Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Uncle Chip
If the judge already denied a request for a Crump deposition, I can't see that she would approve one now unless there is overwhelming reason to do so.

And if Crump is ordered to talk under oath, I can't see how answers such as "I don't remember" or pleading the 5th can get any important information out of him......

I hope you're right but I just don't trust the legal system to do what's right anymore.

11 posted on 03/23/2013 9:05:37 AM PDT by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


There are several other interesting bits of information provided by Mr. O’Mara in his arguments:

“The defense believes that Mr. Crump is aware of how the State Attorney’s Office came to know about Witness 8. This information cannot be gained from any other source, as the State has refused to provide that information to the defense. This is relevant because it is important for the defense to understand the circumstances surrounding how this very important witness came to be know by the authorities prosecuting Mr. Zimmerman.”

Again, a masterpiece of understatement. And this:

“only Mr. Crump knows why information on Witness 8 was not given to the Sanford Police Department or the Florida Department of Law Enforcement…even though multiple requests were made by FDLE.”


16 posted on 03/23/2013 9:19:40 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Hot Tabasco

I think the defense was caught off guard by her reasoning last time, but this time they left her no wriggle room.

She argued last time that Crump was opposing counsel and that his affidavit was sufficient and that he knew nothing relevant to the case and that if they needed anything get it from Witness 8 deposition.

All those excuses have been taken away from the judge now.

In the Motion defense pointed out that they just deposed Witness 8 and she doesn’t know and now there are other questions from that deposition that have arisen, that they are relevant, that they indicate that Crump lied in his affidavit to the court [a big big no no with any judge — normally], that he is not opposing counsel in that there is no pending litigation between the Martins and Zimmermannn, and even if he were oc, being that he is the only person who has the answer, the court should order his deposition.

The fact that the prosecution who was there at the Witness 8 deposition has not responded to the Motion to Depose tells you that they are having to reach deep for a reason to oppose the Motion.


18 posted on 03/23/2013 9:33:45 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson