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 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?

DEFENSE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND CLARIFICATION OF COURT’S ORDER DENYING DEPOSITION OF BENJAMIN CRUMP, ESQ.