Home » Uncategorized » 5th DCA Petition for Writ – Granted!

5th DCA Petition for Writ – Granted!


Opinion From The Fifth District Court of Appeal Regarding Petition For Certiorari


They can depose Crump!


Final Results of the Poll


92 thoughts on “5th DCA Petition for Writ – Granted!

    • What a time for twitter to go on blink! They can’t tweet out the news.

      I’m making popcorn too. There’s a very good chance the truth will be revealed after all.

      Mr. Crump, it’s time. It’s past time. Lets get this done.

  1. Page 3 – “We respectfully disagree with the trial court’s analysis. First, the fact that Crump represents Martin’s family does not make him “opposing counsel.” – There you have it folks, the higher court just demoted Mr. Crump. But a silver lining, the court spelled his name right unlike Pam Bondi’s office.

    • The inquiry is limited in what they can ask him. They aren’t allowed to inquire how or why he did the interview in the way he did. They figure it will be a short deposition and narrowed to the interview of W8.

      “The deposition contemplated by our opinion should be relatively short and straight forward.”

      • I am troubled by this. Their written decision tells me that they are following this case very closely. Yet they only will allow such a limited that it will be over in 20 minutes. I would be interested to see the questions that you believe the defense will ask.

        I smell something here and it ain’t roses. How likely is it that these 3 judges are in on the deal, Chip? It is a lot easier to contain any improprieties when only 3 judges are involved, instead of all of them.

        I do not see this as such a big victory at all unless maybe the defense will get a trial delay. What happens if the depo results in the defense needing to make additional depos? Will Nelson allow it?

        Hell, she could restrict the depo even more. Can she require the defense to give her the questions first? Hell, Crump MIGHT not even give up his name, rank and serial number.

        Did they even finish up the depo with witness 8?

        • Their written decision tells me that they are following this case very closely. Yet they only will allow such a limited that it will be over in 20 minutes. I would be interested to see the questions that you believe the defense will ask.

          I am highly encouraged by the decision. The scope of a Writ of Certiorari is itself quite limited. The DCA shows with its decision that it is adhering strictly to the law: exactly what we want courts to do.

          I think there are plenty of avenues for inquiry, even within the strictly (and, properly) limited scope of Crump’s deposition. Just because the Scheme Team is asserting that the decision implies a quick deposition doesn’t mean that it is true.

          I smell something here and it ain’t roses. How likely is it that these 3 judges are in on the deal, Chip? It is a lot easier to contain any improprieties when only 3 judges are involved, instead of all of them.

          That’s just the way that appellate courts work. With the workload, most decisions are rendered by a three-judge panel. Rarely will the appellate court hear a motion en banc (though, IIRC, the petitioner can request an en banc hearing).

          Keep in mind: this decision was unanimous. Even the decision granting the Writ of Prohibition that forced Lester to recuse himself was a 2-1 split decision. And the DCA used absolutely unambiguous terms to state that Nelson’s decision was absolutely wrong.

          Many had been hoping for the DCA to overstep its jurisdiction for a Writ of Certiorari, and issue a decision that more generally smacked down Nelson; but IMHO that would not have been an ideal outcome. Somebody in the Florida judiciary needs to be willing to adhere strictly to the law, and by all accounts thus far, the DCA is doing so.

          From my layman’s perspective, the DCA wrote this decision knowing that they would eventually be forced to vacate any eventual conviction, and knowing that, they are ensuring that they are toeing the line as strictly as possible.

          • Thanks, Chip but I was hoping you might have some of the questions the defense will ask especially since now that you have said: I think there are plenty of avenues for inquiry, even within the strictly (and, properly) limited scope of Crump’s deposition.

            What other avenues for inquiry do you have in mind?

    • I don’t see this ruling as a win for the defense, honestly. They’re allowing the Crump depo, but strictly limiting what he can be asked. They’re not allowed to ask Crump (1) why he decided to seek out Witness 8, (2) how he located her, or (3) why he interviewed her in the haphazard way that he did. They also can’t ask his impressions of Witness 8, which makes sense. The other three items do not, and they severely limit the value of a Crump deposition.

