Zimmerman: Pssst hey buddy what’s a Frye hearing

May 7, 2013

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

To Frye or not to Frye,
that is the question.
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind
to suffer the slings and arrows
of outrageous fortune
or to take arms against
a sea of troubles
and by opposing end them.

Hamlet, Act III, by William Shakespeare

Good morning:

I write today to explain the Frye Rule and Mark O’Mara’s latest strategic mistake. Let’s begin with the mistake.

If Judge Nelson grants his motion, there will not be any testimony by an expert witness regarding the identity of the person who uttered the terrified shriek. That will not help the defense because that intense, high-pitched, and prolonged nightmarish shriek of sheer terror ends abruptly with the fatal gunshot to the heart.

Just as it does not take a weatherman to tell which direction the wind blows, no juror is going to have any difficulty figuring out that the person who uttered that inhuman shriek is the victim of that gunshot. No juror is going to believe that the person armed with the gun; who pulled it out of a holster; who extended his arm; who aimed the gun taking care to make sure his left hand was out of the way; and who pulled the trigger at point-blank range is the person who screamed.

I am certain the prosecutor will not forget to remind the jury that the defendant told the police that he kept screaming for help after the shot because he thought he missed Trayvon Martin.

Apparently, Mark O’Mara has not listened to that agonizing shriek because, if he had listened to it, he never would have filed this ridiculous motion that can only hurt his client, if Judge Nelson grants it, since the absence of expert testimony would simplify identifying Trayvon as the source of the shriek while also disproving the defendant’s claim that Trayvon was beating him to death and attempting to smother him when he fired the fatal shot.

Breath. Taking. Stupidity.

Now, let’s take a look at the Frye-hearing request.

Every once in awhile someone develops a new theory or a new way of performing some task (i.e., a new methodology). A lawyer finds out about it and decides he wants to apply that new theory or methodology to win a case. Opposing counsel says, “Not so fast, pal. Not without a Frye hearing.”

A Frye hearing is a pretrial hearing to determine if evidence obtained pursuant to a new theory or methodology should be admitted or excluded during the trial. Think of it as a judicial screening device to exclude potentially inaccurate and unreliable evidence based on a new untested theory or methodology.

We call it a Frye hearing because the first published case that dealt with this issue was Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir 1923). Judge Van Orsdell laid out the facts:

A single assignment of error is presented for our consideration. In the course of the trial counsel for defendant offered an expert witness to testify to the result of a deception test made upon defendant. The test is described as the systolic blood pressure deception test. It is asserted that blood pressure is influenced by change in the emotions of the witness, and that the systolic blood pressure rises are brought about by nervous impulses sent to the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system. Scientific experiments, it is claimed, have demonstrated that fear, rage, and pain always produce a rise of systolic blood pressure, and that conscious deception or falsehood, concealment of facts, or guilt of crime, accompanied by fear of detection when the person is under examination, raises the systolic blood pressure in a curve, which corresponds exactly to the struggle going on in the subject’s mind, between fear and attempted control of that fear, as the examination touches the vital points in respect of which he is attempting to deceive the examiner.

In other words, the theory seems to be that truth is spontaneous, and comes without conscious effort, while the utterance of a falsehood requires a conscious effort, which is reflected in the blood pressure. The rise thus produced is easily detected and distinguished from the rise produced by mere fear of the examination itself. In the former instance, the pressure rises higher than in the latter, and is more pronounced as the examination proceeds, while in the latter case, if the subject is telling the truth, the pressure registers highest at the beginning of the examination, and gradually diminishes as the examination proceeds.

Prior to the trial defendant was subjected to this deception test, and counsel offered the scientist who conducted the test as an expert to testify to the results obtained. The offer was objected to by counsel for the government, and the court sustained the objection. Counsel for defendant then offered to have the proffered witness conduct a test in the presence of the jury. This also was denied.

Judge Van Orsdell then proceeded to define the new rule:

The rule is that the opinions of experts or skilled witnesses are admissible in evidence in those cases in which the matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, for the reason that the subject-matter so far partakes of a science, art, or trade as to require a previous habit or experience or study in it, in order to acquire a knowledge of it. When the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence.

Numerous cases are cited in support of this rule. Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.

(Emphasis supplied)

The issue Judge Nelson would have to decide, assuming she decides to hold a Frye hearing, is whether the methodologies used by the state’s experts are generally accepted by audiologists as capable of producing accurate and reliable results.

The Frye test has been described as a counting-heads test because it does not require the judge to understand the theory or methodology at issue. The judge need only count the heads of the experts in the particular field and decide whether they generally accept the methodology.

As I recall, two experts used different methodologies to compare the shriek to a voice exemplar provided by the defendant. One methodology has been used for many years and the other one, which was developed recently, involves the use of a software program.

Both experts have excluded the defendant as the source of the scream.

Since the first method has been used for many years, it probably has survived a Frye challenge in Florida.

The second method may be too new to have been challenged at a Frye hearing.

