I write this article with dread in that this scruffy little blog is in danger of becoming the “all Trayvon Martin all the time” spot on the Internet. However, there are several new developments that are, as they say in the law, “ripe” for discussion. In Update 24, I suggested Judge Debra Nelson was worthy of pity. I may soon have to modify that formulation to suggest that she is, rather, pitiful. And now, once more unto the breach, dear readers, once more.
THE DEE DEE LETTER:
Enclosed as an attachment to Deputy Special Prosecutor Bernard de la Rionda’s response to Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara’s motion for sanctions against him (Update 25) was a letter he represented as having been written by Dee Dee, who he called “this teenager.” This is, in itself, significant as one of the subjects of O’Mara’s motion is the fact that de la Rionda knew that Dee Dee and Scheme Team attorney Benjamin Crump lied about her age in an attempt to keep her behind a curtain of juvenile secrecy for nearly a year when she was, in fact 18 when her statements were taken, first by Crump, and later by de la Rionda. Calling her “this teenager,” while technically accurate—she is reportedly now 19—is certainly disingenuous. She is, under the law and in practical fact, an adult. De la Rionda, however, appears to wish to perpetuate the fiction that she is a juvenile.
In his response, de la Rionda argued that Dee Dee wanted to remain anonymous and did not want her identity revealed: “Witness 8 did everything she could to not being [sic] identified, including using her nickname so that she would not be subjected to what is now happening to her.”
What is now happening to her? She’s been made the star witness in a murder case by de la Rionda and Crump, and has been caught in multiple lies, lies perhaps procured by them. O’Mara is merely asking for the truth. Is this not the purpose and goal of the search for justice? De la Rionda must know that he ethically cannot keep any witness secret, certainly not from the defense, yet he tried to do just that. He must also know that any witness must eventually be identified.
Any distress being experienced by Dee Dee is properly placed at the feet of Crump and de la Rionda, not O’Mara who is merely doing his job under the law, and doing it ethically. Regarding the origin of Dee Dee’s letter, de la Rionda wrote:
See attached letter Witness 8 gave Victim’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, prior to the recorded telephone call with Trayvon Martin’s attorney, Benjamin Crump.
I include a screen shot of that letter here:
As with much else about this case, the letter, dated “March 19, 2012” is odd indeed. There is no header or salutation. Despite de la Rionda’s assertion that it was written to Sybrina Fulton, it is not addressed to her or to anyone else. Personal letters are written for a purpose such as to inform, to persuade, to maintain a relationship, or in a case like this, to express regret, sympathy or to console. This “letter” has none of those qualities.
There is no attempt to personalize the content, no attempt to reach out to the mother who lost her son, a son to whom Dee Dee was supposedly close, no expression of sympathy for her loss. In fact, she closes with “thank you,” as though ending an impersonal request or form letter.
It is the impersonal, pseudo-legalistic content that is striking. The text appears to be a dry run for Dee Dee’s two interviews. In fact, it was dated March 19, 2012, which, coincidentally, is the same day Crump conducted his interview with Dee Dee. We do know that Crump coached Dee Dee in that interview. It takes no leap of logic to suspect he caused her to write this letter and coached her as to its content. It has all of the elements of the de la Rionda interview (Update 11), but in rough draft form. The primary differences are that this account is far less detailed, Zimmerman doesn’t reply to Martin’s initial verbal challenge, and she heard Martin “fall.” What, I wonder, does that sound like over a cell phone? Her final commentary is strange indeed:
In my mind I thought it was just a fight Then I found out this tragic story. Thank you,
Of course, by the time she did the de la Rionda interview on April 02, 2012, the story had evolved considerably, and she no longer characterized the confrontation as a “fight,” which would undermine The Narrative. This was also likely changed because the prosecution surely does not want Dee Dee testifying to her knowledge of any fondness for, or acting upon, violence on Martin’s part. Her writing in the letter suggests that Martin might be quite comfortable with fighting and often engaging in it. This too would be very bad for The Narrative.
What remains unknown, as O’Mara noted, is we still have no idea how Dee Dee came to the attention of Crump and the Prosecution, nor do we know the details of their interactions with her. We do know the Scheme Team was present for her interview with de la Rionda, and that Sybrina Fulton was not only present for the interview, but was actually sitting next to her, and the interview took place in Fulton’s home.
We also don’t know why Dee Dee wrote this letter (I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that she did). If we assume it simply appeared in Fulton’s mailbox one day–and we do not know that it was ever actually mailed–we have to ask why a teenager steeped in e-mail and texting would actually write a letter, something most contemporary teenagers do not know how to do. Apart from school assignments—and many teens never have such assignments—many teenagers have never written and mailed a letter. From its content, one must assume that Dee Dee, for whatever reason, felt compelled to tell Fulton of her involvement as a witness, providing a very brief, cold-blooded and cryptic account, but apparently has no social graces or empathy toward a woman who recently (February 26, 2012) lost her son.
There are two additional matters, but I don’t intend to make too much of them. Notice that there is distortion–what appears to be copier “noise”–near the two exclamation points following “me,” which may be the result of erasure. Also notice the size of the redaction, apparently of Dee Dee’s name. Notice the height of her writing in the date and the “thank you,” yet she signs her name at a height only about half as tall? Again, I don’t have sufficient information–and only what appears to be a copy of a copy (or copies)—but these items might bear explanation.
Why did de la Rionda surface this letter now? Did he have reason to believe O’Mara was told of it by Dee Dee, and if so, what was he told? Did Crump and/or de la Rionda coach Dee Dee and cause her to write the letter, and was it actually mailed to Fulton, or was it a dry run for the interviews, perhaps a crude set of preliminary talking points? Did de la Rionda provide this, because he believed he would soon be required to produce it, and like his release of the knowledge of Dee Dee’s lies the night before the March 5th hearing, he wanted to get in front of the inevitable and embarrassing release, a release that showed, once again, he has been hiding exculpatory evidence for nearly a year?
Crump and de la Rionda have much to explain.
DE LA RIONDA’S SECOND RESPONSE:
Apparently filed April 4, 2013, de la Rionda finally provided a response to O’Mara’s motion for reimbursement (Update 24) due to de la Rionda’s obstruction of the videotaped deposition of Dee Dee on March 13, 2013. His argument in this response is as misleading, deceptive and defensive as his argument in his initial response to O’Mara’s motion for sanctions.
