IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH … Zimmerman 13-1233/13-1233...IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN

Appellate Case No. 5D13-1233

Petitioner,

v. L.T. Case No. 2012-CF-001083-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

PROPOSED RESPONDENT BENJAMIN L. CRUMP, ESQ.’S

INDEX TO SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

Page

1. Petitioner’s Plea and Demand for Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. May 13, 2012 State’s Initial Discovery Exhibit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. June 14, 2012 Petitioner’s Initial Witness List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. October 23, 2012 Petitioner’s Supplemental Witness List . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5. November 30, 2012 Petitioner’s (Second) Motion to Compel . . . . . . . . . . 14

6. December 11, 2012 State’s Response to (Second) Motion to Compel . . . . 24

7. December 11, 2012 Petitioner’s Reply – (Second) Motion to Compel . . . . 31

8. December 11, 2012 Trial Court’s Minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

9. December 13, 2012 State’s 11th Supplemental Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

10. Emails between counsel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

11. January 30, 2013 Petitioner’s Motion to Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

E-Copy Received Apr 29, 2013 11:53 PM

-ii-

12. February 5, 2013 Trial Court’s Minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

13. March 21, 2013 Petitioner’s (Second) Supplemental Witness List . . . . . . . 69

14. April 17, 2013 Petitioner’s Amended Witness List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

IMAGING

i

http://147. 1.1.237: I 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=...

t:..

..:--

r') 'i

-

-i'

P CC-o-

1.52m- t.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE-O

EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN ANDFOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, PLO RIDA -

SIATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant.

CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFA

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE. WAiVER OF ARRAIGNMENT.WRITTEN PLEA OF NOT GULLTY. DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY.

STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS AND REOUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney hereby files this his Notice of

Appearance as Counsel of Record for the Defendant named in the above-styled cause or causes of

action, and he respectflully requests that the Court and alt parties hereto take notice of same.

The Defendant, by and through his undersigned attorney, pursuant to Rule 3.170(a) Florida

Rules of Criminal Procedure, waives personal appearance before this Court for arraignment, subject

Io this Court authorizing Counsel for the Defendant to file timely motions otherwise due at the time

of arraignment within ten (10) days after receipt of a copy of the information filed in this cause.

The Defendant, by and through his undersigned attorney, enters a written plea of NOT

GUILTY to the charges now pending against him in the above-styled cause or causes.

Pursuant to Rule 3.220 of the Florida Rutes of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant hereby

reLspcctfully demands that, within fifteen (IS) days of the date hereof, the State Attorney disclose to

2 of2 4/24/2012 8:18 AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000001

IMAGING http://147. 1.1.237: 10050/imaginglpublic/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

and permit the undersigned attorney to inspect and/or copy any and all relevant information and

materials,

Pursuant to Rule 3.140(n) Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Defendant hereby

respectfully demands that the State Attorney Office to furnish a statement of particulars which

should include the time, date and place of the commission of the offense alleged in this caption

cause, and whether or not the State intends to proceed against the accused as a natural participant

and/or aider/abettor.

The Defendant respectfully requests a trial by juiy of all charges so triable, and further

requests that a hearing he set down before the Court on any non-criminal infraction charges now

pending against him in the above-styled cause of action.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished byU.S. Mall/Facsimile/Hand Delivery this 12th day ofApril, 2012 to Angela B. Corey, Assistant StateAttorney, 220 East Bay Street, Jacksonville. Florida 32202-3429.

MARK NO'MARA ESQUIRE1416 East Concord St etOrlando, Florida 32803Iclephone: (407) 898-5151Facsimile: (407) 898-2468Florida Bar No.: 359701Attorney for Defendant

2of2 4/24/20128:I8AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000002

IMAGING http://147. 1.1.237:1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action...

IMAGE DISPLAY

Page: ( i J saie: Route: Clockwise - - Counter-Clockwise -- Invert

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EiGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA

VS. CASE NO.: 20I2-00I083-CFASANO: 1712F04573 . C

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN -

___________________________I

CC t �L

STATE'S REDACTED DISCOVERY EXHIBIT ANDDEMAND FOR RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY €) -

-'a

This response meets the requirements of Rule 3.220(b), Florida Rutes of Criminal Procedure, andprovides answers in the same order as required by the Rule. The State demands reciprocal discovery asrequired by Rule 3.220(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

A. All court reporters used in depositions and prior sworn statements in this cause, and all witnesseswhose names are brought out in depositions.

Cate2ory A:

anford Police DenartmenlAyala, Ricardo Sgi.Ciesla, Leon Sgt.Davila, CarlosDorival, WendyErvin, WilliamJohnson, AdamLynch, SteveMcCoy, StacieMead, JonathanRaimondo, Tony Sgt.Santiago, JosephSermo, ChristopherSingleton, DorisSmith, DianaSmith, Randy Sgt.Smith, l'imothyTaylor, Mike Lt.Wagner, Mike

Zimmerman, George 22-1083 CFA Page I of 8

I of 1 5/15/2012 8:35 AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000003

1L3Lt'IED http://147. 1.1.237:1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action...

IMAGE DISPLAY

Page; (2 J n Scale; Route: Clockwise Counter-Clockwise Invert

Ekrida Department of Law Enforcement - Investieation (Orlando. FL)Batchelor, John InvestigatorCrosby, Dale investigatorLee, David InvestigatorRodr¡guez, Tony Investigator

State Attorney's Office (Jacksonville. FL)Gilbreath, K.D. InvestigatorO'Steen, T.C. Investigator

State Attorney's Ornee (Sanford, FL)Post, Jim InvestigatorRick, Jim investigatorVeaudry, Bob Investigator

Civilianshilton, Jahvarius e/o SAOFulton, Sybrina e/o SAOMartin, Tracy c¡o SAOOliver, JoeTaffe, FrancisZimmerman, RobertWIW2W)W4W5W6W7W8W9W10WI'WI 2W13W14W15W16W17W18WigW20W21W22

Zimmerman, George 12-1083 CFA Page 2 of 8


IMAGING http://147. 1.1.237:1 0050/imaginglpublic/Criminallrnage.jsp?Action...

Sanford Police DepartmentBentsen, Kristen Prints

Sanford Fire RescueBrandy, MikeLivingston. StacyO'Rourke, KevinRochfort, TylerTaylor, Mike

Florida Department of Law Enforcement (Orlando, FUGorgone, Anthony Biology/DNAGuzrnan, Alvin Trace evidenceKrejci, Stephan GSRMyburgh, Megan PrintsOrts. Patty CSVSiewart, Amy firearms

FBI (Washinton, D.C.)Man, KennethNakasone, 1-lirotaka

Medical Examiner's Officer (Volusia County, FL)Bao, Shiping M.E.Malphrus, Tara Mt. investigator

OTHEROwen, Tom Owen Forensic Services. P.O. Box 189, Colonia, NJ 07067Prin,eau, Edward SOI Lockinoore Ct., Rochester Hills, Michigan 48307

Cateuorv C:

Sanford Police DepartmentBernoski, MikeMaiming, EdMcintosh, B.Memminger, JoshO'Conner, BobPerkins, TrekeliRipley, D.Robertson, NeilTaylor, Loitnie

Zimmerman. George 12-1083 CFA Page 3 of 8

2of2 5/15/20128:36AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000005

IMAGING http://147. 1.1.237:1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action,.,

IMAGE DISPLAY

Page: (4 J Scale: Rotate: Clockwise Counter-ClockwIse Invert

Florida Department or Law Enforcement (Miami. FL)Flottacker, KristinMoore, Kenneth

State Attorney's Office (J*cksonville, FL)Bisplinghoff, Dave

B. All statements brought out at depositions. Any statements contained on the arrest docket andall police reports.

Sanrord Police Department Police Reports (copies attached):Ayala, 2/27/12 (1$ pages)Ciesla, 3/2/12(7 pages)Sermo 3/10/12(2 pages)Scritto, 3/13/12 (13 pages)Scritto, 3/18/12(7 pages)Sermo, 3/19/12(7 pages)Serina. 3/22/12(7 pages)Singleton, 2/26/12(8 pages)Smith,D., 3/6/12 (7 pages)

Witnesses statements (all audio-recorded unless soecified) (conies attached*1:Witness Date (s) Agency Penon(s) taking

WI 3/1/12 SPI) Seth'toWI 3/20/12 FDLE & SAO-Sanlord li3alchelor & Post

W2 3/1/12 SPD SermoW2 3/9/12 SPD Se¤noW2 3/20/12 F[)LE &SAO-Sanford Batchelor & Post

W3 2/26/12 911 calIW3 3/19/12 FDLE & SAO-Sanford BatcheloT & Post

W5 2/26/12 9llcallW5 3/1/12 SPD SermoW5 3/2/12 SPD Se¤no

-Wi3 2/26/12 911 calIW6 2/26/12-written SPD AyalaW6 2/26/12 SPD SerineW6 3/20/12 FOLE & SAO-Sanfotd Batchelor & PostW6 3/26/12 SAO-)acksonville de la Rionda & O'Steen

W8 Private Attorney Crump, BenjaminW8 4/2/12 SAO--Jacksonville dc la Rienda & O'Steen

Zimmerman, George 12-1083 CPA Page 4 of 8

I at' 1 5/15/2012 8:36 AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000006

IMAGING ftp:!! 147.1.1.237:1 0050/imaging!publicfCriminalhnage.jsp?Action,.