The glaring, and I believe fatal, omission in O’Mara’s motion for a Frye hearing is the absence of any supporting affidavits from experts in audiology that one or both of the methodologies used are not generally accepted by audiologists as capable of producing accurate and reliable results.

Nobody gives a damn about what the non-expert lawyer thinks. He is not qualified to express an opinion about general acceptance of these methodologies.

Therefore, I would deny his motion for a Frye hearing.

Notice that regardless whether Judge Nelson grants or denies O’Mara’s motion, the State will still be required to lay a proper foundation for each of its expert audiologists at trial pursuant to Evidence Rule 702 that the witness is a duly qualified expert in the field and the result obtained using the particular methodology in question will assist the jury to decide who is screaming.

In conclusion, if I were the prosecutor, I would be inclined to try the case without putting on any audiologists during my case-in-chief for the simple reason that I do not believe they are necessary. This is another illustration of the KISS rule.

BTW, all that sparring about whether Tracy Martin could identify Trayvon as the source of the shriek does not matter.

Hardly anyone ever shrieks like that and lives to tell about it, so it stands to reason that no one, including his father, ever heard Trayvon utter a shriek like that. This may explain why it may not be possible for any expert to positively identify the source of the shriek without considering the circumstances or context that produced it.

That’s why it sounds inhuman.

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

120 Comments | fogen, Frye/Daubert nHearing, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, Terrified Shriek, Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

The search of Trayvon Martin’s backpack in school was unreasonable and unlawful

May 6, 2013

Monday, May 6, 2013

Good morning:

I credit Lonnie Starr’s series of comments regarding the warrantless search by a school police officer of Trayvon Martin’s backpack for inspiring me to write today’s post.

The officer seized some women’s jewelry and a large flat head screwdriver that the officer described as a burglar tool. Trayvon was not charged with a criminal offense because no one had reported the jewelry stolen and the value of the jewelry was uncertain because no one had examined it to determine if it contained precious gems, or if it were worthless costume jewelry designed to look like real jewelry. The absence of a stolen property report suggests that it’s costume jewelry because, if it had any value, the owner likely would have filled out a stolen property report and filed an insurance claim.

IIRC, the suspension that resulted in his trip to Sanford involved a later incident.

Nevertheless, in response to demands from many of the defendant’s supporters at the Conservative Treehouse, defense counsel have commenced a snipe hunt into this closed matter in hopes of discovering that Trayvon was a member of a burglary ring in Miami. According to CTH logic, this would mean that Trayvon really was “up to no good” when the defendant encountered him walking home in the rain, presumably because once a burglar, always a burglar who must have continued burglarizing homes in Sanford.

Even if this were true, of course, the defendant would not have known it, and since the narrative description that he provided to the NEN dispatcher did not establish a reasonable suspicion to believe Trayvon was “up to no good,” he had no justifiable reason to follow and confront him. In addition, unless juvenile burglars in Miami are aggressive and violent MMA style ninja fighters who like to assault and kill people with their bare hands just for grins, the evidence would be inadmissible.

Therefore, this snipe hunt is going nowhere fast. It’s an absolute waste of time and money when the defense should be assembling a team of experts to review all of the reports, raw data and bench notes generated by the State’s experts.

Be that as it may, Lonnie has raised an issue of general concern to teachers and parents of school age children. Under what circumstances can a teacher search a student’s backpack for evidence of a crime without a search warrant?

The SCOTUS answered that question in 6-3 decision in New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325, 328 (1985). Writing for the majority, Justice White described the facts as follows:

On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J. discovered two girls smoking in a lavatory. One of the two girls was the respondent T.L.O, who at that time was a 14-year-old high school freshman. Because smoking in the lavatory was a violation of a school rule, the teacher took the two girls to the Principal’s office, where they met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. In response to questioning by Mr. Choplick, T.L.O’s companion admitted that she had violated the rule. T.L.O, however, denied that she had been smoking in the lavatory and claimed that she did not smoke at all.

Mr. Choplick asked T.L.O to come into his private office and demanded to see her purse. Opening the purse, he found a pack of cigarettes, which he removed from the purse and held before T.L.O as he accused her of having lied to him. As he reached into the purse for the cigarettes, Mr. Choplick also noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers. In his experience, possession of rolling papers by high school students was closely associated with the use of marihuana. Suspecting that a closer examination of the purse might yield further evidence of drug use, Mr. Choplick proceeded to search the purse thoroughly. The search revealed a small amount of marihuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a substantial quantity of money in one-dollar bills, an index card that appeared to be a list of students who owed T.L.O money, and two letters that implicated T.L.O in marihuana dealing.

Mr. Choplick notified T.L.O’s mother and the police, and turned the evidence of drug dealing over to the police.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that this warrantless search was unlawful, but the SCOTUS reversed. Justice White said,

There remains the question of the legality of the search in this case. We recognize that the “reasonable grounds” standard applied by the New Jersey Supreme Court in its consideration of this question is not substantially different from the standard that we have adopted today. Nonetheless, we believe that the New Jersey court’s application of that standard to strike down the search of T.L.O.’s purse reflects a somewhat crabbed notion of reasonableness. Our review of the facts surrounding the search leads us to conclude that the search was in no sense unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes.

