Prosecution's Motion to Seal Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Initially, O'Mara had no idea what that evidence was or would say. He had to preemptively at least ask (even knowing he would likely be turned down) to prevent its release if possible in the event is was damning for his client. I think that is every defense attorney's worst nightmare, having a client plead innocence, believing it, and then getting hit with an airtight case.

There is no legitimate public or judicial interest served however by the Prosecution withholding evidence. While I certainly understand the redaction of witness information in a case like this, the VSA results, the Full Toxicology Panel and everything else should be released. My concern is, they are trying to hold it back for fear of "social upheaval" which should never be a consideration in American Jurisprudence.

Sad to say that I take such a dim view on this, but the Crump + FL Prosecution strategy seems to be just to try and get past the SYG hearing. If the Judge kills it there, George is indemnified from Civil Claims as a result of his action. I think that is what this whole thing has been about since Day 1. Corey knows she cannot get a murder 2 conviction, but by overcharging, I think it was believed to quell any upheaval and help pass the SYG Hearing. Overcharging is prosecutorial misconduct.

Actually and factually, Prosecution is not "withholding" evidence. Prosecution is asking that certain evidence be sealed for fear of tainting the jury pool (even further, IMO). Withholding evidence would mean that the defence wasn't getting all the discovery. As far as we know that is not true.
 
Actually and factually, Prosecution is not "withholding" evidence. Prosecution is asking that certain evidence be sealed for fear of tainting the jury pool (even further, IMO). Withholding evidence would mean that the defence wasn't getting all the discovery. As far as we know that is not true.

You are correct, I erred in not adding from "Public Inspection." I will amend my post. In no way meant to assert that information was being withheld from the Defense. I simply do not know if it is or not.

ETA: My edit button is not working on day old posts, must be a time limit, or I am restricted some how.....in any case, please accept my post below as my mea culpa, you are indeed correct in my omission.
 
There is no legitimate public or judicial interest served however by the Prosecution withholding evidence from public inspection.

My "Edit" button has gone missing, but Elementary is correct, I erred and failed to include the bolded above in my post. I was not asserting that anything has been denied from the defense (I do not know), I was speaking strictly to the State of Florida's Public Disclosure Statutes.
 
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...23_1_statements-seal-scene-and-autopsy-photos



Is this just an attempt to manage damage control? I have a hard time understanding how a law allowing sealed confessions is applicable to evidence in a prosecution. This is America, we are not to have secret courts or tribunals, where Americans are convicted on "secret" evidence.

I do have a question, how is Bernie De la Rionda not in violation of the court's order? I thought that they had 15 Days to make the evidence public, and that last Thursday was the last day. That said, for them to withhold any documents without an order from the Court would seem to be a problem. Am I missing something here? I understand that the test they are referring to, was a VSA (Voice Stress Analysis), which the SPD asked him to voluntarily undergo, and he voluntarily consented. His father asserts that he passed.

While not always admissible, are there misconduct issues with the Prosecution asking him to take a test, which could to some degree could be exculpatory, or create reasonable doubt if passed, and then refusing to release it? It would seem if that is the case, George should have declined as there was no benefit to him. If he passes, no one hears about it, if he fails, they crucify him with it......just wrong.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...fense-team-assistant-public-defender-attorney



http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/20...ge-zimmerman-voice-stress-test.html?=features

(Sorry, I don't know how to include quotes from OP.)

It seems to me that the prosecution is doing everything by the book and doing what is allowed according to Florida law.

As to the arguments above:

1. VSA (Voice Stress Analysis), as far as I know, is inadmissible in Florida, so to me it is a moot point that "exculpatory evidence" as the OP asserts "may have been withheld". Besides, the defence already has it.


2.
'According to a recent study funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), two of the most popular VSA programs in use by police departments across the country are no better than flipping a coin when it comes to detecting deception regarding recent drug use.' (One can extrapolate from this, IMO).
http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm

3. The last link is a blog and therefore a secondary source expressing an opinion that has been quoted in the OP.

What isn't followed up from the title of the post is that prosecution put in a motion to seal GZ's confessions, the cell phone records of GZ, Trayvon and GF, and unidentified 'tests' which would not be admissible anyway.

What I find interesting is that, almost immediately subsequent to the motion's filing, the new guy on the expanding defence team, Uhrig, spills the beans that it was a VSA test and that GZ passed. So who is playing dirty here- as soon as defence got the motion, first thing they do is go to the media to identify the test and its results, hereby preempting the desired gag and prejudicing the jury pool (it works both ways, IMO). De la Rionda was not out of line, but IMO, Uhrig was.

I think de la Rionda was fairer to the defence than the defence was to the prosecution:

In his motion, de la Rionda says that the case "continues to be of great interest to the media," and both the state and the defense "wish to be able to receive a fair trial and try this case in the courtroom and not in the media."
Sounds to me like they're leading the prosecution down the garden path. It may not be legal 'misconduct' on the defence's part, but it sure is sneaky and hypocritical, IMO.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...23_1_statements-seal-scene-and-autopsy-photos

And last but not least, it was not the prosecution that asked him to take the test but SPD.
 
(Sorry, I don't know how to include quotes from OP.)

It seems to me that the prosecution is doing everything by the book and doing what is allowed according to Florida law.

As to the arguments above:

1. VSA (Voice Stress Analysis), as far as I know, is inadmissible in Florida, so to me it is a moot point that "exculpatory evidence" as the OP asserts "may have been withheld". Besides, the defence already has it.


2. http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm

3. The last link is a blog and therefore a secondary source expressing an opinion that has been quoted in the OP.

What isn't followed up from the title of the post is that prosecution put in a motion to seal GZ's confessions, the cell phone records of GZ, Trayvon and GF, and unidentified 'tests' which would not be admissible anyway.

What I find interesting is that, almost immediately subsequent to the motion, the new guy on the expanding defence team, Uhrig, spills the beans that it was a VSA analysis test and that GZ passed. So who is playing dirty here- as soon as defence got the motion, first thing they do is go to the media to identify the test and its results, hereby preempting the desired gag and prejudicing the jury pool (it works both ways, IMO). De la Rionda was not out of line, but IMO, Uhrig was.

I think de la Rionda was fairer to the defence than the defence was to the prosecution:

Sounds to me like they're leading the prosecution down the garden path. It may not be legal 'misconduct' on the defence's part, but it sure is sneaky and hypocritical, IMO.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...23_1_statements-seal-scene-and-autopsy-photos

And last but not least, it was not the prosecution that asked him to take the test but SPD.

Yeah, the prosecution doesn't want this tried in the media...now that the evidence is making them look BAD. They had no problem with the media trying it, even allowing the NBP to issue a BOUNTY on GZ.
 
All of this was talked about in the Bond Hearing (by both sides), I don't see what the big deal is. We don't need to know any of this stuff. In fact, I am starting to feel that all this Sunshine is impeding and harmful to a fair trial of any kind for anyone.
 
(Sorry, I don't know how to include quotes from OP.)

It seems to me that the prosecution is doing everything by the book and doing what is allowed according to Florida law.

As to the arguments above:

1. VSA (Voice Stress Analysis), as far as I know, is inadmissible in Florida, so to me it is a moot point that "exculpatory evidence" as the OP asserts "may have been withheld". Besides, the defence already has it.


2. http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/voice-stress-analysis.htm

3. The last link is a blog and therefore a secondary source expressing an opinion that has been quoted in the OP.

What isn't followed up from the title of the post is that prosecution put in a motion to seal GZ's confessions, the cell phone records of GZ, Trayvon and GF, and unidentified 'tests' which would not be admissible anyway.

What I find interesting is that, almost immediately subsequent to the motion, the new guy on the expanding defence team, Uhrig, spills the beans that it was a VSA analysis test and that GZ passed. So who is playing dirty here- as soon as defence got the motion, first thing they do is go to the media to identify the test and its results, hereby preempting the desired gag and prejudicing the jury pool (it works both ways, IMO). De la Rionda was not out of line, but IMO, Uhrig was.

I think de la Rionda was fairer to the defence than the defence was to the prosecution:

Sounds to me like they're leading the prosecution down the garden path. It may not be legal 'misconduct' on the defence's part, but it sure is sneaky and hypocritical, IMO.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...23_1_statements-seal-scene-and-autopsy-photos

And last but not least, it was not the prosecution that asked him to take the test but SPD.

The Prosecution represents the state of Florida and the SPD represents the state of Florida. Ergo, they both represent the same entity, so they are not really separable as they both provide a function of the same judicial process, one investigates, and the other takes that investigation, and represents it in a court of law on behalf of the State.

So, a few things, about the VSA, as I understand Florida Law, they would be able to ask for a Frye Hearing on Admissibility, but not entirely positive. You make it sound as if VSA's are useless.....if that were the case, I assure you, departments and agency's would not spend $10K a pop to have them. There are some methods which are more accurate than others. Are they so good we can get rid of a jury and just use a VSA? No, but there is a reason they are widely used, and if the hundreds of agencies that use them thought they were worthless, they would save their money. They are an important investigatory tool. A bit like a home pregnancy test of sorts. No licensed physician would make a diagnosis of pregnancy based on one, but they are indeed indicative.

My understanding of the article is 2 fold-1. George took the test voluntarily at the request of the SPD and 2. According to Uhrig and George's father, his statements were deemed by the VSA to be truthful.

Is this a "leak" if George's father was the one that put this in the public domain? I think George's father has every right to disclose, and no ethical obligation to withhold information he feels is exculpatory in nature.

Now about the prosecution refusing to release it, I think is it because it supports the Defense, and they are trying to get the "upper hand" in trying this case in the Media.

Lastly, you state George's "confessions." We need to be careful with this, because it is the use of the word confession itself which is at issue here. George made statements as to the events of the evening. Setting aside whether those were true, false, contradictory, or otherwise, as to his version of what transpired. What he did not do is "confess" to any crime. Had he done so, maintaining his innocence and pleading not guilty make no sense (as he best bet would be to plea bargain and take a guilty pleas if he had).

Florida law have very strict stipulations to the limited exemptions it allows to its Public Disclosure Law, basically, the only one being a defendants confession as it would certainly prejudice a jury obviously. What De La Rionda is doing, is trying to change the definition of the word confession. Confessions are voluntary and knowing statements from the accused admitting personal responsibility for a crime, free from influence or duress. What De La Rionda is trying to do is basically get the Judge to change the definition of the statute and instead, interpret the definition of a "confession" to something which is not knowing or voluntary. He is basically trying to turn the word "confession" into "evidence which we do not want made public." He is trying to circumvent the very intent of the law. By definition, some of the very things he is withholding are not confessions, just the same as a Prosecutor is ethically required to include any exculpatory evidence that they may have in a Probable Cause Affidavit as well, and none of it, medical records, witness statements, et al. were included. This is a trainwreck you can see from a mile away, which usually happens with political prosecutions.
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...n-martin-shooting/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea

Some of the case's most important evidence has yet to be made public, including Zimmerman's three interviews with police, and his cell phone records. CBS News learned that includes texts Zimmerman sent after the shooting. Some of them disparage leaders of "Justice for Trayvon" rallies with language described as offensive.

Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's lawyer, has yet to get copies of all those texts.

"So you still will be looking for them?" Strassman asked O'Mara.

"Absolutely."

"And if that is there?"

"We'll deal with it," said O'Mara. "I don't know the context of it. I don't know what is was in response to. I am sure that as every other part of this case, there will be explanations on both sides. Let's wait and see what we have."

O'Mara expects to get the rest of the prosecution's case in pieces over the next few weeks. Some of the evidence now under seal may be made public only in court.

BBM
 
From ariesgodofwar:

Lastly, you state George's "confessions." We need to be careful with this, because it is the use of the word confession itself which is at issue here.

Remember that it was GZ's own lawyer that called his statements 'confessions' in this interview:

The most crucial evidence not being released, though, are statements his client George Zimmerman made to police.

They are exempt from disclosure at this point because they are considered confessions.

"There's a chance I may have a right to suppress some of those," O'Mara said.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Ge...ome/-/1637132/13486818/-/x1vridz/-/index.html
 
From ariesgodofwar:



Remember that it was GZ's own lawyer that called his statements 'confessions' in this interview:



http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Ge...ome/-/1637132/13486818/-/x1vridz/-/index.html

I think a misunderstanding might be happening with that. Legally they -are- confessions. Outside of the courtroom if you tell someone "they have confessions" it's usually viewed as a negative statement toward the defendant. I think that's what aries is trying to say. Just my thought, of course.
 
Whatever prosecutions motives for wanting this evidence sealed, I really don't buy that its because prosecution wants Zimmerman's rights protected. And as far as I can tell, prosecution wants Trayvon's cell phone records sealed too? Why? That certainly has nothing to do with Zimmerman's "confessions."
 
pretty certain GZ's counsel is not objecting to same, and may have also filed a memo in support of same. In this particular case, I believe its a good idea to seal the evidence, at least at this point in the case.
 
Whatever prosecutions motives for wanting this evidence sealed, I really don't buy that its because prosecution wants Zimmerman's rights protected. And as far as I can tell, prosecution wants Trayvon's cell phone records sealed too? Why? That certainly has nothing to do with Zimmerman's "confessions."

Then why do you think MOM agrees to have this evidence sealed and filed his own motion yesterday? See link in #26.
 
Then why do you think MOM agrees to have this evidence sealed and filed his own motion yesterday? See link in #26.

My guess is those records have nothing to do with the case but they checked them out anyway and were part of the investigation. Nothing in them other than the names and numbers of other minors. That would be why MOM would agree. They are of no value to the case. jmo
 
Then why do you think MOM agrees to have this evidence sealed and filed his own motion yesterday? See link in #26.

Just a guess, but because O'Mara doesn't care about sealing the State's evidence since he will see it anyway, and he's more likely to get his own motion about completley different evidence granted if he consents to the State's.
 
The Prosecution represents the state of Florida and the SPD represents the state of Florida. Ergo, they both represent the same entity, so they are not really separable as they both provide a function of the same judicial process, one investigates, and the other takes that investigation, and represents it in a court of law on behalf of the State.

So, a few things, about the VSA, as I understand Florida Law, they would be able to ask for a Frye Hearing on Admissibility, but not entirely positive. You make it sound as if VSA's are useless.....if that were the case, I assure you, departments and agency's would not spend $10K a pop to have them. There are some methods which are more accurate than others. Are they so good we can get rid of a jury and just use a VSA? No, but there is a reason they are widely used, and if the hundreds of agencies that use them thought they were worthless, they would save their money. They are an important investigatory tool. A bit like a home pregnancy test of sorts. No licensed physician would make a diagnosis of pregnancy based on one, but they are indeed indicative.

My understanding of the article is 2 fold-1. George took the test voluntarily at the request of the SPD and 2. According to Uhrig and George's father, his statements were deemed by the VSA to be truthful.

Is this a "leak" if George's father was the one that put this in the public domain? I think George's father has every right to disclose, and no ethical obligation to withhold information he feels is exculpatory in nature.

Now about the prosecution refusing to release it, I think is it because it supports the Defense, and they are trying to get the "upper hand" in trying this case in the Media.

Lastly, you state George's "confessions." We need to be careful with this, because it is the use of the word confession itself which is at issue here. George made statements as to the events of the evening. Setting aside whether those were true, false, contradictory, or otherwise, as to his version of what transpired. What he did not do is "confess" to any crime. Had he done so, maintaining his innocence and pleading not guilty make no sense (as he best bet would be to plea bargain and take a guilty pleas if he had).

Florida law have very strict stipulations to the limited exemptions it allows to its Public Disclosure Law, basically, the only one being a defendants confession as it would certainly prejudice a jury obviously. What De La Rionda is doing, is trying to change the definition of the word confession. Confessions are voluntary and knowing statements from the accused admitting personal responsibility for a crime, free from influence or duress. What De La Rionda is trying to do is basically get the Judge to change the definition of the statute and instead, interpret the definition of a "confession" to something which is not knowing or voluntary. He is basically trying to turn the word "confession" into "evidence which we do not want made public." He is trying to circumvent the very intent of the law. By definition, some of the very things he is withholding are not confessions, just the same as a Prosecutor is ethically required to include any exculpatory evidence that they may have in a Probable Cause Affidavit as well, and none of it, medical records, witness statements, et al. were included. This is a trainwreck you can see from a mile away, which usually happens with political prosecutions.

If he were on medications wouldn't that rule out the possibility of using the results of any testing good or bad. One of the questions before a deposition is are you on any type of drugs that would influence your statement. jmo
 
If he were on medications wouldn't that rule out the possibility of using the results of any testing good or bad. One of the questions before a deposition is are you on any type of drugs that would influence your statement. jmo

For a VSA? No. It does not measure galvanic skin like a polygraph does. VSA measures voice patterns and runs them through a computer to detect stress indicators. To say, "if he were on any medications"......is a bit over broad. While specific medications might allow one to mislead or trick the test, I am not aware of what they are.

The crux of the above is whether the drugs would "influence your statement." Why would you assume George was on such drugs? If he was on Terazapam, he would be sleeping, and Adderall would not influence his statement.
 
My guess is those records have nothing to do with the case but they checked them out anyway and were part of the investigation. Nothing in them other than the names and numbers of other minors. That would be why MOM would agree. They are of no value to the case. jmo

They removed the names of the witnesses so why couldn't the same thing be done with the cell phone records? I am interested in those due to girlfriend's claim she called Trayvon after head set fell off. I believe she also mentioned something about texting. Would be interesting to see if there were texts and if they fit with the story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
61
Guests online
1,890
Total visitors
1,951

Forum statistics

Threads
590,088
Messages
17,930,026
Members
228,062
Latest member
Countrygirlwv
Back
Top