He begins by asserting that videotaping witness depositions in Florida is rare and says Florida rules “…do not specifically allow for videotaping under any other circumstances,” which is misleading and inaccurate as O’Mara’s motion, which included reference to all applicable rules, made clear. It is a basic principle of law—and of life—that what is not specifically prohibited is allowed. This is simply another attempt by de la Rionda to avoid the substance of O’Mara’s motion and to distract the Court.
He then spent several paragraphs patting him self on the back for helping to arrange other depositions, being careful to avoid directly addressing the deposition in question. Apparently Mr. de la Rionda believes the fact that he has, in some ways, behaved ethically and in the interests of justice (as his position requires of anyone occupying it) immunizes him from unethical behavior at odds with justice.
De la Rionda writes:
9. While discussing the scheduling of dates, location, and witnesses to be deposed in Miami, Defense counsel never mentioned a desire or need to videotape those witnesses. During telephone conversations and email correspondence with Defense Counsel, including the days before the depositions, Defense Counsel perhaps inadvertently failed to inform the State that it intended to videotape the deposition of the witnesses in Miami.
10. On 3/6/2013, Defense Counsel’s paralegal emailed the state draft notices of the Miami witness depositions referenced in Defendant’s Motion. The notices (similar in all respects to other, non-video notices) apparently indicated that the defense was intending to videotape the proceedings. However, this was at no time independently mentioned and simply was not observed at the time.
Non-Evasive English Translation: “They never told me they wanted to videotape; they must have forgotten. OK, OK, you got me. They did put it in writing and give it to me, but it was only their paralegal, not O’Mara, so it really doesn’t count, and besides, it looked just like stuff that didn’t talk about videotaping, so you can’t blame me for not bothering to actually read the legal notices the Defense sent me in the most important and notorious case of my life. All that legal stuff looks alike! Besides, if they didn’t remind me multiple times in multiple ways, how can you expect me to remember the stuff I never bothered to read?”
De la Rionda spends two paragraphs talking about meaningless arrangements having to do with scheduling depositions, arrangements having nothing whatever to do with the matter at hand. This is clearly another transparent and inelegant attempt to distract and mislead the court from the substance of the motion. He then writes:
13. On 3/11/2013, Defense Counsel’s paralegal emailed the state deposition notices for 3/13/2012—–3/15/2013 referenced in the Motion. The undersigned looked at the notices to make sure the changes previously discussed had been made. The State didn’t see that this notice had the name of the videographer on the notice.
Non-Evasive English Translation: “That darned paralegal confused me by giving me what I wanted, and then they tricked me by putting the name of the videographer—you know, the one I never knew about in the first place because I don’t actually bother to read important legal documents?—on this document, and I read it, honest I did, but I didn’t see the videographer’s name or anything because I didn’t really read it, apparently, and in any case, it’s all O’Mara’s fault, or somebody’s fault, because I’ve done other stuff right before!”
De la Rionda has admitted that he doesn’t bother to actually read documents relating to the case, and that O’Mara did follow the state rules in giving him notification of his intent to videotape and in providing the name of the videographer. He just admitted it in a way that might serve to mislead the judge, and perhaps, even fool her into thinking O’Mara did something wrong. Perhaps she doesn’t read legal documents either.
Actually, de la Rionda may have fallen prey to a common failing among lawyers, particularly prosecutors: “I-don’t-bother-to-actually-read-reports-and-other-documents” disease. Practically speaking, one DWI case (among others) is much like another, and prosecutors often traipse into court having merely glanced at a given case, if that. They’re usually capable of winging it on the spot without substantial embarrassment. However, combine that lack of diligence with unwarranted arrogance, and things can go quickly wrong. When a case is more complex, those same negligent habits can have serious repercussions.
De la Rionda then recounts the events of March 13, admitting that the Court ruled against his objections to videotaping and says he understands the Court has ruled. However, he added an interesting bit of information: the Court ordered Dee Dee’s videotape to be sealed. De la Rionda then spends nearly two pages objecting all over again and in more detail, as if the court had never ruled, essentially extending his misleading argument that unless something is specifically allowed by law—or in this case, rules of evidence and procedure—it must somehow be magically non-specifically prohibited, quite the opposite of law and common sense. He concludes:
Defense Counsel claims misconduct by the State and seeks financial benefit simply because the State had the audacity to lodge a perfectly legal objection to the apparently targeted and selective videotaping of witnesses’ depositions.
Defense Counsel now apparently seeks to be compensated for the time researching the issue and waiting to argue against the objection before the Court including the time spent consuming a meal. The State’s objection was grounded in law and made in good faith.
Non-Evasive English Translation: “OK, so my ‘perfectly legal objection’ that I made in ‘good faith’ really wasn’t grounded in law—after all, even you ruled against it—and he just wanted to videotape things to pick on poor Dee Dee! And O’Mara wants to be compensated for having to spend time showing me the law I ignored and eating a meal, which he didn’t mention in his motion, and wasting hours because I was being a jerk and didn’t bother to actually know about the issues I should have known about, and just look at me your Honor, don’t I have an honest face? C’mon! You’ve been my pal so far…”
All in all, this response has all of the qualities we’ve come to expect of the prosecution in this case. De la Rionda has, once again, lived down to expectations, indeed, surpassed them.
THE WRIT:
O’Mara, on April 04, 2013, filed a Writ of Certiorari asking the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District to overturn Judge Nelson’s decision denying a deposition for Benjamin Crump. A writ of certiorari is simply the legal vehicle for asking a higher court to overturn the decision of a lower court.
This is an interesting step. Lawyers generally do not, while a case is in progress, do such things. They want to stay on the good side of the presiding judge, and few things anger most judges more than having their rulings appealed, particularly if those rulings actually are reversed. O’Mara may have decided that he has nothing to lose by aggressively challenging Judge Nelson, which may also mean that he has come to the conclusion that she will not do justice in this case. If this is indeed O’Mara’s decision, I suspect he may be correct. If so, he must also expect to have a good chance of losing the case through a biased conduct of the trial on the judge’s part regardless of the evidence. Building a strong record for an eventual appeal is a wise course of action.
I’ll not go into exhaustive detail on the writ, as it is, in most respects, identical to the original motion for a deposition of Crump denied by Judge Nelson. O’Mara builds a careful, well supported, and compelling case. The major elements are:
(1) Crump has information essential to the defense that cannot be obtained in any way other than a deposition.
(1A) De la Rionda knows how Dee Dee came to the attention of Crump and the Prosecution, but refuses to tell the Defense, thus a deposition with Crump is required.
(1B) ABC News kept only a short clip (5 minutes) of the Crump interview, therefore, Crump is the only person who can reveal information about many aspects of that interview.
(2) Crump deceived the Court, the public, the prosecution and the defense in his affidavit, therefore he must be deposed in order for the truth to be known.
(3) Crump is not a party to the case, therefore cannot be opposing counsel.
(4) Crump has no work product or other privileged protection, and even if he did, he has affirmatively and voluntarily waived that privilege in several significant ways.
(5) It is Crump’s insertion of himself into this case, his deceptions and manipulations, that have made it necessary to depose him, therefore, he should not be protected from the consequences of his own actions, and indeed, state law allows his deposition.
(6) Failing to depose Crump will cause irreparable damage to Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial, damage that cannot be addressed by appeals after the trial.
O’Mara’s motion also reveals a number of facts not previously widely known:
(1) Crump’s interview of Dee Dee was apparently conducted by phone. The entire call lasted about 26 minutes, but the portion provided to the Defense was only about 14 minutes long.
(2) Judge Nelson prevented O’Mara from questioning Crump about relevant matters telling him “these are questions that can be asked at a deposition,” and “the Court’s going to make [Mr. Crump] a witness for the purpose of taking a deposition regarding this issue. So, you can take his depo.”
(3) The Crump recording also exposes potential collusion and/or deceptions on the part of Dee Dee and/or Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton (Trayvon Martin’s parents):
This part of the recording also suggests that Witness 8 spoke with Tracy Martin and/or Sybrina Fulton denied in their statements to the prosecution two weeks later.
(4) O’Mara provides a section of Crump’s coaching of Dee Dee, a matter about which he lied in his affidavit, though O’Mara merely says it “contradicts” Crump’s affidavit:
Mr. Crump: OK. I wanna stop you and I want to have you say all that over again just that part there and I want you to uh, tell about how he said, how Trayvon said, ‘I thought I lost him’ and then, yeah I want you to start off right there, ‘I thought I lost him, and then he caught up,’ I want you to do it loud and slow, ok? So I can get it. Because I remember you said Trayvon, you told Trayvon to run home and so I want you to say that—
Witness 8: No. Trayvon, will, I told Trayvon to run home because I thought he had said he lost him, so Trayvon told me (Crump interrupts)
Mr. Crump: Ok
Witness 8: he’s gonna run for it
Mr. Crump: Ok. Let me do this here. Le me have you start over just that there ok, and say it loud and slow for me. Ok?
Witness 8: Alright.
Mr. Crump: Ok, a one, two, three…
Witness 8: Trayvon run for it.
(5) O’Mara explained that his March 13 deposition of Dee Dee was incomplete:
Counsel for Petitioner took a partial deposition of Witness 8 on March 13, 2013 which only led to more questions and confusion as to her interaction with Mr. Crump.
As I earlier noted, it does appear that O’Mara plans a follow up deposition with Dee Dee, which, considering what has been happening, is entirely logical, but must wait for the gathering of more information, particularly that of Crump.
Though 42 pages long, the motion is readable and easily understood by the legal layman, and I recommend it to readers. De la Rionda could learn a great deal about legal writing should he condescend to actually read this document. The few footnotes are brief and directly relate to matters of law and fact, and are close to the items of text they support. There are no personal attacks, and O’Mara directly and clearly deals with each and every issue in the case.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Denver Defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt, who has been doing fine analysis on this case, has a post on O’Mara’s motion for a writ.
Her summation:
My opinion: Crump has been burning both ends of the candle for far too long. It’s time for the court to snuff out the flame on one end. If he wants to play investigator, share his results with the public, and make grand public announcements that state officers and officials have lied, and George Zimmerman is guilty of cold-blooded murder, he shouldn’t be allowed to play hide and go seek when asked to provide information as to the reliability of his claims. He made the decision to go public with his dubious claims, which were relied on by the state in filing charges against Zimmerman. He filed an affidavit, parts of which are either mistakenly or intentionally inaccurate. Whatever privilege he might have had as to Witness 8 by virtue of his representing the Martin family had he not gone public, should be deemed waived. He has made himself a witness, and neither the attorney-client nor work-product privilege should protect him.
Judge Nelson is in over her head. She now has to rule on the motion for sanctions with an appeal court decision on her denial of a deposition on Crump hanging over her head, and it’s her fault. She told O’Mara she would authorize a deposition of Crump and actually prevented him from questioning Crump in favor of that promised deposition. Then when Crump provided an affidavit that has proved to be deceptive and that O’Mara told her was not satisfactory, she pulled the deposition run out from under O’Mara without providing any reason therefore.
O’Mara’s motions have the very great advantage of embodying the truth, and of entirely embracing the law. Judge Nelson has no legal, professional grounds to deny them.
In the case of sanctions against de la Rionda, either he has fully discharged his discovery duties or he has not. He has been entirely truthful–to the Defense and to the Court, or he has not. The evidence presented by O’Mara and grudgingly and misleadingly admitted by de la Rionda indicates clearly that he did not live up to his discovery duties many times and in many ways, and he did so not accidently, but willingly and knowing precisely what he was doing: depriving George Zimmerman of his right to a fair trial. Likewise, the evidence from the Defense and de la Rionda indicates he has knowingly lied to the Court.
In the Crump motion, either Crump is opposing counsel or he is not. Either he has some privilege under the law or he does not. The evidence produced by O’Mara and Crump’s actions and statements make clear that he is not opposing counsel, that he has willingly waived any possible privilege. The evidence also makes more than clear that Crump has made himself a witness, and more, a racial provocateur whose statements and agitation have led directly to Zimmerman’s arrest and prosecution.
That being the case, the only issues before Judge Nelson should be the severity of the sanctions, and ordering Crump’s deposition with all due haste. Failing this, she demonstrates such egregious bias in favor of the prosecution and in service to The Narrative that O’Mara could probably successfully petition to have her removed from the case. Failing this, she would be all but begging a court of appeals to overturn her should Zimmerman be found guilty. The damage to the integrity of the Florida courts and bar would be profound and long lasting. But worse, she would open herself to legitimate charges of racial pandering and incitement.
Matters will not be better for Judge Nelson if she is repeatedly forced by higher courts to apply the law and to do justice.
In the bizarre press conference announcing the arrest of George Zimmerman (Update 2 ), Special Prosecutor Angela Corey made a point of telling the public she intended to actually obey the law and behave ethically(?!) while simultaneously enacting an arrest based on an unethical and blatantly faulty affidavit. From that moment, the level of unethical behavior and lack of integrity of the Special Prosecutors and of the judges involved in this case have followed suit.
Prosecuting the innocent will tend to do that.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Reblogged this on Captain Long Schlong Silver .
This is an absolutely beautiful summation, Mike. Bravo!
Hear, Hear!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks Mike, again.
Is there an Internet blog Pulitzer? I nominate Mike.
Going to the DCA at this point is, as Crazy Uncle Joe would say, a Big Effing Deal. It would be unusual for the circuit court to grant cert at this point, but if they have been paying attention to this travesty of a miscarriage of justice, it is entirely possible that they will do so.
Nelson should be taken to the woodshed already, simply due to her failure to schedule a Richardson hearing immediately upon receipt of defense’s first motion to sanction for discovery violations, and for denying the defense’s request for a continuance, given the State’s absurd slow-roll of discovery disclosure.
If justice is ultimately served, this case will be a landmark for the State of Florida.
I’m hoping MOM/West were indirectly INVITED … through the Florida legal grapevine … to go to the DCA. I’m hoping the DCA HAS been paying attention to the state’s persecution of GZ, and “put the word out” to the defense team to approach for some relief.
I hope you are correct. However, Florida has a reputation when it comes to a travesty of justice.
Your article here is elegant and a joy to read. things have gotten a little bit wild and wooly over at the conservative treehouse. you set a nice tone Mike and it would behoove some other people to follow it on their conservative web sites. just my opinion ,my writing is a bit wild and wooly and full of fleas as usual.
A beautifully written summation of the George Zimmerman case. judge Nelson is indeed a mess. that time she confuses civil and criminal law in Florida. because this woman has a political agenda is embarrassing both legal system in Florida as well as herself.
There is also the matter of the Judge denying the motion to continue and at the same time, canceling scheduled depositions and docket soundings.
Will the Judge provide a reason to the defense for canceling court on April 2nd? Will she give them a hearing before the next scheduled court appearance on April 30th?
What we are witnessing in the courtroom in Florida is bizarre. Like you said Mike, prosecuting the innocent will do that.
I’m hopeful the higher court will right the ship before too much more damage is done to people’s trust in the justice system. I for one will not be giving prosecutors the benefit of the doubt, as I tended to do, knowing they have looked at the evidence. I see now, sometimes political influence can bring about charges not the evidence. That’s incredibly sad.
It is almost like a Chinese obligation. Once you help it along, you can’t stop.
I am wondering if there is any one above Nelson who pities her enough to put a stop to this case. I suspect there isn’t.
Reblogged this on Justice For All and commented:
Thank you, Mike for your insightful look at the latest developments.
Oh man, I just got home after a meeting with the chairman of the board client where he talked for five hours straight. All I had was a bottle of water. Man, I’m worn out.
But duty calls on the Zimmerman case Guess that makes Zimmerman a hobby. :)
Great summary Mike. I’ll mouth off in here after I get my pizza out of the microwave.
Outstanding. IMO the integrity of our judicial system in Florida depends on their decision.
This has really gone on for far too long.
Mike – you are getting better and better. What I believe is in the mind of Judge Nelson and Bernie de la Rionda is that they neglect to realize that the whole COUNTRY is watching. Maybe they don’t bother to read the news. Maybe they don’t bother to surf the Net. But I really believe that Bernie has been operating in his Jacksonville, FL cocoon for so long that he thinks he can play games with the system and get his way, as he has in the past, with impunity. Judge Nelson’s career is in jeopardy unless/until she starts showing impartiality. Bernie’s is in jeopardy because he is going to lose this case and Angela Corey is going to throw him under the bus to preserve her own status. He will be forced to resign and receive a glowing letter of recommendation from Angela in the process. Meanwhile, should Dee Dee EVER take the stand, she will crumble like a stack of Pringles potato chips under a 100lb lead weight. The fallout of her testimony will shatter the credibility of several people: Benjamin Crump (already suspect), Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin (already suspect), and Bernie de la Rionda (his has been spiraling downward already). I mean, it’s mind-boggling to me that these people actually think they can get away with what they are doing. Like a shoplifter who KNOWS there are 20 CC-TV cameras bearing down on him. As Dr. Phil would say, “What were THEY thinking!!!?”
Juggler – don’t kid yourself about De la Rionda not bothering to surf the net. Blogs like this one and the CTH are in his head – he even specifically mentions “internet trolls” in his rant/response to O’Mara’s motion.
“What I believe is in the mind of Judge Nelson and Bernie de la Rionda is that they neglect to realize that the whole COUNTRY is watching.”
And not just watching… discussing, blogging, pouring over every piece of available evidence and every witness statement, researching case law, considering Constitutional issues, and in some cases even investigating into the matter themselves. Several significant pieces of evidence have even come to light because of the efforts of the public… namely the Gutman recording and the Tweet about Martin assaulting a bus driver.
This case is not just high profile, it’s highly interactive…
The public is not just watching anymore, they’re participating.
Mike,
I continue to be impressed with your writing and analysis. It is a sad day that I don’t have a Statsly McDaniel Manor update in my mailbox. All Trayvon, all the time is fine with me (although I really like your gun rights articles and the virtues of our Glocks) as this travesty of justice is so compelling and addictive.
You are an extremely interesting guy with an unparalleled ability to draw on your life experiences and apply them in your writings.