The incident that gave rise to this case actually involved two separate searches, with the first — the search for cigarettes — providing the suspicion that gave rise to the second — the search for marihuana. Although it is the fruits of the second search that are at issue here, the validity of the search for marihuana must depend on the reasonableness of the initial search for cigarettes, as there would have been no reason to suspect that T.L.O. possessed marihuana had the first search not taken place. Accordingly, it is to the search for cigarettes that we first turn our attention.

The New Jersey Supreme Court pointed to two grounds for its holding that the search for cigarettes was unreasonable. First, the court observed that possession of cigarettes was not in itself illegal or a violation of school rules. Because the contents of T.L.O.’s purse would therefore have “no direct bearing on the infraction” of which she was accused (smoking in a lavatory where smoking was prohibited), there was no reason to search her purse. [Footnote 11] Second, even assuming that a search of T.L.O.’s purse might under some circumstances be reasonable in light of the accusation made against T.L.O., the New Jersey court concluded that Mr. Choplick in this particular case had no reasonable grounds to suspect that T.L.O. had cigarettes in her purse. At best, according
to the court, Mr. Choplick had “a good hunch.” 94 N.J. at 347, 463 A.2d at 942. Both these conclusions are implausible. T.L.O. had been accused of smoking, and had denied the accusation in the strongest possible terms when she stated that she did not smoke at all. Surely it cannot be said that under these circumstances, T.L.O.’s possession of cigarettes would be irrelevant to the charges against her or to her response to those charges. T.L.O.’s possession of cigarettes, once it was discovered, would both corroborate the report that she had been smoking and undermine the credibility of her defense to the charge of smoking. To be sure, the discovery of the cigarettes would not prove that T.L.O. had been smoking in the lavatory; nor would it, strictly speaking, necessarily be inconsistent with her claim that she did not smoke at all. But it is universally recognized that evidence, to be relevant to an inquiry, need not conclusively prove the ultimate fact in issue, but only have “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed.Rule Evid. 401. The relevance of T.L.O.’s possession of cigarettes to the question whether she had been smoking and to the credibility of her denial that she smoked supplied the necessary “nexus” between the item searched for and the infraction under investigation. See Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 387 U. S. 306-307 (1967). Thus, if Mr. Choplick in fact had a reasonable suspicion that T.L.O. had cigarettes in her purse, the search was justified despite the fact that the cigarettes, if found, would constitute “mere evidence” of a violation. Ibid.

Of course, the New Jersey Supreme Court also held that Mr. Choplick had no reasonable suspicion that the purse would contain cigarettes. This conclusion is puzzling. A teacher had reported that T.L.O. was smoking in the lavatory. Certainly this report gave Mr. Choplick reason to suspect that T.L.O. was carrying cigarettes with her; and if she did have cigarettes, her purse was the obvious place in which to find them. Mr. Choplick’s suspicion that there were cigarettes in the purse was not an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch,’” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 27; rather, it was the sort of “common-sense conclusio[n] about human behavior” upon which “practical people” — including government officials — are entitled to rely. United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 449 U. S. 418 (1981). Of course, even if the teacher’s report were true, T.L.O. might not have had a pack of cigarettes with her; she might have borrowed a cigarette from someone else or have been sharing a cigarette with another student. But the requirement of reasonable suspicion is not a requirement of absolute certainty: “sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. . . .” Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797, 401 U. S. 804 (1971). Because the hypothesis that T.L.O. was carrying cigarettes in her purse was itself not unreasonable, it is irrelevant that other hypotheses were also consistent with the teacher’s accusation. Accordingly, it cannot be said that Mr. Choplick acted unreasonably when he examined T.L.O.’s purse to see if it contained cigarettes.

Our conclusion that Mr. Choplick’s decision to open T.L.O.’s purse was reasonable brings us to the question of the further search for marihuana once the pack of cigarettes was located. The suspicion upon which the search for marihuana was founded was provided when Mr. Choplick observed a package of rolling papers in the purse as he removed the pack of cigarettes. Although T.L.O. does not dispute the reasonableness of Mr. Choplick’s belief that the rolling papers indicated the presence of marihuana, she does contend that the scope of the search Mr. Choplick conducted exceeded permissible bounds when he seized and read certain letters that implicated T.L.O. in drug dealing. This argument, too, is unpersuasive. The discovery of the rolling papers concededly gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that T.L.O. was carrying marihuana as well as cigarettes in her purse. This suspicion justified further exploration of T.L.O.’s purse, which turned up more evidence of drug-related activities: a pipe, a number of plastic bags of the type commonly used to store marihuana, a small quantity of marihuana, and a fairly substantial amount of money. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable to extend the search to a separate zippered compartment of the purse; and when a search of that compartment revealed an index card containing a list of “people who owe me money” as well as two letters, the inference that T.L.O. was involved in marihuana trafficking was substantial enough to justify Mr. Choplick in examining the letters to determine whether they contained any further evidence. In short, we cannot conclude that the search for marihuana was unreasonable in any respect.