IMAGE DISPLAY

Page: [5] Scale: Roth: Clodiwiae Counter-Clockwise

W9 SPD PerkinsW9 3/20/12 SAO-Sanford Post & RickW9 3/20/12 SAO-Sanford Post Bc Rick

wil 2/26/12 911 callWI I 2!26/12-written SPi) WagnerWll 312/12 SPI) ScrittoWI I 3/19!l2 FDLE & SAO-Sanford Batchelor & Post

W12 3!20/l2 FDLE & SAO-Sanford Crosby & Veaudryw 12 3/26/12 S P -Jacksonville de la Rionda & O'Stecn

W13 2/26/12-written SN)W13 2/26/12 SPD SermoW13 3!2O!12 FDLE & SAO-Sanford Crosby & VeaudryW13 3!26/12 SAO - Jacksonville de la Rionda & O'Steen

W14 2/26/12 911 callW14 3/5/12 S1D Sermo

W15 2126/12 911 calI

2/26/12-written SPD Mead..w_i__

WI6 3/1/12 SPI) SermoWl? 3/2/12 SPD Scritto

W 17 3f20!I 2 FDLE & SAO-Sanford .Batchelor & Post

W18 2f26/12 9llcallW18 2/26/12-wrmtten SPI) MeadW18 2/26/12 SPD SermoWIS 3/l6/12-wrmtten Private Investmgator Wright, John

W19 2/26(12 911 calIWI9 3/10/12 SPI) Sermo

W20 2/26/12 911 callW20 2/26/12-written SPI) WagnerW20 3/2/12 SPI) Se¤noW20 3/19/12 PULE & SAO-Sanford Batchelor & Post

W21 3/19/12 PULE & SAO-Sanford Batchelor& Post

W22 3/22/12 SAO-Sanford Veaudry

Brandy 3/27/12 FDLE Lee & Rodriguez

Zimmerman, George 12-1083 CFA PageS of 8

I of I 5/15/2012 8:37 AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000007

IMAGING http:// 147.1.1.237:1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action...

IMAGE DISPLAY

Page: (6] Scale: Rotate: Clockwise Coont-CIo¢wisa lavad

Dorival 3/19/12 FDLE & SAO-Sanford Crosby & Rick

JIY!n&ioLIi 1/24/12 FDLE Lee & Hatchelor

O'Rourke 3/24/12 EDLE Lee & Batchelor

Rochefort 3/24/12 FDIE Lee & Ratchelor

Turner 3124/12 EDLE Lee & l3atchelor

Zimmerman,R. 3/19/12 (two) FDLE & SAO-Sanford Crosby & Rick

C. All statements brought out at depositions. Any statements by accused on law enforcement reports.

Copies of the following attached':Non-emergency call: 2/26/12 (CD)

D. None known to the State at this time.

E. None known to the State ni this time.

F. All items of evidence obtained from the Accused, which are listed in law enforcement reportsand property submission/storage cards, including but limited to: firearm, projectiles, clothing,shoes, DNA sample, medical records and cell phone data.

G. None known to the State at this time.

11, None known lo the State at this time.

I. Yes

Zimmerman. George 12-1083 OEA Page 6 of 8

lof 1 5/15/2012 8:37AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000008

IMAGING http://l 47.1.1.237:1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action...

IMAGE DISPlAY

Page: (7 3 Scale: Rotho Clockwise Cam'ir-ClocleMse Itwtgt

1

J. Any statements brought out at depositions.

Sanford Police Department Reports (cony attached*):Bentsen 3/12/12

FDLE Rtports (conies attached*):Gorgone 3/26/12 & 5/9/12Guzman 3/2 1/12K.rejci 3/28/12Myburgh 3/20/12Siewert 3/8/12, 3/22/12 & 3/28/12

Sanford Fire Rescue Reports (cony attached*):Brandy 2/26/12

Medical Examiner: Autopsy report & supporting documents, investigator's repofl; autopsy &scene photos (CD) (copies attached*)

FBI Renorts (CODY attpehe4!j:Mau & Nalcasone

K. Photos, maps, charts, diagrams, rights form, court records, supporting documents, and all items ofcvidence listed in law enforcement repon and property submission/storage cards.

Copies of the following tt*thed*, unless noted:� Photos ---scene (CD)� Photos --- Defendant & Victim 2/26/12. Video - 7-I 1 Store --- Victim (DVI)). Video - Retreat at Twin Lakes -clubhouse (CD)� Videos -SPD ---Defendant 2/6/12 (Sally l'ori & Corridor) (CD) & 2/29/12 (Lobby) (CD)� Neighborhood Watch program information, course materials (CD)� HOA-Retreat at Twin Lakes--- newsletters� FIOA---Retreat at Twin Lakes ---- emails� 91 1 calls (seven) --- 2/26/12 (CDs already prosded under witnesses statements). Ccli phone records --- Defendant (2/20/12---2/28/12)� Cell phone records, including text messages, notes, photos, videos, etc.- Defendant

(3/7112 --3/22/12) (CD)� Cell phone records ---Victim (1/I/12 - 3/1/12) (CI))� Cell phone records --W8 (2/26/12 - 4/2/12) (CD)� Medical records - Altamonte Family Practice --Defendant 2/27/12� Concealed weapon permit --DelŠndant� Firearm Trace ---Defendan(s firearm� Defendant - prior arrest -OCSO 7/16/OS (copy provided during Bond Hearing)� Defendant - Injunction -Zuazo (copy provided during Rond Hearing)

ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE 12-1083-CF Page 7 of 8


http:/(147, 1.1.237: 10050/imaginglpublic/Criminallmage.jsp7Action...

IMAGE DISPLAYPage, [8] Scale: Rotate: Clockwise Counter-Clockwise Invert

**t Please Note. Copies attached arc provided to Defense Counsel but are not attached tothe Discovery Exhibit filed with the Clerk.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

t HERBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by hand to Mark O'Mara,Esq., the Honorable Judge Kenneth R. Lester Jr. (Judicial Assistant Marilyn McAllister), this 141h day ofMay, 2012.

ANGEL.A B. COREY

STATE ATTORNEY

By: ,LSIJJ'441Bernardo de la RiondaBar Number: 365841Assistant State Attorney

ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE 12-1083-CF Page 8 of 8

I of iSf1512012 8:37 AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000010

IMAGING http://147.I.1.237: l0050/imaging/public/Criminallrnage.jsp?Actiom...

IMAGt DILAY

Page; ( 1) 2 Scale; Rflth: Clockwise Counter-Clockwise Invert--4

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEEIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, N AND

FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2012-0áI083-CFA

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, C)

'

Defendant. cfl, g

_______-/ WDEFENDANT'S W,ITNESS U&T

-‡' ‡‡.',,

COMES NOW the Dctindant. GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, by and through his undcred

attorney, and files this his Witness List of the names and addresses of all persons known to hin) lo

have information which may be relevant to the defense of the pending charges:

Shelly GlennAll Star/Magic Bail Bonds1610 impie Park DriveSanford. Florida 32773

Michael SmithAll Star/Magic Bail Rondslolo Tropic Park DriveSanford, Florida 32773

BY:

Florida Rr No.: ' 359701

1416 East C:oncord StreetOrlando, Florida 32803Telephone: (407) 898-5151Facsimile: (407) $98-2468Attorney for Defendant

lof! 6/14/2012 1:48PMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000011

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEEIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND

,


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant.I

CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFA

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST

COMES NOW, the Defendant, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, by and through his undersigned

attorney, and files this his Supplemental Witness List of the names of all persons known to him to

have information which may be relevant to the defense ofthe pending charges:

Sanford Police DepartmentAyala, Ricardo Sgt.Ciesla, Leon Sgt.Erwin, WilliamLee, Bill Former ChiefMcCoy, StacieMead, JonathanO'Conner, Robert CaptainRaimondo, Tony Sgt.Santiago, JosephSermo, ChristopherSingleton, DorisSmith, Randy Sgt.

Page 1 of 2

CRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000012

Respectfully submitted,

O'MARA LAW GROUP

By: k\JJ€

MARKM. ' ,ESQUIIE .

Florida Bar No. 3597011416 East Concord StreetOrlando, Florida 32803Tel. (407) 898-5151Fax (407) 898-2468E-Mail: [email protected] for Defendant


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing has been uiirnished byU.S. MailiPacsimile this 23rd day ofOctober, 2012 to Bernie de la Bionda, Asistant State Attorneyand John Guy, Assistant State Attorney, Office of the State Attorney,/20 East Bay Street,Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3429 and to Donald R. West, Esquire, 636 W1s Yale Street, Orlando,Florida 32804. g I I

itj.isjii:

Page 2 of 2




STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant.

CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFA

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE FROM THIRD-PARTY

COMES NOW the defendant, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, through counsel pursuant to

Rule 3.220, Florida Rules ofCriminal Procedure and moves this Honorable Court to issue its

order to attorney Benjamin Crump directing Mr. Crump to produce the original recording and

the original recording device used in the telephone interview of Witness 8 on or about March 19,

201 2 and surrender same, without alteration, to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and

in support thereofwould show the following:

On March 20, 2012 Martin Family attorney Benjamin Crump held a live press

conference in South Florida where he announced that he had recently interviewed the person

now known as Witness 8 and that this person "blows George Zimmerman's absurd self-defense

claim out ofthe water." Witness 8 was identified by Mr. Crump as a 16-year-old2 female who

'

See h://fox6now.com/2Ol2/O3/2O/girl-destroys-florida-shooters-self-defense-claim/2 Witness eight is 18 years old and was 18 at the time ofMr. Crump's interview ofher accordingto her sworn statement to the prosecutor on April 2, 2012. Her unedited statement to theprosecutor was not released to the defense until September and only after repeated requests. Herage was edited out ofthe interview in a previous disclosure.


was dating Trayvon Martin and that she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin just moments

before he was shot by George Zimmerman. Mr. Crump displayed phone records downloaded by

Tracy Martin showing that on February 26, 2012, Witness 8 and Trayvon Martin spent over six

hours on the phone talking and texting and that she last spoke with him at approximately 7:12

PM. During the news conference Mr. Crump displayed a handheld digital recorder and played

portions ofhis interview with Witness 8. During that news conference, Mr. Crump announced

that he did not trust the Sanford Police Department and that he was going to provide the recorded

interview to the United States Department ofJustice.3

Although no law enforcement agency, state or federal, was notified that Witness 8 had

been identified as the last person to speak with Trayvon Martin prior to his death and that she

was going to be interviewed by an attorney for the Martin Family, several other people were

present in the room during Mr. Crump's telephone interview with Witness 8. According to Mr.