        • It would seem that they had already asked DD in her depo. who she spoke with first. Didn’t she say that Crump was the first person she talked with. I think there is ample proof, just by admission from Scheme Team members, that she had talked with Tracy and or Sybrina first.

      • Nettles, I agree this is more about not allowing attorneys the free reign that Judge Nelson, ruling had allowed. The Judge had made the correct decision when she made Crump a limited witness, for questions relating to W8. So after this many months we are back to that.

        • Actually we are not back to that. At the time, I think Nelson would have allowed MORE questions than she will now. The
          DCA is up to no good like all of the other players. Seriously, how does this benefit the defense?

          • Remember this case is being tried in the court of public opinion as much as in a regular court. So far the Scheme Team has been able to claim that MOM has been trying to obfuscate and waste time among other things. Adverse rulings by Judge Nelson have helped in this regard. With this victory that is shown to be untrue, and it puts the spotlight squarely on the Scheme, why do you think they have been so quick to try minimize its importance, that it to deflect questions about why they were fighting so hard to avoid it. At the same they are abandoning the DD ship as fast as they can, someone might want to know why.

            Secondly, and perhaps more importantly it sends a clear message that the 5th will correct, her mishandling and misinterpretations of the law. It might make her walk a straighter line. Even if she still refuses to follow the law, it sends the message that the 5th will, which is reassuring to MOM and the defense team. The timing of the releases just prior to a major hearing on June 6th, that could have far reaching effect on the case and could determine both the prosecution’s and defense’s strategies, is also significant

            At the very least this is a psychological victory for the Defense, and coming so close to the start of the trial will almost invariably assures that prospective jurors will know that the Defense was pursuing a legitimate, opposite of what the Scheme Team has claimed. I don’t expect much to come out of the deposition itself, but it is good to see that the law will be followed by someone in FL.

            • I wonder if the DCA decision and Crump’s depo will get any attention in court from Nelson and if she might delay the trial herself. Wouldn’t that be a turnaround? Maybe MOM should schedule it for next month… LOL.

  2. Too bad they can’t grill him on his unsubstantiated charge of a cover-up conspiracy between Wolfinger and whoever.

    I’d love to have seen him have to put up or shut up on that, and if Wolfinger has a civil attorney, I bet he or she’d be very interested as well.

      • Get what from Wolfinger? The source or details of a meeting that never happened? The inside scoop on non-existant corruption?

          • Which means right now it’s he said versus he said.

            We know where Wolfinger’s knowledge of what did or didn’t happen that night comes from, it comes from his memory of what he did or didn’t do.

            What we need now is to find out who, if anyone, was Crump’s source, and that means asking Crump in a situation where he’s compelled to answer honestly.

            • The meeting was supposed to have taken place between Wolfinger and Chief Lee. Chief Lee has been desposed by the defense by now. So it’s Wolfinger and Lee against Crump.

              Crump didn’t need a source in order to lie. Crump has been found often to say things that are outright lies made out of thin air.

    • Glad to see you have found an oasis where people share your obsessions, unitron. 😉

      so it is all a big political conspiracy against sacrificial lamp George Zimmerman? Well, I thought O’Mara used that theme as a trick to get the funds rolling in. Three judges are into it now, I read here, they do not show us their names, thus how do we know there were three? Why did no one in the Appellate Court want to stand behind the decision?

        • you may want to look into per curiam. They concur does not say that they wrote it, does it. Who wrote it?

          But thanks, yes, so these three conspired with the author to not allow all the urgent questions the writ of certiorari in it’s own meandering ways pointed out? But ultimately surrendered to the political challenge in the end or the grand conspiracy against St. George?

        • I trust you fully that you can spin a perfect grand conspiracy out of per curiam.

          A per curiam opinion is an opinion handed down by an appellate court but not signed by an individual judge.

          I always like to be helpful in these matters. Here is the Wikipedia article: per curiam I of course have an advisor on legal US matters but I guess you have an idea who that may be. Hint: It’s a center of the absolute evil camp, that does not pray the way the conservative treehouse does with emphasis on THEY WILL and EVIL. We have the impression, if he is almighty there is no need we enforce his will, he is quite able to do that himself.

          Take care.

