We are delaying demanding the discovery until we can file motions to protect these witnesses. Once that is in place, discovery will flow to us, then the media and the public has access to it, under our rules.
Ms. Corey in not violating any rule or statute, as it is our decision, not hers, to wait until proper motions regarding the witnesses have been drafted and filed.
O'Mara also points out discovery is a right of the defendant.
While the rules do state that discovery is due 15 days from demand, that is a right which George Zimmerman enjoys, and it is up to his defense team to decide how to handle these matters.
Florida's discovery rules are here. Rule 3.220 states:
(a) Notice of Discovery. After the filing of the charging document, a defendant may elect to participate in the discovery process provided by these rules, including the taking of discovery depositions, by filing with the court and serving on the prosecuting attorney a Notice of Discovery which shall bind both the prosecution and defendant to all discovery procedures contained in these rules.
Section (d) provides that when the defense files a discovery request, it triggers an obligation for the defense to provide the prosecution with reciprocal discovery within 15 days of receiving the states's discovery. It also provides:
(2) The prosecutor and the defendant shall perform their obligations under this rule in a manner mutually agreeable or as ordered by the court.
O'Mara filed his request for discovery on April 12, in the same pleading in which he entered a plea a not guilty and asked that Zimmerman be excused from attending the May 8 hearing.
The public records law provides that documents turned over to the defense must be accessible to the media. But if the prosecutor hasn't turned the records over, because the defense authorized an extension, it doesn't seem like the media has a right to demand the records sooner. Its right seems subject to the defense request of the discovery.
So, can the parties -- the state and defendant -- extend the 15 day deadline without seeking a court order? Or do they have to apply to the court for an extension?
This will all be moot shortly, as O'Mara is preparing motions to restrict details such as the names and addresses of witnesses.
I don't like Florida's law, so I don't agree with the media's stance, whether they are right or wrong. But I also don't know why O'Mara is speaking for the witnesses. His only client is Zimmerman. He writes:
We are concerned about the release of witness information to the general public, solely due to safety concerns....While the media and the public have an absolute right to know about this case, that right has to be balanced with the rights of these witnesses. They are doing their civic duty in testifying in this case. We doubt any of them enjoy the scrutiny they are under due to the coincidence of their involvement in such a high profile matter.
It's Angela Corey who represents the people of the state of Florida -- all of them, not just victims. If anyone is going to represent the privacy rights of witnesses, why isn't she stepping forward?
Florida's public records law is here. The pertinent sections appear to be here. I will leave the analysis to others, hopefully some defense attorneys who have had experience with it will publicly discuss it.
I haven't read through it all, and don't intend to, but I did notice this provision:
(e) Any information revealing the substance of a confession of a person arrested is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution, until such time as the criminal case is finally determined by adjudication, dismissal, or other final disposition.
Does that mean Zimmerman's post arrest statements are exempt, since he admitted shooting Trayvon? Since the state will rely on claimed inconsistencies in his statements in its attempt to prove he committed murder, doesn't that make them the equivalent of a confession, in its view?
The police reports and witness statements and testing results are "criminal investigative information." The statute says:
Criminal intelligence and criminal investigative information shall be considered "active" while such information is directly related to pending prosecutions or appeals. The word "active" shall not apply to information in cases which are barred from prosecution under the provisions of s. 775.15 or other statute of limitation.
Here's Florida's 352 page Sunshine Manual explaining the law. It has a section on Discovery at page 81.
The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that there is no First Amendment right of access to unfiled discovery materials....Even though unfiled discovery material is not accessible under the First Amendment, it may be open to inspection under Ch. 119, F.S., if the document is a public record which is otherwise subject to disclosure under that law.
It cites a case holding the "public’s statutory right of access to pretrial discovery information in a criminal case must be balanced against a nonparty’s constitutional right to privacy."
Added: You can follow events from the Zimmerman perspective not only at the website established for that purpose, but on Twitter and Facebook.
You can use this thread to discuss all things Zimmerman-related.