This is breaking: Looks like the defense is finally pulling the trigger on Crump.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/mo ... ration.pdf

_________________

Seems like Professor Fool is MIA and so the Leatherheads are turning on each other in the absence of their leader. There is a major debate going on rehashing the stupid theories that Trayvon didn't ever tough George. Using such logic as "Trayvon was too timid to confront George" and "no DNA means that he never touched him" or the best one "I saw a professional fight once and the guys nose started bleeding right away so George would have gotten blood on Trayvon if he nose was hit".

They just can't accept that EVERYONE involved in the case admits to Trayvon being the cause of George's injuries. They are having a huge issue with understanding how the little 12 year old in the Holister shirt could have caused these injuries.

Now a great spinoff of this discussion is Whonoze who is still sticking to the fact that there was a coordinated plan to kill Trayvon. In an amazing display of cognitive dissidence, he is saying that the 3 stooges were part of the plan and were sent to the 7-11 to slow Trayvon down long enough for George to be able to find him at the mail thingy. Wow, these people are really living in an alternate universe.

LOL, I just logged on here to post that link...

The problem with these arguments, as I've tried to explain to close-minded Trayvonites in other places, is that they are coming at this with a preconceived notion that every time, for example, someone's nose is broken it, it bleeds in exactly one way or looks exactly one way.

This is not the case.

In reality, all fights are different-different skill sets, some people don't bruise as easily, etc--and there is a range of realistic plausible injuries that may result. The true test is whether the George's and Trayvon's injuries (or lack thereof) fall within that range. The answer is clearly yes, although I've never gotten them to admit it.

[And good grief, I've never seen such a riot of emoticons to choose from over there on the left <== ]

Ouch, not only are they calling out Crump, but they are putting Nelson in the hot seat.

Finally, clarification of Crump being deemed "opposing counsel." As I have stated all along, Nelson did not deem Crump "opposing counsel" in the State's prosecution of Zimmerman, but rather in heretofore un-filed civil actions by Martin's family against Zimmerman. From her ruling denying the deposition of Crump:



In reading the defense's motion to clarify/reconsider, I'm not sure they attack this "deeming" quite sufficiently (even though it is utterly illogical). They merely demonstrate that the case law Nelson used only applied to opposing counsel in present litigation, rather than to currently non-existent litigation.

_________________
"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 note also that Exhibit B, in any sane court, would be considered as prima facie grounds for a Richardson hearing, based on the documented discovery shenanigans it contains, as well as the dates of resolution. For example, the date of the Exhibit B email is 23 August 2012. The State finally disclosed the original color cell phone camera pictures - what, December? January? (I don't remember exactly when.)

_________________
"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)

Chip, and as I recall in the hearing, Judge Nelson just said, "he's opposing counsel or some kind of counsel at least." Sounds like she tried to clarify it in her written order, but it's still off base from my IANAL-view.

The next question is which media outlet is going to be the first to pick this up and how will they report it?

I have tried to open this link from this site as well as from DiWataMan's site and I get "Internet cannot display this webb page" each time. Obviously others were able to open it and comment on it. I don't know why I am unable to access it.



Edit Rumpole
IAN computer wiz... but it could be a pdf reader problem?
Time for an update?

They are very gentle with Crump: his affidavit is "inaccurate and incomplete" (as opposed to lied under oath) and he had "substantive conversations with W8" (as opposed to tampered and coached) although they did specifically reference the classic Crump countdown.

At paragraph 12, they say ABC recording was released Feb 22. I thought it was Feb 28 ?

I saw that as being tactful. They are saying the same thing, but it looks a bit more professional to use the terms they used.

New Poll concept: Will Nelson order Crump's deposition?

If yes, then:

Will Crump plead the 5th?

KMG has picked the story up. Neutral story, just that they are seeking to depose again.

Slantinel has a story now too.

Given the deference that Nelson shows to any "officer of the court" not part of the defense, I think their wordsmithing was wise.

_________________
"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 think the defense has done a good job of perfecting the record for appeal. They could have written a treatise on the topic of everything wrong with Nelson's previous order, which would probably really piss Nelson off. Note that the appeal court takes a fresh look at all issues of law, so Nelson's errant views on the law with respect to work product don't carry any weight on appeal. The facts concerning Crump's actual status are clear on the record. With the release of the ABC recording documenting witness coaching and waiver, I think we're firmly in abuse of discretion territory if Nelson continues to block Crump's deposition. It also gives Nelson a face saving way out: The newly released recording justifies Crump's deposition (waiver, inaccurate affidavit, witness coaching going to credibility of witness) vs. My prior order was wrong.

The motion also relates to the not otherwise available journalist privilege exception issue with respect to the apparently still pending ABC recording subpoena motion. If Nelson continues to block Crump's deposition, then it makes the argument for getting all of ABC's recordings stronger.

Is an appeal on grounds of abuse of discretion ripe any earlier than the other avenues of appeal that are only ripe upon conviction?

I will say this: after John Guy admitted in open court that Witness 8 lied, Nelson displayed a demonstrable deference to the defense's motions for the remainder of the hearing. (I am unsure if the defense would have gotten the FDLE bios - even as-redacted - if the Witness 8 revelation hadn't come up earlier.) I will be incredibly curious to see how Nelson responds to this motion, after being gift-wrapped evidence that Crump lied in the affidavit that she so readily accepted from Boss Tweed Blackwell two hearings prior.

_________________
"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 have been reading through the Aug/Sept correspondence/emails. The first email has W9 listed. I thought it was just an error on behalf of West since he was still relatively new to the team back then but he carries that same W9 classification over into later correspondence and discusses her anonymous call to SPD.

Bullets 8 - 9 begin address W8.

Bullet 13 is interesting because it discusses a video clip taken from the cell phone in regards to a bike that the defense had not received. I am wondering if that has audio attached to it. I am also wondering how many more video clips were available through that phone.

Does anyone else but me think it is amusing that Parks/Crump Attorney At Law is an "LLC" company?

Based on the recent DCA 5th case that MJW previously posted at CTH, I think that an order blocking a deposition would likely be viewed as ripe only after conviction.



Possible reasons to continue to shield Crump: (1) Crump witness tampering trail leads to BDLR (Crump depo may reveal that he prepped BDLR for the April 2 W8 interview); and (2) DOJ influence.