Crump4 those persons included Tracy Martin, Sybrina Fulton, Jahvarius Fulton, an aunt and

cousin5 ofTrayvon Martin (not previously on a state witness list) and two employees of ABC

News, Matt Gutman and "his assistant"6

3 it was unclear if Mr. Crump intended to provide the recording to main Justice, the Civil RightsDivision ofthe Justice Department or to the FBI. Around the time ofthe press conference theCivil Rights Division ofthe Justice Department opened an investigation and enlisted theassistance ofthe FBI. The state has provided some ofthe FBI's reports in discovery but nothingregarding the Witness 8 interview.4 On October 19, 2012 this Court ordered Mr. Crump to disclose to the state and the defense,within ten days, the names ofthe persons present when Witness 8 was interviewed. On October29, 2012 the defense received an email from the prosecutor with the names ofthe persons Mr.Crump represented to the prosecutor to have been present.

51n spite ofrepeated requests, Mr. Crump has refused to disclose to the undersigned if thiswitness is a minor, a fact necessary under our rules to consider when schedulinga witness fordeposition.6 ivir. Crump could not remember the assistant's name according Mr. de la Rionda's email.

2


On April 2, 2012, Witness 8 was interviewed by Mr. de la Rionda at the home of Ms.

Sybrina Fulton. The interview was recorded and has been provided to the defense in discovery.

Witness 8 has been listed as a "Category A" witness and is expected to be the state's "star

witness" at trial. Since the interview in April, Witness 8 has traveled on at least one occasion

from South Florida to Jacksonville to meet with prosecutors. While no further reports or

recorded interviews ofthose meetings have been provided in discovery as ofthis date, it is

evident that the State Attorney's Office considers Witness 8 to be an important witness in its

prosecution ofGeorge Zimmerman.

The defense received a copy ofMr. Crump's recorded interview ofWitness 8 in

discovery. The overall quality ofthe recording is poor and a substantial portion ofthe recording

is unintelligible. It is obvious that the recording has been edited7 whether it was from stopping

and starting the recording device or from editing the interview after it was recorded. The

recording provided in discovery is a "copy of a copy" made by placing one recording device next

to another device and recording the playback ofone device on the other.8 No reports

accompanied the recording in discovery to identify when or where the recording was made or

how the recording came to be in the state's possession.

According to Mr. Crump at the press conference on March 20th he planned to give it to

the federal government. There are no reports in discovery to identify when the recording was

actually received by the State Attorney's Office or from whom. Informal inquiry was made to

7 The length ofthe recorded interview is roughly halfthe length ofthe phone call between Mr.Crump and Witness 8. What parts ofthe recording that can be understood sound chopped andinterrupted in places.8 would be hard to imagine a worse way to make a duplicate recording. The quality of thiscritically important piece ofevidence that Mr. Crump claims "blows away" the defendant's"absurd selfdefense claim" is similar to what one would get by holding a tape recorder next tothe speaker of a transistor radio. It's disappointing at best that the agency with the "mostsophisticated" recording equipment would produce a recording of such poor quality.

3


Mr. de la Rionda for additional information concerning the recording. When that was not

provided, the undersigned made a written request via email on August 23, 2012 asking the

prosecutor for more information on how the recording was made, and whether he had the

original recording, or if Mr. Crump retained the original recording. At a meeting to discuss

discovery issues following a hearing on August 24, 2012, the defense made ftirther inquiry about

Witness 8's recorded interview. Mr. de la Rionda said he had no further information about the

recording itselfand acknowledged its poor quality. State Attorney Investigator T.C. O'Steen,

who happened to be in the room, said that he believed that the State Attorney's Office had

received the recording from the FBI who had gotten it from DOJ but he had no further

information. The undersigned requested that the state investigate further to determine if a better

quality recording could be obtained.

Having received no additional information from the State Attorney's Office regarding the

recording over the next 26 days, on September 19, 2012 the undersigned sent another written

request to the prosecutor concerning the Witness 8 recording, specifically requesting whether

any efforts to improve the quality ofthe recording were made, whether Witness 8 was

interviewed by any federal agent, to identify ifABC News had access to the recording,9 and to

identify those present in the room where the recording was made.

Receiving no response from the prosecutor concerning the September 19, 2012 written

request for more information regarding the Witness 8 recording, the undersigned filed a motion

to compel discovery on October 12, 2012 and asked this Court for reliefby ordering,

9 An ABC News broadcast in late March claimed that ABC had an exclusive recording of Mr.Crump's interview with Witness 8. ABC's broadcast ofWitness 8's interview seemed to bebetter quality than the recording provided to the defense.See

speaks- i 5959779

4


Access to and a true copy of the original recorded interview of Witness 8 made bythe Martin Family attorney, Benjamin Crump, including a list of people presentduring the interview; the chain of custody of the recording, including thecircumstances of its release to the media (ABC News); and any reports by state orfederal agencies that had possession ofthe recording.

This Court granted partial relief directing that Mr. Crump provide a list of those present

during the Witness 8 interview to the state and to the defense within 10 days and

directing that Mr. Crump bring his phone with him to his deposition so that counsel could

hear the recorded interview ifit is still on his phone.'ø

Since the Court's ruling on October 19, 2012, additional information has been learned

and circumstances have changed which render the Court's earlier reliefinadequate. On October

29th, the undersigned received an email from Mr. de la Rionda (not Mr. Crump) identifying

several persons Mr. Crump had identified to him as having been present during Mr. Crump's

interview ofWitness 8. Having received the email from Mr. de la Rionda identifying those

persons present during the interview with Witness 8, the undersigned sent an email to Mr. Crump

requesting further information concerning the recording prior to scheduling his deposition. In

this correspondence, Mr. Crump was asked, inter alia, to identify whether the recording was

made on his cell phone or on another recorder of some sort and to identify the device. Mr.

Crump was also asked to disclose the name ofthe FBI agent he provided with a copy of the

recording and to disclose what Mr. Crump did with the original recording ifhe no longer had it.

Further, Mr. Crump was asked whether anyone else present during his interview ofWitness 8

also made a recording. Mr. de la Rionda was copied on this correspondence.

'o During his briefstatement to the Court about the Witness 8 recording, Mr. Crump suggestedthat he contacted the FBI because they had sophisticated audio equipment and while notspecifically stating what device was used to record the interview, Mr. Crump led the Court andcounsel to believe that the interview was recorded on Mr. Crump's phone. Mr. Crump alsostated at the hearing that that he and the Martin family stood ready to cooperate completely inthis matter.

5


On November 5, 2012, Mr. Crump sent the undersigned an email which stated, in part,

"The Witness 8 interview was recorded on a recording device that remains in my possession."

Mr. Crump's correspondence does not further identify the "recording device" nor does he say

whether anyone else present also made a recording. It's baffling why he won't say what he used

to record the interview or why the state won't insist that he provide further information. Mr.

Crump also provided that he does not "recall specifically who I met with while the FBI recorded

a copy ofthe witness interview" and suggested that I direct further inquiry to the FBI. Mr. de la

Rionda was copied on Mr. Crump's correspondence.

On November 9, 201 2, the undersigned sent an email to Mr. Crump requesting

clarification ofhis earlier correspondence and asking for his cooperation. In this

correspondence, the undersigned asked Mr. Crump to identify those persons present with

Witness 8 at her end ofthe telephone interview ofwhom he's aware. Mr. de la Rionda was

copied with this correspondence. No response was received to this request.

Before Witness 8 is deposed it is absolutely necessary for the defense to have access to

the original recording ofher interview by Mr. Crump and important that the original recording

be available for expert examination; and the best quality working copy be made ofthe original

and provided to the defense for review and analysis. It is also critically important that the

defense have access to this original recording prior to the deposition of Mr. Crump and the

depositions ofothers that were present during the interview, since large portions ofthe recording

we currently have are impossible to understand and the recording itself is incomplete.

To that end, in the November 9, 2012 correspondence to Mr. Crump, the undersigned

asked Mr. Crump to provide the original recording device in his possession (that presumably

contains the original, unedited recording ofhis interview with Witness 8) to the Florida

[il


Department of Law Enforcement so that the recording can be analyzed and copied without any

loss ofquality. Mr. Crump was asked for his response by early the following week. Mr. de la

Rionda was copied on this correspondence.

Having received no response from Mr. Crump by November 19, 2012, the undersigned

spoke with the prosecutor, Bernie de la Rionda, during a break in the depositions being taken that

day. It was emphasized to Mr. de la Rionda that Mr. Crump acknowledged having possession of

the original recording ofthe interview he conducted with Witness 8, that this was evidence in a

highly publicized murder case, and that Mr. Crump should be required to surrender that evidence

to law enforcement. Mr. de la Rionda suggested that the recording device was Mr. Crump's

personal property and that he could not ask him to surrender i' although perhaps FDLE could

go to Mr. Crump's office and make a copy. Mr. de la Rionda indicated he would contact Mr.

Crump. The undersigned and co-counsel advised Mr. de la Rionda that we would ask the Court

for reliefifMr. Crump wasn't willing to provide the original recording to law enforcement.'2

On November 26th Mr. de la Rionda stated in an email to counsel that he had spoken to

Mr. Crump and that he was "working on having another copy made." Mr. de la Rionda made no

reference to our specific request that the original recording and the recording device be

surrendered to law enforcement.

On November 28th the undersigned attempted to reach Mr. Crump by phone without

success and then sent an email to Mr. de la Rionda specifically reminding him again that the

recorded interview ofWitness 8 was material evidence in a murder case and that the defense

wanted the original recording surrendered to law enforcement due to the copy previously

' ' The defense is not aware ofany legal authority in support ofMr. de la Rionda's position in thismatter.12 The defense told Mr. de la Rionda that it was agreeable with us ifthe original recording wasturned over to the FBI ifhe preferred.

