Benjamin Crump’s “Judge, don’t make me answer questions from George Zimmerman’s lawyers” Response to Defense Motion
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/response_in_opposition.pdf
Get the popcorn
He knows what’s on line for him if he’s caught making perjurious statements.
In the first line of his Response, Crump describes himself as “non party”. If this means in legalese what it means in common sense, he has eliminated the Judge’s original excuse for letting him slide (i.e., that Crump MIGHT represent the Martin family in litigation they MIGHT file some day). If I read his Response with sufficient care, nowhere does Crump claim to represent the Martins or anyone else.
If Crump does if fact represent the Martins, Witness 8, or others in this case, the Judge should require him to present a signed agreement as evidence thereof. If Crump does present such evidence, and it shows a contingency fee arrangement for a future lawsuit (and it would, since the Martin’s have no $), then Crump has a financial motive to create the evidence, which further taints it.
I wish O’Mara would quit being coy and plainly state to the Court that his client has a right to pursue all reasonable lines of defense; that one of them is that testimony material to the charging GZ was manufactured, for either political, financial, or personal motives, with substantial and notorious involvement of Mr. Benjamin Crump; and that the defense has every right and reason to depose him about the circumstances under which he “developed” that testimony. Crump is the only person in possession of the full facts and is necessary to an effective defense.