Sunday, April 28, 2013
Crane and I are counting down the hours to 9 am, Tuesday when Judge Nelson will commence the hearing that we have been waiting for since BDLR filed his epic Shakespearean put down of Mark O’Mara. In case you missed it Friday, O’Mara filed a super whiny Reply to State’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Against State Attorney’s Office for Discovery Violations. In a five-page reply neck deep in irony, he asked Judge Nelson to strike BDLR’s response to his motion for sanctions for discovery violations citing rules of professional conduct that require lawyers to tell the truth and not disparage other parties and their lawyers. Imagine that! This request is from the man who specializes in using his media mouthpieces at the Orlando Sentinel to keep repeating his message misrepresenting the evidence in Trayvon’s case while demonizing him, his family, and Dee Dee without a shred of evidence to support his false accusations. We about laughed ourselves sick when we read his whiny and fundamentally dishonest reply
The following matters have been noted for the hearing:
By the Defense:
1. Defendant’s demand for specific discovery, dated March 26, 2013, regarding any and all data regarding any downloads from any phone or phone number connected to George Zimmerman or his wife Shellie, etc. from the State of Florida
2. Defendant’s motion for sanctions against State Attorney’s Office for discovery violations, dated March 25, 2013
3. Defendant’s motion for sanctions against State Attorney’s Office for payment of attorney fees and costs, dated March 26, 2013
4. Defendant’s motion to unseal information listed as confidential information within a court filing or, in the alternative, demand for specific discovery, dated April 11, 2013
5. Motion to determine confidentiality of court records in opposition to defendant’s motion to unseal, dated April 12, 2013 (filed by Benjamin L. Crump, Esq. Jarian N. Lyons, Esq., Counsel for the Estate of Trayvon Martin)
6. Defendant’s demand for specific discovery, dated April 25, 2013, regarding any and all data, regarding any downloads or reports from any phone or phone number connected to Trayvon Martin from the State of Florida
7. Defendant’s demand for specific discovery dated April 25, 2013, regarding any and all cleaned up, edited and/or enhanced version(s) of any and all recorded 911 calls listened to by Tracy Martin from the State of Florida
8. Defendant’s motion to allow additional witness disclosure.
Regarding the defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari and the thunderstorm of motions for sanctions and terms:
I previously described them as “ridiculous” and I see no reason to change my opinion.
The defendant’s effort to obtain judicial permission to depose Ben Crump does not make any sense. He did not witness the shooting; he conducted an investigation of Trayvon’s death on behalf of his clients, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton. As a result of that investigation, he contacted Dee Dee and scheduled a telephonic interview. To avoid the possibility of being the only witness to what she said during the conversation, he arranged to have other people present when the call took place and he placed Dee Dee on a speaker phone so that everyone present could hear both sides of the conversation.
To obtain judicial approval to depose Crump, the defense must show, among other things, that no other witness except Crump can answer its questions. The presence of the other witnesses in his office during the call, whom the defense has not deposed, means the defense request to depose Crump must be denied.
Another requirement the defense must satisfy is that Crump’s answers would be relevant and admissible at trial. O’Mara has asserted that his answers would be relevant and admissible, but he has not provided a reason to support that conclusion. Why Crump’s testimony might be relevant is not apparent. Since Dee Dee talked to Trayvon, she is the witness with relevant and admissible testimony, not Crump.
Crump’s efforts to locate Dee Dee and interview her are attorney work product that is protected from disclosure. His conversations with his clients are protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege.
Moreover, his effort to investigate George Zimmerman as the person who unlawfully killed Trayvon places his interests in opposition to O’Mara. This is another bar to the deposition.
Therefore, O’Mara’s argument to obtain judicial approval to depose Ben Crump not only appears to be doomed, it appears that it never had a chance to succeed. That is why I described it as ridiculous and a waste of time.
Time is running out for O’Mara with the trial date little more than 30 days away. I believe he is finally beginning to realize that his smoke and mirrors defense cobbled together out of half-truths, false statements and misstatements ain’t gonna make it to the courthouse on June 10th.
With the confirmation that the defendant is going to waive his statutory right to an immunity hearing on Tuesday, it should finally be clear to even the most devout believers that the defendant is going down.
O’Mara has invested a considerable amount of time and energy riding his client’s case to fame and fortune. I do not doubt his anger and disappointment. Nevertheless, blaming BDLR and Judge Nelsons for his own failures is the way his client behaves.
He needs to grow up.