7


provided being of such poor quality and so obviously having been edited. That way, experts

could examine it and the defense could have access to it before the depositions of Witness 8 and

others present during the interview. The undersigned urged Mr. de la Rionda to use his

executive authority to obtain the recording device and the unedited recording if Mr. Crump

would not voluntarily surrender it'3. There being no response from Mr. Crump or Mr. de la

Rionda, this motion 14

13 To assuage Mr. de la Rionda's concern about taking Mr. Crump's "personal property",undersigned offered to buy Mr. Crump a new recording device to replace the one containing thematerial evidence in a murder prosecution.14 As a refresher on the lack ofcooperation from the state on this and other discovery matters, thedefense has been trying to get this recording for months. It took months to get unredactedwitness interviews; months to getjpeg files ofthe most important photos in the case; months toget FDLE reports and FBI reports prepared in April and May; months to get complete expertreports with viewable images, etc. The state could make these things happen with one phone callinstead ofits repeated stonewalling.

The state has had access to Witness 8's orinal recording since at least March 22rn' when Ms.Corey's office was appointed to replace i 8 Circuit State Attorney Norman Wolfinger in thecase. Further, Mr. de la Rionda met with Mr. Crump in connection with his interview of TracyMartin and Sybrina Fulton on March 26th and again when he interviewed Witness 8 on April 2nd

in South Florida at Sybrina Fulton's home. Moreover, Mr. de la Rionda has the legal authority tomake Mr. Crump surrender the original recording or face obstruction ofjustice charges or, in thealternative, to ask the Court to hold him in contempt. As the Court knows, there is no "personalproperty" exception to a subpoena or a search warrant.

The state's obfuscation and gamesmanship regarding this important evidence has delayed ourdiscovery efforts considerably and has cost precious time and resources that threaten the currenttrial schedule. The state does not seem to be willing to make reasonable efforts to facilitatediscovery. As a recent example, the defensejust got a stack ofreports from FDLE and the FBI(dated months ago) in the 9th

Supplemental Discovery Exhibit. Several ofthe reports containexculpatory information, including reports ofwitnesses who told the FBI that they can identifyGeorge Zimmerman's voice on the now infamous 91 1 call as the one screaming for help. . .andthis on the heels ofthe state telling this Court at the hearing on October that the defense hadreceived "everything." These reports identify several law enforcement and civilian witnesses notpreviously disclosed and identify court records and other investigative reports not yet provided tothe defense. A more specific demand for this additional discovery will be the subject of aseparate motion. The state's haphazard and cavalier attitude towards its discovery obligationcontinues. The state should not be allowed to play hide and seek with the evidence.


This Court has broad powers over discovery pursuant to Rule 3.220 and has the inherent

power to exercise its authority over persons and things when the interests ofjustice demand it.

See Fla.R.Criin.P. 3.220(f) (On a showing ofmateriality. the court may require such other

discovery to the parties as justice may require); Franklin y. State, 975 So. 2d i i 88 (FIa. i st DCA

2008) (holding that the defense motion to compel discovery should have been treated as a

request for additional discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(f)

authorizing the trial court to "require such other discovery to the paiies as justice may require"

UOIT1 a "showing of materiality" and should have been granted.)

WHEREFORE, the defendant urges this Honorable Court to enter its order directing

attorney Benjamin Crump to surrender the original recording device with the unaltered original

recording of his interview with Witness 8 to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.


DONALD R. WESTFlorida Bar: 315941Don West Law Group, P.A.636 W. Yale St.Orlando, Florida 32804Telephone: (407) 425-9710

Facsimile: (407) 425-8287

Co-Counsel for George Zimmerman


CERTIFICATE OF SER\TICE

I certif'y that a CODY of the foregoing was delivered by facsimile transmission and/oremail to Bernardo (le i'd Rionda, Assistant State Attorney and John Guy, Assistant StateAttorney, Office of the State Attorney, 220 East Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3429and to Mark M. O'Mara. 1416 East Concord Street. Orlando, Florida 32803 on November 30,20 1 2. A courtesy COpI will be sent by email to Mr. Benjamin Crump.

DONALD R. WEST


IMAGING http:/I 147. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/imaging/public!Criniinallmagejsp?Action=...

*

1to,1LQPE¥ cuur Ths2&j

,4ARYA4E MORSE

Iirk of C•rcuIt__ourt

,emŒnoJ. Couj ¯"dyi

fltity

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN__________________ ________________I

CASE NO.: 201 2-001083-CFASA NO: 1712F04573

STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEfNDANT'S MOTIONTO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE FROM THIRD-PAIth'

The State of Florida, by and through the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, files the

following response to Defendant1s Motion to Compel Production of Evidence from ThirdQarty, filed on

November 30, 2012. Defendant requests the Court to issue an order to Attorney Benjamin Crump to

produce the original recording and the original recording device used in the telephone Interview of

Witness B and surrender the same.

In Support, Defense provides what amounts to a screed (nine pages apparently requiring

fourteen footnotes) attacking Mr. Crump and insinuating that Mr. Crump, n attempting to and recording

an interview of a w•tness, did something improper with the recording. Suffice to say in the interest of

conservation of natural resources, that the State does not agree with the revisionist history asserted by

Defense Counsel.

i . Mr. Crump represents Trayvon Martin1s family. This is, of course, perfectly permissible; ihe

dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them." Lois McMaster Bujold,

Dipiomatic Immunity, 2002.

ZIMMERMAI, GEORGE 12-1083-CF Page 1 of 5

2of2 12/18/201211:37AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000024

I M A G I N G http://147.1.1.237:1OO5O/imaging/pub1ic/Crirnina1Image.jsp?ActionView

2. Mr. Crump does not represent or speak on behalf of the People of the State of

Florida. No matter how often, how viciously or how vociferously Defense Counsel tries to

attack Mr. Crump and make him a feature of this case, he is not the issue.

3. The issue in this case is whether Defendant had the right to target, follow, shoot and

kill an unarmed seventeen year-old child, to then recite a litany of demonstrably false and

internally inconsistent versions of the events, and to now shamelessly attempt to co-opt the

mantle of victimhood for himself. n sum, Defendant's goat by way of the instant Motion •s not

legiVmately to gather relevant evidence in this criminal case. Rather, he is clearly more

interested n defending his own supposed reputat•on' than in permitting a judge and I or a jury

to consider his acUons.

4. Witness 8 is one of many witnesses in this case who were listed by the State in

discovery.

5. Mr. Crump has cooperated with the State and Defense Counsel when asked.

Defense Counsel doesn1t want to wait until a deposition to find out information, but feels he is

entitled to know information before the deposition.

6. Defense Counsel keeps requesting things and when the item is provided, Defense

Counsel then changes the request. lt is absurd for Defendant to now assert that he didn't get

the document in a timely manner.

7. At the prior hearing, Defense Counsel asked to depose Mr. Crump. The Court

ordered Mr. Crump to appear at a deposition regarding his interview and recording of Wftness 6.

The Court also ordered Mr. Crump to bring the recording device to the deposition so that

counsel could listen to the original recording. Mr. Crump agreed to do so,

ZIMMERMA"4, GEORGE 12-1083.CF Page2of5

2of2 12/18/2012 11:37AMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000025

IMAGING http:I/ 147. 1 . i .237: 1 0050!imaginglpublic/Criminallrnage.jsp?Action=View

8. Since the hearing, Defense Counsel asked the State to attempt ta obtain another

copy from the recording device, and now asks the Court to issue a separate order in that regard.

However, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.220(e) and (g) further support the notion that

whatever Defendant is entitled to pursuant to the discovery process, it is not absolute:

The coirt on its pwn initiative or on motion of counseishall deny or partially restrictdisclosures authorized by this rule if it finds there is a substantial risk to any person ofphysical harm, intimidation, bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance orembarrassment resulting from the disclosure, that outweighs any usefulness of thedisclosure to either party.

9. As aptly stated by Mr. Crump, in his response to one of Defendants many solicitations,

"Your email erroneously states that Judge Nelson "ordered" me to provide you and Mr.O'Mara with not only the names of the persons present during the recorded statement ofWitness 8, but also the addresses of these friends and family members of the victim in thiscase. Judge Nelson ordered no such thing, and I would suggest that you review the hearingvideo to refresh your memOry. Due to the high profile nature of this case and thepublicity surrounding it. the family and friends of the victim are n danqer. i am sure

thatyou have seen the hate-filled, racist. and threatening messages directed towardsthese peop/e as much of l• has been posted on your defense team's websiteFacebook, and Twitter page. 1 refuse to compromIse their safety or the safety ofWitness 8. If you wish to contact or subpoena them you may go through the StateAttorney's Office as Judge Nelson has directed, and the prosecution will produce thesewitnesses for your examination."

la. Certainly a defendant should not be permitted to so employ the pretrial procedures as to

require the state attorney to investigate or prepare his case for him, or to disclose to him information or

documents which, by the exercise of due diligence, are readily available to him by subpoena or

deposit•on." Caney, 294 So.2d 82, 83 (Fia. 1974). The Court went on:

lt is our view that when a pretrial motion for discovery. . . is presented to the trial courtfor a ruling, a determination should first be made as to whether all or any part of theinformation sought by defendant is readily available to him by the exercise of duediligence through deposition, subpoena, her means. If so, the motion should bedenied; if not, the court should then proceed to a determination as to whether theinformation sought may reasonably be considered admissib'e and useful to thedefense in the sense that it is probably material and exculpatory.

ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE 12-1083 CF Page3of5


I M A G I N G http://147. i . i .237: 1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

Caney, 294 So.2d at 85 (emphasis supplied), quoting with approval Coney v$I, 272

So.2d 550 (FIa. 1st DCA 1971).

"it cannot be said that the trial court erred in denying the mot•on to compe' discovery. .

request was indefinite and in the nature of a fishing expedition. . . Understandably, itappears that the trial court here was of the view that appellant could accomplish hisstated purpose simply through cross-examination of the witness.

Taylor V. State, 612 So.2d 626, 630 (FIa. ist DCA 1993), citing rwn v.tte, 492 So.2d 80

(FIa. l OCA 1986). 'The discovery rules were drafted to balance the scales, to require

disclosure of material not otherwise available to the defense. They were not meant to supplant

the defendants obligation to •nvestigate the case and prepare a defense. The State has rio duty

to do for the defense work which the defense can do for itself." Matheson y. St.aj, 468 So.2d

1011, 1013 (4th DCA 1985). Llfl Florida, defendants have the r¡ght to pretrial discovery under

our Rules of Criminal Procedure, and thus there is an obligation upon (he defendant to

exercise due diligence pretrial to obtain information." Young y. State, 739 So.2d 553, 559

(Fa. 1999) (emphasis added).

i 1 . The State agreed to do so and was in the process of getting a copy, when Defense Counsel

then requested to examine the original recording device prior to the deposition.

I 2. The State has now arranged for the recording device to be turned over to EDLE and will

have a digital copy of the recording made from the recording device and provide such to Defense

Counsel when we are back n Sanford on the 11w. Mr. Crump's recording device will be available or

inspection at FDLE.

WHEREFORE, Defendant1s Motion is MOOT.

ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE 12..1083-CF Page4 of 5


IMAGING http:/I 147. 1 . i .237: 1 005 O/imaging/public/Criminallmage.j sp?Action=View


I HERBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by email to Mark OMara, Esq.,

Don West, Esq. and by fax to the Honorable Judge Debra S. Nelson, this 7 day of December, 2012.

ZtMMERMAN, GEORGE 12-1083-CF Page 5 of 5

ANGELA B. COREY

STATE ATTORNEY

By:

Bernardo de la RiondaBarNumber: 365841Assistant State Attorney


I M A G I N G http://147.1.1.237:10050/imaging/public/Criminalhnage.jsp?Action=

N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 18TH JUDICIAL cIRcu:T, I¥ D FOR SEMINOLE COUNY, FLORIDAPage: 1

12/11/2012 10:21 )\M Case 20i.2CF001083ASTATE OF FLORIDA vs ZIRXANI GOCE OBTS # 590121590

Agcflcy: SOSC CD; 5) Log; 83/94Tape:MOTION Opened At 08:48 AN on 12/1/2012 In Courtroom SD, With the Fo1owing:

Circuit Judge DEBRA S NELSON Deputy Clerk: SARA MYNATTState Attorney: BERN1. LE LA }UONDA & Defense Attorney: MARK OMARA & DON WESLPublic Defender Deputy Sheriff/Bailiff: DON MARLOWCourt Reporter L:NDA 000DATJL

Charge(s):Description Citation Bond Bondsman

i MURDER ;ni TILE SECOND DEGREE XiOQOOo86 MAGIC U S

DeIendan Was: Presefl- for MOTIONState Attorney BERNIE DE LA RION:A & RICHARD MAITI Was PresentDefense Attorney MARK OMARA & DO1 WEST Was Prcqent

For Charge: i. MURDER IN ThE SECOND DEGREEDefendai continued on bond

FU!DEC 1 1 2012

CLERK SEMINOLE COUNTY

<DEFENSE MO'ON TO ThKE DDIT1OMJ DEPOSiTION>ATT'L FLOOD PRESENT ON BE1IALF OF THE CITY OF SMFORJ EMPLOYEES.THE STATh D.D OT OBJECT TO THE MOTION AS LONG AS THE DEPOSITION IS LIMITED TO WHAT :s CON IAINED1W THE WRTTTFN MOTiON.THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION, AND THE :JEPosIT.o I LIMITED IO WHAT IS CONTAflRD :N THE WRITTENMOTION.

u:FENsE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE FROM THIRD PARTY>ATTY DE LA RICNCA PRESENTE.) ARGL'IENT TO THE COURT.THE DISC IS TO BE OVIDED TO THE DEFENSE BY NOON ON 12/14/12.<MOTION TO COMPEL I«DDITIONAJ DISCOVERY REGARDING FDLE>AY OM.ARA PRESENTED ARGUMENT TO THE COURT.THE COURT DENIES THI MOTION WT{OT PREI3UDICE.zDEMAN) FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY REGARDING FI AND DOS>ATTY OMARA PRESENTED ARGUMENT TO THE COURT.ANYT}IINO :'HAT EITHER AGENCIES HAVE REGARDING THIS CASE, IS TO BE AVALABLE FOR THE DEFENSE TOREVIEW P'NO COPY. ATTY OMARA WTLL PREPARE A WRTTTEN ORDER FOR THE COURTS SIGNATURE.<MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING VOICE IDENTIFICATION>ATTY ES i PP2SFNTED ARGUMENT TO THE COURT.AT )F LA RIONDA RFSPONDED.COUR,: WAS IN RECESS FOR FARTIES TO DISCUSS T}P? ABOVE MOTION.

COUR2 RECCNVENED AND DISCJSSIONS CONTINUED REGARDING THE ABOVE MOTION.NO ACTION Tf(EN BY TH COURT.dDTICN O MODFY CONDITIONS O' PELEASE>DEFENSE WTESS NO.1, ADNI VINCENTE WAS DUY S1ORN AD TESTIFIED.ATTY OMARA PRESENTEt ARCUNSNT TO THE COURT.ATTY DF A RIONDA PESONDED. OBJTXG TO ANY MODIFICATION.ATT'? OMARA PRES1NTED REBUTTAL ARGtWENT.lEE COURT ILNIES THE MOTION iO MODIFY cONDITIONS OF RELEASE.<MOT.0N FOR CLARIF:CATIO!: OF ORIIER SETTING BAIL>ATTY OMAIA PRESENTFJ ARGUMENT TO THE COURT.HE MOTION IS DENIFD, BECAUSE THIS COURT CAN NOT CLARIFY ANOTHER JUDGES OR7FR.

THE COURT HAS OPFNE) HARINC 'iIMP FOR /8/13, 2/5/13, AND 3/5/13.DOCKE SOJNi)G W.LL BE HELD A MOTION HEARING ON ./8/13 AT 9AM IN CDURTROOM SD.PARTIES ARE EXCUSED FROM DOCXT SOU1DINC ON 12/21112.

2of2 12/18/2012 12:16PMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000029

IMAGING http:II 147. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

i: TIlE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 18TH JLD:CIAL CRCUIT. IN n FOR SEMINOLE COLJN'rY, FLORIDA

Page: 2i2/I'/2O12 .C':27 AM Case 2012CF001083ASTATE OF 'LORIt v& ZIdMRAN, GEORGE OETS f# 5901121590

Judge�/IT)kLg4jl&)

REIPT OF DEPENIWNT:i hfreby acknowiedgc receipt of the foregoing

__: -1Defexdants Sigriture Address (include City, SLate & Z.p) Ponc Nurñer

If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in

this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance.

Please contact the ADA Coordinator, Court Administration, 301 North Park Avenue, Sanford,

FL 32771, telephone number (407) 665-4227 at least, 7 days before your scheduled court

appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled

appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.

WITNESS rHF CLHRK TD SEAL OZ :2/11/2012, and I hereby firnish the above nameddefendant a true copy hereof, and furnished other true copies to those nd•catod be1ow_____ Prc•ation__L Se/Bondsman MAYANNE MORSE, CLFRK €3F E CIRCU:: COURT

‡._ ,

:)efendant fv_ Defet Attorney By:

_____ C1ezs Finance Depu/er


IMAGING http:/I 147. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=...


STATE OF FLORIDA

L'I

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant.

N)..r

; m:C)t)

CASE NO. 2O12-OOIO83CI:.. _

;

4:- ":��-rj . . . �

r--. :.;

MR ZIMMERMAN'S REPLY TO STATE'S RRSPONSF TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TOCOMPEL PRODUCTION OEVlDEN€ FROM1fIRD1AETY

COMES NOW the defendant, GEORGE 7IMMERMAN, by and through counsci and

files his Reply to the State's Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence

from Third Party and in support thereofwould state the following:

The motion requesting that Mr. Benjamin Crump surrender the original record•ng de ice

along with the origina!, unedited recording of his interview with Witness 8 on or about March

19, 2012 is not moot until the state confirms that the original recording device containing the

original, unedited recording of Mr. Crump's Witness 8 interview •s in FDLLs possession and

the state provides the appropriate chain of custody paperwork to defense counsel.' Upon that

representation by the state. accompanied by a copy ofthe relevant paperwork, the defense would

agree that the present motion is moot.

WHEREFORE, the defendant urges this Honorable Court to require the state to confirm

that the original, unedited recording of Witness S's telephone interview with attorney Benjamin

Crump on or about March 19, 2012 has been surrendered to FDLE and to provide the reports and

3. In its response, the state asserts that dcfen counsel has ergaged in "revIsionist histor' when outlining theefforts made to obtain the orig•nal, unedited recording of Witness 8's interview. Copie ofthe correspondencereferenced in Mr. Zimmerman's motion between Mr. Crump, Mr. de la Rionda and the undersigned since this Courtlast addressed the issue of Witnes 8's intcrview on October l9 ae attached. (Some names, identif'ing informationand other completely irrelevant •nformation io this issue have been redacted for privacy purposes.)


IMAGING http:/I 147. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/imaginglpublic/Crimir•allmage.jsp?Action=View

documents relating to the cha¡n of custody of that event before ruling that the defendant's

Motion to Compel Production of Evidence from Third Party is moot.


Donald R. WestFloridaBar: 315941Don West Law Group. PA.636 W. Yale St.Orlando, Florida 32804Telephone: (407) 425-9710Facsimile: (407) 425-8287Co-Counsel for George Zimmeiman

CERTIFICATE OF SER VICF

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofMr. Zimmerman's Reply to theState's Response to the Defendant's Motion to Compel PrQduction of Evidence from Third Partyhas been furnished by U.S. MaillFacsimŒle/email this L.ø'Th•y ofDecember, 2012w Bernardode la Rionda, Assistant State Attorney and John Guy, Assistant State Attorney, Office of theState Attorne> , 220 East Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3429 and to Mark M. O'Mara,1416 East Concord St, Orlando, FL 32803.


IMAGING http:I/ i 47. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/imaging/public.'Crirninallmage.jsp?ActionView

Fmm: DWesTo n Cnimn

tc: dJ& R1 M OMTfsubltct: Wit B tnteMw tftftnono*t* Ftday, Nmbr OZ 2.0t2 ttO946 AM

Dear Mr. Cromp:

I received an emaSi from Mr. de la Rionda on MonIay regarding the persans present at yourt&ephone Interview with Witness 8 that we received In discovery. t have pasted the body of theema n this one. Vro wrt1ng lot ctariflcatlon and to request some addUona information andwould ask that you respond by close of buslnes

Monday1 November 5, 2012 so that we may moveforward with this aspect of the case1niudlng the schedulSng ofyour deposition.

Hereis the emalil got from Mr. dela Riona:

Mark & ton,

Pursuant to yow request please find attached a copy of the following:

1) The two DIGITAL photosWagner sent Sermo.2) Names of people thatwere presentin the room with 8en Crump

when Crump spoke wIthW8 on the telephone. As you already

know W8was notin the room with the persons llted below. The

entire conversation was by telephone.s Crump, Benjamins Fuiton Sybrina' Martin, Tracy. Fulton, Jabvarlus* I _ (victim's aunt)s (dont have last name at this time) (victim's cousis)e Guttman,Matt ABCNewse Guttman's assistant (don't haie his name).

i am Still working on the other matters we discussed after our hearing onFriday.

Bernie

8ernle de la Rionda

Assistant State AttorneySr. Managing Director

brIondaco.net

Ibelieve theludge dtrectet‹you to provideti Iisto(wttnesses pcesentduringyourinterv%ew of


IMAGING hap:!! 147. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

wItness 8 to both the delense and the state by this past Monday. and as oftoday1 haven't

received anything tram you nor has Mr. OMara. dont think this response from Mr. de la fUondavia you strictly complies with the court's order. Regard'ess. rm Interested n gethn accurate andcomplete Information so t can schedule sorne depos. Since Mr. de la Rionda dldnt forward yourcorrespondence to me but rather offered what I've pasted above, (Perhaps you and hejust talkedon the phone and he took notes.), please send me the Information directly oc confirm that the

above tit Is accurate and complete. However, when you respond to me, please Include full namesand contact information for the MartIn family witnesses (ather than Ms. Fulton and Mr, Martin) orexpaln why you don't have theIr full names andcari't obtain them. Further, please Indicate If

Is a mInor. Also, as per the judge's order, please provide the names of arty personspresentwlth Witness 8 durIng the Interview.

As for the recordIng Itself, it will save us all time, inconvenience and avoid unnecessary delay 1f you

will tell me In your response to this correspondence how the recording was made (that is, recordedon your cell phone or on another recorder of some sort and Identify the device(s)); what you didwith the original recording and where itis now tothe best of yourknowledgeW you don't have it;

given you r statement to the judge on October l9 that the FBI was somehow involved after therecording was made, to whom at the FBIand/or DOi did you provide the recording; whether youpersonally made the recording provided to the iBiand if

note who made the recording youprovided to the Fol; and whether anyone else present also made a recording of your witness SInterview.

You mentioned to me at the Lourt hearing that you would agree to app‚ar in Seminole County for

your deposition. We appreciate that andwiil coordinate a time and date thats convenient forYou. For scheduling purposes and Iag1stics we would like to know If those members of the Martinfamily that we want to depose would also be willing to appear In Seminole County? I assume you

will want to be present for the depositions of the witnesses you represent and we will be glad tocoordinate with you and Mr, de la Rionda in that regard.

t left my cell number In a message at your office earlier thIs week but In the event lt's not handy, Icanbe reached at" -lfyou need additlonalinformation or clarification.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Don West

Don West law Group, P.A.636 W. Yale St.

Orlando, FL 32804407 425-9710

[email protected]


IMAGING http:I! 147. 1 . i .237: 10050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

From: ál QumoTo&

Cc Dn¤ P¬s btiondrn4.neSubjed Response t Nr. W

otc: MotdY Nmbr O5 20t2 4t34:41 PM

Dear Mr. West,

t received your email correspondence dated November 2, 2012, stating that you a'readyreceived the list of nemes of the peopte who were In the room with me during therecorded telephone call to Witness S from Mr. de la Rionda. In this sarna emaU youactually enclosed the email from Mr. de Ia Rionda listing those names and stating that:

"wa ws not In the room with the persons Usted below. The entire conversation was by

telephone." Thus, there Is some confusion on my behaif regarding your further inquiry as Itappears that you have received the response to the information you seek.

lfyour problem regarding the information already lurnished is that Mr. de la R•ondaprovided the response instead of me, please consider this letter as a formal adoption of thelist provided to you by Mr. de la Rionda. Over the weekend I obtained _ast name.her full name Is The Witness 8 intervIew was recorded on a recordingdevice that remains in my possession. Although the deadline you established for myresponse is completely arbItrary I made an effort to respond today for the sake ofexpediting the trial process.

Your email erroneously states that Judge Nelson TMordered" me to provide you and Mr.OMara with not only the names of the persons present during the recorded statement of

Witness 8, but also the addresses of these friends and family members of the victim in this

case. Judge Nelson ordered no such thing, and I would suggest that you review the hearingvideo to refresh your memory. Due to the high pofile nature of this case and the publicity

surrounding It the family and friends of the victim are in danger. i am sure that you haveseen the hate-fiIIed¥ racist, and threatening messages directed towards these people, asmuch of It has been posted on your defense team's website, Facebook, and Twitterpage. irefuse to compromise their safety or the safety of Witness 8. If you wish to contact orsubpoena them you may go through the State Attorney's Office as Judge Nelson has

directed, and the prosecution will produce these witnesses for your examination.

In response to your questions regarding my meeting with the FBI in Tallahassee, i do notrecall specifically who I met with while the FBI recorded a copy of the witness Interview.As I do not recall the individuals' names please direct any further inquhy directly to the FBI.

Lastly, as you know, my law office Is in Tallahasseer Florida and as a witness In this case

2of2 12/18/20121:12PMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000035

IMAGING http:// 147. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/iniaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?ActionMew

normally the burden and cost of trave' to adepositon woud lie with the defense in acrm¤L t1aI.

Therefore1 Iease coordinate a date,and tm e With. r•y office when .w1fl be thCentra) Flotklaso t. do not have to miss a day of wOrk, and you may send the Notice ofDep¢slticm dlrect4y to me. Alternatively, ou cawdepose mein Tallahassee or vatelephohe Please note that the deposition will be extremely limited tn scope and I willonly answer q‡es1ons related to the interview or Witness. 8 As far as.schedullrig theMartin fatdly or Qther wltnesses please contact. me oIntI with th State Attornefs Office,and we will coordInatethe scheduling and logistics with.my office.

lŒyou haveani qpestlons r addition concernsE peasefeefreet• contact te at myofflceat (SSO) 222-33 or on my cell phe.at � tcanaso bereached yemail at bktrnparks‡rumpcprn.

RespetfuIy,Benjamin. Crump, Esq.

.

Parks& Crumpi.U.0�240 N. Magndlia t3thie

Tallahassee, F%orida.23O1

Telephone: (850) 22233Facsimile: (850) 224-667.9EqTiait.:

The information contained in this e-mail and/or any attachment thereto s confidential,may include attorney-citent pr•yileged communlcaUons, and i for the personal atdco¤fidenthl use of the irended recipientonly, If the actua recipientof this e-mail and/orany attachment thezto Is ilot the intended recipient, or an agent responsb1e fb deflveringlt to theUtended. redplent please undeistand thaty¢u have receIVEd tbiS e-mail and/orany attachrnenttheret Inerror andthat.ny review4dissem1natlbn and/”r copying ofsamels.prohlbfted. lfyou receive this e.mil and/or any attachment.thereto In. error,please destroy same andnotWy me immediately. Thank you.


IMAGING http://1 47. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/imaginglpublic/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

FrDm On W1G; %ftrmmn

c :Mtt#& U4Tj tttd Rwtda (btkytt1tcoLnt

Bojed: Wit $ oOow.up

Date: Fdday, Nc,ieniber 09, 2012 3:0100 PM

Dear Mr. Crump:

Thank you for your response to my email, A brief follow up to clarify a coupte of things and ta akfor your cooperation Upon careful reading of my

email1 you will ee that didn't suggest thatJudge Netson ordered you to provida addresses or other contact information. I asked foc that

additional Information to factfltate sett‹ngdeposltlons and conducting our investIgatIon. Youetected not to provide that information anii asied me to contact the witnesses through theprosecutor. am wItlng to do that to keep ththgs movtng f you are concerned for their safetythen we should take alt steps to avoid unnecessaryrisk. On the otherhand, as you know, there aredifferent procedures for deposing a minar under our rules. L see no risk of harm coming from youmerely 1ndkatng whether _ --.-Is a minor so the appropriate procedures are n placeshouki we elect to take her depositIon.

LIkewlse I also asked for your cooperation by providing additional Information about the recordingitself. I understand that you can't remember the names of the FBI 8gents you met with when theyrecorded a copy of the Interview and L will ettemptto obtain that tnfotrnatlon from the FBI or othersources. Should you remember or find a note or busthess card that refreshes your memory please(et Mr. de a Ronda and me know.

Ibe1eve thejuclge directed you to tell usthe names ofthe persons presentwth Witness B duringyour telephone interview. I'm not completelysure that's what she meant when she mentionedNbOth sdes' of the conversation. In any eventi If you are aware of any persons beIng present withWitness 8 ¨t her end of the conversation, I would appreciate you letting us know that as well.

I also asked In my email to you toldentlfy the device used forthe original recording and whetherother persons present at the Interview of Witness 8 may have made their own recordings of yourinterview. I see no risk to anyone's safety lorycu to answer those questions and with that

information we can expedite the discovery process, avoid unnecessary depositions and keep thecase on track for its current trial date, Further, since you have retained the original recordingdevice in your possession and presumably It contains the original, unedited recordln& willyouprovide the devk:e with the recording to FDLE so the recording can be copied withoutanyloss ofquality? As you know the recording provided tothe state and defense Is of poor quality and 1tshard to make out what's being said. We seem to have been provided with a copy of a copy andsignificant parts ofthe recording are unintelligible.