Because the search resulting in the discovery of the evidence of marihuana dealing by T.L.O. was reasonable, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to exclude that evidence from T.L.O.’s juvenile delinquency proceedings on Fourth Amendment grounds was erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is

Reversed.

New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S., at 343-348.

Using the reasonableness test the SCOTUS has approved of the use of random drug testing of student athletes in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), and eventually extended the rule to apply to all students engaged in extracurricular activities in Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002).

The SCOTUS drew the line, however, in Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009), where school officials strip searched a girl in middle school for pills where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs (Ibuprofen) presented a danger or that they were concealed in her underwear.

Lonnie argues that the search of Trayvon’s backpack for the grafitti marker that led to the discovery of the jewelry and screwdriver a day after the police official claimed to have seen him mark-up a door in the school with WTF, violated his right to privacy and I agree that it did. Although reasonable minds might differ, I believe the search was unreasonable because the information was stale.

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

284 Comments | Fourth Amendment, Mark O'Mara, Trayvon Martin, Warrantless School Searches | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Zimmerman: O’Mara admits he cannot prove defendant utters terrified shriek

May 5, 2013

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Good Evening:

Amanda Sloane of HLN TV reported last Tueday after the hearing before Judge Nelson:

Cries for help: Is it Zimmerman or Trayvon?

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said Tuesday that a 911 call could be the key piece of evidence in the case against George Zimmerman. In the background of the audio recording, you can hear someone screaming for help.

If it’s Zimmerman, O’Mara said it shows that the night watchman was the one under attack “and documents his story completely — it also documents his injuries.” If, however, it’s 17-year-old Trayvon Martin’s voice on the recording, then it could show Zimmerman was “acting in a very aggressive way toward him,” O’Mara said.

So which one is it?

O’Mara told In Session correspondent Jean Casarez that witnesses for the prosecution and the defense can’t seem to agree. So, he wants to have a hearing to decide if anyone should be able to testify about the voice at all.

Should jurors be able to decide for themselves whom they hear on the call?

Translation of O’Mara-speak into ordinary English: O’Mara knows that Trayvon uttered the 40-second terrified shriek.

Quite an admission by the man who has been so certain in the past that his client uttered the shriek.

Most of us are not surprised because we figured it out last summer.

We have been wondering when everybody else would finally figure it out.

So, what does O’Mara want to do?

He wants to exclude the tape, so the jury will not even hear it.

There is absolutely no chance Judge Nelson will grant that motion.

The legal rule is that arguments regarding the identity of the person who uttered the terrified shriek go to the weight that the jury should assign to the opinion of each witness and not to the admissibility of the testimony itself.

Notice the disappearing defense.

No immunity hearing and now this damning admission.

Say good-bye, George.

Justice for Trayvon

(H/T to Elcymoo for providing the link to the HLN article)

_________________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,

Fred

242 Comments | fogen, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, Terrified Shriek, Trayvon Martin | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Dispute regarding publication of settlement amount is a tempest in a teapot

April 19, 2013

Friday, April 18, 2013

Good morning.

The dispute regarding whether the settlement amount should be publicized is a tempest in a teapot.

A defendant in a criminal case has the right to cross examine a witness against him regarding any bias or prejudice the witness might have that might influence their testimony in the case.

To facilitate discussion, let us assume that the case settled for $1.75 million.

Mark O’Mara wants to know that amount so that he can argue to the jury that Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton were not credible witnesses when they identified Trayvon as the person who uttered the death shriek.

For example, he could argue that they had 1.75 million reasons to lie.

As distasteful as such an argument would be, I believe the defense has a right to make it.

Whether it would make any sense to cross examine them about the settlement and to argue that they lied when they identified Trayvon as the source of the death shriek is another matter.

I do not believe there will be any doubt that Trayvon uttered that shriek because he was unarmed and the shriek abruptly ended as though silenced by the gunshot.

There is no credible argument that the defendant uttered that shriek as he pulled his gun out of the holster, extended his arm, aimed while making certain that he would not shoot his left hand by mistake, and pulled the trigger simultaneously stopping his scream.

To argue to the jury that Trayvon’s parents lied for financial reasons would be to invite scorn, if not hatred, and prejudice the defendant.

Nevertheless, if O’Mara wants to be stupid and venture into an area where no one with an ounce of sense would dare to go, the law erects no barrier and permits him to make a fool out of himself.

I doubt he is that stupid. I suspect he is merely posturing and would not dare go down that road.

Judge Nelson could dispose of this motion by ordering that the amount of the settlement remain confidential for now, subject to reconsideration if Trayvon’s parents testify.

Let him dare to bring it up.

________________________________________

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

303 Comments | Civil Lawsuit Against HOA, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, Settlement agreement, Sixth Amendment Right to Cross Examine Witnesses, Sybrina Fulton, Tempest in a Teapot, Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

How to interpret witness lists

April 18, 2013

Lawyers rarely, if ever, call everyone listed on their witness list and sometimes they will call someone who is not on their list.

Generally, they will list everyone they believe they might call to the stand, including listing several people who would testify about one thing when only one witness is necessary and testimony by the others would be cumulative and likely inadmissible.

Prosecution witness lists tend to be more accurate and reliable because they have the burden of proof and put on their case first.

Defense counsel usually include many prosecution witnesses on their lists but never call them to the stand because they make their points while cross examining them after the prosecution calls them to the stand and completes the direct examination. Since the defense usually makes its case during cross examination, you will not often see it present much of a case after the prosecution rests. Two major exceptions would be defense expert testimony and testimony by the defendant.

Scheduling witness testimony and arranging travel and overnight accommodations is a major hassle that requires patience and flexibility to change plans without appearing to miss a step.

When the judge says, “Call your next witness,” you better be ready to go.

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting today that the defense has filed a new witness list listing more than 200 people, including more than half of the Sanford Police Department.

I cannot imagine why they did that since a lot of those people probably had nothing to do with investigating this case and their opinions regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant or his character are irrelevant and inadmissible.

In fact, the defense dare not open the door by introducing evidence of the defendant’s good character. That would permit the prosecution to introduce evidence about the defendant’s bad character. In other words, Katie bar the door.

To get a more realistic idea of whom the defense might call to the stand, compare the prosecution and defense lists and eliminate every name on the defense list that also appears on the prosecution list.

Eliminate the SPD cops and everyone else on the defense list who might be a character witness.

The remainder is a reasonable ball-park guesstimate.

Should be pretty much limited to experts.

That’s the list I am most interested in.

The rest, not so much.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

184 Comments | fogen, George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, Witness Lists | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

O’Mara out of time in Zimmerman case

April 16, 2013

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Abbyj said,

Omar will ride the PayPal buckaroo to the bitter end in an effort to squeeze out every last cent. He is hoping for a massive windfall, as fogen received early on. Without any hope of a great fortune appearing, O’Mara will then stand before Judge Nelson, wring his hands, and whine, “I haven’t had the financial resources to hire experts . . . ” Could fogen use this as grounds for an appeal?

Good question.

We begin at the beginning. Appellate courts hate piecemeal appeals. With one notable exception, they will refuse to review a case unless the circuit court has entered a final judgment terminating it. The exception is the writ procedure that permits a party to seek extraordinary relief from a specific order issued by a judge in the circuit court that, in effect, functions as a final order in a case depriving the losing party of an opportunity to present its case and argument in the circuit court.

The defense used the writ procedure to recuse Judge Lester (mandamus) and is now using it (certiorari) in an attempt to get an order vacating (setting aside) Judge Nelson’s order denying the defense motion to depose Benjamin Crump. I do not believe this effort will be successful because I think Judge Nelson made the correct legal decision. Since other witnesses were present when Crump interviewed Dee Dee to determine the cause of Trayvon’s death on behalf of his clients, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, his efforts constitute protected attorney work product that is not subject to disclosure. Moreover, the defense team cannot show they were prejudiced by Judge Nelson’s order because they can interview Dee Dee and the witnesses who were present. Therefore, Judge Nelson’s decision is not a final judgment or order that functioned like a final judgment by depriving the defense of its only opportunity to discover potentially favorable information for the defense.

With regard to your specific question, the defense would have to file a motion requesting some form of financial assistance from the court to pay for something that the defense has a right to do, but cannot afford to do. The defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at public expense, if he cannot afford counsel. The right to effective assistance of counsel at public expense, includes paying reasonably necessary expenses for investigators and expert witnesses.

Mark O’Mara and Don West have agreed to work pro bono, so they will not be asking the court to compensate them for the time they spend working on the case. However, their agreement to work pro bono does not mean that they also have agreed to pay the costs that will be incurred to defend their client. Specifically, the court cannot require them to pay experts and investigators.

The internet donations were supposed to cover those costs. According to O’Mara, however, the defense is underwater by approximately $10,000. I doubt that includes the $28,000 claim for services rendered by the security company, unless O’Mara has paid down the balance. Therefore, the defense may be in more serious financial trouble.

Judge Nelson cannot do anything unless O’Mara files a motion. An appropriate motion would be to ask her to enter an order declaring the defendant indigent and entitled to the reasonably necessary assistance of investigators and experts at public expense. Such a motion would have to be supported by a detailed financial statement or tax return submitted under oath. Given the substantial sum of money donated to the defendant via the internet (possibly approaching $500,000) that somehow disappeared and the defendant’s “potted plant” behavior at his bail hearing last summer when his wife under oath denied knowing that he had any assets just a few days after she transferred over $100,000 from the internet account into her personal account via his personal account pursuant to his specific instructions, I think Judge Nelson would refuse to accept anything at face value. I think she would insist the prosecution review the documentation or she might appoint a special master to review it, if the defense were to object. I think the defendant and his lawyers could safely assume that any irregularities would result in additional criminal charges.

