The current thinking is that Crump filed all (or part) of the HOA settlement with the trial court - perhaps to show that O'Mara was involved with the settlement as counsel/advisor for the HOA/Insurance company, in an attempt to convince the trial court that Crump is, in fact, "opposing counsel of some kind".

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

My first post here, but been lurking for a while now.

Assume that Judge Nelson declared Crump "opposing counsel of some sort" because she was aware of O'Mara's involvement with the HOA matter; now that there has been a settlement, doesn't that mean that Crump is no longer "opposing counsel" and thus O'Mara should be free to depose him without conflict.

State might not file much of a response. Just join whatever Crump files. As far as BDLR is concerned, Crump is the firewall.
As far as Crump is concerned, Sybrina and Tracy are the firewall.

I'm still waiting for someone to show some legal basis for why the criminal trial court should care about matters not before it - such as a civil suit between the Martin family and the RATL HOA/insurance company. That suit has nothing to do with State v G. Zimmerman. As far as the trial court is concerned, the Martin family, Benjamin Crump, and the RATL HOA/insurance company are non-parties; further, the only parties are the State of Florida and George Zimmerman, and the only opposing counsel are the SAO and O'Mara/West.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I agree that there has been no legal basis proffered that O'Mara and Crump are opposing counsel, however it has been stated by many that perhaps Nelson was attempting to use the HOA matter to define "opposing counsel of some kind". In my non-lawyer mind, that argument no longer applies at all since that matter was closed with the published settlement.

5th DCA would appear to agree with you. They don't care about work product in a civil case when the issue is discovery of evidence in a criminal case.

Maguire v. State, 5th DCA

We deny the petition for writ of certiorari. Under the circumstances of this case the State's right to obtain evidence for use in a criminal case is more important to society and the public interest than petitioners' work product privilege which is based on a court approved civil rule of procedure. This case does not involve any claim by Mr. Siplin, the defendant in the criminal case, as to constitutional rights against self-incrimination or interference with the constitutional right to counsel or attorney-client, or other privilege. Furthermore, our holding that petitioners' work product privilege is not a bar to production of evidence pursuant to a State subpoena in a criminal case does not necessarily mean that petitioners will be unable to successfully assert a work product privilege in any civil case to which they are parties.

From Chip:


Rewriting the record of the Zimmerman case so "well, he's [opposing] counsel of some sort,” though that doesn't look like it's of that great a value in the appeal unless Nelson gets a ruling that allows her a Mulligan on her ruling in question.

If the DCA reviews the case on the merits, I don't think "opposing counsel" will be a major concern. I expect the DCA will focus on whether an attorney should be able to sequester a witness from LEO, coach the witness for purposes of financial gain and then hide behind the attorney work product privilege.

John_Galt: Is there any possibility, in your opinion, the DCA tapped O'Mara or West on the shoulder and invited or encouraged them to file the writ? Is that EVER done to your knowledge? (I'm just having a hard time believing no one in a position to care outside Nelson's courtroom is watching all this go down, appalled at what has devolved from a travesty of justice to Benjy and Bernie's Flying Circus.)

Unlikely and improper. MOM and West don't need that kind of encouragement, they already know it is a travesty.

Thanks for your response. I realize MOM/West know this case is a travesty. But with so many forces aligned against them, I would think they could be getting skittish. With regard to the DCA, I suppose I should be thankful any judicial body in Florida is still concerned with propriety. Yikes.

May I quote you?

Good point but this is so confusing I'm not sure.

I can't imagine why the civil settlement has anything to do with the criminal case.

Money does the strangest things to people. And, not to be ugly, the aforementioned sum represents a fair amount of money to the Martin/Fulton family. Inevitably, someone is not going to get 'their cut'. And when that happens, the truth shall begin to emerge.

_________________
Getting facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality.
- P. J. O'Rourke

I was wondering the same thing. I understood the settlement entails that there won't be any liabilities or claims between parties - including claims agaist Martins/Fulton.

Thne, was this supposed to be kept confidential, is there a breach of contract made by going public or something?

But then, Crump announced that he will sue Zimmerman, does this mean that O'Mara and Crump are to be considered opposing counsels in a future case?

It puzzles, that what money is Crump after with Zimmerman. If Zimmerman will be found guilty in criminal court, it would seem he could hardly win his case against media, but be penniless in jail.

But if he is acquitted or the case dismissed, he seems to have strong case against media, but on the other hand Crump was a kind of co-conspirator in these false media accusations and misleading disinformation ... so to go after money the Media owes to Zimmerman because of Crump's machinations ... it seems twisted ...


If the defence get to depose Crump, it's possible that it completely blows the state's absurd murder charge out off the water. It seems totally bizarre that here Crump hides behind his "manufactured evindence as a priveledged work product"

Thanks will do the avatar and location later.

My understanding is, that the previous insurer didn't admit any liabilities, it just paid money, and the case was settled, no liabilities no claims between parties after that.

I guess we will know more details if Nelson unseals the settlement.

Out of court settlements are typically "hush money" No liability conceded.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Reminder


As well as this DAILY discussion thread about the GZ case... there is also

DAILY DAFT POSTS FROM JUSTARSE QUEST
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=822&p=30342#p30341



If only Trayvon had kept his hands in his pockets, none of this would have happened.

]

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I have a great solution to the Crump deposition issue. Have the FBI come in and question Crump about his crimes he committed in the case and turn those transcripts over to MOM. I am sure that would be much better for Crump than having to risk being asked a question that might harm his civil case.

Not to mention that George was not a party to that suit. (Actually I dont think there ever was a suit, I believe they settled pre-suit.)

The first thing I want to see is the DATE of the settlement agreement. This may be more about shifting the focus off of Crump. He may think that it bolster's the state's case if the insurance company did pay out.

_________________
"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event. Everything I have is adding up to what he says." - Christopher Serino