I would appreciate a response by early nect week so I know your position on these matters and canthen work toward a convenient deposition schedule, Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Regards,


IMAGING http:I/ 147. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

o, West

Don West Law Group, P.A636 W. Vate St.

Orlando, FL 32804407 425-9710

www.dcrnwesUawgroup.comdonwestdonwestlawgroup.com

Thts email contaim PRVILE6D and CONflDENTLAtInform…tIon intended only forthe use of theaddressee(s) named above. U you are not the Intended redpent of this emaU,or an authothed employeeor agent responsible for dellverin lt to the tntended ecIp1ent you are hereby notified that anydissemInation or copying o¡ths emaills strictly prohlblted. lryou have receIved this emalilnerror, pleasenotify me by reply email and delete this email from your records. Thank you lotyour cooperation.


IMAGING http://147. i . i .237: 10050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

Don West

From: de la Rirda, Bernie [BR•[email protected] Tue�day. November 27, 2012 9:13 AMTo: 'MaticM. O!Mara;Subject: RE; pending rnattets

, ---.IL _ :, .: rLDU . UT&J[t.,

L _I IL j L

FnatIy pursuant to ton's ceques, spoke to 1eiCrurnp atout the rec.ordn ard am workiflg on having anothercopyqust stirted a two week death penalty trial yasterday, but will update you on this•sue next week.

Bernie

Bernie de ta RiDfldaAs!istaflt StateAttorneySr. Managing flrctor

TT.brlondaLco1.net

1rom Mark M. O'MaaSent: Monday, NGvember 2.6, 20,125:57 PM�To: de ta Rlond Bern1;. '[email protected]: pendlngrnañers

VIA EMAIL

November 26, 2012

I

2 of2 12/18/2012 1:13 PMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000039

IMAGING http://147. i . i .237: 10050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

From: Do WTo: frlrfr d! t

cc �Mark .LO14pr

subject: Wbc 8 ¨rd 4r. wnpz rco ktewDto: WeThday, Noembe 28, 2012 11:th13 AM

Bernie,

As you know, the recording of Witness 8's telephone inteMew with Ben Crumpis of very poorquality. Further, It has been extensively edited either atthe time lt was being recorded, or afterRegardless. the editing was done before it was provided to the FBI and found its way to us, SinceMr. Crump hasn't responded to my follow up emall(notwithstandlng his open court pledge tocooperate) or returned my calls, I am asking you to follow up so we can move this along without theneed for multiple or unnecessary depositions. While we sort out getting access to the originalrecording please find out what device he used to record the inLerview so I can ask my expert howthe bestquality copy can be made. You may know this already. (At the October 19th hearing, he ledthe court and us to believe that he used hiscell phone butin his March 20th pressconference heheld up a small digital recorder to the cameras. } and please save us all some time and find outwhether anyone else present also made a recording. If so, that might be a better quality recordingand more complete. Mr. Crump would know f Matt Gutman or others made a recording. too.

Regarding the production of the Witness 8 recordingitself, asistated to you on November 19th atthe depos In Sanford, I want Mr. Crump to surrender the origInal recording device with theunedited original recording to law enforcement. I dont care ifit's FOIE or the FBI but I want to beable to listen to the originairecording and have it analyzed by an expert ifl so choose while t is Inthe state's custody. I want to be able to do that before I take Witness 8's depo, Mr. Crump's depoorthe deposition of the otherspresent in the room. When you told me thatyou couldnt ask hIm tosurrender his "personal propertyN to law enforcement, I was flabbergasted. I didn't think you wereserious You are the prosecutor and this is important evidence in a highly publicized murder case.You could have him arrested if he refuses to turn over this evidence. There is no "personalpoperty" exception to a subpoena or a search warrant if he refused to surrender the evidencevoluntarily. But. if you're stili worried about asking Mr. Crump to surrender his original recordingdevice, I'll buy hirn a new one. Please let me know your position on this by the end of the week so I

can address the matter on December 11th if we haven't reached an agreement. I apologize for thetone of this email, but I am frustrated because of the enormous amount of wasted time andresources it has taken to find out the simplest things about this first recorded interview of thisimportant witness. I have been asking you for months to find out about th•s recording and Ifeel thatyou have been stonewalling us. I would think you would want to know these things, too. 1 havecopied you on all my correspondence with Mr. Crump. You could accomplish all this with a phonecall and for rea5ons unknown you won't do that.

I took forward to hearing from you soon. In the meantime, I willget with Mark and work on thedeposition schedule. Thank you for freeing up some time in December. It's a busy time for all of uswith both work and family commitments.

Don

2 of212/18/2012 1:13 PMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000040

IMAGING http://147. i . i .237: 1 0050/imaging/public!Criminallmage.jsp?ActionView

Don West Law Group, P.A.636 W Yate St.

Orlando, FL 32804407 425-9710

[email protected]

This email contains PRIVIlEGED and CONFIDENflAtinformaUon Intended only br the use of theaddressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended rectpient of this email, or an authorized employeeor agent responsible for delivering lt to the intended redpfent you are hereby notified that anydIssemination or copyIng of this email is strictly prohited. If you have received this emaIl n error, pleasenotIfy me by reply email and delete this email from your records. Thank you for your cooperation.

2of212/18/20121:13PMCRUMP Supplemental Appendix – 000041

I M A G I N G http://147.1.1.237: 10050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=...

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUiT, I D FOR SEMINOLE COtJK, FLORIDAPage i

12/1/2012 1O27 M Case 2012CF001083ASTAE OF FLORIDA vs ZIRAN, GEORQE OBTS # S9O112159C

Agtncy: SOSC CD: SD Loge 853/94Tape:tVIOT1ON Opencd At 08:48 AM on 12/1/2012 In Courtrootr SD, With the Fo1•ing:

Circuit Judge: 1DBRA S NELSON Deputy Clerk: SARA MYNATrState Attorney: HERNIE IDE LA RIONDA & Defense Attorney MARK OMARA & DON WESTPublic Defender: Deputy Sheriff/Bailiff: DOIT 'LARWWCourt Reporters LINDA GOOALL

ChargeCa):

Description Citation Bond Bondsmani !tJRDER !BE SECOND pEGR� fl4OQOOO86 MAGIC U S

Defendant Was: PrE'sc'n or MOTTOState Attorney BERNE IDE LA R.ON)A & RICHARD F1XEI Was PresentDefense Attorney MARK O?PA & JON WEST Wa Present

For Charge: i. NURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREEDefenchn contiued on bond

DEC 1 1 7012

CLERK SEMINOLE COUNTY

<DEFENSE MOTON TO TAKL DDrr:oL DFPOS.LTION>ATT? FLOOD PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THF CTT OF SANFORD EMPLOYEES.THE ST?E DID NOEL? OBJECT TO THE MOTION AS LONG AS THE DEPOStTION IS LIMITED TO W!iA :s CONTAINEDIN TEE WRTTFN IorIoN.THF COiRT GRJNTED THE MOTON, ANT) THE )EPOSITZON IS LThITED O WHAT IS CONTAINED IN TE WRITTENMOTION.

<DF.FE$E MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE FROM THIRD PARTY>ATrY LW iA RIONDA PRESENTED ARGUME1 TO ThE COURT.THE DrSC IS 20 BE PROVIDED TO THE DEFhNSE BY NOON ON 12/4/12.<MOTION TO CCMPEL .DDITICNAL DISCOVERY PEGARDINC FDLE>A1Y MA•tA P:EENTED ARGUMENT TO THE CCRT.:H.F COURT DNES THE MOTION WILHOJ PRJ1:DICE.

)EMAL) FCR spEcr?ic DISCOVERY REG\RDING FBI AND )OJ>ATTi' OIARA PREsE;:ED ARGUMENT TO TH COURT.

ANYTHING HAT EiTHER AGENCIES HAVE REGARDING HIS CASE, IS TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE DEFENSE TOREVIEW AND COPY. TTY OMJRr WILL PREPARE A WRITTEN O?)ER FOR THE COURTS SIGNATURE,<MOTICN TO COMPEL REGARDING VOICE IDENTIFICATION>ATTY HS2 PRESENTED ARGUTENT TO THE coui.T.ATTV )F LA ETONDA RFSPCNDED.CCUR' WAS IN REC!SS FOR PARTIES TO DISCUSS THE AHOV}. MOTION.COTR RCCNVLNL) AND DISCCSSIONS CONTINUEl) REGAP.D.NG THE. ABOVE MOTION.NO ŒCTION ThKE¥ BY NE COURT.<MOTIGN -::) MODIFY CCNDITIONS O P.ELEPSE>

DEFENSE WTTESS NO.1, ADAM VINCENT( WAS DUTY S1OflN AND TESTIFIED.ATTY OMAHA PRflSENTED ARGIThENT TO THE C T,

ATTY DF .A RIONDA RESPONDED, OBJECTING TO W MODIFICATION.ATTY OMAHA PRESENTED REBUTTAL ARCUMENT.1f:E COURT DEN1S THE MOTIO' TO MOIIPY cONDITIONS OF RELEASE.<MOTION FOR CL.kRIFCATION Oi ORCER SErTING BAIL>AT1Y OMARA PRESENTF) ARGU1VNT TO THE COURT.THE MOTION IS DENIJ, ECAUS1 TElS COURT CN NOT CLARIFY ANOTHFP JUDCE S OR)ER.THE COURT HAS OPENEi) HARFG 'IIMF FOP. 1/8/13, 2/5/13, .ND 3/5/.3.DOCKET SOUNiY.NG WILL BE HELD A MOTION HEARING ON /6/i3 AT 9 N COURTROOM SD.PTRT!ES ARE EXCUSED 1'RCM )OCI(ET SOUNDING ON 12/12/12.


