The Crump Depo is On

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/186-opinion-from-the-fifth-district-court-of-appeal-regarding-petition-for-certiorari

dca5_opinion – Copy

Advertisements

36 thoughts on “The Crump Depo is On

  1. No fair! They aren’t going to let them grill him about the Wolfinger and Zimmerman, Sr. in the cop shop that night charge for which he’s never provided a sliver of evidence.

    If the initial investigation was conducted by a corrupt police department, the defense deserves all the details.

        • Coreshift, I think that you’ve been right all along, that they would issue a ruling to preserve precedent, but not really give the defense much. Reading through this thing, I think it amounts to basically “you can depose Attorney Crump but you can’t ask him anything substantive.”

        • Nonsense. From day one, like back in October, the Defense framed the Crump depo specifically around the W8 interview, the defense got what it asked for from the beginning.

          • #8 was the centerpiece, yes. But IIRC when arguing for the deposition MOM/West argued other points they wanted to depose Crump on. e.g. Curmp’s claim to have knowledge the police screwed up the investigation. Something very relevant to their case.

          • Yeah, and the fact they focused on that, means that’s probably all they’re really concerned about. They KNOW Crump has no evidence about Sanford cops and Wolfinger conspiring, so they weren’t actually concerned about “finding out what Crump knew”. They just wanted to be able to force Crump to admit he really DIDN’T have any evidence… that he LIED about that. So that part wasn’t a big deal. You’re right… this was all about getting to ask questions about the Dee Dee #1 interview. PLENTY of landmines there for Crump to trip over.

            Oh, by the way, did you notice it was “per curiam”? “In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court of multiple judges in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and unanimously”

            I’ve been saying all along, including a few days ago when Sundance asked “What’s taking 3 judges so long?” or something like that… I’ve been saying this was gonna be the whole court ruling… and unanimously. They didn’t stomp all over Nelson like I hoped, but it’s still a good ruling. 😉

  2. Based on O’Mara’s filing this is about as thorough a slap-down as could be wished. It is extremely critical of the judge, the state, and Crump. It is courteous but condescending in the simplicity of the explanations of why they are so very wrong. Excellent.

    • “I wonder if Crump is going to try and get MOM deposed about the PayPal stuff as he said he would if he got deposed.”

      DCA says he doesn’t have standing as “opposing counsel”, which he’d need in order to be able to do that sort of thing.

      • Yeah, I know. Still, he may have some influence and can press the issue. I tend to think the state is more Crump’s proxy than the other way around.

  3. This time they need to make the part about doing a video of the depo in really big letters.

    Now if only they could do it as pay-per-view.

    : – )

        • Thanks. I know that sounds funny coming from me, since I have no personal involvement with the Defense. But I just like to say it when someone says they’re gonna donate, since I so very rarely am able to do it myself. It just makes me feel good to see others can take up the slack… 😉

    • And did you see that one of the cases they released last Friday was also a Nelson case. She was once again overturned, and the DCA almost made fun of her. She is just a flat-out BAD judge. And that other case was relevant to this one, since the main “error” she made was refusing to give the jury an instruction re. self-defense. A retrial was ordered because of it. Cool.

  4. Based on the court’s limitations on the deposition, I’m not sure that the defense can question Crump on the things that are really important, such as his interactions with the parents and the letter.

    -Mark Martinson

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