If Judge Nelson were to deny the motion to declare the defendant indigent, her denial could be challenged on appeal. The issue would be whether she abused her discretion in denying the motion. In turn that would depend on the sufficiency of the documentation supplied by the defense.

To properly preserve this issue for appeal, the defense would have to ask Judge Nelson to reconsider her denial of his motion to appoint an investigator or an expert at every available opportunity. A failure to provide a road map in the trial transcript of requests to reconsider supported by specific reasons why an investigator or expert was reasonably necessary at that particular time might be fatal. For example, the DCA might agree that Judge Nelson abused her discretion by denying the request for indigency, but find that the error was harmless absent sufficient documentation of the harm to the defense caused by the denial.

If Judge Nelson were to grant the motion, O’Mara would have to submit ex parte motions to appoint specifically named individuals to do specific things. She would probably appoint one investigator. The number of experts she would be willing to appoint would depend on the relevance of their area of expertise to the subject matter at issue in the case. The rate of compensation would be at the reduced rate that the court has established for appointed cases.

If the jury were to convict the defendant and O’Mara failed to hire an investigator or an expert to assist in preparing for trial and putting on a defense, his failure to do those things could be raised in a state habeas petition after the appeal is unsuccessful. Habeas petitions are based on evidence that is not in the record and typically are based on defense counsel’s failure to do something that he should have done. The failure asserted in this instance would be the failure to hire an investigator or expert. If that happened due to lack of money and O’Mara did not ask Judge Nelson to find the defendant indigent, the claim would be that he provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to make the request.

In order to prevail, habeas counsel would have to convince the court that O’Mara’s conduct was deficient according to prevailing standards of conduct and that, but for the deficiency, the result of the trial probably would have been different.

It takes time to assemble a team of experts and investigators and it takes additional time for them to complete their assignments. O’Mara should have assembled his team before Thanksgiving. The trial is scheduled to begin in less than 60 days and the defense fund is underwater $10,000.

Even if Judge Nelson were to enter orders tomorrow finding the defendant indigent and appointing an investigator and experts, all financial compensation would be limited to services provided in the future.

Given that dire financial situation, plus one unhappy creditor having already sued O’Mara alleging that he has refused to pay $28,000 for services provided, I doubt anyone will invest any time or effort to help O’Mara without a substantial retainer up front.

Such is the nature of the criminal defense business.

Just like his client, he is out of time.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

187 Comments | Benjamin Crump, George Zimmerman, Indigent Defendant, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Mark O'Mara, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, Stupid Mistakes, Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Settlement agreement is dreadful news for George Zimmerman

April 8, 2013

Monday, April 8, 2013

I asked a question yesterday and did not get an answer.

The question was, Did Mark O’Mara advise the HOA to settle the Fulton-Martin lawsuit?

Rene Stutzman at the Orlando Sentinel provided some additional information today.

That secret homeowners association settlement with Trayvon Martin’s family may not remain secret much longer.

Seminole County Clerk of Courts Maryanne Morse has written a letter to Trayvon’s family attorney, Benjamin Crump, telling him that she doesn’t think it meets the standard of a confidential filing so she intends to make it public in 10 days.

Even so, the total dollar figure paid out by the association will likely remain a secret. That’s because Crump edited it out before he put the 12-page document in the court file Thursday.

It’s believed to be more than $1 million.

Stutzman also revealed that Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton settled their claim against the HOA without filing a lawsuit. Therefore, the settlement agreement has not been reviewed by a judge.

We know that the Traveler’s Insurance Co., was not a party to the agreement because the HOA did not purchase the insurance until March 30, 2012, a little over a month after the defendant shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

Why did Benjamin Crump file the settlement agreement in the GZ criminal case?

Here’s Stutzman again,

Why Crump had it placed in the file in the first place remains a mystery. He did not return phone calls from the Orlando Sentinel. But his clients, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, were deposed last month by Zimmerman’s attorneys and were likely asked about the settlement.

In an interview last month, when asked if the settlement was a specific figure between $1 million and $2 million, Crump would not say.

“I have no comment on the subject,” he said. “I know you didn’t get that from me.”

There is an unconfirmed rumor that the New York Times reported in February that Mark O’Mara said Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton had rejected a $1 million settlement offer.

Stutzman said today about the settlement amount, “It’s believed to be more than $1 million.”

Sundance Cracker at the treehouse, which is Mark O’Mara’s internet site of choice, reported yesterday that the settlement is closer to $2 million.

Difficult to draw any conclusions without more information, but I sincerely doubt the claim was settled for nuisance value because, given the defendant’s waiver of an immunity hearing and a substantial likelihood that a jury will reject his claim of self-defense, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton would have no incentive to settle the case for peanuts. Better to wait and sue him and the HOA together after he is convicted when, basically, the sky would be the limit.

I figure they were in the driver’s seat and could afford to demand a substantial sum of money to cut HOA loose before trial.

This settlement agreement is dreadful news for the defendant.

BTW, Dee Dee definitely is not the prosecution’s star witness.

