The reason he filed it is very simple. The shiite hit the fan this week when Zimmerman’s attorney submitted his appeal to the 5th District Court of Appeal seeking to force Judge Nelson to allow him to depose Crump, despite her two rulings against him on that issue (after she was the one who labeled Crump a “witness” and suggested that O’Mara depose him in the first place).
In O’Mara’s appeal, he made it clear that he does not believe that Crump is entitled to any attorney/client privilege as “opposing counsel” in the matter of Witness 8, the girl who was supposedly on the phone with Trayvon at the time of the incident. Judge Nelson decided in her first ruling on this issue (on the very day that Crump was to be deposed) that Crump was indeed opposing counsel and ordered that Crump could not be deposed, but that was before the affadavit he provided in lieu of deposition was proven to be false and inaccurate. Once it was found that the affadavit was not accurate, O’Mara made another request to depose him, which was denied by the judge without explanation.
So, the filing of the paperwork for this lawsuit (and the leak of that information by someone attached to Crump) was strategic - he is seeking to show that he is in fact entitled to “opposing counsel” status in that he has engaged in an actual lawsuit stemming from the incident at the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Of course, O’Mara’s motion goes way beyond that - in that he argues that EVEN IF Crump is entitled to protection as opposing counsel, that would not apply to his interactions with Witness 8, since he affirmatively waived his work product privilege (if it existed) for his interactions with her.
This is a kangaroo court, and the DCA had better clean this up.
<>This is a kangaroo court, and the DCA had better clean this up.<>
And here’s their mop and bucket to start with:
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/appendix.pdf
There is a "process issue" as to the timing of deciding errors made by the trial court. The legal system is set up on the awareness that no court is perfect, and errors, sometimes very serious errors, are part of everyday legal activity. But the appeal process doesn't start with each allegation of error, so not all errors below are reviewable during the "trial process" (scare quotes to let me explain that I view "trial process" as everything in between the indictment and the eventual disposition of the charge by the trial court).
For errors by the judge or prosecution as to providing evidence to the accused, the remedy is just to reverse the conviction, and allow them a new trial under terms that were previously disagreeable to the trial judge.
O'Mara is going to have a potload of issues on appeal, if this gets that far. I thing the DCA is going to reject his petition to step in (now) and order Judge Nelson to withdraw her order prohibiting O'Mara from deposing Crump.
By the way, I agree that this is a sham prosecution. Seems the state is rather fond of putting on a good show when the trial is a political one. It'll be like the banks in Cyprus, at some point, an overwhelming fraction of the public will lose faith. The system will be seen as corrupt and dishonest, and no amount of protest by the judges, politicians, and lawyers will overcome the loss of trust.