            • Nettles- I’m not so sure you will be repeating that comment in the future. If I am not mistaken Leander had started posting on the Mike McDaniels site back when Mike started writing about the Martin Zimmerman case. If he is the same person, and I believe he is by his avatar, he has his own website, or did, and hates the police, all of them, every last one of them. I’ve noticed he hasn’t posted at McDaniels site in a long time, and I’m sure there is a reason for that, his choice not being one of them.

              Go back and read his comment to unitron again, claiming that he found an oasis here for his “obsessions.”

              • I’m well aware of who LeaNder is. We have history.

                He can have his say as long as he doesn’t disrupt the board. You and I both know, that is just a matter of time. 🙂

    • I agree. What affect with this have on the Judge? Hopefully she gets it. This is high-profile and everyone is watching. Follow.the.law.

      This is the first time, I’ve read something from the court that appears to have Mr. Zimmerman’s rights in mind. I haven’t got that from Lester or Nelson. It was assuring to know, the higher courts wants a fair trial.

      • It is what some others have said, and that is the DCA is watching Nelson very closely.

        They made the decision to boot Lester over his extremely unfair and unjust decisions. They cannot boot Nelson, even though she deserves to be booted.

        It is about time that Zimmerman got his rights.

    • There is a G-d. Just what Zimmerman needed. In lieu of the good news, sending another donation tonight and hope others will be doing the same.
      Head Up, 5th appellate Judges, more hot potatoes will be coming your way. Crump’s lost his isn’t opposing lawyer status? Who would have thought?

      • He should never have been given that “status” in the first place. It made the whole thing look more than ever like a sham, a put up persecution.

  3. Sweet! And if this causes a delay of the trial at this point it will cost the media outlets big bucks. What a pity.

  4. This is an awesome accomplishment by the legal team. These Writ’s are very hard to get pre-trial and they’ve been granted two of them now. Some opined they were wasting their time. Inch by slow inch, they gather more information with every deposition. This one will be no different.

    For all I know, they already know how Crump found her. She may have talked about that already. IIRC, in one of the motions, the defense says we know Mr. Crump was the first person to initiate contact with W8.

    • Apparently the talking point has been released:

    • Funny he was so confident that his answer to the DCA was Christmas present in April, as he described it to the Dogpound. I think that MOM and West should take what time they need to make sure the deposition is complete and helpful. The downplaying of the Depo, and the quick turnaround about how it could be done tomorrow begs the question, then why has it not been done already.

  5. Though limited, doesn’t that mean about anything pertaining to a Civil Suit against GZ? MOM/West want Crump to show them the evidence of the corruption of the Sanford Police Dept. that Crump has boasted about in the MEDIA.

  6. The decision is narrower that one would have liked, but on the issue of the law, it upheld the law, and did not fall for ad hoc classifications of “opposing counsel” as a substitute for the language of the law. this a positive sign. The decision took note that this was a high profile case, and it was a unanimous decision which is also a positive.

  7. Of greater benefit may be that the media will now have to focus on this, and explain to the public why this could be important. The fact that the witness lied about her age, and having been in the hospital for instance.

      • I’m sure the state wishes they never heard DD’s name agin, or saw her face. I’m also sure that DD most likely never wanted to be a witness, but for some reason she was coerced into being a witness. She knew that her exchanges with TM in texts etc. would come to light. She also engaged in talk about guns and drugs. She knew his history of fighting, yet told BDLR he was a mama’s boy, and would never fight. She told the defense that she and TM were fighting the day of the incident, and at times it was hostile and angry, according to the defense. That likely was the redacted texts from 2/26.

        Can’t the defense call her as a witness?

        What would the prosecution have to prove anything about GZ supposedly following TM without DD? What would the prosecution have to show that TM went up to GZ and asked him “why you following me for”? or any of her various versions? What could the prosecution possibly have to prove that GZ was not acting in self defense?

        • Minpin, the State does not need W8 if they are following the strategy, I outlined yesterday. If they can get the voice analysis to say what they want, they can stipulate to everything GZ said and argue that when TM said stop, he was disengaging but GZ shot him anyhow. It is using the statute of the law that MOM is using but flipping it around. Whereas MOM is saying that GZ was not the initial aggressor and was pinned, so he could not retreat, BDLR will be arguing that TM was the initial aggressor but he was trying to disengage when GZ shot him.