The prosecution’s star witness is the defendant and that is why a jury will convict him of murder in the second degree.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

102 Comments | Benjamin Crump, Civil Lawsuit Against HOA, fogen, George Zimmerman, HOA, Sundance Cracker, Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Trayvon Martin’s parents settle lawsuit against HOA for more than $1 million

April 5, 2013

Friday, April 5, 2013

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting today that Trayvon’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, have settled their wrongful death case against the Homeowner’s Association for more than $1 million.

The parties are settling the matter to avoid litigation without admitting responsibility and the terms of the settlement agreement are subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

Trayvon’s parents still intend to sue George Zimmerman separately.

The settlement agreement should not have any effect on the criminal case but it does indicate that the HOA has little confidence in the viability of the GZ’s claim of self-defense.

Of course, we already knew that from our review of the evidence and the defense team’s decision to abandon an immunity hearing.

Congratulations to Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin!

This will not bring back Trayvon, but it’s an important achievement and milestone in the long road seeking justice for Trayvon.

H/T to Benjamin Crump: Well done, sir.

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

668 Comments | Civil Lawsuit Against HOA, Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Dee Dee is an innocent witness to a murder and must be protected from breitbarting

March 31, 2013

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Peace, Joy and Freedom to all:

I begin with a confession. I have been awfully slow to identify the core issue presented by W8, who was assigned a fake name (Dee Dee) by the prosecution to protect her privacy. That alone should have been sufficient to trigger my curiosity. I could offer some excuses, but that would detract reader attention from where it should be.

Mark O’Mara is changing the practice of criminal defense from winning the case in the courtroom to winning the case before trial in the court of public opinion. He uses the internet and the media to dispense false information to the public about the case and to discredit and intimidate prosecution witnesses by character assassination.

For example, he has enlisted the support of two reporters at the Orlando Sentinel, Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, who report the information that he gives them on a daily basis as “news. He also has endorsed a website (i.e., the Conservative Tree House) as a legitimate source of ideas and assistance. He also uses motions for discovery and motions to reconsider or clarify prior court orders as a vehicle to repeat his false narrative.

Intentionally dispensing false information about the case to the media is a low-risk strategy with high-reward potential, since the the media is willing to report the defense statement without reviewing it for accuracy and the prosecution is prohibited from commenting about the case.

Although anyone who is familiar with the evidence released to the public via the State of Florida’s remarkable Sunshine Law knows that the media consistently reports a false and misleading narrative favorable to the defense, there is little that we can do as individuals to correct false information reported by the media.

Fortunately, we can do our part here in this blog and others like it to identify and correct false information. Unfortunately, however, the national media prefers to ignore us and instead provide Robert Zimmerman, Jr., with multiple opportunities to deny that anyone in the Zimmerman family is racist and to proclaim that his brother, George Zimmerman, is a decent American who acted in self-defense to prevent Trayvon Martin from killing him with his bare hands. Never mind that Trayvon was an unarmed 17-year-old kid walking home in the rain talking via cell phone to his girlfriend in Miami when he supposedly launched this attack. Move along. There is nothing to see here, folks.

That brings me to O’Mara’s second strategy, using character assassination to intimidate witnesses and destroy their credibility before trial.

Character assassination has been used for many years to discredit and defeat political opponents and win national elections. If you should visit the Conservative Treehouse, take a look at the banner on the home page. You will see a shrine to a person described as a great American patriot and within that shrine you will see a photo of the man to whom the site has accorded godlike status. The man depicted in that photo is Andrew Breitbart who so perfected the use of manufactured evidence to support false accusations against political opponents that his name has entered our lexicon as a new verb. To Breitbart someone means to destroy that person’s reputation with a campaign of malicious lies based on manufactured or doctored evidence.

My wife and I have been subjected to a vicious and continuing campaign of character assassination by lie for daring to operate a blog that promotes evidence-based discussions of the Trayvon Martin killing. We are not alone. Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson and many others, including Trayvon Martin, the innocent victim of the killing, have been subjected to a similar, if not worse campaign of lies.

That brings me to Dee Dee. As a victim who continues to endure breitbarting, I have some idea how she must feel knowing that two innocent girls in Miami, whose only crime was to have been named Dee Dee, were successively breitbarted by mistake. I imagine she also knows about the doxing and breitbarting of W9 (the defendant’s cousin) whose only crime was to have reported to police that George Zimmerman sexually molested her for 10 years beginning when she was 6-years-old and he was 8-years-old.

I know that if I were Dee Dee or Bernie de la Rionda I would not believe that Mark O’Mara would honor his duty as a lawyer and officer of the court to assure that no information that might assist in identifying Dee Dee is leaked from his office.

I am well equipped to survive breitbarting because I am self-employed with this blog and I have the strength, willpower and self-assurance of a warrior forged in the heat and pressure of high stake courtroom battles during a long career. I chose to create and operate this blog and I accept responsibility for what we do here.

