O’Mara Slams the State – Hints at possible forgery

In a seven page motion Mark O’Mara slammed the state with accusations of withholding evidence, obfuscating details, flat out ignoring requests for discovery and even possible forgery. The story that says it all is in regards to Trayvon’s supposed cell phone, which allow me to remind you that no evidence to date has been released which shows that there was a phone found at the scene that Trayvon was using. There’s more in the motion(s) than just this one story but for now I will only be dealing with this aspect.

O’Mara tells us that the FDLE analyst, Steve Brenton, who was able to get into Trayvon’s cell phone but not completely, whether or not this is the phone found at the scene remains to be seen, made a complete report, including downloaded information from the phone, and on March 26th gave that report to FDLE Special Agent supervisor David Lee. Lee I would also like to remind you called off the latent print report on the phone found at the scene, the date of that report is March 20th. O’Mara had no knowledge of the report or analysis by Brenton and was able to find out about it only because he happened to be in the same building as Brenton on August 8th. Apparently Brenton just mentioned to O’Mara that he did an analysis on the phone. The impression O’Mara gives is that had Brenton not done that and/or had O’Mara not run into him O’Mara would have never known about the report. That’s only the beginning.

Upon learning of this report O’Mara requested it from Corey’s office. On August 24th O’Mara says he received a disk with some files on it but no report. O’Mara again requested the information from Corey and this time there was no response at all. We’re just warming up folks.

Apparently considering now that Corey will not be providing discovery to O’Mara he deposes Brenton on September 26th. Brenton testified to what he had done, showed O’Mara the report that he gave Lee and later provided O’Mara with a copy of that report. Funny thing though about the files from that report and the files Corey sent to O’Mara that were supposedly from that report; they didn’t match. How they “differ” as O’Mara put it is not mentioned and is why I say “possible” forgery. How could they possibly differ so much as to be mentioned in this motion? Clearly it must be significant enough to cause enough concern to look into the matter and given the State’s behavior on this case it should be taken with absolute seriousness.

Add to the top of all of that the fact that the State only listed Brenton as a category C witness and nothing else and what you get is a big fat stay away from me discovery.

The words prosecutorial misconduct come to mind.

————————————————————————————————————

 
Motion to Schedule Standing Hearings to Address Discovery and Other case Management Issues or in the Alternative to Request Assignment of a Senior Judge to Manage Discovery.

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/october_hearing/mot_to_schedule_standing_hearings.pdf

Also released today;
Motion to Compel Discovery

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/october_hearing/motion_to_compel_discovery.pdf

About these ads

2 thoughts on “O’Mara Slams the State – Hints at possible forgery

  1. Pingback: O'Mara's Latest Motions: The State Has Some Explaining to Do - I Hate Paypal

  2. Many thanks for creating the effort to talk about this, I feel strongly about this and love studying a great deal more on this subject. If feasible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your webpage with a great deal more info? It’s very beneficial for me.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s