Zimmerman's lawyer calls prosecutors 'disgrace' to profession

[The Straight Story]

George Zimmerman's chief defense lawyer on Monday called Florida prosecutors "a disgrace to my profession" for holding back evidence for months and pledged a new effort to impose sanctions against them.

Mark O'Mara and co-counsel Don West argued the self-defense case that helped Zimmerman win an acquittal of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges on Saturday for the 2012 shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.

The law requires prosecutors to share evidence with defense attorneys, especially if it helps exonerate defendants. The requirement is known as the Brady disclosure.

O'Mara accused prosecutors of several Brady violations, which were heard by Judge Debra Nelson before the trial. Nelson postponed some of her decisions on sanctions until after trial, saying the process was time-consuming.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-florida-shooting-omara-idUSBRE96F04R20130716

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Pot, meet kettle.

[madrchsod]

2. " ....try digging a little deeper in the well,well ,well...."

[otohara]

3. Florida Is A Disgrace

They all suck - this team and now a juror are all in it for the money and fame now.
Their horns are showing.

[rug]

4. Withholding potentially exculpatory evidence is one of the sleaziest things a prosecutor can do.

And one of the most common.

[stranger81]

24. Totally agree with you in general, but it doesn't sound like the state really did that here.

IIRC, what O'Mara is complaining about is the state's failure to turn over complete summary reports of files stored on Trayvon's cellphone -- but both sides, including the defense, had access to the files on the phone themselves (or perhaps even the physical device -- not sure how that got handled). In other words, defense had access to all the relevant underlying data the summary reports they're complaining about related to. Doesn't sound like they were actually deprived of any information.

The defense's repeated violations of the court's sequestration order, with a variety of witnesses, on the other hand . . . .

[rug]

26. That sounds about right.

The other thing they do is turn over hundreds of pages of discovery, completely uncategorized, and buried somewhere in there is important information.

[stranger81]

27. Yeah, stupid DA tricks. I'm an attorney and do pro bono post-conviction habeas work

for California death row prisoners, and the DA's office pulls this kind of crap with us all the time. I think the most shocking thing I've seen them do to deny us discovery is to illegally shred one of my client's entire case file -- while the case was still active and on appeal. Followed by a litany of shifting explanations as to how that happened, none of them true.

In this case, though, I think it's O'Mara who's pulling the funny business.

[rug]

28. You have my best wishes in your work.

I haven't followed the case closely enough to see if O'Mara's blowing smoke or not.

[Pterodactyl]

5. Well, they certainly are not very good lawyers.

They couldn't lawy their way out of a paper bag.

[anomiep]

6. Take what they are alleged to have done out of the context of the Zimmerman case

As I understand it, the claim is that they withheld evidence, and the reason it was discovered is that the IT guy who had pulled the data from the phone gave the report to one of the prosecutors, and somehow got the impression they were not going to give it to the defense. So he asked an attorney friend of his, who went to the judge, who pulled him in and had him testify about it.

That IT director has now been fired.

If that actually happened, and it was not done in the Zimmerman case, but, instead, in the case of a different, more sympathetic defendant - what would you think?

If (and only if) the allegations are true, it would appear that after committing a discovery violation, they fired the guy who blew the whistle on the violation.

I think that for the sake of potentially innocent future defendants, they should get whatever sanctions/etc the judge decides, if the judge decides they actually violated discovery rules, according to due process of law.

If they tried to take an inch in a trial they knew was going to be as publicized as this one was - how much can you trust them to not take in the case of an innocent person in a trial that nobody knows about?

[Spazito]

9. The defense WERE given the evidence, it was in a BIN file, they received it in February...

they are whining because they didn't acquire the software to open it until later and that is somehow the State's fault. They wanted the evidence they are whining about, Trayvon Martin's cell phone and it's contents, laid out in a nice, neat pile for them instead of doing their own homework on the evidence they HAD received.

[anomiep]

13. Yes, they were

The prosecution had about $8,000 worth of equipment that they used to run a report.

They ran that report and then didn't give it to the defense. The evidence withheld is not the bin file - it is the report.

If this had been a Trayvon Martin aggravated assault case, instead of a George Zimmerman murder trial, and the prosecution had done that, with the data on George Zimmerman's phone, instead of Trayvon's - would you think the prosecution was withholding evidence, or not?