Allyn
Yes, Allyn; well said/written. Mike’s teaching/school articles are always interesting. I’ve previously mentioned that I also enjoy his tales of his police work and got very interested in the Erik Scott case through reading here. Much life experience to draw on leads to a wide variety of interesting stories, thoughts and analysis.
Always appreciate your articles, Mike. Your output is much too diverse to ever be pigeon holed with one case or even one genre. Besides, every time you do write on the case lately, something else happens. News was released today that TM™’s parents settled their lawsuit with the homeowner’s association at RATL. And even that raises more questions, as happens so often in this case. How much, if anything, did they receive? Why did Crump decide to file the months old settlement now? Why did the parties decide to settle now? The HOA insurance company walked away from settlement negotiations last year when their million dollar settlement offer was rejected.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-settlement-20130405,0,6893976.story
Of course, nondisclosure was part of the deal but it’s also being reported the court said the information is to be released anyway and gave Crump ten days to appeal the decision. CF13news is also reporting “We have learned, that the homeowners association’s insurance company did not have to pay out a claim on the case.”
http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/4/5/trayvon_martin_s_par.html
Reblogged this on A world at war and commented:
Once again Mike Daniels makes an excellent summation of the latest developments.
Mike, I read your blog and I read Jeralyn’s blog when it concerns the Zimmerman case for one reason only, and that is both of you use analysis in what you have written.
When it comes to legal analysis Jeralyn Merrit is one of the best that I have read. You follow in her footsteps.
I am not into all of the other stuff relating to the case that some other blogs have featured. I do however, also read Diwataman because he is also very incisive with his form of analysis.
De la Rionda, however, appears to wish to perpetuate MANY MANY MANY fictions (and the florida bar is blind to black racism or they are major supporters of it)
Mike, perhaps in the future you might compile many of the myths about the shooting that sprouted up from when the shooting occurred, to present, and discuss them. There are so many…but I like what you’ve been doing thus far. There is actual intellect on this site, for the most part…
Diwataman has already done so on his blog. Here is the link…
“Perhaps she doesn’t read legal documents either.”.
Judge nelson apears to be as incompetent or crooked as the persecutor in this case.
EXCELLENT work again, Mike (you put the megacy media to shame, they should hang their collective heads in shame for their lies and maniuplations.
Mike, one thing I didn’t see you mention about the letter – it’s written in cursive. My son, who is 15, has never learned to write in cursive. They don’t teach it anymore in school, and in fact haven’t done so for years. I wonder if DeeDee even knows how to write in cursive. I would have big doubts that someone with her questionable intellectual skills could write a letter in cursive that is nearly devoid of misspellings. At her next deposition, O’Mara should ask her for a handwriting sample.
Interesting note on the cursive. My three kids, graduates of one of the top 100 best Public High Schools, graduates of top 25 Universities with Master Degrees, all print too. They are in their forties so lack of cursive writing has been going on for a long time. The grandchildren in Catholic School do, do cursive.
Yes, the letter only spells her boyfriend’s name wrong. Odd.
…and my guess is that’s exactly why we haven’t seen this written statement before now.
They lied about her age…
They lied about her needing to go to a hospital…
And now apparently they were even lying about the nature of her relationship with ‘Trevon’… she didn’t even know him well enough to know how to spell his name.
nivico,
Ah, but you don’t know a lawyer’s definition of a “girl friend”. The “girl friend” has to be female, unrelated and not neutral towards the person. This covers a wide variety of women with regards to “Treyvon”.. My definition and I suspect yours is similar. I would have called Dee Dee an acquaintance at best.
Dear nivico:
You raise an interesting point, but I’d be cautious about reading too much into it for the time being. Most teens are mediocre spellers at best as most are not readers. It’s equally likely she never had to spell Martin’s actual first name before, and simply had no idea how he spelled it.
Thanks, though!
@Mike:
That’s a tough sell. Remember: the story is that Witness 8 had known Martin since Kindergarten. In 12 years, she had neither opportunity nor need to (know how to) spell Martin’s first name?
“Most teens are mediocre spellers at best as most are not readers.”
Wit 8’s grammar in her written statement is a bit sketchy in places, no argument there … but as nettles aptly pointed out, ‘Trevon’ is the only word that is actually misspelled in the entire document.
It’s just unfathomable to me that you could be in any sort of relationship with someone, even in the early stages of a budding romance, and not know how to spell their name…
And it’s not just that she didn’t know how to spell his name. After being asked by BDLR to describe Trevon all she could seemingly come up with was that he was a momma’s boy who loved to ride his bike… but then she couldn’t even tell BDLR what kind of bike it was and furthermore didn’t much care.
For someone who was supposedly in a relationship with Trevon, or getting there, she just didn’t seem to really know very much about him at all… a far cry from the portrait of a devastated sweetheart that was being sold to the public.
I think people need to remember that most of the questions Bernie posed to Dee Dee during the testimony she gave in early April last year were leading questions. He didn’t ask her things like. Can you describe your relationship with Trayvon? For example, would you describe him as an acquaintance, a close friend, a boyfriend? No, he kept it leaning in a romantic direction. And even after asking how they knew each other, and she had said something to the effect that she knew him because he would come over with a friend of his. She is simply accustomed to answering as people (Crump, de la Rionda) want her to answer. No doubt Mr. O’Mara did not lead her in HIS deposition – perhaps a reason there was a second day scheduled to complete his questioning with her. GOD< I would love to have been a fly on the wall for that one.
Dear nivico:
It’s possible that the misspelling of Martin’s in this name has some significance, but at the moment, I have no clear idea what it could be. I do, however, know that teenagers misspell surprising things, including the names of fellow teenagers they’ve known much of their young lives. An illustrative example is the young man that misspelled his own name on a paper. I marked it and handed it back to him and the conversation went like this:
Student: Why did you mark my name?
Me: You misspelled it.
Student: I did not misspell my own name!
Me: Look carefully.
Student: I misspelled my own name!
Until I have some basis to assign some significance to this–after all, we can’t even be certain DeeDee wrote it at the moment–I’ll stick with what I’ve written to date.
Thanks for the comment, though!
Dear ackbarsays:
Hi there. I didn’t address this issue because even today, a surprising number of teenagers write in cursive. In many parts of the country, it is indeed being taught, and I’ll be writing an article on that topic in the near future. Interestingly enough, many teenagers write better than they speak and vice versa, so I didn’t pursue any of these issues. Independent of any handwriting issue, there is more than enough cause to be suspicious of anything coming from the prosecution, the Scheme Team, Dee Dee or anyone in any way associated with them. I’m primarily interested in two things: (1) Why was this letter written, and (2) by whom?
Keep on trolling.
I don’t think there is any good information on when, where and why this letter was written.
I’m almost certain it wasn’t written on the 19th. I think it was given to Crump to avoid an interview, although still making TM the victim.
I agree with this ^^^. This letter looks like the type of statement you get when you ask a witness to write out what happened in their own words. It’s a stop-gap until you can get a chance to review the statements, figure out who your best witnesses are and then conduct a more fulsome interview.
what…be serious
And the Scheme Team scores! At least it looks like it. I am not so sure.
Crump and Company have blackmailed the HOA out of some money. Strange that it is prior to the trial. You would think that they would wait until after Martin gets justice. At least, it seems that way with me.
My guess is Crump decided that he was going to get deposed and the deal was going to go away. At any rate, HOA has decided to settle now, prior to the trial. This is typical of corporate America to settle a nuisance lawsuit. It is far cheaper to settle than to keep a score or more of lawyers battling these leeches.
My guess is this trial will be dropped. I don’t think this ends it though. The wannabe Nifongs and Crump will have a lot to answer for, unless they get out of the country. They have some money. Crump probably thinks that he got away with it. All’s well that ends well as it were.
Excellent analysis Mike.
The only, possible problem with your analysis is that it ignores (predates?) the recently revealed context of Mr O’Mara’s involvement in the settlement by the RTL HOA of a claim by Crump. While I would agree that Crump waived his claim to work product privilege by so publicly talking about the Double Dee Dee interview and playing the tape from his recorder, it undermines O’Mara’s credibility. For O’Mara to argue that Crump is not opposing council when he has not only been retained as a consultant by the HOA but advised them to settle for over a million dollars is rather bizarre.
I should point out that I have angered SundanceCracker over at the Conservative Treehouse by not being as hostile and suspicious of MoM as he is. However; this development disturbs me. The only plausible justification is that by arranging for Crump, Martin and Fulton to receive a settlement, he has put them at risk of a RICO suit if his deposition can prove that Crump subourned perjury from the key witness.
Finally; I agree that it is doubtful that Double Dee Dee is capable of writing this letter much less would write it on her own volition. The discrepancy in writing size between the body of the letter, the date, the “Thanyou” and finally the alleged signature is suspicious. Almost everyone’s signature is larger than their normal handwriting. MoM and West should have her write (or attempt to write) this letter either during deposition or in court. It will either prove that there are at least two Double Dee Dees or that someone else wrote this for her.
O’Mara may have created a conflict of interest that precludes him from providing unbiased representative of his client George Zimmerman, but O’Mara representing (or advising) the HOA/Insurance company in the Martin’s lawsuit against the HOA/Insurance company in no way makes Crump opposing counsel in State v George Zimmerman.
Crump is not opposing counsel. O’Mara burning both ends of the candle doesn’t change that. Crump does not represent any party in any current lawsuit against George Zimmerman. And even if he did, it would only cause Crump to be opposing counsel in that lawsuit, and would still have no impact on Crump’s non-party status in State v. George Zimmerman.
I have not seen any proof that MOM was involved in this, only that he was aware of it. We know that Crump filled a copy with the court and cc’d others, so there’s a really simple explanation right there of why MOM was aware.
We also know Crump wants it to remain sealed to the public. For all we know, it was a settlement of $10
IOW, we know very little, but there are people spinning elaborate narratives with MOM as the evil ringmaster, as usual.
Well, we know one more thing. MOM’s recent motion to the appeals court is a big deal and doesn’t fit in with the “evil MOM throwing George’s case” narrative – so instead a big story is being developed about the HOA settlement, sans any verifiable, detailed information.
More CTH speculation and innuendo.
Use extra salt with information concerning MOM when given by Sundance. For some reason, Sundance has it in his head that MOM has been planning to sell George Zimmerman down the river all along. Sundance even went so far as to contact George Z and family to plead with them to drop MOM. George Z and family turned him (Sundance) down.
Here is also another thing that MOM could have told HOA about the case. Approximately how long it will take to be finished with the case. HOA would have by now completed a cost/benefit analysis about defending itself against this nuisance suit by Crump. They would have reasonably concluded that it was cheaper to settle than to fight.
Personally, I hope Crump thinks he is on a roll. Unless I miss my guess, Crump will need that money paying for lawyers himself.
I am wondering if W8 signed that letter (statement) using her nickname. BDLR tells the court she tried hard to hide her identity even using her nickname. Where in the evidence is that? If she used her nickname to sign to letter, that’s an awfully long nickname.
Not only it is a long nickname, but the script seems smaller than the rest of the letter.
That brings to mind a statement made in court by the Crump, that he only spoke to the young lady once, during the interview. That means that Crump has committed multiple lies both in court and in writing on record.
Nettles: Not if she wrote out “Double DeeDee” … :D
According to Tracy, he found out the phone number of the last person to talk to TM March 18, 2012. He called the girl and said his attorney would be in touch with her. Sybrina reports that she met with the girl and she was reluctant to come forward. That would have been on the 19th. The 19th is the date of the letter and Crump’s interview with the girl.
All of this is most unlikely to have happened within 24 hours. I think this statement was written to be given to Crump in order to avoid an interview, while at the same time making TM out to be the vicitm. It was written before the 19th I’m certain.
According to DD’s deposition Crump was the first person to contact her.
According to DDs deposition?? Where is that deposition posted?
While DDs deposition hasn’t been posted, information that could only be gained from W8 to the defense is found in Mr. O’Mara’s Writ.
“…as Mr. Crump was the first one to interact with a very significant witness in this
case…” Page 34 of the Writ. http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf
Further, you will find evidence on Page 33 of the Writ, that the lie about going to the hospital was first told to Mr. Crump not Tracy or Sybrina. When we all heard or read in the transcript of the March 19th interview, Mr. Crump says to W8 “I heard you couldn’t go to the wake, tell me about that. We all thought he heard that from Tracy or Sybrina.
We then come to read in the Writ, Page 33… “The information leading up to Witness 8 lying about her hospital visit (and, by extension her closeness with Mr. Martin) are directly relevant to this case. Mr. Crump is the first person that Petitioner knows for sure was told this information.”
How can the Defense say it’s for sure if W8 is known to lie? Well, because they deposed Tracy the next day and Sybrina on the Friday. Those 3 most have provided enough information to let the Defense know FOR SURE that Mr. Crump was the first to hear the lie from W8.
We are getting a very clear picture why Mr. Crump is fighting this deposition so hard.
Thanks Nettles, I was cryptic in my brief post.
were is the proof
Where is the proof of what??
You say, “Despite de la Rionda’s assertion that it was written to Sybrina Fulton,” while quoting de la Rionda as saying the letter was given to Sybrina Fulton. The so-called letter isn’t addressed to anybody, so we don’t know who (if anybody) it was written to or for. All we have is Bernardo’s statement that the writing was given to Sybrina Fulton. He invites the reader to jump to the conclusion that it was what we would say, in shorthand, is a “letter to Sybrina Fulton.” A parallel most of us are familiar with, I give letters to the postman on a routine basis. Once in awhile, I compose a note addressed to the postman.
I too got a charge out of Bernardo saying video depositions are rare, because then he goes on to argue that (he thought, in good faith [cough cough]) they are forbidden. I dunno. I think delivery with waving arms and all would have improved his chances of fooling the audience. It’s harder to sustain a distraction when your communication vehicle is written.
It definitely lacks the same flair, I guess that is why he quoted Shakespeare in the first answer as a substitute.
I debated posting this, but here it goes.
I am compelled to leave this site and all others, at least for a spell. Here’s why:
As a foundational matter, I have never told people what I do. I am general counsel for a company (aka the boss in the legal department). I also write nationally, and am writing some books (non-fiction). Of all these things being general counsel is most important and that’s what allows me to buy $80 winter coats for the dogs, in all the different materials and color schemes. :)
Anyway, things are heating up at the office and will require my full attention for the next few months or six. I am dealing with federal agents and crack federal lawyers. Any of you whom have had to do battle where federal agencies and lawyers are involved, you know about which I speak. Put it this way, the upcoming battles make an IRS audit feel like sitting at Starbuck’s with the auditors, sipping tea or coffee and munching on carrot cake or lemon bar treats.
To compound things, I have two rescue dogs and a rescue cat who need my love and attention too. They could give a rip about George Zimmerman, my general counsel duties, book writing, or professor obligations. They want their treats and for me to fluff up the down comforter on my bed, excuse me, their bed, at nap and bed time. (I lost my fiance in a car accident so there’s no one at home to pick up the slack.)
With all of that I simply don’t have the time to continue to help George Zimmerman and his cause. (I will continue to donate money, but money is of little help in a case this bizarre.)
Thanks Mike for letting me post here and thank you all for the nice words. I’ll see if I can post later, but for now I doubt it because I am compelled to cut the cord.
P.s. I don’t know about you, but dealing with this case has been really stressful. I get angered when I shouldn’t. I am sure my doctor would say the best way to deal with things is to quit “participating” in the case. After all, there’s that old doctor/patient joke: Patient: “Doc, it hurts when I raise my arm line this.” Doc: “Well then don’t raise your arm like that.”
Oh well, I did so enjoy taking to the woodshed: the Berangela de la Nifongs, Scheme Team, figurehead potentate Crump, Natalie Jackson, Al “You Can Call Me Tawana” Sharpton, Fred “Jim Jones” Leatherman (and his Kool-Aid Drinkers Extraordinaire), Jesse “Karma is a Beech” Jackson, Ryan “Who is Trevon Martin, I don’t know no Trayvon Martin” Julison, and all the tidbit players (aka Trayvonites).
Bonus Comment (of the waffling type): I may rethink all this and with reckless abandon continue to post.
Bye (for now?)
I’ll miss your posts. They have been enlightening and I found a true satisfaction reading them.
I do suspect you will be back. This thing is worse than peanuts.
Dear itsMichaelNotMike:
Sorry to hear you’ll be absent for awhile. We’ll keep the lights on for you.
Hi –
Sorry to see you depart. I also had doubts about George being a “racist”. His statements (under voice stress-test – lie detector test) were accurate and correct. There was NEVER ANY BASIS for a “Probable Cause”. Crump’s invention and “discovery” of a lying-DeeDee, created a totally false charge. While proof is not yet final, it is clear that the “Cell” found with a dead-battery – was dead for presumed conversation during the last 10 minutes. THE ENTIRE “COVERSATION” – NEVER TOOK PLACE. I have no idea when Corey-Bernie will ADMIT TO THE FACT THEY WERE “SCAMMED” – BUT THEY WERE. Now do they do what NiFong did – continue to prosecute – like nothing has changed?
Anyone?
But BDLR said something like “we have your phone records.” The phone’s battery may have gone dead, I think she must have been on the phone with TM close to the time of the incident. I don’t like Corey and Bernie any more than the rest of you guys, but I can’t imagine them being so bad.
Mark –
You can’t imagine Corey and de la Rionda being that bad? Well, let’s just look at de la Rionda.
He has piece-mealed the discovery over many months, and has held back specific information until the 11th hour, literally wasting taxpayer money – like when he waited until the evening before a scheduled hearing to tell the defense that Dee Dee did NOT go to the hospital the day of Trayvon Martin’s funeral. He had a color photo of Zimmerman’s bloody nose within weeks of the shooting, but didn’t share it with the defense until 8 months later. He has stupidly revealed witness names and addresses that were supposed to remain confidential. His arguments in virtually every hearing to day have been lame. His response to a call for sanctions has been blustery and Shakespearean – but not based on any legal precedent. In a PAST case, he secured a conviction that was overturned by the appellate court on the basis that he had failed to prove even MINIMALLY that the defendant was guilty of manslaughter. I could go on and on.
Corey is a political nightmare. Her charging document was grossly lacking. She stood up with the Martin family to get “justice” for them and for Trayvon Martin. Justice is justice. It is not justice for anybody, but for the whole of society. She has remained behind the scenes allowing her lackey Bernie to make a mockery of the justice system. In other cases she has overcharged people without the means to defend themselves adequately, in an effort to secure a plea agreement. In one, she has charged a 12-year old as an ADULT for murder – and had him housed in jail with adult offenders.
Both of these characters are an embarrassment to the legal profession…through and through.
But still, BDLR knows that there is only one witness to refute GZ’s claims and that’s DD. If he puts her on the stand knowing that phone records indicate that she wasn’t on the phone with TM at the time his case will collapse.
But maybe she did try to call him and went into voice mail. Would the phone logs indicate that?
were is the proof the cell phone was dead all time and dee dee did not talk with trayvon, were is the proof no one touched the phone but trayvon oh wait SPD did not check phone for finger prints why? same reason they didnt do their job correctly and let GZ clean-up before checking his hands for gun-powder resudue..why they did this why did they handle this case so badly…why
Idilla, you would not BE so sad if you looked at the evidence objectively. AND if you looked at “evidence” that is even relevant. Honestly, you focus so much attention on things that either do not matter, or on things you cannot support with any evidence. In many cases, all you do is repeat things from the Internet that were disproven many months ago, and that shows great ignorance of this case.
You express concern that the police didn’t test Trayvon Martin’s phone for fingerprints. Are you are privy to some information that shows they indeed did not test that phone for fingerprints? And HAD they fingerprinted the phone, what do you suspect they would have found? Trayvon Martin’s prints? Perhaps, but they would only have been able to link them to the dead body, and they couldn’t ID HIM because he had no prints in the system. What horrible error did this possible (you cannot confirm it) failure to fingerprint the phone cause?
You claim that Zimmerman was allowed to clean up PRIOR to the gunshot residue kit test. Officer Smith, the first officer on the scene, transported Zimmerman to the police station and remained with Zimmerman until Zimmerman was released later that night. He stated that at one point Zimmerman used the bathroom. What evidence do you have that he used the bathroom BEFORE the GSR kit test was administered? Sure, if Zimmerman DID use the bathroom, it would make sense that he washed his hands after doing so, as that is only appropriate personal hygiene. However, gunshot residue does not wash away with mere soap and water. And in fact, according to the report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement dated March 28, 2012, Exhibit #DMS-12 (Gunshot residue collection kit labeled as from George Zimmerman) was identified as containing gunshot residue. This means that Zimmerman WAS tested for gunshot residue and the test was POSITIVE. And keep in mind that not only was the gunshot residue kit result POSITIVE, but at no time did Zimmerman ever deny firing the shot that killed Trayvon Martin. In fact he volunteered that information immediately upon Officer Smith’s arrival at the scene of the shooting. So again, I have to ask, what horrible error occurred, assuming Zimmerman was allowed to wash up before the GSR test (something you can’t prove happened), when in fact the GSR test was POSITIVE anyway?? Come ON, the test was positive, so Zimmerman didn’t wash away the GSR even IF he went to the bathroom before the test was given. And EVEN if he HAD washed the GSR from his hands, it is VERY unlikely the GSR would have been washed off the sleeve(s) of his jacket.
See what I mean? You dwell on such insignificant things, as if they make any difference either way.
MIchael, you will deprive my small blog of material! Do what you have to, I and others will be waiting.
Michael, I knew I liked you from way back on Txantimedia. Now I know why- you rescue animals and then treat them like people! That is a person deserving of the highest respect in my book.
I am sorry- very sorry- for the loss of your fiance. I do hope to see your posts again sometime. I looked for you everywhere when Tx shut down, and was so pleased to be able to read your posts here. God bless and get to work!
LittleLaughter (a big fan of ItsMichaelnotMike) :-)
Good luck to you Michael in everything you are involved in. I will miss reading what you write, and your great insights into the farce that is the George Zimmerman case. Somehow though, with everything heating up, and the trial date coming quickly, I do believe you will be back sooner rather than later, at least I hope so. Thank you also for taking care of those little 4 legged creatures, you have a good heart. Take good care.
Wow…Say it ain’t so. Hurry back, please.
People still believe this BS http://imgur.com/iWl63jI
When the defense is done with the scheme team http://imgur.com/w9aVpT5
Not even that McDonald’s run background checks and does not hire felons.
My remaining issue with spelling Trayvon as ‘Trevon’, is that many teenagers ‘follow’ each other around the net via Twitter, FB, e-mail, etc., and – even understanding that people use obscure Internet handles – if she knew him from kindergarten, she knew how to spell Trayvon. Somewhere, she saw her dear friend’s name spelled on an e-mail, text, name tag, class photo, yearbook, FB, ad infinitum.
Thanks for your enjoyable and informative blog, sir.
5th dca docket it showing the accepted the writ and ordered an order to show cause http://imgur.com/hD3Ynbg
Here’s the link:
http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2013&p_casenumber=1233&psCourt=5
Gasp, glub,glup. Just coming up for air.
Good call on my part. Chairman of Board could give a rat’s pitoot about Trayvon Martin.
Just spent 18 hours with him to prep for meeting with fed regulators tomorrow.
Back to my cave.
Hope you all are manning the fort for George. Did read something about the C of A issuing an OSC on the Writ. Out here that would bode well for Zimmerman. Maybe it is the same in FL?
Hoping you are able to take more breathers from time to time, Michael, and give us more of your insight.
“Maybe it is the same in FL?”…I certainly hope so, but FL seems to be on a limb all it’s own.
Always good to hear from you. Take care of those rescue animals! :-)
i am so sad when i come to this site my blood pressure goes up and i can’t debate = cause i feel this site is always one sided…so sad…bye now
I read the Writ response filed by the FL AG.
Just a note, that what matters with courts of appeal is scholarship. The only way you can get there is to pay attention to one’s legal writing. In other words, your brief needs to be perfect.
Someone e-mail the AG. They made some boo boos. Specifically, off the top of my head, in a number of spots they refer to Crump as “Trump.”
Friggin morons.
Dear ItsMichaelNotMike:
Indeed. I’m waiting for a bit more fallout from this situation–particularly the fallout from the order to show cause–before writing another update, but I’ve no doubt it will be coming soon.