Which text messages?
Having read through the prosecution motion – one argument was that some of Zimmerman’s statements to police contradict others, and also contradict other evidence including statements by other witnesses. The prosecution considers these statements incriminating and expects to use some of them at trial. Because of this they asked to judge to consider the statements as a form of confession which would be extremely prejudicial if made public. The judge wasn’t willing to make that leap – from “contradictory statements” to “confession”. My non-lawyerly self agrees with him.
Has anyone got a link to the defense motion which argues for the same outcome? Basically the judge turned them both down, so the decision really can’t be characterized as a victory for either side.
Order on The State’s Motion for Protective Order and the Media Intervener’s Motions to Intervene
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/SKMBT_363-V12061312310.pdf
This is kind on confusing since as far as I know the crime scene photos and the autopsy report except for pictures of Martin’s body have already been release.
What’s kind of confusing is some witness statements contradict other witness statements. At trial, do you pick out that ones that match Zimmerman’s story more closely, or the ones that don 't?
Lol, that’s what the teabagging link was about?
Depends whether you’re a defense attorney or a prosecutor.
Not really, they’re just pissed because everything that makes Zimmerman look bad gives more… ammunition? …seeming justification? …to Al Sharpton.
The prosecutor apparently is using text messages sent by Zimmerman in the days after the shooting as evidence.
Neither the prosecution’s motion nor the judge’s decision say anything at all about text messages. There was no request to seal them, and there was no order to seal or unseal them. If they’ve been examined at all, apparently neither side has found any relevance to them.
There are comments in both documents about “cell phone records”, but only in reference to disclosing names and/or phone numbers of individuals listed on the bills. IOW, these records do not contain the text of any messages.
According to this article http://www.wcvb.com/news/national/Zimmerman-defense-prosecution-oppose-public-info-release/-/9848944/14418968/-/6yasvqz/-/index.html, it’s the defense that wants to keep the text messages under wraps, along with emails and some other communications.
Does this judge’s ruling only apply to the prosecution’s motion? Maybe that’s why the text messages aren’t addressed.
The judge’s order DOES start with, “Order on the State’s Motion for Protective Order and the Media Interveners’ Motions…”, so it is possible there will be a separate ruling on the defense motion.
But the ruling doesn’t leave much of any wiggle room for evidence. “All material previously provided in discovery shall be released according to the terms of this order… release of future discovery will be on accordance with this order. However, the parties may continue to file redacted discovery exhibits with a contemporaneous Motion for Protective Order…”
It may be that O’Mara has filed a motion specifically related to text messages that the judge hasn’t yet decided on. Like I said earlier, I would like to see the text of O’Mara’s motion that paralleled this one from the prosecution. But I haven’t found it. Do you know of a link?
Ok, I’ve done some poking around through http://www.flcourts18.org
It appears to be the official court document repository for that chunk of Florida state. Here is O’mara’s motion, if is actually a motion (we’ll need a lawyer to answer that one). It is titled “Defendant’s Concurrence to the State’s Motion…” Also, if this is not a motion, but rather a concurrence to the state’s motion, it may not require a separate decision by the judge. Again, hopefully Bricker or some other real lawyer can come along and clarify that.
Motion or not, there are indeed specific references to text messages. The claim is that there are various emails, text messages, journal entries (he keeps a diary?), and other material that have nothing at all to do with the case, but were swept up by the police and/or the prosecution during the investigation. The defense asks that they be kept from the press until the defense team has a chance to review all the information. So the defense wants to assure that the prosecution doesn’t release every scrap of paper in its possession with George Zimmerman’s name on it to the press. It’s clear from the comments on page 4 that the defense doesn’t know the actual contents of all this stuff.
More questions for the real lawyers. I didn’t see any mention of this material in the judge’s ruling, which can mean at least three different things that I can think of. 1. The judge simply forgot. 2. The judge plans to make a separate ruling on this material. 3. The judge doesn’t expect this material to even show up in the discovery process unless the prosecution makes a determination that it’s relevant to the case, and if that happens the the defense can move that it not be made public.
I suspect option 3 is correct. The judge’s ruling specifies that either party can file redacted exhibits so both parties have time to argue before the judge whether un-redacted exhibits have to be filed where the press can get to it.
But – how does the defense get a fair shot at protesting the release in information it doesn’t even have? Does the prosecution have to provide the defense with all the material it plans to use BEFORE putting it in the public files? That’s the only way I can think of that allows the defense to try keeping stuff out of the press if the prosecution thinks it’s ok to get into the press.
I thought discovery already took place for everything gathered so far. The defense has had plenty of time to look at the text messages and emails, so the idea they want to hold off on their release until they’ve reviewed them makes no sense to me.
I don’t think the prosecution gives everything it collects to the defense, unless they decide it is relevant to the trial. This would include any evidence that points toward guilt or innocence. Clearly they wouldn’t use the latter evidence at trial themselves, but they are supposed to make it available to the defense so they can decide whether or not to use it.
It may be that the prosecution has determined none of the stuff is relevant, or it may be that they haven’t finished looking at all of it yet. The judge’s ruling anticipates future discovery, so apparently all parties recognize that new evidence might still show up.
There have been some serious abuses of the discovery process by by prosecutors’ offices, most notably the New Orleans DA. Several cases of theirs have ended up at the US Supreme Court because prosecutors have not turned over potentially exculpatory evidence they found to the defense. New Orleans prosecutor trivia – the head of that office is Harry Connick. Yes, almost that Harry Connick, the father of celebrity piano player/crooner/actor Harry Connick, Jr. The elder Connick seems to be a much worse lawyer that his son is a piano player.
Apparently the FBI sent agents to gun dealers, asking if Zimmerman made any racial remarks, and these interviews will be released soon. It won’t amount to much, obviously, since Zimmerman taught Sunday School to minority kids. By the way, FYI, Zimmerman’s father adopted him. His biological parents are Peruvian Indians, with some white and black mixed in. The phrase “white Hispanic” seems rather dubious, though Zimmerman identifies as Hispanic.
Does anyone know if Zimmerman’s injunction (restraining order) filed against him by his ex is still in effect?
I ask because i came across a link to the Florida’s statutes for concealed carry licensure , and noticed that in “question 11” (pg 5) license is denied or suspended in cases in which someone has an injunction in effect against them.
If it so happens that GZ was carrying w/o a license, what bearing does this have on his case? If he was breaking the law by having that weapon, does that automatically mean he killed Martin unlawfully?
I’m pretty sure he had a concealed carry license, else he certainly would have at least been arrested for that. (Plus, I’m pretty sure I remember reading that he did.) It’s quite possible that he lied on the application, though, since he has routinely lied about so many similar types of things.
Even if we cant agree that he murdered Martin, i think we can all agree the likelihood of Zimmerman lying about that injunction when he applied for his gun permit (assuming he applied after it) is effectively 100%. Lies issue from his body like gas.
Protective injunctions were later ordered in response to both petitions. Both injunctions expired Aug. 24, 2006.
Thanks for that info.