Why would you think that MOM screwed over Zimmerman with this? MOM more than likely didn't tell GZ to take the stand. It would appear that Zimmerman wanted to address those questions posed by Sybrina Fulton. I feel certain that MOM addressed the fallout of this with him and he chose to do it anyway.

Give credit where credit is due. That was Zimmerman's decision. When BDLR tried to go outside of the scope, O'Mara prevented it by raising objections.

If Zimmerman is apparently willing to go along with the no-pre-trial-immunity-hearing gambit, then I believe he would have been willing to listen to an ardent admonition regarding not taking the stand during the bond hearing in order to make a statement to Martin's family.

Yes, it is ultimately Zimmerman's decision to have done so; but a competent lawyer acting in his client's best interests would have done everything in his power to prevent it.

_________________
"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)

It was probably the Denney case where the man stabbed the waitress over 100 times. That's the one I saw her on.

Other options for MOM:
Strap Zimmerman to his chair and duct tape his mouth.

IMO, it is laughable to blame a decision made by his client on Mark O'Mara.

I am not so sure about the Immunity Hearing. It is cancelled for April only and the judge was willing to point that out to BDLR at the end of the hearing.

Rule is 45 days before the start of the trial. There is no reason to suspect that the Defense will not try for another continuance. If they got one, and I think it is possible/probable since to NOT allow it would set in motion a direct path to the 5th DCA, does that mean that there still cannot be a Dennis Hearing? For an example only, If the trial is rescheduled for Sept 1, couldn't there still be a hearing in mid-July? I can't find anything that says he cannot do this.

Regardless, MOM can push for Immunity either before the start of the trial, after the Prosecution rests its case, or before the jury goes in for deliberations. It isn't like that entire option was tossed out in the trash.

Jeralyn had a nice writ-up about in on her TL blog.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/6/5418/05480

I agree with you. This is just one of the many times when people harp on one statement and try to use it to prove that Mr. Zimmerman is lying. I have seen the ones who hate him do this over and over.

His view of what was happening that night was evolving constantly.

I have no reason to believe that O'Mara did try to disuade George or even if he disagreed with George's decision. George is the one who will be doing the time if this trial goes South so he is not an uninterested bystander to the proceeding. I am sure O"Mara and West are running the show but at the same time, I can see George wanting so say he is sorry and it is his life. O'Mara and West are highly experienced and no doubt in my mind, they know what they are doing. Whats Alan Dershowitz say??

The first comment is what drives me crazy in this case. The whole problem, to me, is that the DeeDee scenario didn't come about until after the 911 calls were released as well as other information. That has been what has bothered me from the beginning. Her actions that night, as well as in the short period of time after, doesn't come close to the way a normal person would behave if she truly heard what she claims she heard that night.

No wonder she had some of the timing right. They didn't trot her out until after the information was public knowledge.

5th DCA case: need for evidence in criminal case trumps (crumps?) work product in witness statements taken for purpose of civil litigation.

Maguire v. State, 458 So. 2d 311

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

Thanks. ....send it to Nelson and the defense.

http://blackamericaweb.com/111648/the-n ... onvention/
(remember NAN was founded by sharpton and involved in the case)


WILL THEY MENTION THE SLAUGHTER OF WHITE BABIES AT THE HANDS OF BLACK TEENS?



“Our civil rights are under imminent attack in this country from voter suppression, gun violence, joblessness, and corporate disenfranchisement, and we still have to fight for immigration reform, marriage equality, health care reform and accountability from our elected officials,” Sharpton said.

Look at the date stamp on the top right of the document. It says "13March 20" I think the 20 is supposed to be 2013. I don't think there's anything scheduled for the 20th. This is the only document that refers to the deposition of W8.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Rel ... h%2013.pdf

Yep, that's the one! Thanks! I was watching in bed right before I went to sleep. I had nightmares.

There is still no update from Mike. That would be quite a story to make up... not something Mike would do.

"The first part of the deposition was completed on Wednesday, March 13, and additional time was reportedly scheduled for Friday, March 22."

It's just one line in a blog?

http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.c ... mment-8935

Which follows on from a Sentinel article. I doubt he has any more info to give.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... -zimmerman

Zimmerman's attorneys did not finish questioning the 19-year-old woman, his office said, and will schedule another
session.

I think that is as much as we or Mike know.

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

No, that would be March 20th, 2013. Look at the date on the very bottom of the page.

_________________
Figures never lie, but liars sometime figure.

Correct the document was not signed until March 19, 2013, copied service on the same day to BDLR, Don West, and the court reporter, and was filed and stamped by the clerk on March 20, 2013

That's Austin, telling his original story.

Then his mom got hooked up with NatJack, and suddenly, Austin's story changed.

The defense has deposed him.

_________________
"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 bad.

The document was updated on 3/20.

Nevertheless, thus far it's the only court document about W8's depo so I doubt another time has been scheduled yet.

That's a great case for the defense to argue. I wonder if they're aware of it. It's especially strong considering that in State v. Davis the Florida supreme court said that when considering a privilege that would deny evidence to a defendant, the court must not only weigh the factors that would apply if denying the evidence to state, but must also factor in the defendant's rights under the U.S. and Florida constitutions.

Another great blog from SD at CTH.....

Moving Forward On The Zimmerman Case Research – Understanding Objectivity
Posted on March 25, 2013 by sundance

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... jectivity/

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