Dee Dee is a child and she did not choose to be a witness to a murder. Yet, she is and I worry about her. The media and the general public appear not to realize that she too is a victim of the defendant’s violent act on February 26, 2012. I wonder if she is plagued with panic attacks and nightmares generated by a brain stuck on a spin cycle of fragmented memories, what-ifs, and if-onlys. No one, especially a child, should be subjected to such torture.

The realization that she also must know that she has been targeted for destruction by breitbarting frightens me and makes me wonder how any human being could be so full of hate that they would even consider hurting her, let alone setting out to destroy her with lies.

I can only regard Mark O’Mara with horror and disgust

The god of my understanding and belief is not going to be OK with this.

I think Bernie de la Rionda is doing his best to balance his duties as a prosecutor, including his duty to comply with the Brady rule, with his duty as an empathetic member of the human race to protect her from the coming onslaught.

I applaud his decision to withhold the information that O’Mara requested until the night before the hearing on the defense request for a subpoena duces tecum.

He did not violate the Brady rule because he disclosed the potential impeachment information a week before deposition, which is the first time that O’Mara could have used it for a legitimate purpose. O’Mara suffered no inconvenience and the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process of law and a fair trial have not been violated.

Mark O’Mara’s motions for sanctions, fees and costs are frivolous because they are not supported by law.

I will close with this warning. Breitbarting a witness in a murder case is witness intimidation under Florida law. Anyone convicted of that crime can be sentenced to life in prison.

I sincerely hope that anyone who participates in the coming effort to intimidate Dee Dee will be charged, convicted and sentenced to a very long and unpleasant time in prison.

302 Comments | Benjamin Crump, Bernie de la Rionda, Breitbarting, Court of Public Opinion, Crime, fogen, George Zimmerman, Hate, Have you no sense of decency, Mark O'Mara, Murder 2, Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

Bernie’s epic smackdown of Mark O’Mara

March 29, 2013

Friday, March 29, 2013

Good morning, everyone!

I bow down in absolute awe of Bernie de la Rionda’s epic Shakespear-style smackdown late yesterday of the defense team, their internet troll advisers, and the reporters at the Orlando Sentinel who labor so diligently to spread the defense message. I have never read anything like it and it’s so perfect that I think I would only diminish its impact were I to cut and paste bits and pieces of it into a new post.

It’s as close to perfection as I think is humanly possible and Bernie de la Rionda deserves all of the credit for producing this gem.

Make no mistake. Bernie de la Rionda’s masterpiece is so superior to any other formal written legal argument that I have read or heard about that I believe it will achieve immortality as an example of the elegant smackdown.

Read and savor it here.

In other news yesterday, on Monday Judge Nelson issued without a hearing a terse three sentence order denying the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and clarification of her previous order denying the defendant’s motion to depose Benjamin Crump. The defendant’s supporters are in an uproar because Judge Nelson did not conduct a hearing or provide an explanation or justification for the order.

I held my breath and performed a quick survey of comments posted at right-wing websites to get an idea of what they are saying. I saw comments asserting the existence of a conspiracy against the defendant and his lawyers to rig the outcome of the trial so that the innocent defendant is convicted. President Obama is supposedly telling Judge Nelson what to do and she is in cahoots with Bernie de la Rionda to achieve the desired outcome. The lack of a hearing and the absence of a written opinion supporting her order are cited as proof that this conspiracy exists.

They apparently do not realize that judges are not required to hold a hearing before deciding whether to grant a motion to reconsider a previous order. They also appear not to know that the standard practice nationwide in state and federal courts is for judges to summarily decide motions to reconsider by granting or denying them without further explanation.

Needless to say, evidence of judicial compliance with a standard practice is not evidence of a conspiracy to deny the defendant a fair trial.

Finally, did y’all notice BDLR’s comments about O’Mara’s behavior at the the first bail hearing. That was quite a dramatic and disquieting shot across O’Mara’s bow introducing the possibility that O’Mara might be prosecuted for his role in assisting his client to conceal assets and a second passport from Judge Lester at the hearing.

If I were O’Mara, I would take that threat seriously and consult with counsel before deciding whether to respond.

Of course, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew and acted with intent to deceive Judge Lester at the bail hearing about the second passport and the thousands of dollars that had been donated to his client via the Paypal account. I suspect BDLR decided not to pursue that matter last year because he realized that he would need solid and convincing evidence to independently confirm the defendant’s disclosures in the recorded jailhouse phone calls.

BDLR knows that the defendant is an habitual liar and no jury would convict O’Mara on his word alone. He is certainly smart enough to realize that his emotional response to O’Mara’s frivolous accusations is not a legitimate factor to consider in deciding whether to charge O’Mara with a crime. This leads me to ask what has changed since last summer that would independently confirm that O’Mara knew about the money and the second Passport at the time of the hearing?

Has Shellie Zimmerman flipped on George Zimmerman and provided the missing link?

Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Your donations are appreciated

506 Comments | Trayvon Martin, Bail Hearing, George Zimmerman, Plea Bargaining, Mark O'Mara, Bernie de la Rionda, fogen, Judge Deborah Nelson | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by masonblue

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 261 other followers

%d bloggers like this: