there was an intentional non-reporting of the existence of the stolen items so that the M-D police never knew of it's existence.

Not related, per se, to the events of Feb 26th, but definitely related to many posts about burglary tools and perhpas-more-than-allegedly-now stolen jewelry.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That was completely brutal for the defense. Watching BDLR doing his cross on West was just a taste of what's going to happen to George up there. After watching his own lawyer get shishkabobbed by Bernie, George had that deer in the headlights look and there's no way he takes the stand. Not a chance!

It's funny... I saw BDLR yelling a lot, waving his arms and making a lot of tu quoque arguments. Definitely precieved it differently than you. Can you provide some examples of how he "shishkabobded" West, because I seem to have missed those ?

But in addition, the judge denied the motion to impose sanctions for discovery violations and pretty much everything else. The only thing she left open was the question of repaying the defense for time lost regarding the video depositions.

MOM had motions for specific discovery, I believe Nelson granted all those.

(Of course, the state can't provide the "enhanced" 911 call that Crump claims Tracy Martin listened to, because the state has provided no such enhanced recording to Crump, although 1 year later they are "still working on that" according to BDLR)

MOM had a motion to add additional witnesses, it was granted.

MOM wanted the HOA agreement in the record and unsealed, and it's going into the record redacted, and he gets an un-redacted copy.

MOM asked for sanctions, and AFAIK, the state will be sanctioned for both the video and covering up the witness 8 LIE, the monetary amounts both TBD at a later date.

In a few days, when all the orders are published, it will b easy to verify all the things written above.

How exactly is that anything remotely like what you claimed above ?

So we're still on track for a June 10th, and I just read that the jury will be sequestered.

This is not going well for the accused.

Which parts didn't go well for the accused today ?