Fifth District Court of Appeal UPDATE

Thanks Diwatalady for the updates and thoughts:

The 5th District court had heard from someone else and it wasn’t the defense. An up-to-date docket can be found here: http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2013&p_casenumber=1233&psCourt=5

Crump has weighed in 1 day after the State’s deadline.
5th DCA Response of Proposed Respondent B. Crump
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?gp36232723z564o

5th DCA Motion for Leave to Respond
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?kmn9y1vec9vsyfp

5th DCA Index to and Supp. App.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?svowitqy6dpdv4o

Do the rules apply to Mr. Crump? He filed this late as a respondent. However, he is the man who walked into court on the day he was to be deposed to put the Judge on notice, he won’t sit for deposition and she said “ok”.

Fifth District Court of Appeal – The Crump Deposition Saga

Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Appendix
http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/136-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari

Docket
http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2013&p_casenumber=1233&psCourt=5&psSearchType=

or docket link here as well
Case Number
5D 13-1233

http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/ds/ds_docket_search

or here:
http://www.5dca.org/pub_info.shtml
http://www.5dca.org/

Order to Show Cause
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/5dca_order.pdf

State’s(General Attorney) Response
http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/147-response-to-petition-for-writ-of-certiorari

Update

Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time for Reply
http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/159-unopposed-motion-for-extension-of-time-for-reply

Orders from the 5th DCA
http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/161-orders-from-the-5th-dca

Petitioner’s Replies to Responses to Petition for Writ of Certiorari

24 thoughts on “Fifth District Court of Appeal UPDATE

      • And then some Howie. By fighting the deposition to the extent that he is, he screams the impression that he has something very big to hide. The defense still has no idea how, by whom, and when DD was “found.” I think that is why he is fighting so hard. DD supposedly told the defense that she first spoke with Crump, but she also likely told them how and when that all happened. The Crump team has talked about two versions. Crump said Tracy found her phone number and called her first. NatJac said that she was found by one of Crump’s investigators.

  1. Thanks for the recognition in bringing news to the blog but if we could keep me low-keyed I’d appreciate it.

    My family has been receiving some nasty messages of late, and I don’t want to encourage more idiots to attack them.

    I don’t need or want any recognition. I really want George Zimmerman acquitted and able to sue the media for misreporting the facts. I know he will use the money he gets for good and I’ll know people in power will think twice about railroading the minority person who they think doesn’t matter. He does matter and with my friends, I’ll (really want to say we’ll) show them!

    • For my enemies, take a close look at my picture. I’ve been cut ear to ear. You won’t scare me or intimidate me so back off. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I have taken legal action and won’t hesitate to do it again. I will not be silenced. So stop trying.

      • I’ve just now caught up on all the posts (here and the Treehouse), and this is the first comment I’ve made today. I really planned on getting to bed early and not really commenting at all till tomorrow, but I had to say something after reading your comments.

        I’ve never met you “in real life”, but I’m still happy that I’ve gotten to know you a bit over the past year. And I just wanted to say I’m very, very impressed, and PROUD of the way you stand up for George and his family. And I suspect that hasn’t gone unnoticed by them, either.

  2. In my opinion, Crump and his attorneys are making a faulty argument concerning the rules of criminal procedure in regard to the issue of “listed” vs “unlisted” witnesses. Here is the relevant section that they cited:

    Depending on how – and whether – a witness has been listed, Rule 3.220, in pertinent part, limits the ability of a defendant to take depositions as follows:
    (A) The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category A witness. . . . After receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged. The prosecutor may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the defendant to be called at a trial or hearing.
    (B) No party may take the deposition of a witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category B witness except upon leave of court with good cause shown. . . .
    (C) A witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category C witness shall not be subject to deposition unless the court determines that the witness should be listed in another
    category.
    FLA R.CRIM P. 3.220(h)(1)(A), (B), (C) (emphasis added).

    The part in question is in section A. “After receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged.” Crump’s “proposed response” makes the argument repeatedly that when O’Mara finally listed Crump as a witness on the defense witness list, it rendered moot the defense motion to depose Attorney Crump because, since he is now a “listed witness” the 3.220(h)(1)(A) authority to depose him no longer exists.

    This is a clear mis-reading of that section. When that section talks about unlisted witnesses, it is clear that it is speaking of witnesses unlisted BY THE PROSECUTION. Why do I see that, having not gone to law school, while the high-priced attorneys that Crump is employing read it differently?

  3. And along comes respondent da Crump, even though I’m not supposed to be a respondent, do you know who da Crump is? He is da Crump and you damn well better listen to him. He say dat dat O’Mara guy is harrassin’ and abusin’ him, and he just don’t know who da Crump is. Now you better tell dat O’Mara dat da Crump ain’t talkin’, so tell dat O’Mara to go sit down and shut the hell up. I am da Crump. You better just read my 33 pages of da jive talk.

    PS- Da state don’t know what they be talking about, but listen to me, da Crump.

  4. By listing Crump’s filings with the DCA, does that mean that they have accepted Crump’s filings, or can they still tell Crump that his response is not accepted for consideration by the court? It sure appears that Crump wasn’t satisfied with the state’s response, and wanted to butt their way into the ears of the DCA judges.

  5. I’m a bit confused, but not a bit surprised at what Crump has pulled at zero hour. My question, if anyone knows, is that it would seem that if the DCA chooses to ACCEPT Crump’s response even though it is late, WILL MOM get an opportunity to respond to Crump’s filing?

    Of course the DCA could deny the acceptance of Crump’s late response, but I would be surprised, he’d just whine to the MEDIA at how he was treated unjustly. What would this mean for Judge N’s date for the trial if: Crump’s response was accepted & MOM was afforded 10 days by the DCA to respond?

    Will the DCA roll over for Crump/Blackwell like Judge Nelson rolled over & ALLOWED the affidavit Blackwell submitted the morning of a hearing to replace Crump’s scheduled depo?

    • Crump explicitly states in his motion for leave to respond that MOM is on board with him filing it.

      “3. Neither Petitioner nor the State oppose the instant motions.”

      I suspect this means that Crump’s attorneys spoke with O’Mara and Bondi/Kollar and asked if they would have any objection to him responding, and they told him to go ahead. Either that or Crump’s attorneys are lying. That probably would preclude O’Mara from getting additional time to respond to Crump’s motion, if it’s true that O’Mara acquiesced to it. I’m not sure what that means, except that O’Mara may believe his motion stands on its own regardless of what Crump says. However, as I said above, I’m certain that the entire first portion of Crump’s pleading is based on a flawed reading of the law concerning “listed” vs “unlisted” witnesses. O’Mara should get a chance to respond to that, although I’m hopefuly that the DCA will see it on their own.

      • I still don’t understand what standing Crump has to file anything in the criminal case to begin with? Even if he is called some kind of “opposing counsel”, that doesn’t make him one.

      • O’Mara is still within his time period to respond to the state’s response, and I would think he could include language to address Crump’s response as well. Then again, the court may not even accept or consider Crump’s response.

    • I’m not yet convinced that the DCA has in fact accepted Crump’s response. It is accompanied with a document asking that the court to please accept Crump’s document as a respondent. IANL but I would question whether listing something as being received is the same as accepting the document for consideration by the judges. It seems to be similar to the trial court clerk accepting the Crump submitted Settlement Agreement, which had nothing to do with the criminal case, until Crump submitted it and made it a part of the criminal case. O’Mara is rightfully now using it to prove the financial gain reasons for some witness testimony.

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