Without reading due to link broken, I assume as expected Nelson sided with the prosecution. Is the hearing done?

How Nelson ever got to be a judge is beyond me. She looks like someone who could join Carol Burnet cleaning office buildings during the night with pail and mop.

My favorite part of the post hearing Crump presser was when someone asked NatJackson who she was...

I'm hoping there will be some on the jury that think differently and either push their fellow jurist for an acquittal or ensure it's a hung jury.

I'm hoping there will be some on the jury that think differently and either push their fellow jurist for an acquittal or ensure it's a hung jury.

Her rush to answer that the parents would rather have their child back IS NOT THE POINT!!

12:45 p.m. ET: Defense attorney O'Mara just finished a brief press conference outside the courthouse.

“This case has taken on a huge significance well beyond the facts of the case. Trayvon Martin was not profiled because he was black. George is not a racist. It was an event where two lives intersected and one of them got extraordinarily aggressive. The evidence supports that was Trayvon Martin, who had no injuries but for the fatal gunshot,” said O’Mara. “Criminal immunity is going to be granted to George by the jury and that is what we are looking towards. So in that context, talking about immunity when we know we’re going to have a jury trial is irrelevant. It truly is."

The parents wanted Trayvon so much that he was not living with either of them.

She looks like a dude in a wig. Freaks me out a little.

not at GZ legal site yet .. but will probably be there later ... Meanwhile I reuploaded them to my Mediafire: (in case anyone wants to check 'em out)

4/29/13 Proposed Respondent Benjamin L. Crump, Esq.’s Response to Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

Proposed Respondent Benjamin L. Crump, Esq.’s Response to Petition For Writ Of Certiorari that was filed with the Fifth District Court of Appeals on 4/29/2013 by Bruce Blackwell, Esq. and Shayan Modarres, Esq. on behalf of Benjamin Crump, Esq.:

5th DCA Response of Proposed Respondent B. Crump - http://www.mediafire.com/view/?gp36232723z564o

5th DCA Motion for Leave to Respond - http://www.mediafire.com/view/?kmn9y1vec9vsyfp

5th DCA Index to and Supp. App. - http://www.mediafire.com/view/?svowitqy6dpdv4o

April 30, 2013 at 3:33 pm

Wait, really? Boss Tweed Blackwell is arguing that the petition is moot because the defense listed Crump as a witness, which then precludes them from deposing him under Rule 3.220?

The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category A witness. . . . After receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged.

Surely there will be case law that will determine the validity of this interpretation; however, a plain reading of the rule text indicates that “unlisted witness” refers to the State’s witness list, not the Defense’s witness list. to wit:

The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category A witness…[and] without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged.

Blackwell’s argument here is illogical. Does he really believe that the intent of the rule is such that, once the defense lists someone as a witness, the defense may no longer depose that person?

April 30, 2013 at 4:13 pm

There is also the fact that the defense listed (March 21, 2013) Crump as a witness only after Nelson denied their motion (March 4, 2013) to depose Crump. But for the trial court’s improper denial of the motion to depose Crump, the defense would have had time to depose Crump and decide whether to list him as a witness in advance of the March 27, 2013 deadline set in the October 29, 2012 scheduling order.

So I agree, stupid and illogical argument:

Defendant should not be allowed to depose Crump because the court’s errant order denying defendant’s motion to depose Crump forced defendant to list Crump as a witness to comply with the court’s deadline for listing witnesses. Rather, defendant should have waited for this appeal to run its course and then, if successful, attempted to persuade the court to allow belated listing of Crump as a witness, if Crump’s deposition ultimately revealed evidence helpful to the defendant.

There was .. earlier!

"Trayvon Martin's Shooter" or "Trayvon Martin's Killer" doesn't bother me too much, actually ...

Cuz anyway you slice it ... that exactly what happened .. GZ shot / killed TM .. in self defence from what we know or can see to-date.

If they would say "Trayvon Martin's Murderer", though ... then I would have a problem with it.

Bringing this O'Mara presser statement forward to show yet again why O'Mara confuses me. There he was at the hearing, not objecting as much as he should have (especially to Judge Nelson's questioning of GZ) and other things that actual attorneys can cite - then he turns around and makes a good, forceful statement like the one above.

Unlike West, O'Mara keeps me going back and forth on whether he is the best choice for GZ.

Wowzer! Crump got the family of Martin Lee Anderson $7.4 million. Curiously, $5 milion came throuigh the Legislature pushed through by the Governor, Charlie Crist.

Several months later, the seven staff members who were arrested for killing Anderson were acquitted. Anderson was black - the guards were white and Asian. Crump fought their acquittal for three years and took it all the way to the Feds.

So this is apparently part of his agenda in The GZ case - he wants GZ to pay for the acquittal of the seven staff members who killed Anderson. (whom he called "a little black boy")

It appears that Crump is racially paranoid.

http://www.thefamuanonline.com/news/mar ... -1.2230909