• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

George Zimmerman Feb. 5th Hearing: Judge Denies Delay of Trial

JackFrost

Banned
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
513
Location
El Monte, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
SANFORD – A judge has denied George Zimmerman's request to delay his trial in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. The trial remains set for June 10.

"The only additional argument is I need more time," O'Mara said in court today.

Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda says O'Mara doesn't deserve any more time.

"It's February and the trial's set for June," he said, adding that some delays that have happened so far have been the defense's fault.

"Sometimes we set aside days of depositions, and they're canceled.. that's frustrating," de la Rionda said.

The judge noted that both parties had earlier estimated they would be ready by June. O'Mara's issues, the Circuit Judge Debra Nelson said, don't appear to be "insurmountable."


The parties then moved on to other pieces of evidence O'Mara argues he needs.

The attorneys argued about data downloaded from Trayvon's phone. O'Mara has said there's information the state is withholding.

Nelson told the state to provide a full chain of custody report for the phone, indicating which tests were conducted where.

O'Mara also asked the judge to order the state to provide further information on the social media accounts of Witness 8.

She's expected to be one of the state's most important witnesses because she says she heard the first words of the confrontation between Trayvon and Zimmerman.

The judge ruled that the defense can get the social media information through a "mini" deposition, before the witness is formally deposed.

The defense also wanted to depose Benjamin Crump, an attorney for the Martin family. However, Crump's attorney, Bruce Blackwell, countered that the deposition was improper -- Crump, Blackwell said, is not a witness in the case.

Rather, Crump filed a 15-page affidavit, explaining how he found Witness 8 and the circumstances of his interview with the girl. Blackwell argued that should be enough.

The defense argued that Crump has relevant information on other topics, and asked to depose him. The judge delayed that deposition, which had been set for today.

George Zimmerman: State and defense fight over the release of evidence on Trayvon's birthday - OrlandoSentinel.com

zimmerman.jpg
 
This should raise flags:

In Crump's affidavit, he counters the defense's argument that portions of Crump's interview with Witness 8 are missing from the recording turned over to Zimmerman's legal team. The recording "contains every substative statement" she made about the night of the shooting, the affidavit states.
 
This should raise flags:

The defense argued that Crump has relevant information on other topics, and asked to depose him.

Not really, seems more likely they are wasting time on everything BUT the evidence pertaining to the case.

Re-watch the hearing, just digging for dirt. Pathetic really.

Zimmerman Hearing-Pt 1 - YouTube
 
The defense argued that Crump has relevant information on other topics, and asked to depose him.

Not really, seems more likely they are wasting time on everything BUT the evidence pertaining to the case.

Re-watch the hearing, just digging for dirt. Pathetic really.

Zimmerman Hearing-Pt 1 - YouTube

OMara will stall and stall and if the donations don't pick up, he'll bail out of the case and George will be declared indigent.
 
The defense argued that Crump has relevant information on other topics, and asked to depose him.

Not really, seems more likely they are wasting time on everything BUT the evidence pertaining to the case.

Re-watch the hearing, just digging for dirt. Pathetic really.

Zimmerman Hearing-Pt 1 - YouTube

Geeze, what is with the hag that keep screaming in the background? That's the kind of person I have always imagined to so love Trayvon. Completely emotionaly invested in the decision.

Anyway, it appears that Mark states that there are pieces missing from the edited recording and Crump's response is not "no, everything is there." It's only that the "substative pieces are there"
 
fundraising ploy.
 
Geeze, what is with the hag that keep screaming in the background? That's the kind of person I have always imagined to so love Trayvon. Completely emotionaly invested in the decision.

Anyway, it appears that Mark states that there are pieces missing from the edited recording and Crump's response is not "no, everything is there." It's only that the "substative pieces are there"

1. I hear ya. But this is the only person who puts up the hearing that I can find....I did watch most of it live. If you can find a better uploader, be my guest. I would appreciate the link as well. Someone complained about it in the December hearing I posted as well. Beggars can't be choosers.

2. On the December 11th hearing, someone had stated there was other recordings on Crump's recording device not related to Witness 8 or the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case. I highly suspect the defense is fishing only to waste time. Look where O'Mara said Crump has information on other topics. They could have depositioned Witness 8 a long time ago.
 
