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

STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS

BENJAMIN CRUMP, ESQ’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED MARCH 15, 2013

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

DEFENSE’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE OF FLORIDA

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