[Spazito]

16. There was no withholding of evidence...

so your question is moot as to reversing the roles. The Judge, at the hearing on this, stated they received the evidence, in fact this was raised more than once and the defense had to admit they had received it by 'it took way longer than it should have' became their complaint.

The defense, on the other hand, found photos/texts from the phone the State had not found, they didn't share with the State and, laughingly, they used the same rationale the State used re the defense's complaint of not getting the evidence in 'readable form', that rationale being that the State had it, they just didn't do their homework. The defense was right on this as the State was right on the initial complaint, both sides are expected to due their due diligence with the evidence they receive.

If either party in a case, any case, withholds evidence, they should be sanctioned.

Judge Stevens has yet to rule on this, now the trial she may do so soon.

[anomiep]

17. Ok, let me be more specific.

Did the judge rule they committed a Brady violation?

If the judge hasn't yet ruled on that, then it depends on the outcome of that. I apologize for stating 'withholding of evidence' rather than being specific about 'Brady violation', but I think you're splitting hairs a little.

If the judge has ruled there was no Brady violation, then there was no Brady violation, and it would of course not matter if it is flipped around.

My point is, if there was, we shouldn't give the prosecution a pass if they did commit a Brady violation - because if the prosecution did in fact commit a Brady violation, and they did it in a case as publicized as this one, what are they getting away with in cases that are not?

[Spazito]

18. No, the Judge has not ruled as yet, she deferred her ruling until after the trial was completed...

in the end, the Judge, not us, will decide whether the State committed a Brady violation. During the hearing on this, her tone and questions to the defense could lead one to think she is leaning toward ruling against the defense but we know full well the tone and tenor of a Judge's questions don't necessarily indicate a leaning in reality.

We will know when the Judge rules.

[anomiep]

21. On second thought

Thanks for calling me on the 'withholding of evidence' bit. I was kind of loose by calling it 'withholding of evidence' even though I think it is also kind of splitting hairs overall, given that the defense may have never had the report if the IT guy hadn't said something to someone (although, on the other hand, maybe they would have had it anyway, just a little bit later).

I certainly should be as specific and accurate as I can be if at all possible.

[Spazito]

22. No problem, I think fleshing it out is helpful ...

in getting a fuller understanding as to what is really the issue. I know it is helpful to me, it helps me to focus on clarifying, whittling down what I am actually trying to say. I have enjoyed the back and forth and have appreciated the civil manner with which you responded.

[naaman fletcher]

15. Perhaps it doesn't violate the letter of the law

but it does violate the spirit of the law. The prosecution went out of their way to make it difficult for the defense.

Every day in this country innocent young black men are charged with crimes and given over-worked public defenders who don't have time or money to defend their clients properly.

If the prosecutors purposefully made it expensive and difficult in those cases, would you feel the same way?

[Spazito]

19. I disagree with you that the prosecution "went out of their way to make...

it difficult for the defense", they did what they are charged to do, they are not expected to make little gift packages for the defense, pointing out to them where to find evidence most favorable to their client. The defense seemed to think they should have done that.

[naaman fletcher]

20. I'm not sure of the standard

So I can't comment, but I sure hope they don't do this to the average person they prosecute.

[Punkingal]

7. Well O'Mara is a disgrace to the human race...

For portraying a dead teenager as responsible for his own death.

[moondust]

8. +1

POS

Incidentally, O'Mara contributed nothing to the verdict that a monkey couldn't have. The prosecution's case was unwinnable.

[Lugnut]

10. Oh sure.

This from the team that used a knock-knock joke to open their case.

[apples and oranges]

11. Or maybe both teams were in cahoots and the over the top statements

and gestures are lame attempts to hide it? The prosecution barely tried, so if anything, the defense should be thanking them. Refusing to shake hands now this? Who are they kidding?

[Gothmog]

12. Projection explains a great deal

The defense team are both racists who should not be in the profession

[The Great Dadda]

14. Zimmerman is a disgrace to the world

That's more like it.

[stranger81]

23. This guy is a hoot given his witness tampering shenanigans.

Dude is a dirtbag.

[Blue_Tires]

25. This will be the only time I'll ever agree with him

Because you've GOT to be a disgraceful, bumbling assclown fuckwit to lose that case...

[davidpdx]

29. Background on Brady Violations

I actually wasn't aware of what it was until I looked it up:

Brady disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland,[1] in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process. Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant's sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure