On April 30, 2013, a hearing running just over three hours was held before Judge Nelson. A video of the hearing can be found here. Accounts of the hearing by local news sources, which have covered the case in greater detail than national news sources, were surprisingly incomplete. A report by ABC News’ Matt Gutman was equally sparing with the facts. But before delving into the most recent developments, a brief timeline will help to explain how the case has arrived at this point.
March 25 and March 26, 2013: Mark O’Mara filed a motion for sanctions against Bernard de la Rionda (herineafter BDLR) of the special prosecutor’s office, for multiple discovery violations, and also filed a motion for attorney’s fees resulting from those violations. Scheme Team attorney Benjamin Crump is inextricably intertwined with all of this. I covered these issues in Update 24, which explains in detail the evidence that is the cause of and basis for these motions.
March 28, 2013: BDLR filed an intemperate, unprofessional response to O’Mara’s motions. I covered this response and its many omissions, evasions, misrepresentations and its petty and unsavory tone in Update 25.
April 4 and 5, 2013: On April 4, BDLR filed a response to O’Mara’s request for reimbursement due to his petulant obstruction of the videotaped deposition of Dee Dee conducted by O’Mara. I posted Update 26, which dealt with this response, and with the letter–supposedly written by Dee Dee (we now have yet another story about this from the prosecution) to Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother. Also on April 4, O’Mara filed a writ of certiorari asking the District Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit to overturn Judge Nelson’s decision denying a deposition for Benjamin Crump. Update 26 also dealt with this issue.
April 24, 2013: Florida State Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a response to O’Mara’s petition for a writ of certiorari. This was apparently written by Assistant AG Pamela Koller, but went out over Bondi’s signature.
This is, in itself highly unusual. The attorneys general of states usually involve themselves only in cases directly involving the business of their state, and having the greatest importance. Arguing against cert in what is, in reality and with politics stripped away, an unremarkable criminal matter, suggests nothing less than substantial and suspect political involvement. Having appointed a special prosecutor, should such matters not be hers with which to deal? Does this not suggest a lack of trust of the special prosecutor on Bondi’s part?
Bondi‘s arguments are likewise pedestrian, focusing around claiming that cert should only be granted for the most serious matters, matters that absolutely cannot be solved post-trial. She also essentially argues that lawyers should virtually never be deposed, trying mightily to label Crump as opposing counsel when he plainly, and by his own admission, is not and has no privilege to assert.
Another indicator that Bondi, who is reportedly a friend of Benjamin Crump, is deeply politically involved is her statement of “fact” about the incident, which repeats the narrative with all of its false assertions, right down to Martin’s being “profiled” and carrying tea and Skittles, and the obviously false claim that Martin was “…trying to return to his home.” This has been disproved by physical evidence and Dee Dee’s statements wherein Martin repeatedly told her he was not trying to run home. Anyone familiar with the case should know this. This statement of facts seems a near copy of the terribly defective affidavit I covered in Update 2.
In addition, Bondi minimizes the substance of O’Mara’s claims by not accurately representing the evidence of Crump’s lying about his recording of Dee Dee as presented in O’Mara’s petition, giving short shrift to the existence of a recording that makes it clear that Crump was engaging in substantive matters with Dee Dee when he claimed otherwise.
April 25, 2013: O’Mara filed a demand for discovery for all documents, data, and every other bit of evidence relating to Trayvon Martin’s cell phone, or any phone or phone number associated with him.
O’Mara also filed a demand for discovery for any audio files or related “cleaned up” 911 phone call files relating to the screams for help occurring and recorded just before Martin was shot.
These demands were directly related to statements made by Crump, and to a lack of responsiveness, or evasion on the part of the prosecution.
April 26, 2013: O’Mara filed a response to Bondi’s arguments.
It was these issues–and a potential immunity hearing–that were the subject of the April 30 hearing.
As I’ve frequently noted, this case is essentially upside down. Behaviors and motions that one would expect from the prosecution are the daily stuff of the defense, and vice versa. This hearing continued this bizarre role reversal, very much to the detriment of the rule of law and the reputation of the Florida system of criminal justice. One normally expects the prosecution to stick strictly with the facts, to play scrupulously by the rules, and to be ethically above board at all times. One normally expects the defense to be misleading, to be stingy with the truth, to twist the facts and evidence and to be unethical to whatever degree they consider necessary to win. These stereotypical roles continue to be exactly reversed in this case.
I have also been critical of Judge Nelson, but with some restraint. No longer. After watching the three-plus hour hearing in its entirety, I’ve learned a number of things not covered by the media, and that, based on my many years of experience in the criminal justice system, are now clear.
THE ABC NEWS REPORT:
Written by Seni Tienabeso and Matt Gutman, the report focused on the decision by the defense not to have a pre-trial immunity hearing.
The pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing would have given the judge the discretion to free Zimmerman, eliminating the need for a trial. But the validity of a Stand Your Ground defense would be determined solely by a judge. Zimmerman’s defense team has decided to put their case before an entire jury.
The ABC report noted that Judge Nelson put Zimmerman under oath and quizzed him about his decision not to have an immunity hearing. However, it did not mention that the Defense objected to the judge’s actions, which were unusual. Defense attorneys usually speak for their clients in such matters. It’s clear that Zimmerman was as reluctant to answer Nelson’s questions as O’Mara was for her to ask them. There are good reasons for this, which I’ll address later.
Of course ABC continued and buttressed the narrative:
Ben Crump, a lawyer for the Martin family, said Zimmerman’s decision to forego a stand your ground hearing ‘is very telling.’
‘We believe the defense’s decision to waive a pre-trial hearing and to merge the Stand Your Ground Hearing into the trial is to prevent putting George Zimmerman on the stand and to preclude the public and the potential jury pool from previewing the many inconsistences in George Zimmerman’s story,’ Crump said.
ABC also dealt with an absolutely vital issue:
Zimmerman, looking heavier than he did a year ago, has been living in an undisclosed location for the past year, apparently living with a body guard.
By all means, read the entire report, which is very brief, highly selective in its reporting, and which misses virtually all of the real news in the hearing. The narrative lives at ABC.
Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner of the Orland Sentinel were more complete. A sampling:
Earlier in the hearing, the judge addressed discovery issues: Nelson ordered the state to turn over any cell phone data for Trayvon or Zimmerman that they haven’t given already.
She ordered the state and defense to turn over to the other side any ‘cleaned up’ or enhanced audio of the 911 call which captured screams leading up to the shooting.
Nelson also granted the defense’s request to add five more witnesses to their list, even though the deadline she set for new witnesses had passed.
The last portion of the hearing centered on the defense’s requests that Nelson to admonish and fine prosecutors for, according to the defense, hiding information and causing delays.
For example, the defense says the state delayed in revealing that Witness 8, who was on the phone with Trayvon in the moments before his shooting, lied about going to the hospital after learning of his death.
‘We can’t get ready for trial,’ O’Mara said. ‘We will be unprepared for trial because of everything they’ve done to us.’
However, the judge was skeptical of his argument. She said she found no prejudice to Zimmerman, but reserved ruling on a motion, which sought costs for depositions the defense says the state delayed…
The judge also ruled that the $1 million-plus settlement Zimmerman’s homeowners association paid Trayvon’s parents to settle a wrongful death claim will be turned over to the parties.
However, the judge said the settlement will be redacted in the public court file, which likely means the precise dollar amount won’t be revealed.
Daryl Parks, an attorney for Trayvon’s parents, said after the hearing that Zimmerman’s defense attorneys have no business using information about the family’s settlement at trial.
It appears to be an attempt ‘to smear the Martin family, and we don’t like it,’ Parks said.
What Parks actually objects to is the public being made aware of his payday as a result of his racial grievance manipulation of public sentiment and the justice system.
Of all of the reports I’ve reviewed, the Shreveport Times was most complete and balanced, yet it too missed the real news and real substance of the hearing. That said, it actually did address some primary issues while offering some perspective:
The decision by O’Mara to skip the pre-trial immunity hearing illustrates that winning that hearing may not have been easy for the defense and that it was not worth subjecting Zimmerman to cross-examination several months before trial, said Randy Reep, a criminal defense attorney in Jacksonville.
While Reep thinks Zimmerman’s story has remained fairly consistent, the lawyer said the defense team would have been taking a risk by having Zimmerman tell his story before a judge and then, if not successful, a jury.
‘O’Mara decided that the likelihood of winning the immunity hearing was outweighed by the danger of subjecting his client to the scrutiny of the state more than once,’ Reep said.
The immunity hearing would have also placed the burden of proof on the defense which may have had to call Zimmerman and other witnesses such as forensic experts to explain why Zimmerman feared for his life and used deadly force. By waiting until trial, O’Mara kept his strategy and potential surprise evidence to himself and enters a legal arena where the burden is now on the prosecution since Zimmerman is presumed innocent at trial.
The strategy, however, is also risky and eliminates a path to acquittal for Zimmerman. ‘You never know when you put a case in the hands so of 12 people,’ Reep said.
Still, O’Mara will have two opportunities during trial to ask for a ‘judgement of acquittal,’ where the judge can decide to acquit Zimmerman without the jury, Reep said. O’Mara can ask when the prosecution rests and when the defense rests but such acquittals don’t happen often, he said.
The Times also addressed another important matter:
In the end, Judge Nelson ruled that no violations or prejudices had occurred. However, she reserved judgment on a motion by Zimmerman’s lawyers to make state prosecutors pay $4,555 in attorney’s fees.
State prosecutors delayed depositions by five hours in March because they objected to them being videotaped, said O’Mara. The court later ruled that the witnesses — including a friend of Trayvon who claims she was on the phone with him the night of the shooting — could be videotaped, he said.
THE HEARING:
At the beginning of the hearing, the issue of a “cleaned up” audiotape of the 911 call, where Zimmerman has testified he screamed for help prior to shooting Martin, was discussed. The Defense explained that Crump has said that such a “cleaned up” or “enhanced” tape was played for Tracy Martin after he heard the original tape at the Sanford Police Department. Sanford officers have testified that upon hearing that initial tape, Martin said the voice screaming for help was not Trayvon Martin. Crump has claimed that after hearing the “cleaned up” recording, Tracy Martin did identify the voice as Trayvon Martin’s.
The defense claimed that the prosecution was not forthcoming with information about such a tape, thus the demand for any such enhanced recording. Judge Nelson asked BDLR about the existence of any such tape and he immediately sidestepped and did not directly answer her. She did not demand that he answer but asked again in a general sense and asked if the prosecution had given a copy of the recording to an “expert” to be enhanced. BDLR replied: “that is possible.”
“That is possible”?! How is it possible that the lead prosecutor in this case doesn’t know whether or not he has given such a tape to an expert to be enhanced? And how is it possible that any judge would allow such a slippery answer of any attorney? Either BDLR has such a tape or he hasn’t. Either he has done it or he hasn’t. Yet the judge allowed him to get away with this, and closed the matter by saying that if any such tape existed, the prosecution had to give it to the defense within 24 hours of its enhancement. Because the judge never pinned down the existence of such a recording and/or the intentions and actions of the prosecution, she has essentially issued an order to enforce something that may or may not exist, at least as far as evidence enforceable by her order is concerned. I’m sure, however, that BDLR is entirely trustworthy regarding this matter.
Turning to the issue of sanctions against BDLR, O’Mara noted that the issue causes loss of respect for the justice system, and he moved to strike BDLR’s written response from the record.
In a preview of his later comportment, BDLR claimed that his petulant response was “a record of what happened in this case,” and claimed that O’Mara didn’t tell him what was “going on,” adding “it’s his right” (not to tell BDLR everything he was doing. An odd admission in that BDLR is correct; O’Mara has no such obligation). This method of making circular, misleading and off topic arguments that do not address the matter at hand appears to be BDLR’s normal way of conducting himself in court.
Judge Nelson acknowledged that BDLR’s pleadings were inappropriate, but she did not do so directly and was careful to suggest that O’Mara was also somehow at fault, while providing no evidence. Having read all of the documents relating to this issue, I have no idea what she’s talking about. The only mildly negative thing O’Mara said about any attorney was about Benjamin Crump’s failure to properly record and preserve Dee Dee’s interview as evidence, saying that in that endeavor, he miserably failed, which he did. All of O’Mara’s writings have been professional and non-personal. BDLR’s, quite the opposite. No reasonable person reading these documents could come to any other conclusion, yet Judge Nelson seemed determined to avoid placing any direct blame on BDLR, while ascribing underserved blame to O’Mara.
Nelson disposed of the issue by refusing to strike BDLR’s writings, saying that she would, if O’Mara submitted specific passages he wanted stricken, consider removing those from the record. She gave him five days, and five days for BDLR to respond. She also said nothing about the sanctions, but it was clear that she had already made up her mind. After all, if she wouldn’t strike the writings that were a large part of the evidence for sanctions, she surely would not impose sanctions based on what she obviously considered trivial. She confirmed my impression later in the hearing.
Don West’s testimony was interesting. West was careful and professional, honestly and fully answering BDLR’s frequently confusing and nonsensical questions, most of which were actually angry, accusatory assertions. He explained that after BDLR told the court and defense that he had given all discovery to the defense, they found out about his August, 2012 meeting with Dee Dee. He explained that BDLR did not respond to multiple requests for discovery relating to Dee Dee’s supposed hospitalization, until March 4th, the night before the hearing when the prosecution would have been forced to admit she lied.
West testified that when they deposed Dee Dee, she told them that she informed BDLR about her lie when she spoke with him in August, 2012. This is very significant in that BDLR knew that his most important witness was a perjurer, and purposely withheld it from the defense for nearly a year. He would dissemble about even that indisputable fact.
West also testified that the defense asked BDLR for Trayvon Martin’s school records and BDLR told them he didn’t know whether he had them or not. West testified that he didn’t buy that answer. This too is extraordinary. In a case where those records are important evidence that could easily help determine the outcome of the trial, how could the lead prosecutor have no idea whether he had those records or not? If true, BDLR is stunningly incompetent. If false, how could he be considered as other than a liar working against the interests of justice? How could one avoid believing him to be maliciously denying exculpatory discovery to the defense.
West testified to another very interesting matter learned at deposition with Dee Dee: Dee Dee did not write the “letter” (copy in Update 26) to Sybrina Fulton herself. A friend named “Francine” whose name she supposedly did not know(?!) at state expense, accompanied Dee Dee to her interview in Jacksonville and wrote–in some sense–the letter on 03-19-12, the same day as the Crump interview. Much remains unknown about that letter, such as why it was written, at whose insistence, who actually wrote–put pen to paper–the letter, and how much of it was composed, and how, by Dee Dee. West also testified that BDLR did not disclose the existence of this letter, which was also withheld for nearly a year and was eventually found in another filing.
West also explained that the defense continually tried to get proper digital copies of the photos of Zimmerman’s injuries (See Update 17 for photos), but were initially given only black and white copier reproductions, then color copier reproductions, and finally, actual digital prints that truly revealed the extent of the damage done to Zimmerman by Martin.
As I noted in Update 17, it was only when O’Mara filed a demand motion that he received the proper digital color photos. As I also noted, it’s not uncommon for a police records section to send black and white copier copies of photos in an initial discovery package. That’s generally the technology they have available. However, the defense then requests specific photos in final, evidence-quality form, and they are routinely provided. This saves time and money for everyone involved.
However, once the case was turned over to the special prosecutor and the Sanford PD’s involvement ended, it was BDLR’s duty to see that the defense got the real photos. It is clear that he slow-rolled the production of evidence. West testified that this has been the normal procedure in this case: the defense makes multiple requests for discovery which are ignored, obtaining the evidence only when the defense has been forced to go to the court to have production ordered.
During his cross-examination of West, BDLR was clearly angry. He constantly paced, scowled and gestured broadly and dramatically. He was continually rude and condescending and belittled West whenever he could. His lack of proper courtroom decorum was striking, but Judge Nelson did not admonish him to behave properly. Even so, West easily outclassed him.
West did push back upon occasion, but carefully and professionally. When BDLR tried to misrepresent matters relating to the Dee Dee/Francine letter, West testified that he had asked BDLR when he first knew about the letter and BDLR would not answer. BDLR ignored West’s point and testified–much of what he said was argumentative testimony rather than questions–that Sybrina Fulton took the letter out of a Bible at her deposition, which was when he first saw it. BDLR admitted, without acknowledging that admission, that he knew of the letter and withheld it for the better part of a year.
Among the most amazing exchanges was BDLR’s accusation that the defense was getting its legal argument from bloggers. He specifically named The Conservative Treehouse. West kindly observed that this was not, in fact, true. BDLR replied in a snotty, inappropriate manner, demonstrating that his similar writings were not an isolated incident, and the following exchange took place:
BDLR: ‘I’m not going to argue that; it speaks for itself.’
West: ‘It does not speak for itself.’
BDLR continually misrepresented West’s testimony, a matter West had to several times correct. BDLR continually obfuscated, implying that because the prosecution had properly turned over some discovery–a matter acknowledged graciously by West–that the defense had everything and had no grounds for complaint, even as they were talking about discovery that had not been produced.
BDLR’s questioning opened the door for West to explain how Crump had edited the Dee Dee tape and in so doing, perjured himself in his affidavit. Just as West was warming to the issue provoked by BDLR, Judge Nelson stepped in and shut West down, saving BDLR who was clearly floundering and in trouble.
A short time later, West was able to get on the record that he received no help from Crump or BDLR in obtaining a tape of the interview from ABC News. He explained that despite asking for it, ABC did not provide a copy, but posted it on their website. It was there that the defense first heard the tape.
Trying to suggest that the defense did not tell the prosecution about things, BDLR demanded to know if the defense informed ”the court” about discussions with ABC. West explained that all of that material was in motions to the court, and testified that that information, as a part of motions, was discussed with everyone.
The defense is not required, ethically or otherwise, to notify the court or prosecution about every phone call they make during the investigative process. And materials included as part of motions are obviously known to the court and prosecution, though BDLR has already admitting in another document submitted to the court (See Update 26) that he doesn’t bother to read such things. Surely BDLR knows this, or is he, again, simply trying to mislead?
A part of BDLR’s tactics seems to be asking trivial questions, questions that any rational lawyer would never ask. This seems to be designed to confuse issues and to hide the logical fallacies of his assertions. For example, he demanded to know if, during their deposition of Sybrina Fulton, the defense asked “a lot of questions.” West, mildly surprised by such an obvious and nonsensical question answered that he did. Consider that BDLR was present for that deposition. He has a transcript of the deposition. He knows precisely how many questions were asked. It’s akin to asking if there is a lot of grass on a golf course.
BDLR’s questions as to time, place and fact were so inept it’s hard to tell if he’s merely incompetent, of actively trying to be misleading. I suspect it’s both.
West, at one point when BDLR’s cross examination was particularly odd, was moved to comment that when BDLR conducted Dee Dee’s interview, he didn’t identify Sybrina Fulton as being present, and did not put on the record the fact that family members and Scheme Team lawyers were also present. West asserted that information was indeed important and exculpatory, which of course, it is.
BDLR, continuing in testimony rather than question mode, asserted that Dee Dee’s lies were not exculpatory. BDLR claimed that when O’Mara was told about Dee Dee’s lies on March 4th, O’Mara told prosecutor Guy it wasn’t a big deal, mentioning that several times in a particularly argumentative way, trying to downplay his malfeasance.
West (and later O’Mara) explained that Guy in fact asked O’Mara to treat the information with “some sensitivity.” West testified that when O’Mara, who took the call from Guy, told West about it, he was very angry and was, in fact, still angry about it and handled the matter for the defense from that point. BDLR still tried to downplay it, but West quickly made BDLR back down and change the subject.
It is interesting to note that this is the first time O’Mara brought this request for “sensitivity” up in public, and that he did it only in response to and to rebut BDLR’s misleading assertion. O’Mara did, in fact, try to handle it with some sensitivity, but BDLR figuratively shot himself in the foot.
One of BDLR’s more incredible assertions was that the defense somehow took more than a year to provide lists of all witnesses. He was implying that the defense was somehow acting improperly. West calmly, as if lecturing a particularly dull student, explained that the prosecution had, in the course of preparing for trial, filed no less than 15 separate supplements with additional witnesses. West explained that adding witnesses as they are discovered was normal procedure, that the defense notified the prosecution and court of witnesses as they became aware of them, and that most of the delays were due to the prosecution’s slow-rolling and withholding of discovery.
This is, of course, absolutely correct. In the process of preparing for major trials, it is common for witnesses to be identified throughout the process, sometimes even during trial. One may not learn about a previously unknown witness before speaking with another witness that was also previously unknown. This is absolutely a non-issue, yet BDLR was behaving as though it was a major revelation of defense wrongdoing. It’s akin to accusing the defense of actually talking to potential witnesses. Again, if BDLR actually believes that to be improper, he is amazingly incompetent. If not, he is amazingly dishonorable and dishonest, yet, Judge Nelson did not call him on this, or any similar misbehavior.
O’Mara’s re-cross was revealing, and compared to BDLR, a model of professional rectitude. He was able to get onto the record that most of the witnesses about which BDLR complained were actually Sanford Police Department officers that took crime reports, and residents of the Retreat at Twin Lakes (Zimmerman’s neighborhood at the time of the shooting) who had been the victims of burglaries, thefts and similar crimes prior to Martin’s attack on Zimmerman. O’Mara informed BDLR about all of this by phone. BDLR immediately backed down from this issue.
West began to talk about several other very interesting, previously unknown issues. He testified that only recently had the defense received information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement about cell tower locations relative to Trayvon Martin’s phone on the night in question. He also said that only recently had the defense received SPD reports of Trayvon Martin’s criminal record. He characterized this as Martin’s “crimes,” and Judge Nelson immediately shut him off and stopped this flow of information about discovery apparently withheld from the defense.
During BDLR’s examination of West, O’Mara objected several times. Even when Judge Nelson sustained his objections, BDLR did not stop, and Judge Nelson did not stop him, requiring O’Mara to rise to continually object. I’ve never seen such obvious pro-prosecution bias, particularly when a prosecutor is so inept.
At the end of the hearing, Judge Nelson slammed the door on the defense, first saying she hadn’t decided if there had been any discovery violations, despite voluminous evidence in motions, and testimony of just that. She repeatedly demanded of O’Mara “how is the defense prejudiced?” She asserted that “what you’re alleging as violations have been cured.”
Nelson cited a case where a discovery violation was discovered only during the course of a trial. In other words, she was implying that unless a discovery violation was discovered at the very last minute, even at trial, it wasn’t really a discovery violation at all. Of course this standard is nonsensical. The danger is such violations are likely not to ever be discovered and the defendant’s right to a fair trial compromised. O’Mara tried to argue that the fact that some violations had been discovered and “cured” before trial does not lessen the violation, and has a very harmful effect on the public’s confidence in the justice system, but Nelson was not listening.
O’Mara is absolutely correct. Under Judge Nelson’s apparent standard, a discovery violation really isn’t a discovery violation if it’s somehow caught before trial, and of course if it’s not caught at all, no one would ever know, but justice would be thwarted. That’s why there are rules about discovery and that’s why sanctions are appropriate for prosecutors that abuse those rules. The violation is the withholding of discovery itself, not when or the manner in which it is discovered. If a prosecutor inadvertently withholds discovery as opposed to maliciously and knowingly withholding it, the violation has occurred in any case, but the severity of sanctions would be something to consider.
Attorneys and judges sometimes forget human beings are involved. They speak about dealing with issues after a trial, but the result of that trial might be to put an innocent man in prison. That’s not a non-trivial procedural matter to him.
During this exchange, BDLR made perhaps the most amazing admission thus far, but prefaced it with a comment that indicates either an incredible lack of self awareness or a grotesquely over-developed sense of irony:
I’m not going to get into name calling.
He then admitted–on the record–that he did not, in fact, tell the defense about Dee Dee’s lies, but he helpfully explained:
I forgot about it.
He forgot about it. He forgot about his most important witness committing perjury, perjury that he, through his utterly incompetent placement of the victim’s mother right next to Dee Dee (to say nothing about the pack of lawyers, family members, and who knows who else present) may have had a hand in producing. He forgot about a matter that very well may torpedo his case. Telling the defense about that matter, despite being specifically asked about it by the defense in person, by e-mail and phone on multiple occasions over many months, just slipped his mind. It eluded him until mere hours before he would be forced to admit it in court. Only then did he “remember” the matter.
He finished with again implying that because he had actually lived up to his obligation to provide some discovery, he couldn’t be culpable for knowingly or negligently refusing to provide other discovery.
What competent judge could possibly hear those statements without understanding exactly what was going on? None, of course, unless that judge was determined to contribute to and uphold the narrative, and in so doing, ignore their oath to fairly administer justice. Any competent jurist hearing a prosecutor making such a pathetic and unprofessional admission, particularly one that could be nothing less than a lie, absolutely would not have ignored it. Any jurist with any ethical sense would have known they could not allow such a egregious violation pass unremarked upon and unpunished.
After hearing BDLR’s bizarre admissions, Judge Nelson finally delivered the outcome I expected from the beginning of the hearing. She announced that there were no discovery violations and therefore no prejudice toward the defense. BDLR was held blameless.
She said she would withhold judgment on monetary awards until after the trial, and would do the same on the issue of attorney’s fees requested due to BDLR’s obstruction of Dee Dee’s videotaped deposition. Regarding that matter, she actually volunteered that on the day O’Mara was trying to get in touch with her to proceed with the deposition, she didn’t get the message until late. She was actually covering for BDLR and implying his unreasonable and petty behavior was her fault. I’ve never seen a judge do anything remotely like that. It’s like a particularly bad Twilight Zone script. That’s the kind of thing reserved for chambers, out of earshot of the public. O’Mara noted that he gave BDLR the option to proceed and if Nelson ruled against him, he would destroy or give the tape to BDLR, but he refused, and Nelson brushed that aside.
O’Mara did make one interesting announcement. He said that in the near future he would be filing a “major” motion, which he expected to require “an extended evidentiary hearing.” Judge Nelson did not want to hear about it. The next motion hearing is set for May 28. The matter of a deposition for Crump remains undecided.
I learned a great deal watching that hearing.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
I viewed the video of the hearing because I have no personal knowledge of those involved, which has limited me to forming opinions based on third person accounts and news stories. Having spent three hours with the principals, I’m better able to form opinions. I have no doubt, for example, why O’Mara chose not to have a pre-trial immunity hearing.
In the early days of my police career, when winning seemed far more important than it should–I knew better later–I would have been delighted to have Judge Nelson hearing my cases. In this case, her antipathy toward George Zimmerman and the Defense is unmistakable. Reading Zimmerman’s face and body language during the hearing, I had the impression he knows he’s not going to get a fair trial. Nelson very much appears to be the kind of jurist that takes personally the daily, common maneuvers one finds in a courtroom, and holds grudges. She seems to be the kind of judge that would retaliate against any lawyer that dares to question her decisions.
I’m sure that O’Mara and West understand only too well that they would lose an immunity hearing before the first word was spoken. At such a hearing, the burden of proof would be entirely on the defense. Any competent attorney would know that in this case, any judge would tend to want to defer the matter to a jury to avoid the political consequences that would accompany a dismissal. They would also know that Judge Nelson was not a fair jurist. Her manner toward O’Mara, her determination to toy with the defense rather than efficiently and honestly answer their motions, her ignoring of the prosecution’s admissions of malfeasance, and her rulings make that plain.
Keep in mind that O’Mara and West also know Nelson’s reputation, and have considerable experience in this case alone in sidebars at the bench, and in private conversations in chambers. They know a great deal more about Nelson’s intentions and biases than we do, and I’m sure that information factored heavily into O’Mara’s decision.