          • Bori- Hopefully the DCA smackdown of Nelson, and twice in one day, she will start paying more attention to the law, and decide in a much more reasonable manner. The Frye hearing is coming up, and it will be up to her whether she allows some unscientific voice analyst, who hears things no one else does including the FBI, to testify for the state. I believe that the defense will have representation speaking to the unreliable and unscientific methods used to determine whose voice is screaming for help. Unless Nelson is so PO’d at the defense for causing her to be smacked down by the DCA, and if she allows the kook Reich to testify at trial, then I have no worries at all that the defense can and will impeach the voice expert at trial. Hopefully those chosen for the jury will hear the sworn testimony of the eyewitness to a part of the beating, MMA style by Martin, see the bloody head pictures, and the fact that Martin has no wounds inflicted by GZ, other than the gunshot wound, and will determine that it doesn’t make any sense at all that the guy doing the beating would be screaming for help, or saying stop at any point. Why would Martin yell “stop” when he was the one in control of the situation. I don’t give the so called voice experts much chance at all of proving anything, even if they are allowed to testify. Even the most low information person knows that you don’t yell for help, or for anything to stop, when you are the one causing the situation to begin with.

            • I am more confident after the DCA decision, but call it the CSI effect or whatever, any attorney will tell you that expert testimony can persuade a jury, particularly in case such as this, where some key questions are unknown. The screams are a tantalising clue, if someone can clear it up it could be very important.

  8. Recall this at the October 19th hearing? Here we are in June and finally, we’ll get a short deposition from the man. Justice may be slow, but I’m learning, justice won’t be denied.

  9. Despite the narrowness of the ruling, there avenues available that will open up things a bit more.

    First of all, pay attention to the questions that will be asked of Mr. Crump to which he will refuse to answer or his lawyer will object. Second, Mr. Crump will be forced to choose one among all the contradictory (false) statements he has made concerning different aspects involving W8. Third, the door will opened to follow-ups that will plumbed in the trial proper, whether by Mr. Crump, himself being forced to testify at the trial if necessary, or developed in the questioning of other witnesses.

  10. Since W8, SF/TM have already been deposed, there well be some things they said that Crump will have to explain.

  11. This says a lot right here! The higher court says on page 2 of the Writ “Witness 8 is a potentially crucial witness in this case because the individual is alleged to have been on the phone with Martin moments before his death.”

    And a lawyer for the Martin family tweets this out today:

    • And fourth, (probably should have been first), Mr Crump will be questioned against his sworn affidavit submitted to the court earlier, which, ahem, was less than accurate.

    • So NatJack, Crump, et al are finally throwing Wit 8 under the bus…

      But she is their creation, their Frankenstein monster, their dot-connector.

      She must have some pretty incriminating things to say about the Scheme Team!

      • NatJack is so full of crap. She is already on record saying W8 “is a very important witness” during a video interview.

        “But we had to go out and investigate this case. We hired an investigator that got the phone records. And once we saw Trayvon’s phone record, because he was on the—he had his phone with him, and we saw that he was on the phone when this incident purportedly happened. We contacted the person he was on the phone with. It was a young girl. And she told us that she heard Zimmerman approach Trayvon. And this is very extraordinary, because she and Trayvon—according to the phone records, there was a phone call at 7:12. The phone call lasted for four minutes. That would make it 7:16. According to police records, they were on the scene at 7:17, and Trayvon was dead. So, this young girl is a very important witness.”

    • Thank you Captain! For those who wanted the donation video with the Tina Turner version of Help, the Captain has graciously produced on for you. Be sure to spread the word. It’s a sad fact, but to defend yourself, you need money.

    • Holy Batman!

      Am I reading this right? Is the scheme team really wavering on W8 actually testifying?

      Did it only start after the DCA ruling?

      Nat Jack’s pathetic attempts at overtly suggesting W8 isn’t really even needed is to testify is VERY telling. There is simply no reason for these bizarre tweets unless there is a very significant chance W8 really doesn’t testify.