1. I hear ya. But this is the only person who puts up the hearing that I can find....I did watch most of it live. If you can find a better uploader, be my guest. I would appreciate the link as well. Someone complained about it in the December hearing I posted as well. Beggars can't be choosers.


I'm not that interested to go searching, but you are right.

2. On the December 11th hearing, someone had stated there was other recordings on Crump's recording device not related to Witness 8 or the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case.

Maybe, but they also stated that there were starts and stops and other obvious signs of editing. That would be a problem and would obviously raise a red flag, if true.
 
fundraising ploy.

Indeed.

Judge Nelson asked O'Mara for a specific reason why he needed the trial date delayed. He was unable to answer, so Nelson denied his motion. O'Mara then says under his breath something like, "the defense does not have any experts".

I believe O'Mara has to file a motion seeking an order that would declare the defendant indigent. All he does is waste time which only hurts Zimmerman.

If the reports of the defense fund were really that low, which was what $5,000, why didn't he file the motion already? I don't understand what he is doing.
 
OMara will stall and stall and if the donations don't pick up, he'll bail out of the case and George will be declared indigent.

If that happens, the judge will probably order O'Mara to defend Zimmerman pro bono
 
If that happens, the judge will probably order O'Mara to defend Zimmerman pro bono

Not too sure she can do that. If the court does appoint an attorney, they will get paid reasonable costs and even pay for investigation & expert witnesses.

Which makes all this even more mind boggling.

O'Mara stated they don't have any expert witnesses. We already know he is not getting paid....so what have they been doing all this time?

It really seems like MOM is incompetent.
 
Not too sure she can do that. If the court does appoint an attorney, they will get paid reasonable costs and even pay for investigation & expert witnesses.

Which makes all this even more mind boggling.

O'Mara stated they don't have any expert witnesses. We already know he is not getting paid....so what have they been doing all this time?

It really seems like MOM is incompetent.

The court definitely can order O'Mara to continue representing Z, and if so, O'Mara will have to get the court to approve any and all expenses that O'Mara wants to be compensated for in advance. Generally speaking, the courts are rarely very generous when it comes to approving such expenses.
 
Judge Nelson asked O'Mara for a specific reason why he needed the trial date delayed. He was unable to answer, so Nelson denied his motion. O'Mara then says under his breath something like, "the defense does not have any experts".

Where would that be in the hearing? What I heard was that Omara submitted the reasons in writing. The defense objected in writing. The defense clarified why it objected, then Omara discussed the alleged delays and why the extension should be granted. I don't see how you get "Omara was unable to answer" out of that.
 
The court definitely can order O'Mara to continue representing Z, and if so, O'Mara will have to get the court to approve any and all expenses that O'Mara wants to be compensated for in advance. Generally speaking, the courts are rarely very generous when it comes to approving such expenses.

That's also my understanding.
 
The court definitely can order O'Mara to continue representing Z, and if so, O'Mara will have to get the court to approve any and all expenses that O'Mara wants to be compensated for in advance. Generally speaking, the courts are rarely very generous when it comes to approving such expenses.

I meant the judge can appoint an attorney, they have no say in it, but they will/can be compensated. I incorrectly defined pro bono.
 
I meant the judge can appoint an attorney, they have no say in it, but they will/can be compensated. I incorrectly defined pro bono.

That is correct. I don't know how it works in Fla, but generally, the lawyer is given a certain specific amt of money/compensation to try a case with the amt being determined by the type of case.Them the atty can also make requests for expenses like expert witnesses, etc which the court can approve, or deny
 
So O'Mara is anticipating needing more time as the state isn't handing over what was requested.
Sounds normal to me.
He has more than enough time to request another delay.


The defense argued that Crump has relevant information on other topics, and asked to depose him.

Not really, seems more likely they are wasting time on everything BUT the evidence pertaining to the case.

Re-watch the hearing, just digging for dirt. Pathetic really.
Said the guy with a biased outlook of the case.

Buck is right that Crump's statement should raise flags.
The recording "contains every substative statement" she made about the night of the shooting,

Crump is not the person who determines what is "every substative(sp) statement".
His saying so is suspicious.
His responses to what caused the gaps is also suspicious as well as his involvement with her.




Anyways, the Judges decision to deny the requested delay at this time may be rooted in what she thinks her decision would be during the SYG hearing.
We will soon see.
 
If that happens, the judge will probably order O'Mara to defend Zimmerman pro bono

I don't think so IF OMara doesn't want it.

Did you watch the body language at the hearing today?

 
I don't think so IF OMara doesn't want it.

Did you watch the body language at the hearing today?

[video=youtube;9YrV18apV-c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YrV18apV-c&feature=player_embedded[/vid
:doh
Oh looky there.
Sharon has once again provided an irrelevant video to a thread.

Go figure!



Who would of thunk? Even the song writer doesn't have the facts straight.
 
The defense argued that Crump has relevant information on other topics, and asked to depose him.

Not really, seems more likely they are wasting time on everything BUT the evidence pertaining to the case.

Re-watch the hearing, just digging for dirt. Pathetic really.

Zimmerman Hearing-Pt 1 - YouTube

It is absurd to claim that Crump can not be deposed as he spoke to a material witness in the case and is NOT the attorney of that witness. Therefore, there is NO attorney-client privilege.
 
It is absurd to claim that Crump can not be deposed as he spoke to a material witness in the case and is NOT the attorney of that witness. Therefore, there is NO attorney-client privilege.

1. Sanford PD closed their investigation without knowing of any W8
2. George Zimmerman was not arrested/charged at the time
3. Benjamin Crump was the acting Private Attorney General at the time of the recording
4. The law is very clear you can not take their deposition
5. But of course Zimmer-supporters believe it is okay to break the law, as long as it is for the greater good known as George Zimmerman

On top of all this:

6. West and/or O'Mara stated during the December 11th hearing they wanted to go beyond the recording, specifically into details pertaining to the case. Crump is not a witness. Just more fishing & stalling
 
Where would that be in the hearing? What I heard was that Omara submitted the reasons in writing. The defense objected in writing. The defense clarified why it objected, then Omara discussed the alleged delays and why the extension should be granted. I don't see how you get "Omara was unable to answer" out of that.

For clarification: O'Mara was not able to give a good reason for the motion to delay trial, hence Nelson's "I don't see any of your issues insurmountable" comment.

I agree, bad post.
 
1. Sanford PD closed their investigation without knowing of any W8
2. George Zimmerman was not arrested/charged at the time
3. Benjamin Crump was the acting Private Attorney General at the time of the recording
4. The law is very clear you can not take their deposition
5. But of course Zimmer-supporters believe it is okay to break the law, as long as it is for the greater good known as George Zimmerman

On top of all this:

6. West and/or O'Mara stated during the December 11th hearing they wanted to go beyond the recording, specifically into details pertaining to the case. Crump is not a witness. Just more fishing & stalling

What law is "clear you can not take depositions?"
 
1. Sanford PD closed their investigation without knowing of any W8
Funny that huh?
She didn't come forward on her own.
Very suspicious.
She didn't think anything she could relay was of impotence to come forward on her own.
Most likely because she knows Trayvon was in the wrong.


3. Benjamin Crump was the acting Private Attorney General at the time of the recording
Private AG?
WTF?
:doh

Was he actually her attorney?
Was there an actual client attorney relationship?
Of course not.

He doesn't say he was representing her when he made the recording, does he?


What he does say in his affidavit, is the following.
19 (e) Bottom of pg.6 to top of pg.7.

Explained that, as counsel for Trayvon's parents and his estate, I was not acting as a lawyer for either the State or Defendant in any criminal prosecution that could eventually be brought and that, while Witness 8 could have her own lawyer if she or her family felt the need for one, I could not act as Wintess 8's lawyer and was not able to give her any legal advice;

TwitDoc.com - the EASY way to share your documents on Twitter


6. West and/or O'Mara stated during the December 11th hearing they wanted to go beyond the recording, specifically into details pertaining to the case. Crump is not a witness.
As Crump wasn't her lawyer, he is a witness to what she said.
Entitling O'Mara to question him.

There was no reason for Crump to lawyer up. His doing so is suspicious.
And being that Crump has already lied to us all about Dee Dee and her relationship with Trayvon, he can easily be shown to be a liar.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom