In the first part, I started to analyse the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Defense. We left off, before we discussed the relevancy of the testimony. This is part two of the second tier of the 3 tier test that the defense needed to meet, in order to depose an opposing counsel.
The question becomes does Mr. Crump have any information that is relevant to the charges faced by George Zimmerman. Judge Nelson has dismissed this component by claiming that the Defense had failed to prove that Mr. Crump had any relevant information on the case, furthermore, the Judge refused an offer from the Defense to provide exhibits, that they hope will help to prove their case. The Judge ruled it needed no exhibits or further information on the matter, but denied the motion later.
The defense makes their case in the following manner:
- They point out the relationship between Mr. Crump and Witness 8, her provenance, that he is the first known to the Defense to whom she lied regarding going to the hospital. The circumstances behind the recording, who was present, the many assertions about Witness 8, whether her recollections are her own or are they being influence by others. Finally, they point out that the mere fact that he is providing an affidavit that is inaccurate and insufficient on own, warrant further examination.
- The gaps in his recordings that were not filled with silence as he attested to in his affidavit but, filled with substantive discussion between him and Witness 8.
- They feel that Mr. Crump knows how Witness 8 came to be known by the Prosecution, who have refused to impart this information to the Defense.
- The affidavit did not explain whether Witness 8 was ever identified when the recording was handed to the FBI
- Why Mr. Crump failed to inform the SPD or the FDLE of the existence of Witness 8, even after repeated request by the FDLE
- The condition of the recording is very bad, making understanding it difficult and impossible to determine if she was influenced by outside forces.
- The many public statements and declarations of impropriety that Mr. Crump made, such claims of impropriety are relevant to the Defense.
The last tier,
“the information is critical to the preparation of the case”
to tackle this the Defense uses a narrative rather than a point by point break down. In this narrative they assert the how crucial to the State’s case the testimony of Witness 8 is, his interactions prior, during and after with this witness are crucial to the preparation of the Defense. His assertions of lies by the Police are crucial since they are people who may be called to the stand, any lies or conspiracy by them can adversely affect Zimmerman, and the Defense is entitle to learn of it.
The motion concludes stating that it has met the test, that Mr. Crump waived any attorney work product privilege when he publicly discussed them to the nation.
The motion does well to point to the new evidence, showcasing Mr. Crump bumbling and involvement in the case. Mainly, his handling of Witness 8, the fact that no reason is given for lack of cooperation, earlier after discovering her lies about hospitalization. His failure to secure an accurate, intelligible copy of the first interview of this crucial witness, his lack of vetting the accuracy of the witness. The involvement of the media, before the law enforcement and hiding of the witness are suspicious on and by its own.
The motion appears strong, on its merits, though I feel that the last tier was weak. In this area the Motion lack the punch that it had in the other areas. Vague assertions about public statement made by Mr. Crump, that ultimately could be construed as just his uninformed opinion, fall short. The issues with Witness 8 were clearly documented, the other areas were not. I feel that Judge Nelson may grant a limited deposition in regards to Witness 8, and prohibit examination of the areas.
Stately McDaniel Manor blog, which has been following the case has added an update, here is a small snippet:
Translation Into Colloquial English: “If I heard anything Dee Dee said during the multiple times when the tape was turned off, I don’t remember a single word. I don’t remember I word I said. I don’t remember a word she said, or anyone said. I’m just like Sgt. Schultz: I know nothiiiiing, nothing!
Crump detailing his attention span during the interview, from his affidavit.
It well worth the read, it also goes into details on the Motion filed by the Defense, read it here,