      It looks like someone turned on the lights and all the cockroaches are scattering. They already got paid, but they are ready to jump ship.

      Thank you DCA! It restores my faith that rule of law trumps lynch mobs and money schemers.

  12. Can we accumulate (if there are any legal minds here), what questions could be asked of Crump that could help defense? I think we should review the defense arguments why they should take his dep so we can get a clue of what they may ask Crump.

    For instance, can defense ask:

    1. For over a year you have maintained that W8 was a minor. Did W8 tell you she was a minor? Did you attempt to verify she was a minor? How did you come to believe she was a minor?

    ^^ I don’t think they can ask that. So what exactly CAN they ask? Anybody?

  13. For ackbar- You are concerned that the DCA so limited the scope of the defense depo of Crump but, think of it this way

    The Dca said in the get go-

    “We conclude that Zimmerman was entitled to take a limited depo. of Crump to inquire as to the substance of Crump’s interview of W8 and the circumstances surrouning the interview.”

    Didn’t Crump, in his affidavit claim that there was “no substantive” conversations that took place when the recorder was turned off? The ABC release of a very short portion of the interview shows that there was substantive conversation going on when the recorder was turned off. They specifically mentioned that there were two media representatives present at the Crump interview.

    Go to the circumstances surrounding the interview portion of their writing of their ruling. The circumstances surrounding the recording of what they say is of very poor quality, who was present at the interview. Nelson ruled that everyone present for that interview was to be named in a list submitted to her. Everyone on the list was involved with the Scheme Team, and there were no Law Enforcement officers, no defense representatives, and there was no state attprney’s officers presnt. The circumstances surrounding the interview, where DD said she was intimidated by Sybrina’;s presence goes a very long way in saying that the circumstances surrounding the interview was not legal. The circumstances around the interview has already been brought up by the defense in talking about the grieving family members were allowed to be present with DD, and can in fact have influenced her testimony. That to me is a way of saying that the interview was bogus, illegal and should not have been used by the state to agree that Crump had “connected the dots.”

    • Most definitely agree, this was a smackdown on the prosecution as much as the judge, the prosecution did not do its due diligence with this witness and Crump should answers about the interview at least.

  14. It will be interesting to see how the OS reports this news development.

    It is a news event. In the news business they call it a “peg”, a development upon which an article can be written.

    The purported “opposing counsel” has been ruled not to be opposing counsel. His efforts to avoid deposition have been terminated by DCA. That attorney, Mr. Crump, who last October promised to cooperate in every way has been dodging accountability ever since that time. Will that be reported?

    The judge in this forthcoming trial has now been reversed twice in one week by the DCA including this latest ruling in this case. This is all news. How will the OS report it?

  15. HLN After Dark with their mock jury told the jury that W8 was just 16 when she was on the phone with Trayvon.

    • HLN should be called out for false information being fed to potential jurors. This program is a direct attempt to influence jurors by feeding them misinformation. This is just terrible.

      • In elections sometimes the candidates have “rapid response teams”, they have a main website and when the other candidate or their team, or the media, make a misstatement, it’s posted on the website and the correct info is put out right with it. Then a network of volunteers start emailing, calling,etc. I suppose today it could all be done with twitter. That might be helpful in these Scheme Team cases – coordinated, immediate pushback to the lies.

    • “HLN After Dark with their mock jury told the jury that W8 was just 16 when she was on the phone with Trayvon.”

      Recently? They should be laughed off of the air.

      • Thank you, Nettles. As long as they stick to facts … I don’t care. But when something as deliberate as saying she was 16 at the time on phone with Trayvon was just wrong. Thanks again, Nettles.

  16. I seem to recall, back when there was a faintest hope that things might go expediently, MOM wanted to depose W8, then Crump, then go back to W8 to finish up. Is that still in the plans?

    • I don’t think so. If I heard correctly, Mr. West told the court W8’s deposition was completed on Ap;ril 23, 2013.

      Mr. West in the April 30th hearing advised the witness had been deposed last Tuesday. That would be April 23, 2013.

      Listen here at the 10:35 mark. Is he talking about Witness 8? The missing text messages?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s