Knowing this, they also know that when Nelson denied a dismissal, the media, prosecution and Scheme Team would blitz the airwaves, claiming her refusal to dismiss the case amounted to a guilty verdict. We also don’t know what O’Mara’s “Major” motion might be, but if it’s similar to some that have already come to light, it may make his decision making process more obvious yet.
Another issue readers might want to explore has been uncovered by the folks at The Conservative Treehouse, the BDLR-imagined wellspring of defense strategy. They’ve uncovered, through FOIA requests, the fact that the Miami-Dade School District, apparently at the insistence of the superintendent–Alberto Carvalho–and with the collusion of Chief Hurley of their internal police force, were, during the time Trayvon Martin was a student there, deferring criminal reporting for black students. Due to a substantial minority crime rate–hardly surprising–a political decision was apparently made not to turn such students committing even felonies over to the police, but to handle them through school discipline procedures.
When Trayvon Martin was found in possession of multiple pieces of women’s jewelry and a burglary tool, he was not referred to the Miami police, and the case was written up as “found items,” essentially ensuring that in the name of political correctness, Martin would go unpunished and the victim would never recover their property.
On February 15, 2012, the school district made a press release:
Miami-Dade Schools Police (M-DSPD) was recently commended by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for dramatically decreasing school-related delinquency in Miami-Dade County public schools.
M-DSPD has the distinction of decreasing school-related juvenile delinquency by an impressive 60 percent for the last six months of 2011, which was the largest decline in any school district in the state…
Well, sure, when you’re pretending delinquency doesn’t really exist and calling stolen property from burglaries “found items,” the reductions in “crime” you can accomplish are really amazing. Consider however, that had Trayvon Martin actually been held accountable for what now seem to unquestionably be serious crimes, instead of receiving a slap on the wrist, he may not have been in Sanford that night. Ironically, treating Martin like a misbehaving child instead of the budding criminal he seems to have been, may have been a contributing factor in his death. But hey, the Miami-Dade schools are the very model of modern delinquency-reducing schools.
This is unsurprising. Many schools are actually loath to discipline students, because so doing is an inescapable admission that they actually have to discipline students. Many schools actually do as Miami-Dade did and do away with crime by ignoring or reclassifying it. Colleges are particularly bad about this, but many public schools aren’t slouches either
And interestingly, there is an Obama Administration connection. Remember that Mr. Obama proclaimed that if he had a son, he’d be like Trayvon Martin. In furtherance of that kind of thinking, the Obama administration is working on a national mandate that would be near and dear to the hearts of the management of the Miami-Dade Schools: racial quotas for school discipline. It’s an issue I wrote about for PJ Media.
Just as AG Eric Holder thinks illegal immigration is a human and civil right, he apparently finds that certain favored victims groups of students should not be subject to discipline, and one of the determining factors of whether such students should be disciplined at all is their racial distribution in the population. Holder is primarily referring, of course, to “my people”: blacks.
Some readers commenting on the Martin series have taken me to task for mentioning Martin’s being discovered in possession of jewelry he could not explain and a burglary tool–a screwdriver. I would suggest that they–and all readers–take the link to TCT where they’ll discovered that the property Martin had has been identified as taken in a residential burglary a short distance from his school. I guess in this case, a screwdriver really was a burglary tool.
I also recommend readers take the PJ Media link to see why the Obama Administration would find Miami-Dade’s policies to be the very model of enlightened education policy, despite the inescapable fact that it fails students, the victims of crime, and society at large.
I can’t say what I learned via the video of the hearing surprised me. I’m reasonably good at reading between the lines, and people’s writings and actions define them. In many ways, the experience merely confirmed what I already knew. George Zimmerman is innocent, but the judge presiding over his trial seems determined to ensure the narrative ends with a predetermined, politically correct conviction. She did indeed approve for the defense some minor matters relating to witnesses and other procedures no judge could deny without calling far too much attention to themself. But the freedom and discretion we must give judges in our system of justice can be badly abused by unscrupulous jurists. It will not take long for us to see if my impression of Judge Nelson is born out.
For the sake of justice, and America, I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
ejarra said:
Bravo! When reading, I can picture every moment of the hearing as I had seen it. It’s as you had written it is the way I interpreted it, also! Well done!
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Wow… this must have taken you hours, upon hours to write. Clearly the proper thing to do is digest your commentary and respond to each point.
I’ll get to it this week since I have some time off, so to speak, and can give this article the respect it deserves.
Sidenote: Like usual this was a depressing read. Any one individual event would be remarkable and newsworthy on any case. But all these events, in addition to what else has gone on in the case, I’m no longer shocked, but depressed, mostly that there’s George and MOM West have had to battle this level of corruption, bias, and prejudice.
I guess my only hope is with the Court of Appeals, that it steps in to remove Judge Nelson too.
jello333 said:
I don’t think they’ll unilaterally remove her. But I’m hoping that when they issue the upcoming ruling on Crump (assuming they rule the right way), that they also take the opportunity to slap down Nelson. I’m glad the most recent hearing took place while the DCA was still considering the petition. That way, before ruling, they got to see Nelson in action. So if the justices on the DCA have any respect for themselves and the justice system in general, I’d expect them to be none too thrilled with Nelson. So yeah, I can imagine them saying something in their ruling that goes beyond the issue of Crump…. something that tells Nelson, in no uncertain terms, “We are watching you.”
canadacan said:
You go JELLO
jello333 said:
Great job, Mike. I’ll have more things to say later, but for now I just have one question, regarding this:
“By waiting until trial, O’Mara kept his strategy and potential surprise evidence to himself and enters a legal arena where the burden is now on the prosecution since Zimmerman is presumed innocent at trial.”
I know what the Prosecution has to turn over to the Defense, but I’m not 100% certain about vice-verse. I mean like that “potential surprise evidence” mentioned in the quote. Can you give examples of what that could be… what’s allowed to be saved as a “surprise” in that regard?
Chip Bennett said:
The defense entered into a reciprocal discovery agreement with the State, which essentially means that both parties have the same disclosure responsibilities.
What makes absolutely no sense whatsoever is that Rule 3.220 requires discovery disclosure within 15 days. While the two parties agreed to disclose discovery deliberately, in order to ensure proper redaction, the State has utterly abused that “gentlemen’s agreement”, by disclosing information 6-8 months after discovery.
West brought this point up in the sham-of-a-Richardson hearing, when he testified that the State only disclosed an abridged number of FDLE reports, all of which were available to the State at the time of initial disclosure, but the remainder of which the defense discovered on their own, when deposing FDLE personnel.
(But Nelson found no discovery violations.)
The information that Witness 8 lied, in a manner that impeaches the credibility of her testimony, and is therefore inherently exculpatory under relevant statute, was withheld from the defense for seven months.
(But Nelson found no discovery violations.)
Unfortunately (or fortunately, since they appear to be the only adults in the system, the 5th DCA will be extremely limited in scope in their response to the writ for certiorari. The response will be simply that the trial court followed relevant case law, or erred in doing so; and the trial court ruling will either be upheld or quashed.
(Speaking of which: can we laugh at Blackwell’s pre-schooler logic regarding Rule 3.220 with respect to the State’s witness list/unlisted witnesses?)
ackbarsays said:
Yes, that was my first comment on Diwataman’s blog the other day when I read through Blackwell’s response. Regarding 3.220, I said:
analyst1961 said:
Outstanding, sir. A concise summary of the past few months’ misbehavior by Nelson, Crump, BdlR, et al.
canadacan said:
+100000000
canadacan said:
Mike you brought a fresh pair of eyes to this situation. judge Nelson is worse than I thought as a jurist.
If George is not convicted it will be in spite of her prejudicial behavior and decisions.
I am sure that Omara and West have a game plan that involves appealing a conviction, which I believe will be successful. George’s body language is so pathetic what a cruel evil woman this is. she is totally without compassion professionalism or moral compunction. em anyway she is a product of a system that allows a judges ego to go wild. this is beginning to remind me of the Salem witch trials. that’s how bad and disgraceful I believe this is.
Aussie said:
Reblogged this on A world at war and commented:
Once again Mike has written a very thoughtful piece about the latest developments in the Zimmerman case.
This is a case that should never have gotten this far in the first place. Zimmerman was attacked by the thug Trayvon Martin and it is is a miracle that he survived the beating. Having seen what happened to my sister when she was hit in the face by an intruder and came very close to smashing her head on a brick fence, I more than sympathize with George Zimmerman. (the incident involving my sister is very recent, and she had substantial bruising to her face. She was lucky not to have been killed by the thug who attacked her… and it was caught on CCTV)
cassandra said:
Question, CTH regulars, about the jewelry TM had in his possession, has the detective investigating the burglary confirmed the jewelry connects to an outstanding case? I know from reading CTH that the description of the jewelry matched, but has but has that been confirmed?
Chip Bennett said:
I believe at least a partial match between the stolen-jewelry police report and the “found items” M-DSPD cover-up has been confirmed.
cassandra said:
thx, I hope the burglary is confirmed by Miami PD detectives, returned to the rightful owner, and the media publishes CTH FOIA research widely. People need to understand what results from last two decades of institutional coddling of juvenile offenders. Enough! If they choose Interventions over punishments it must be legitimate and applied consistently.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
The bigger question I have about the jewelry, what was Trayvon Martin doing with it?
Did Sybrina rush to school in Trayvon’s defense, screaming to school officials “Hey, that’s MY jewelry, give it back to me. I was having Trayvon take it to the jewelry cleaner for me. I like to keep my jewelry in top notch shape. I am kinda OCD in that way.”
Was a Trayvon Martin parent called to the school to address this serious issue? (I doubt it.)
And I’m still wondering if a parent was called to school to discuss any of the three suspensions, or did anyone talk to school officials on the phone?
I’m real curious what school officials’ notes say about Trayvon Martin. The Trayvon Martin school file is one thing, but I want to see notes to file and e-mails between teachers, coaches, and administration, or by anyone at any time discussing Trayvon Martin.
Note: In the past Sybrina has gone on record in interviews saying that Trayvon was never CONVICTED of any crimes. (See CNN in April 2012). I noted at the time that such seemed an evasive statement, that she was making a distinction Crump and his Scheme Team told her to make.
Moreover, many times she qualified her statements with “As far as I know” or “As I am aware.”
I submit that Sybrina knew full well the extent of Trayvon Martin’s criminality and thuggish behavior (that of course to her is not thuggish, that’s just kids being kids).
After all, to Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton a 15-year-old getting tattoos up and down his arm is normal. Query: If done at a tattoo shop, did the shop comply with FL law and get a signed wavier from the parent?
To Tracy Martin letting your 15-year-old ride your motorcycle on a Florida turnpike, unlicensed and uninsured is simply Trayvon “taking another step toward adulthood.” (See Orlando Sentinel – http://tinyurl.com/TracyMartinScofflawLesson)
Vermont view said:
Thank you for your post, but you did not expound upon the most important evidence revealed at the hearing (by the defense). O’Mara confirmed that the police’s cell tower map showed that (one of) Trayvon’s phone was not always within walking distance of Retreat View Circle.
SO … because young Trayvon did not have a car or a driver’s license … someone older (with a car) was involved! I believe this is why BDLR (in his many conflicting accounts and lack of security camera footage) has presented NO evidence that the hooded figure George Zimmerman first encountered at the cut-thru was in fact Trayvon Martin (and not the unidentified person who told Tracy Martin his son came in “the back gate”).
ackbarsays said:
I think you’re going into some kind of conspiracy theorist tangent here that is not based on the evidence in the case.
libby said:
Might have gone too far, but the point about ping logs is crucial
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Vermont View:
I didn’t expound on this information because you have what I have. I have no idea of the specifics of the evidence to which O’Mara referred or what it may or may not mean, and of course, I have no information about anyone else being involved with Martin that night. I’m unaware of any evidence that would suggest that (other than the young men who apparently bought blunts for Martin at the convenience store).
Angel said:
Mike,
I love reading your articles on this case for several reasons I might get into later but one is even though you speak on the issues of race, BGI, PC, etc. you do it in such a neutral way that doesn’t incite emotions and you don’t make sweeping generalizations.
Thank you.
Angel said:
Just to clarify my previous comment:
Take out the word sweeping and let’s just go with generalization.
libby said:
I enjoy the viewpoints offered at both talkleft & cth, but i also savor the analysis offered here as well.
Chip Bennett said:
A question for you, Mike:
Is this actually unusual? The Attorney General’s office also responded to the writ of prohibition that saw Lester recused.
The orders to show cause indicate that the State is the responding party to both writs; in such circumstances, would it not be the AG’s office that responds for the State?
In other words: is it unusual simply because one interlocutory appeal (much less, two such appeals) takes place in such a mundane criminal trial; whereas the AG providing the Respondent’s response itself is modus operandi?
As for the hearing itself:
BDLR is apparently a petty, argumentative, defensive, petulant man; his “performance” in the hearing did nothing to disprove my opinion that he is at best incompetent, and at worst criminally malicious in pursuing a specious prosecution against Zimmerman (and others; evidence proves that he is clearly not above witness tampering).
It is equally apparent that leading and compound questions are an intentional tool in BDLR’s repertoire – and West ate BDLR’s lunch for using such tactics. West’s responses utterly eviscerated BDLR’s argumentativeness and logical fallacy.
The problem is: in a fair courtroom, before an impartial adjudicator or justice, BDLR’s antics would have been nipped in the bud early, and would have led to sanctions or a finding of contempt if continued. But Nelson clearly covered for him in all but the most egregious examples.
Nelson didn’t intervene to end BDLR’s speculative, argumentative, leading, compound questions – but as soon as West started putting exculpatory evidence on record, Nelson quickly quashed any such testimony.
The corruption in the system – from Nelson’s courtroom, to Corey’s office, up to and including the AG and governor – is beyond absurd, and I am at the point where I have no time for apologists who would see this miscarriage of justice continue, because they believe, against all evidence, that Zimmerman is guilty of something and must be held accountable.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Well said Chip. Saved me a lot of time. :)
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Chip:
Hi there. It’s unusual in that once a special prosecutor has been appointed, they usually handle all such matters. Theoretically, they’re best able to do it, being most knowledgable about all aspects of the case. I can’t imagine someone with an ego and temper like Corey taking Bondi’s usurpation of this function at all well. And for the AG to take over what is a matter that any competent prosecutor should be able to handle surely doesn’t look good for Corey. On one hand, I might be tempted to suggest this is an indication that Bondi knows Corey’s limitations, but I doubt that’s the case. Of course we don’t know all of the behind the scenes maneuvering within the legal community going on, so it’s hard to have a truly informed opinion.
In any case, I’m beyond being surprised by anything relating to this travesty.
Good to hear from you, as always.
boricuafudd said:
Thank Mike, a great recap of the issues involved.
I have heard of pro-prosecution judges, but Judge Nelson seems to go beyond just the normal biases a former prosecutor turned judge would have. The allowed bad decorum by the prosecution, while silencing the defense are quite apparent.
waltherppk said:
The way that the police, prosecutors, and judge/s and defense attorneys have acted in this case is not “out of character” for what is business as usual in corrupt Floriduh, with the exceptions of Don West and Hal Uhrig. The rest of what has been seen here pretty well follows the template and is par for the course of what will be found if an in depth analysis is done for many other cases. The shenanigans which go on in the “legal process” in Floriduh are routine and only become noticed when attention is brought to a case that is high profile and has come under scrutiny. Nobody should get the wrong idea that somehow the Zimmerman case is exceptional and that in most other criminal cases things are done “by the book”. Floriduh rarely does things “by the book” but absolutely does play by its own rules, and the inelegant, generalized way that Floriduh statutes and rules of criminal procedure are written is deliberately made ambiguous so that corrupt judges have wide latitude for “interpretation” of “legislative intent” and use “case law precedent” to shape what is “law” into whatever is desired for it to be in each case. Floriduh is a place for golf course and yacht club “plea deals” and politics governs the course of criminal investigations and judicial proceedings like nowhere else on earth. The best that can be said of the justice system in Floriduh is that once in awhile they get it right in spite of themselves, not for getting high marks for honesty and integrity or other criteria for job performance in a scenario where agents of the state absolutely have enshrined a double standard where a designated elite live by one law and the rest of the population which is the vast majority, get whatever that designated elite tells them is left. Floriduh is the land of untouchables and shysters having a judiciary and a legislature for their business office storefront that sells the best justice that money can buy. Six person juries and indictments by “information” rather than by Grand Jury are the absolutely standard practice which enables and underscores the “rigged game” aspect of the legal process as conducted by the State. Judicial notice of what are the rights of U.S. citizens as shown by case law and standards provided by U.S. Code are a complete farce in Floriduh. Banana republic all the way is what is you get in Floriduh.
If you want to see a contrast in the way laws are written with specificity and the supremacy of statutory law that would be expected, just pick a crime like fraud for example and compare what the statutes of Floriduh have to say about fraud as a crime, with what the laws of an adjacent state Georgia have to say, and you will get the picture about how differently things are for two states whose fundamental philosophy about law is entirely different. Statutes in Florida are ambiguous or nonexistent about the exact same crimes as are covered with great specificity by the state just North of the border of the banana republic, and the law about fraud punctuates that distinction like no other. Floriduh shys away from impaneling a Grand Jury regularly because Floriduh don’t need no stinkin’ “citizens committee” having oversight authority or investigative power that would be adverse to the interests of the thugs and gangstas who run the state.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
What surprises me the most is that despite national scrutiny of all actors in this case, that the Judge and prosecutors would conduct themselves as if no one is watching.
For example, did Angela Corey-Nifong think that no one would notice her calling Alan Dershowitz’s employer (Harvard University Law School) and threaten the school with lawsuits, and Alan Dershowitz with termination, criminal charges, lawsuits, and disbarment, a 45 minute call.
Is Angela Corey-Nifong that unstable, or was she so “postal” that she could see nothing but red and made calling the law school a top priority of the day?
Sidenote: Out here there was a county public official prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison because she had some staff briefly work on her reelection campaign, using govt. photocopiers to make campaign materials, and spending her workday on the campaign.
Obviously, if Angela Corey-Nifong did not have the POTUS saying “If I had a son…” and Eric Holder sending 12 FBI agents to FL to try and nail Zimmerman, Angela Corey-Nifong could have been prosecuted for not only prosecutorial misconduct, but also for misuse of govt. property and embezzlement. (Using govt. property and time to “go postal” on innocent citizens exercising their First Amendment rights is not a proper use of govt. resources).
I wish some FL citizen would file a lawsuit against Angela Corey-Nifong on these bases, and the AG (for not taking action against Angela Corey-Nifong).
waltherppk said:
The boldness of an Angela Corey is an arrogance that comes from enjoying the life of special treatment under the law as a member of the “designated elite”, and as a member of that aristocracy, the usual rules do not apply to what would be rational conduct. All agents of the state in Florida have “agency protections” and special privileges which put them above the law which governs mere mortals. The agents of the state play by their own rules and those rules are whatever they say they are. There is an ultimate situational ethic which is operative there when a person has carte blanche to do as they please being accountable to no one. Accountability only comes as a political process, which masquerades as a quasi-judicial or legal process as required, but is actually in reality only politics.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
You mentioned: “[O’Mara] said that in the near future he would be filing a ‘major’ motion, which he expected to require ‘an extended evidentiary hearing.'”
I suspect what he is referring to is what I mentioned a few months ago, what are called “motions in limine.” Contrary to what many [incompetent] lawyers think, a motion is not Latin for “limiting motion.” It basically means “beforehand.” This is because most motions in limine are brought just BEFORE trial (sometimes on the eve or day of trial). But motions in limine can be made during trial just before a witness is about to say something or a document paraded in front of the jury.
In the trial process (not litigation, but the actual upcoming trial) a motion in limine is a formal request by a party to the Judge to make a ruling to allow or keep out purported evidence, limit or disallow specified argument, or prohibit a witness or the attorneys making statements.
Motions in limine are used to:
– Prevent contaminating the jury. If something is deemed inadmissible, that does matter if the jury sees or hears what the Judge later ruled out of the case. This is because you “can’t unring the bell.”
– Ask the Judge to rule beforehand on which theories and arguments will be allowed. Basically, if your argument is not supported by the evidence or there’s no basis in law for it, the Judge can order that you cannot during trial advance the theory or make the argument.
– Allow the Judge to deal with complex evidentiary matters BEFORE the trial gets started. This not only gives the Judge time to reflect, but also does not take up limited, precious juror time while they wait for the lawyers and Judge to discuss matters.
Note: Given Judge Nelson’s actual bias in favor of the prosecution you may correctly be assuming that Zimmerman’s motions in limine are a waste of time to present to her. But that’s not how things work.
To prevail on appeal (aka reversing Judge Nelson and getting a new trial, probably with a different Judge), Zimmerman has to have made the motions in limine and the Judge to rule on them. This is important because the golden rule in the court of appeals, the Justices can only consider what is in the record, and that which an appellant or respondent submits to the appeals court (in the appendix). In other words, if it is NOT in the record at the trial court level, and NOT submitted to the appeals court, it does NOT exist. The appeals court cannot consider it. Period.
So in the Zimmerman case not only do MOM West have to make the motions in limine, they also have to separately submit them to the appeals court in the bound appendix.
Format: It is up to the Judge HOW the motions in limine will be presented. I have had some federal Judges who demand each motion has to be separate, with the Notice of Motion, issues, argument, and proposed order. While I admit that keeps things clean, I prefer the other way, which is one motion with each motion in a separate section, complete with a table of contents, and each with a sequential motion. This way the parties can rule on “MIL #1, #2, #3, etc.
Either way, motions in limine can be the “major motion” that requires an “extended evidentiary hearing” that MOM West are talking about.
I will not say what motions in limine will be filed since I do not want to alert Berangela de la Nifong what they are. I have about 45 on my list, developed since April 2012.
waltherppk said:
Part of the prosecution theory is the NEN call by Zimmerman reporting observing “suspicious behavior” is unfounded “profiling” which was the genesis of the events leading ultimately to a wrongful death, and that such “profiling” is the evidence of the “depraved mind” element of second degree murder which the state must prove to secure a conviction. I submit that this essential element cannot be proven by the state, due to the credibility of the observation of the “suspicious behavior” substantiated by the deceased testing positive for illegal drugs in his system, AND because the same subject at a prior time has been observed by another reporter of “suspicious behavior” leading to discovery of the same illegal drug as an evidence of “possession” / use. Of course that prior suspicious behavior involves the school resource officer Dunn who observed the graffiti leading to upon further investigation the baggie with the marijuana, and the “found property” / burglary tool being discovered in the backpack of the deceased while he was at school. The relevance of the prior suspicious behavior by the deceased being reported by a police officer, and involving a common element, the same illegal drug associated with the same subject, certainly makes credible the report of “suspicious behavior” in the NEN call made by the accused, which makes the school incident RELEVANT. It would be glaringly prejudicial to the accused for the Judge to disallow that school report documenting prior report of suspicious behavior being used as evidence that any prosecution theory allegations of unfounded
“profiling” by the accused was the genesis of the events leading to the death of the same subject who was also observed by a police officer at a prior time to be exhibiting “suspicious behavior”. But it would be par for the course of the “rigged game” if the court disallows that “school record” on the basis it is not relevant, even though the relevancy is very clear. The relevancy is that there was a credible report of “suspicious behavior” which was the basis for the NEN cal by the accused, and that such call was not due to any unfounded “profiling” as would tend to show “paranoid suspicions” of a depraved mind. The accused saw suspicious behavior and the observation had good factual basis just the same as did the prior observation of the school resource officer have similar good factual basis, with no unfounded “profiling” being involved in either case. The eyes of the accused were working just fine, in the same way as were the eyes of the school resource officer, when each of them observed and reported suspicious behavior having an illegal drug common denominator for the same subject. Further investigation may lead to even more in the way of a common denominator. But just based upon the illegal drug alone there is a nexus concerning the observation of “suspicious behavior” reported by the school resource officer and a similar observation made in the NEN call by the accused.
Chip Bennett said:
GZLegal posted the motion today: it’s for a Frye hearing for the alleged auditory experts, regarding identity of the recorded screams.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I thought the motion he was mentioning was coming up at the end of May, which would be about right for the timing of motions in limine, in line with the Judge’s pretrial order (that deals with the actual logistics of trial).
No matter, there’s some pleasure in burying the Judge and SA with so much paper that they don’t know which way is up. :)
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
A comment I made over at the Orlando Sentinel, about a possible motion in limine. (This was in retort to someone who said that my comment about the Utah assault and killing of a referee by a teen player was irrelevant to the Zimmerman case).
____________________
To prevail on self-defense Zimmerman has to prove HIS reasonable belief that he MAY suffer serious injury.
The state would argue that Zimmerman lacked the foundational knowledge and bases to reasonably believe the danger Trayvon Martin MIGHT pose, basically that Zimmerman believed HE MAY suffer serious injury IF assaulted.
Separately, the reasonableness of Zimmerman’s beliefs can be determined after he was in fact violently assaulted by Trayvon Martin, since the physical attack confirms Zimmerman’s belief that he was in danger.
Unless someone has suffered a punch or beating, our thought processes and beliefs are the sum and substance of what we see, hear, or experience in life.
Killing the Utah referee with a single punch is evidence to all of us that arms, fists, and open hands can indeed inflict serious injury or death.
Moreover, MOM West can cite these types of events in motions in limine to keep out unfounded arguments by Berangela de la Nifong (echoed to the public by Crump for 14 months).
For example, Berangela de la Nifong can’t argue to the jury: “Trayvon was armed with Skittles and ice tea, Zimmerman a gun.” or “You don’t get to bring a gun to a fist fight.” Not only are these theories and arguments unsupported by the evidence, but Judge Nelson should rule there’s no bases in law for advancing or making them once trial begins.
In any event, as the Utah and Miami teen player assaults show, hands can kill.
These events form the foundation of what we call “common sense.” To not understand this is a foundational element of stupidity. To refuse to accept these principles is a sign of your bias and prejudice.
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/utah-soccer-referee-coma-players-punch-19097270#.UYfpV8qwUgI
____________________
NEFLNative If this was suppose to be a comparison with Zippy murdering Martin – you completely missed it! Stupid analogy!
____________________
Helpful news for George Zimmerman’s self-defense, just in.
Prospective jurors will have surely seen the news today, that the Utah soccer referee punched in the face by a 17-year-old teenage player has died. The teen punched the referee because he was angered by the referee’s call. (I’m sure if this happened in Florida Crump and Jackson would come to the teens defense, saying that the ref was profiling the teen with his call and/or “Well, the ref did make a bad call. Don’t want to get assaulted, don’t make bad calls.”)
This story also counters people in here (Orlando Sentinel) saying:
“Even if Trayvon was punching Zimmerman that did not give him a right to shoot Martin.”
“Zimmerman was getting was a well-deserved beating for profiling Trayvon.”
“Zimmerman should have fought Trayvon with his fists, not a gun.”
“Zimmerman was not in fear of serious injury or death. Getting punched is not serious.”
There’s other evidence to establish Zimmerman’s REASONABLE belief that he MAY suffer serious injury or death (to prevail on self-defense he does NOT have to prove actual injury ). But this May 5, 2013, death of a referee on the playing field by a teen player sure helps.
The May 5 ABC nightly news also featured in the Utah death two separate Miami teen player assaults against referees. (Hear that Matt Gutman, your own colleague talked about how deathly serious it can be, teens punching those whom have offended them or to simply challenge authority.)
waltherppk said:
Persons familiar with martial arts know very well that certain types of blows delivered upon particular spots with correct force and trajectory have a high probability of being lethal even when delivered as a singly blow. The entire proposition that a “fist fight” involving adult sized individuals particularly having the upper body strength that they do, is comparable to a playground fight involving schoolchildren is an unrealistic comparison and risk analysis. There are many documented cases of persons being killed outright by a single blow, even accidentally in sporting events. When a battery of one person by another is occurring where one or both participants are engaged in what amounts to combat it is not the same as a “boxing match” being a sport played for “points” as judged by a non-existent referee or as subject to a post event analysis by a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who really have no idea if one or both participants in a “fight” were not absolutely each trying to kill the other, in circumstances where that could very easily be the result. It is not all that unusual for one person to kill another with their bare hands or feet. It happens more often that people die that way than some people seem to realize. Any significantly forcible battery of another person has an inherent risk of death whether that is intended or not to be the result, because even knocking someone down there is a chance they will hit their head and be fatally injured or some other unforeseen complication may occur. A person may have medical issues which make them vulnerable and puts the threshhold lower for what may be a fatal injury also. So it may not be necessary to land a “haymaker” on an elderly person or a child or a person with medical issues, to kill them stone dead on the spot. People who are victims of a battery don’t usually get a medical exam and sign waivers holding harmless their muggers for any inadvertant beating of themselves to death. And there seems to be a lack of understanding among the non CCP world of the “Mark Furman Doctrine” which declares no personal inclination to “go ten rounds with a pumped up N-word, when it is so much less risk and punishment to shoot the perpetrator” (paraphrased). That is the reality of life that thugophiles simply don’t seem to get, that an armed person has already decided they are disinclined to participate in uninvited “fist fights”, but prefer a different mode of combat for self defense.
libby said:
Also in 2012, a college student was strangled to death by a 17 y/o in Tampa. The kid’s parents hid the kid for months . The attacker wasbblack. The deadvvictim was white.
There were zero threats of riots by whites when the parents hid the perp for months preventing any arrests.
Knuckledraggingwino said:
Why is the premis that the unrelenting physical by TM against GZ not potentially lethal taken seriously by anyone?
Accoring to the FBI-SHR data, over 35,000 people have been killed with “personal weapons” during the last three decades. While most of these are young children (approximately 20,000 out of 24,000 children under 12 who were murderred) or women (only 20% of women murderredby rapists are killed with guns) and elderly, there is no paucity of young adult males who are beaten to death. In the last three decades, over 7,000 25-49 year old males have been killed with personal weapons, 8,000 killed with blunt objects (dint forget the concrete sidewalk that TM was pounding GZ’s head against not to mention the can office tea) or 9,000 killed with “other weapons” including strangulations, smothering (TM put his hands over GZ’s mouth and nose) and drownings that ultimately result from the aggressor having an advantage in physical force.
I once again reiterate my offer to test the theory that TM was not committing a deadly force assault against GZ using Ben Crump, Daryl Parks, Tracy Martin, Nast Natalie Jackson, Ryan Jullison, Matt Guttman, Serino, Pam Bondi, Angella Core, BDLR, Judge Lester the Molester, Judge Nelson, and both of the Double Dee Dee’s skulls as test subjects and pounding them against an unyielding, concrete sidewalk.
ejarra said:
If the state says that there’e no proof that TM ever laid a hand on GZ, then what?
Chip Bennett said:
– Witness 6 eye-witness testimony
– Eye-witness testimony of other witnesses who put TM on top of GZ
– Photographic evidence of injuries to GZ
– Police/EMT eye-witness testimony of injuries to GZ
– Medical diagnosis of a broken nose
This evidence easily meets the reasonable doubt threshold the defense needs for self-defense. I would contend that this evidence easily meets the preponderance threshold that the defense would need for immunity, but that requires an impartial judge.
For those… special people who assert that Zimmerman caused his own injuries by running into a tree and falling down: guess what? You bear the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that your assertion is true.
ejarra said:
Here’s how I see what BLDR will try to do:
First, try to make GZ out to be untrustworthy (paypal, passport, secret code, etc.) then attempt to make him out to be a liar by presenting muliple statements that he made (although I had heard that he can’t, but I think he’ll be allowed per Nelson), then say there is no proof that Trayvon hit him. No witnesses say that they saw the initial strike and no one claiming that they had seen blows afterwards.(W6 modified that part of his testimony as I’m sure that you are aware.) BLDR then says no one knows for sure how GZ got hurt and that how can the jury be expected to believe George, but everyone knows how TM got killed.
So, if you were MOM, short of having GZ on the stand, how would you challange what BLDR would say.
PS. I know that TM struck him first and delivered those blows, I’m just curious on your retort.
Chip Bennett said:
Okay, I’ll take a stab:
You’ll note that none of the evidence I presented involved a single word of Zimmerman’s own testimony.
But, should it come to that: the State still bears the burden to disprove any Zimmerman statement, beyond a reasonable doubt, by proving that the statement itself is implausible/contradictory.
Zimmerman doesn’t need to say anything more than: he attacked me, I feared for my life, and I defended myself.
But, again: Zimmerman doesn’t need to say anything. The physical evidence and eye-witness accounts speak for themselves.
Note that this point is problematic for the State, not for the defense. It is the State that bears the burden of proof, and the defense that has the constitutional right to presumption of innocence.
O’Mara highlighted this concept, and the State’s inherent problem, at the bond hearing, wherein he forced Gilbreath to admit under oath that the State had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s story, and that the State further had no evidence to prove which person was the initial physical aggressor.
Witness 6’s testimony still corroborates Martin as the physical aggressor. He described forearm blows and/or forcible attempts to prevent Zimmerman from getting up. He also describes a “low mount”, which establishes clear disparity of force.
The evidence presents clear and obvious reasonable doubt that Martin attacked Zimmerman. The defense does not bear the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin attacked Zimmerman; rather, the State bears the burdn to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin did not attack Zimmerman.
O’Mara simply needs to submit the previously stated evidence, assert that his client claims affirmative self-defense, and Nelson will be required to read the jury the self-defense jury instructions.
Zimmerman need never take the stand (which is what really sticks in BDLR’s craw).
stevie g. said:
great job as usual, Michael.
Another point which shows Nelson’s bias in this case is her tendency to have her opinion already written out and then to read it after (useless) oral argument. She has clearly made up her mind, so why even bother with the hearings?
Moreover, forcing gz to affirmatively waive his right to a pretrial immunity hearing, without stating that such waiver neither shows innocence or guilt, was a violation of gz’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, IMHO. After all, the lead story in the Lame Stream Media the next day was that gz had waived his right to SYG, the implication being that he must indeed be guilty then. This theme was picked up by the Traybots, especially #NatJack.
hooson1st said:
Bias issue aside in this case, judges ask for written briefs prior to oral argument so that they can examine the issues and arguments of both sides before hand and they customarily have a decision made ahead of time based on those briefs.
If there is nothing new in the oral arguments before them, they obviously go ahead and issue the decision they had already made.
libby said:
Though you are indeed correct (about other judges).
this judge is corrupt with regards her actions in this case (spot on Stevie g).
libby said:
Awe, come on Steve.
The persecutors have trampled on almost every other civil right gz has, starting with his right to defend his own life.
Phelps said:
It’s a nervous tick. He’s not asking the question because he wants the answer — it’s just a delay while he thinks of his real question. A lot of lawyers do it. I honestly think it is more effective (and dramatic to a jury) to just pause and think, because when you finally do come up with a good question, the jury is anticipating it.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Phelps:
I agree that some of this is audible pauses, but more, I think falls into obfuscation, and also general unthinking outrage of the “how dare they question me! Don’t they know who I am?” kind. BDLR seems the kind of person used to a kind of fawning deference, an assumed recognition of his power and stature, and does not take well to those who do not provide that deference in the manner to which he has become accustomed. It’s rather like Ms. Corey’s bizarre ranting at Harvard and Alan Dershowitz for the crime of criticizing her application of the law.
And I agree with you. Well done pauses are far more effective and less confusing for a jury.
Thanks, as always, for your comment!
Pingback: Fantastic Breakdown of last weeks hearing at Stately McDaniel Manor | Still Self Defense, Still Not Guilty
Nettles18 said:
Mike,
Wow! What an awesome summary of the hearing. Thank you so much for the time and effort you took to bring that to us. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the media showed such care?
I just can’t get over the conduct of the players in this case. Hopefully, the collective us are sending a message to the media, to the players, the games of old must stop. With technology now, a collective group of people can level the playing field and get their message out there when the “system” fails to do it.
Robert Zimmerman Jr. was on talk radio last night talking about media’s role in this case. He said its the media’s job to bring information to the public yet in this case they hyped misinformation and let us all down. Isn’t that the truth?
Thanks again. I really enjoy your updates on this subject.
Allyn said:
Thanks Mike. I had been waiting a long time for my fix!
Now I know that I can enjoy days of comments from some really smart, talented, educated, thoughtful commentors, as well as our Trayvonites.
Joel said:
My takeaway from this hearing is BDLR thinks his antics will work. Maybe at first, but by the fourth time he treated his fellow lawyer with scorn and intimated that the lawyer was a scoundrel, I started to think BDLR was the real scoundrel. Another way of putting it, he overplayed it. Jurors don’t want a strutting peacock to run around screeching. If this trial lasts a week, the jurors will find for the defendant just to spite BDLR.
Also, I think BDLR likes to talk and strut too much. A one man show so to speak. Jurors may like it in the movies, but giving out complicated questions which have little or no point, then acting like the witness is stupid and must be talked down to, hmm… that doesn’t work so well in real life. Also, jurors don’t like Justices interrupting a witness like Don West. Just when Don was getting warmed up on a revealing subject Judge Nelson halted it. I suspect the good Judge just can’t help herself and will continually interrupt a witness in the prosecution’s favor.
One more thing, is the Judge related to Chris Farley? I could just see Chris wearing a wig and pillows and would be the spitting image of Judge Nelson.
John McLachlan said:
One frequent commenter (Justfactsplease) on blogs which cover the George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin case and who is thought to be very close to the Zimmerman family has claimed that there are video recordings of violent crimes, upon Trayvon Martin’s phone.
The commenter suggests that these video recordings may correspond to cases which, presumably, are still open.
If these cases are still open, whoever was assigned to investigate each case may be unaware of this potential evidence.
Would any detective, who had an open case, be entitled to view these videos, if they exist and thereby ascertain if the known victims of these crimes was one of the victims depicted in the videos?
Presumably, the videos would contain information regarding the date and time, at which they were recorded or transmitted. This should restrict the number of possible cases to which these videos may be relevant.
Would whichever police department has possession of Trayvon Martin’s phone and its contents be obliged to disseminate any evidence relevant to any other open criminal investigation, in another jurisdiction, or even within the same jurisdiction?
If the commenter is correct and Trayvon Martin’s phone contains evidence relevant to three violent crimes, then the victims of these crimes are surely entitled to insist that all evidence regarding the crime is examined and if incriminatory, used to identify, then prosecute their assailants.
Is there a formal procedure for police to disseminate evidence discovered in one investigation, which may be relevant to other investigations?
pinecone (minpin) said:
Mike- I have a question for you with respect to a past article you wrote called “The Dee Dee Interview-Kaboom.” In that article you stated-
“One major issue is that—unlike TV and the movies would have us believe—prosecutors NEVER interview suspects. They commonly meet witnesses only just before a trial begins, and then, only to introduce themselves and tell the witness when they can expect to testify and to put them at ease. They do not discuss the details of testimony with witnesses.
This is so for two primary reasons:
(1) If a prosecutor interviews a suspect or witness, they have made themselves a witness. The defense can call them to the stand to testify about their interview. This is what those involved in the criminal justice system call: bad.
(2) It is important that the testimony of a witness be untainted. No prosecutor wants to open themselves to the charge of tampering with a witness—which is a crime—or in any way trying to influence their testimony. Defense lawyers routinely ask witnesses about this on the stand, and at the slightest hint of influence, raise a stink, which judges and juries tend to take very seriously.
Interviews are done by police officers. If a prosecutor wants to clarify a given issue, or obtain additional information, they have this done by a detective who writes a supplementary report containing that information. Prosecutors do not do it themselves.”
I am having some discussions with some that believe that prosecutors talk to witnesses any time they want. The discussion particularly is in reference to the BDLR interview with DD, which you transcribed in that article. It also would include the meeting that BDLR had with DD back in August, where she claims she admitted to BDLR that she lied about going to the hospital. The August interview was not recorded, and the defense only found out about that meeting by reading through the FDLE records and reports.
In your view, can the defense now call BDLR to the witness stand at trial, and question him as to that interview, especially about Sybrina Fulton sitting right next to DD in that interview. Can they also ask him, as a witness, who all attended the August meeting, why there was no recording of that meeting, no list has been provided of who attended that meeting, and any other question they deem fit?
Do you have any links at all that would address the proper protocal for Prosecutors with respect to interviewing witnesses, when a Prosecutor has made himself a witness because of his actions, and when a prosecutor has given up his prosecution immunity?
If you can address this issue I would be most appreciative. Thank you.
jello333 said:
I keep thinking of West’s comment several months ago… “I can’t question the prosecutor under oath… yet.” ;)
pinecone (minpin) said:
Precisely Jello. West knows dang well that BDLR gave up his prosecution immunity when he interviewed DD, and especially under the circumstances that he did so, in Sybrina’s home, and with her sitting crying next to DD as she did the interview. Then you have the August “meeting in Jacksonville,” transportation paid for by the state, and it was never recorded. Even more astounding is that Nelson didn’t think that there was any prosecution misconduct.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I have to do some chores, but I’ll answer this, briefly. As a former prosecutor I can tell you:
– Prosecutors do in fact talk to WITNESSES, but this in preparation for trial. What is said between the prosecutor and witness cannot be inquired upon, by defense counsel or the trial Judge.
– Prosecutors should NEVER talk to prospective witnesses.
– They should NEVER conduct investigations, meaning in the field.
– Prosecutors have at their disposal investigators (who are peace officers with badges, guns, and even red/blue lights on cars :) to conduct investigations.
– Bernie should have used one of his investigators to take DeeDee’s statement.
– Bernie could have been present at the interview, but he should have NOT been the one asking her questions.
– In most jurisdictions Bernie has in fact made himself a witness. One could call him to the stand and make inquiries along the line of questions that would be asked of Crump.
– I don’t know if Florida has such a rule, however In most jurisdictions Bernie has violated state bar rules, that mandate an attorney should endeavor to NOT make him or herself a witness in the case he or she is handling. IMO by his conduct Bernie made himself a witness in the case.
– IMO Bernie has also violated state bar rules related to attorneys avoiding conflicts of interest or engaging in any conduct that furthers a conflict of interest.
– Bar rules also require an attorney competently represent a client. For Bernie, the people are the client. IMO by this conduct he has incompetently represented the people paying his bill.
– Of course, given Judge Nelson’s ruling on the defense not being allowed to depose Crump, Bernie will never be held to account for his conduct.
Lastly, I’ll just paste this. Here’s some notes to file I have on Florida Bar Rules:
State Bar Rule 4-3.4
A lawyer shall not:
(a) Unlawfully OBSTRUCT another party’s access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully CONCEAL a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is RELEVANT to a pending proceeding…
(b) Fabricate evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness (this applies to Crump too).
(d) Fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.
Rule 4-3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor:
(c) Shall make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense… (aka “exculpatory facts or evidence”).
(d) Shall not intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.
Rule 4-4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons
A lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person. (e.g., you should not have trashed Robert Zimmerman, Jr. in your pleading. Since you did not name the “anonymous internet trolls,” you might be off the hook on that one).
pinecone (minpin) said:
Thank you very much Michael for your reply. Some are arguing that it is not “illegal” for prosecutors to interview witnesses, and you have clarified that in your reply, albeit with caveats, if I am not mistaken. It appears that there is a protocol followed by prosecutors in order to remove themselves from the appearance of witness coaching and/or manipulation, or tampering, and you actually added some bonuses.
Hope your little 4 legs are doing well. I’ve always subscribed to the philosophy that how you treat the most vulnerable amongst us is a sign of good character. Spoiled brats that they are.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Alas, we have had a tragedy here.
http://s1286.photobucket.com/user/Michael94126/media/CountDachula_zps7023592f.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
Nettles18 said:
ItsMichaelNotMike – In May of 2012 Frances Robles wrote an article about donations for both the Martin Family and the Zimmerman Defense. In it, she picked up a quote from a lawyer in San Francisco who posted on the facebook page of the legal defense for GZ. She also picked up my post and printed my real name. I have always wondered if this was you. Was it? http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/11/v-fullstory/2794656/trayvon-martins-mother-got-about.html
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Pinecone:
Thanks for your question. ItsMichaelNotMike answered quite well. I’ll just reemphasize his points a bit.
Prosecutors do speak to witnesses, but these are people who have already been completely interviewed by law enforcement. A prosecutor might speak to them briefly, and ask them questions just to be certain that their testimony is as law enforcement wrote in their reports. They never interview prospective witnesses them self, because that does indeed make them witnesses, overriding their work product and attorney-client privileges. However, the legal fraternity is generally not eager to act on this as they can see themselves on the witness stand if they’re one day tempted to play manly lawyer-hero. A common lawyer maxim is that lawyers make lousy witnesses. There is a great deal of truth in this.
There are some prosecutors who consider themselves so powerful they really believe they can do whatever they want and get away with it, but the facts are as ItsMichaelNotMike described them. I doubt that Judge Nelson would make de la Rionda take the stand, but that would be a powerful issue on appeal–if necessary, and considering her conduct thus far, I’m sure that everything O’Mara and West are doing has the necessity of an appeal in mind.
Absent specific state statutes, rules, or bar codes of conduct, I can’t direct you to a specific URL. I hope this is helpful.
pinecone (minpin) said:
Thank you very much Mike for your reply. Between your reply, and ItsMichaelNot Mike, I believe the question has been answered. BDLR overstepped his boundaries as a prosecutor. Will Nelson see it that way should it come up in the future, absolutely not. The defense team seems to be building more of an appeal case than they are the immediate case. They are wise. Thank you again, I appreciate you and what you write very much.
BTW, waiting for your next article on the things your students say that are more than a little remarkable. The last article was hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
Nettles18 said:
Reblogged this on Nettles.
Pingback: Florida: Evil Again 4 | Stately McDaniel Manor