STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS
Bernie De La Rionda’s response to the Defense’s Motion for sanctions against the State Attorneys Office for alleged discovery violations
Click here for Benjamin Crump’s response to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration: BENJAMIN CRUMP, ESQ’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED MARCH 15, 2013
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) established the Brady disclosures that prosecutors must make to defense counsel in a criminal prosecution. Disclosures consists of potentially exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Did the State fail to disclose material evidence or exculpatory evidence, or is this just another attempt at diverting attention away from the defendant out of desperation?
Click here to read the Defense’s Motion: DEFENSE’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE OF FLORIDA
A Florida Case-Law Anaylsis to the “Stand Your Ground Law” and How it May Apply to the Zimmerman Prosecution in June:
DEFENSE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION OF COURT’S ORDER DENYING DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN CRUMP, ESQ.
In a Motion dated March 15, 2013, the Defense again moved to Court to depose Attorney Benjamin Crump. The Court has previously ruled that the Defendant is not entitled to depose Attorney Crump, and should instead pursue deposing the actual fact witness (Witness 8). Thoughts?
Excerpts From NBC Universal’s February 20, 2013 Motion to Stay Proceedings Filed in Response to Zimmerman Civil Suit:
Judge Nelson’s Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Depose Attorney Benjamin Crump:
The Motion filed by Attorney Bruce Blackwell, Esq.