Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

Regarding the video in question that (O'Mara lied about in court), it appears that the excuse that it was a new video and that he hadn't seen it until recently is false. In fact, the defense has had this video since at least September of last year. In this document, Don West references having seen the video himself.

http://gzdocs.com/documents/0313/mfr_exhibits/exhibit_d.pdf

Another interesting thing about this as it relates to the "discovery violations" that are the subject of the last hearing, the defense had all of this data all the way back in 2012. If they had the raw data, even this video that they now claim was withheld from them, how can they claim anything was withheld? Again, it appears that this egregious lie from O'Mara, and indeed the entire "discovery violation" tactic, is just a scheme to leak as much damaging information as possible prior to trial in order to gin up negative media coverage of the victim.

 

[johnny karate]

Regarding the video in question that (O'Mara lied about in court), it appears that the excuse that it was a new video and that he hadn't seen it until recently is false. In fact, the defense has had this video since at least September of last year. In this document, Don West references having seen the video himself.

http://gzdocs.com/documents/0313/mfr_exhibits/exhibit_d.pdf

Another interesting thing about this as it relates to the "discovery violations" that are the subject of the last hearing, the defense had all of this data all the way back in 2012. If they had the raw data, even this video that they now claim was withheld from them, how can they claim anything was withheld? Again, it appears that this egregious lie from O'Mara, and indeed the entire "discovery violation" tactic, is just a scheme to leak as much damaging information as possible prior to trial in order to gin up negative media coverage of the victim.

Yeah, the defense actually has the evidence they are claiming the prosecution failed to disclose to them (and has had it for several months), so I'm not seeing where the discovery violation is.

However, in the April 30th hearing when this issue was last discussed, after West acknowledged the defense had previously received the raw data, de la Rionda claimed the prosecution had no further information regarding that data to disclose to the prosecution. But that was in the context of discussing what Cellebrite had provided to them, so I'm not sure if that was meant to include what they had retrieved internally.

Either way, it's without a doubt that the defense was given the evidence in question, so the discovery violation claim seems to hang on a semantic quibble as opposed to an actual withholding of evidence.

 

[tsig]

Regarding the video in question that (O'Mara lied about in court), it appears that the excuse that it was a new video and that he hadn't seen it until recently is false. In fact, the defense has had this video since at least September of last year. In this document, Don West references having seen the video himself.

http://gzdocs.com/documents/0313/mfr_exhibits/exhibit_d.pdf

Another interesting thing about this as it relates to the "discovery violations" that are the subject of the last hearing, the defense had all of this data all the way back in 2012. If they had the raw data, even this video that they now claim was withheld from them, how can they claim anything was withheld? Again, it appears that this egregious lie from O'Mara, and indeed the entire "discovery violation" tactic, is just a scheme to leak as much damaging information as possible prior to trial in order to gin up negative media coverage of the victim.

It does look like his main strategy is to poison the jury pool.

 

[johnny karate]

In a letter dated September 19th, 2012, it is made clear that the defense not only had the video in question in their possession, but were also aware of what it contained:

You mentioned that you had seen a video connected to him in some way regarding a bicycle. We were previously unaware of anything like that, but later saw a clip taken from his cell phone SIM card that may have been what you are referencing.

 

[KatieG]

Lie to the court. Poison the jury pool. I know this is how defense attorneys usually handle cases, it just seems like obvious troll is obvious. Sanctions would be appropriate at this point.

 

[This is The End]

And the whole thing where Zimmerman exits his car and begins running...somewhere, and miraculously ends up near Martin again.

Don't forget, Z was not running. That was the wind!

 

[johnny karate]

Lie to the court. Poison the jury pool. I know this is how defense attorneys usually handle cases, it just seems like obvious troll is obvious. Sanctions would be appropriate at this point.

I'd be curious to know if there is a legal precedent for sanctions in this instance, because it seems to me that O'Mara can fall back on the "innocent mistake" defense. And I am also not aware that either side is required to be truthful when remarking about non-material issues.

However, the defense was admonished during the last hearing for talking to the media about something discussed in chambers. Judge Nelson seemed none too pleased with them over that, so they might already be on thin ice with her.

 

[bookworm]

Cites or evidence please?

Previously discussed in this thread.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Actually, no. You are aware, I assume, that the defense wants to depose Mr. Crump? And that Judge Nelson ruled that they couldn't, since he was opposing counsel and that his notes, thoughts, and discussions are privileged?

Filing the HOA settlement establishes that he's absolutely opposing counsel in the case record. It's just a move to show the appellate court that O'Mara has no basis for his frivolous appeal.

By the way, what do you make of the fact that the HOA, after seeing the evidence, declined to even wait for George's trial before settling? Will you just chalk that up to riots or political pressure? Because to most people, that would indicate they don't like George's chances at trial. At the least, they agreed that George had a record of violence and mental instability such that no sane HOA would put him him in charge of a NW, and that letting a guy like that go on armed patrols was negligent and led directly to the tragedy. Had George been in the right and was the noble hero some say he is, then why in the world would the HOA pay the Martins a single penny?

Judge Nelson ruling was bogus, apparently she was indulging in fantasies on how the law works. The DCA had to set her straight.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/dca5_opinion.pdf

 

[KatieG]

Judge Nelson ruling was bogus, apparently she was indulging in fantasies on how the law works. The DCA had to set her straight.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/dca5_opinion.pdf

All Judge Nelson's ruling have case law to support them. Your dissatisfaction with them doesn't negate them. They are allowed to depose Crump with strict limitations.

 

[WildCat]

Don't forget, Z was not running. That was the wind!

He was certainly not running while he was on the phone.

I continue to be amazed at the wild assumptions made in this thread.

 

[KatieG]

Can't we have a discussion without personal remarks? This entire case comes down to who hit who first.

No, it won't.

 

[johnny karate]

From the other thread:

Do you honestly believe that O'Mara thought that somehow the true nature of what was on the video would never be brought to light, and that he could get away with fabricating (according to you) an alternate description of what was on the video... and that this would never be called out by BDLR, nor found out by the judge?

The defense had the video in their possession and knew its contents since last September:

You mentioned you had seen a video connected to him in some way regarding a bicycle. We were previously unaware of anything like that, but later saw a clip taken from his cell phone SIM card that may have been what you are referencing.

But yeah, maybe you're right. Maybe O'Mara accidentally characterized the video he had known about for nine months in such a way that just happened to make Martin look like a violent sociopath. Oopsie!

Do you seriously think that he wanted to end up with egg on his face and having to issue an apology, giving red meat to Crump, BDLR, Jackson, et al... and risk sanctions?

What I seriously think is that O'Mara is intentionally trying to poison the jury pool knowing full well that you can't unring the bell. Once the lie is out there, enough people will continue to believe it even after the apology is issued to make the lie worthwhile.

The notion that he deliberately made up falsehoods about the video and then purposely lied about the video in open court, to a judge who already seems to have little love for him... makes no sense and is absurd.

Again, the defense has had the video for nine months. What I find absurd is the notion that somehow he forgot what was on it.

The much more logical explanation is exactly what he claims, that there was a misunderstanding about what the video showed.

The defense had the video. For nine months. Furthermore, when O'Mara brought it up at the hearing, he wasn't discussing it in the abstract. He was describing a video he had watched.

I don't see the logic in thinking he accidentally characterized it in a way that was both grossly inaccurate and beneficial to his client.

Where did you learn that he had misrepresented the video's contents, by the way? Was it from someone named Mark O'Mara?

No, actually it was from the Orlando Sentinel:

On Thursday, in preparation for the anticipated release of the fight video, an Orlando Sentinel reporter drafted a story describing it, intending to publish it once the video had been made public. A web producer prematurely posted it to OrlandoSentinel.com Friday but quickly took it down after discovering the video had not been released. The story correctly characterized the video. After readers found a cached version of the story online Sunday, Zimmerman's attorneys released their statement and decided against posting the video.

 

[ABC10]

We'll see. Actually, I think Nelson is so prosecution bias and made every effort to protect Crump with her nonsense rulings, I don't think she can keep it together. Obviously she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. She had another case overturned yesterday too. In everyone's best interest, it is time for her to retire from the case. Next Judge Up!

 

[phonebook]

Don't forget, Z was not running. That was the wind!

Well, in one of the interviews, when GZ was confronted (by Singleton, I believe) with "It sounds like you were running", GZ responded with "No, it was just windy". Serino then chimed in with a "Yeah it was", so apparently Serino could attest to it being windy that evening.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...rial-cop-application-20130604,0,7772961.story

SANFORD – Prosecutors have filed paperwork, revealing that murder defendant George Zimmerman applied to become a police officer in a county near Washington, D.C. but was turned down.

His application and rejection letter are among the latest pieces of evidence the state has notified defense attorneys they may use at Zimmerman's trial, which begins Monday.


Really ? Is this going to be part of the states 15th supplemental discovery ???? How is it possible this some kind of recent revelation ?

Also, does anyone here actually believe the state may actually use this ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Lie to the court. Poison the jury pool. I know this is how defense attorneys usually handle cases, it just seems like obvious troll is obvious. Sanctions would be appropriate at this point.

AFAIK, BDLR is the one accused of lying to the court, not MOM.

I am sure when the state released GZ school records to the public, it was an honest mistake, just like the state claimed. And when BDLR forgot to tell the defense 6 or 7 times about witness 8 going to the hospital, I am sure that he forgot, just like he said.

But clearly MOM thought he could lie about the video and then ... what , exactly ?

 

[johnny karate]

That this sentence:

He was certainly not running while he was on the phone.

... was followed by this sentence:

I continue to be amazed at the wild assumptions made in this thread.

... is simply stunning.

 

[johnny karate]

AFAIK, BDLR is the one accused of lying to the court, not MOM.

You're right, because in O'Mara's case no accusation is necessary. His falsehood is a matter of record, and one to which he admitted.

That Zimmerman's defenders choose to believe his falsehood was not a blatant lie is both precious and completely unsurprising.

I am sure when the state released GZ school records to the public, it was an honest mistake, just like the state claimed. And when BDLR forgot to tell the defense 6 or 7 times about witness 8 going to the hospital, I am sure that he forgot, just like he said.

You'll note that the mistakes claimed by the prosecution were neither fabrications nor prejudicial, or even material.

But hey, when you're constructing a tu quoque argument, you've got work with what you've got, even if the pickings are slim and irrelevant.

But clearly MOM thought he could lie about the video and then ... what , exactly ?

Continue in his plot to poison the jury, naturally. Do you think everyone who heard about the alleged video showing Martin and his friends beating a homeless person senseless also heard about the retraction? Or do you think some people might only be aware of the former?

Funny how the side of the debate that continues to rail about how unfairly Zimmerman was represented in the media over a year ago has no issue with the defense just completely manufacturing the existence of prejudicial evidence against Martin.

 

[johnny karate]

All Judge Nelson's ruling have case law to support them. Your dissatisfaction with them doesn't negate them. They are allowed to depose Crump with strict limitations.

Judge Nelson is the enemy now because she had the audacity to rule against Zimmerman. Clearly there is something wrong with her.

I'd be curious to know if those disagreeing with Judge Nelson's rulings also disagree with the rulings she made in Zimmerman's favor, or if she is only wrong when the ruling is against Zimmerman.

I look forward to the case-law-citing and well-articulated arguments I am certain to get in response.