“If neither the state or defense ever intended to use her “testimony” in the trial, then it does not have to be included in discovery.”
I though discovery was where the defense finds out what evidence the prosecution has? Is that incorrect?
If not, then it doesn’t seem that the defense could know if they were going to use it or not until after they had seen it.
Yeah, I’m seeing a bit of a conundrum here. The solution of course is for the state not to provide any discovery evidence to the defense; then the defense doesn’t use the information at trial, as required. Problem solved, $10 please.
By the way, you know that “reciprocal discovery” that O’Mara promised to file regarding witness #9? It will be about her shopping her story (unsuccessfully) to several media outlets, including People magazine.
So I guess you just want the State to decide for the defense if the defense will use any possible evidence.
Witness 9’s statements - sex molestation allegations notwithstanding - are possible evidence for the defense. If the State wants to claim that George is a flaming racist, they can trot out Witness #9’s statements that say, while she thought GZ was a racist, she never actually saw/heard/observed any actual racist behaviour.
I think both W#9 and DeeDee are two witnesses that both the State and Defense will be happy if they never testify…
Can you honestly imagine any magazine turning down a story like this?
What if the prosecutor has exculpatory evidence the state does not have? Are they required to disclose it to the defense in discovery, if the prosecution does not plan to use it?
You’re confused. “State” and “prosecutor” are synonymous in this context. And yes. As I said, if the state AND the defense consider the testimony irrelevant to the case, it should not be released in discovery.
Let’s say tomorrow I call Corey, say I want to talk about Zimmerman, and tell her that once upon a time I attended his birthday party and the cake was to die for. Do you think this call should be included in discovery and released to the public?
Why would the prosecution tie its own hands together if they didn’t need to? Just because they may not need Witness #9’s testimony right now doesn’t mean they won’t in the future. Perhaps something else will come up during the trial. Its stupid to suggest that the prosecution, before the trial, would simply dismiss a witness that was close to Zimmerman. This case could easily hinge on credibility or character, and a victim of molestation can easily be seen as credible to testify to Zimmerman’s character
Even if they were pretty sure they weren’t going to use Witness #9, it doesn’t make any sense to remove her from the list at this point. Its too early
Take it up with the laws of Florida. This is how they do things there, everything gets released because the sunshine laws are so strong. Why don’t you blame George for being a creep, because if he hadn’t, then this testimony wouldn’t even exist in the first place. But no, nothing is George’s fault, its all Corey’s dastardly doing and this evil plot by the prosecutor, the judge, the state of Florida, and the entire media conspiring to take down an innocent upstanding citizen for no reason at all … :rolleyes:
The statute of limitation on unobserved racism is the time it takes for police to hang up the phone on the looney making the call.
Florida has no statute of limitation concerning events that didn’t take place in FLA. There is also no statute of limitations concerning sex crimes that didn’t take place. According to W9, her parents, Zimmerman’s parents, and another woman are aware of what allegedly took place. The other woman, if there is another woman, told her she’ll deny that anything took place, according to W9. That’s certainly sounds credible. So that leaves the parents. Have the police followed up on this red hot tale of crime and passion?
I think you are misinformed about the purpose of discovery. It is not for the benefit of the public, it is for the benefit of the defense. The state/prosecutor has to turn over what ever they have, without making judgements about how useful it might be. The fact that discovery is released to the public is secondary, and not relevant to what is or isn’t subject to being turned over. In some jurisdictions, discovery is not made public.
Judge Lester has issued a slap-down of epic proportions. He’s all but screaming ‘take this and shove it, bee-yatch’.
Defense’s Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge is ‘long on conjecture and irrelevant and inaccurate bombast…, short on actual fact, and devoid of legal merit’.
‘Why this and other such matters is discussed in a motion to disqualify the judge is an open question; perhaps so it could be published by the media and defendant’s website, and - without any response by the State - be wrongly perceived as accurate’.
Actually that’s the State, not the judge.
In your eagerness, did you overlook the fact that the document to which you linked is not Judge Lester’s decision but Corey’s response to O’Mara’s motion?
In your eagerness to score a point, did you overlook the post above yours?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2898502/jail-call-says-defense-attorney.html
Odd that no one has mentioned the jail recording where Zimmerman mentioned that he tried to transfer $37,000 out of paypal and told O’Mara about it.
I’m inclined to believe O’Mara. I suspect he wasn’t listening when Zimmerman was talking.
There doesn’t appear to be a time stamp on this document.
Huh? He recalls talk about a transfer, but doesn’t recall a specific amount? So he does he know it was or wasn’t for $10,000 or $100,000 or $30,000? He’s saying he remembers but he doesn’t?
Maybe Zimmerman was talking in code and said $37 or O’Mara was only listening with half an ear.
Some lawyer. Only listening to his client with half an ear?
Or he’s bullshitting.
So either he’s a liar or a bad lawyer I guess huh?