IMAGING http:/I i 47. 1 . i .237: 1 0050/imaging/public/Criminallmage.jsp?Action=View

IN TIlE CIRCUIT COURT OF THF 18TH JtJDCIAIJ C1RCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUrY FLORIDAPagez 2

2/11/2012 C:27 AM Case 2012CF001083ASTATE OF FLORIDA v ZIMMER2!AN, GEORGE OETS 59O1219O

JLdge :

RECiIPT OF DNDANT;i hereby ackr0w•cdge receipt of the foregong __-"Defeidans Signature Address (nc1ude City, State & Zip) Phone Number


this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistanceS



appearance, or imniediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled

appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.

WITNFSS THE CLERK AND SEAT Or 12/11/2Oi2 and I hereby furrsh the above nameddefendant a true copy hereof, and furnished other true copies to those ndieated below:

ProbationSs/ondsman '1ARYANNE MO1$E, CLERK 9' E CICU COURT

___x :)efendant fV Defere Attorney 3y:

Cle:'s 'inance Dcpi;:/erk



STATE OF FLORIDA

VS.

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN

CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFASANO: 1712F04573

STATE'S I 1TH SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY

K. Pursuant to your request please find attached a CD copy of the recording made from Mr.Crump's digital audio recorder (recording of W8). As mentioned in court, the first CDcopy made by FDLE on i 2/6/12 from the digital recorder included subject matter in additionto the interview of W8. This CD copy only includes the recording of W8 by Mr. Crump.(Please also note that a copy ofthis recorded interview made by the FBI from Mr. Crump'sdigital recorder was already provided in discovery on 5/14/12).

FDLE chain ofcustody form regarding Mr. Crump's digital recorder (copy provided incourt 12/11/12).

*p1ee Note. Copy attached is provided to Defense Counsel but is not attached to the DiscoveryExhibit filed with the Clerk.


I HERBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by hand to Mark

O'Mara, Esq., and Don West, Esq., this 13th day of December, 2012.

By:

ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE 12-1083-CF Page 1 0f 1

ANGELA B. COREY

STATE ATTORNEY

Bernardo de la RiondaBarNumber: 365841Assistant State Attorney


FDLE PROPERTY RECEIPT FORM

Florida Department ofLaw Enforcement

CASE NUMBER:

ORol-Oc¡DATE:

12/10/2012

RELEASED BY (PRiNT/TYPE NAME & TITLE)

Special Agent John McDonaldRECEIVED BY (PRINT/TYPE NAME & TITLE)

$ ¨ Q IJ'4 ¨PURPOSE / REMARKS

Sony Digital recorder originally obtained from attorney Ben Crump.

I hereby acknowledge receipt ofthe following described property which was given into mycustody by the above named individual for the noted purpose.

Amount/Quantity Descriptioni Sony Digital recorder- Gray in color

lCD- BX1 12

4 CDs containing audio files from recorder

RELEAAT€

WITNE S BY (OPTIONAL) WITNESSED BY (OPTION


1

Taylor Ford

From: Taylor Ford

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:07 PM

To: 'Mark M. O'Mara'; de la Rionda, Bernie

Cc: 'Don West' ([email protected]); Guy, John; Bruce Blackwell

Subject: RE: Wed Feb 6, 2013 depo [State v. Zimmerman, No. 2012-CF-001083-A (Fla. 18th Cir.

2012)]

Mark,

To confirm, as Bernie notes below, Mr. Crump will be on hand in Sanford and will make himself available – if need be –

after the hearing next Tuesday afternoon for a limited deposition focused on the specific issue raised during the October

19, 2012 hearing and for which the Court previously made him a witness (i.e., the recording of Witness 8).

To be clear, however, we: (i) are in no way waiving, whether prospectively or otherwise, any privilege associated with

Mr. Crump’s actual or potential deposition testimony concerning any other issue or matter; (ii) still believe that any need

for Mr. Crump’s deposition should now be moot in light of events and disclosures made subsequent to the October 19,

2012 and December 11, 2012 hearings (as well as the potential affidavit which you, Bruce and I discussed last Friday and

which, if ever actually prepared, we still reserve the right to provide); and (iii) reserve any other rights and protections

that our client may have (including, but not limited to, his right to seek a protective order and take any other action

consistent with his own clients’ interests in ensuring the just and speedy determination of this and any other cause).

Thank you.

Taylor

Taylor Ford

Associate

[email protected]

King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, P.A.

25 East Pine Street » P.O. Box 1631 » Orlando, Florida 32801 (32802-1631)

Tel: 407.422.2472

Fax: 407.648.0161

vCard » LinkedIn » Bio » kbzwlaw.com

This email is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information and attachments that are privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure

under applicable law. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and permanently delete this email and any attachments from your system. Thank you.


2

From: Mark M. O'Mara [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 6:36 PM

To: de la Rionda, Bernie Cc: 'Don West' ([email protected]); Guy, John; Bruce Blackwell; Taylor Ford

Subject: Re: Wed Feb 6, 2013 depo

K Tuesday it is... Sent from my iPhone so I apologize for any mistakes, tho now I can blame Siri. On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:46 PM, "de la Rionda, Bernie" <[email protected]> wrote:

<image003.gif> Mark, I’ve spoken to Ben and he is available Tuesday afternoon after the hearing. He has a conflict on

Wednesday and is not available that day. As you know Ben lives in Tallahassee and is accommodating us

by agreeing to come to Sanford even without a subpoena. Technically under the law he could require

that his deposition be taken in Tallahassee. My understanding (of course I would defer to his attorneys

for ultimate decision), is that Ben is agreeable to be deposed on the limited issue discussed during the

hearing and which Judge Nelson ordered that he talk about --- the recording of Witness 8 by Mr. Crump,

and nothing else. As you know Bruce Blackwell and Taylor Ford represent Ben and I have copied them in this email so they

are aware of what we’ve discussed and in case you need to contact them. Thanks Bernie Bernie de la Rionda Assistant State Attorney Sr. Managing Director 904.630.4767 [email protected]

From: Mark M. O'Mara [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:20 AM To: de la Rionda, Bernie; 'Don West' ([email protected])

Cc: [email protected]; Guy, John; [email protected] Subject: RE: Wed Feb 6, 2013 depo I would like to do it all on Wed, starting at 9, as I don’t think we would finish tues anyway, and I have other commitments on tues afternoon (not media related, but other client related6;) ) I do not believe the depo should be limited to just the Witness 8 info, and advised Bruce Blackwell, Ben’s atty of this6


3

By copy of this email to him, I remind him of the agreement that we delay taking Ben’s depo until this week, as he told you he would be here anyway6. Let’s all pls confirm his depo on Wed at 9am Tks M Mark M. O’Mara O’Mara Law Group 1416 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 407-898-5151 office 407-898-2468 fax [email protected] www.markomaralaw.com <image004.jpg><image005.jpg><image006.png> IMPORTANT NOTICE TO EMAIL RECIPIENTS 1. The information contained in this email and accompanying attachments constitute confidential information which may be legally privileged and is intended for the sole use of the intended addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this information, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This information is the property of O’Mara Law Group. If you received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or by calling (407) 898-5151. 2. This email transmission may not be secure and may be illegally intercepted. Clients of O’Mara Law Group are asked to use their best judgment in determining whether the topic of an email response is such that it would be better saved for a more secure means of communication. 3. The sender believes that this email and any attachments were free of any virus. However, by reading this message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking remedial action regarding any viruses or other defects. 4. All O’Mara Law Group attorneys are licensed to practice law in Florida and do not intend to give legal advice to anyone with legal matters not involving Florida law or federal law as it may relate to family law matters.

From: de la Rionda, Bernie [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 11:09 AM

To: Mark M. O'Mara; 'Don West' ([email protected]) Cc: [email protected]; Guy, John

Subject: RE: Wed Feb 6, 2013 depo Mark, I’ve left a message for Ben to call me. I thought we had talked about trying to do it Tuesday afternoon after the hearing. The GJ room is

reserved for Tuesday since we’re in Sanford for the hearing anyway.


4

Did you guys have any discussions with Ben’s attorney about limiting the deposition to matters

regarding the recording of Witness 8, or are you of the mind-set as mentioned before that you want to

ask him questions about everything he’s done in representing Victim’s family? Bernie Bernie de la Rionda Assistant State Attorney Sr. Managing Director 904.630.4767 [email protected]

From: Mark M. O'Mara [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 9:54 AM

To: de la Rionda, Bernie; Guy, John

Cc: 'Don West' ([email protected]); [email protected] Subject: FW: Wed Feb 6, 2013 depo Bernie and John, Pls respond to above email, as we need to plan for depo. Have you confirmed with Ben?? Tks M Mark M. O’Mara O’Mara Law Group 1416 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 407-898-5151 office 407-898-2468 fax [email protected] www.markomaralaw.com <image007.jpg><image008.jpg><image006.png> IMPORTANT NOTICE TO EMAIL RECIPIENTS 1. The information contained in this email and accompanying attachments constitute confidential information which may be legally privileged and is intended for the sole use of the intended addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this information, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This information is the property of O’Mara Law Group. If you received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or by calling (407) 898-5151.


5

2. This email transmission may not be secure and may be illegally intercepted. Clients of O’Mara Law Group are asked to use their best judgment in determining whether the topic of an email response is such that it would be better saved for a more secure means of communication. 3. The sender believes that this email and any attachments were free of any virus. However, by reading this message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking remedial action regarding any viruses or other defects. 4. All O’Mara Law Group attorneys are licensed to practice law in Florida and do not intend to give legal advice to anyone with legal matters not involving Florida law or federal law as it may relate to family law matters.

From: Mark M. O'Mara

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:52 PM

To: 'de la Rionda, Bernie'; [email protected]; 'Don West' ([email protected]) Subject: Wed Feb 6, 2013 depo Bernie, Want to confirm depo of Ben Crump for Wed at 9:00am6. Does that time work for you? Pls confirm with Ben as well and that the GJ room is available. We will bring the coffee. C u Tuesday M Mark M. O’Mara O’Mara Law Group 1416 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 407-898-5151 office 407-898-2468 fax [email protected] www.markomaralaw.com <image009.jpg><image005.jpg><image006.png> IMPORTANT NOTICE TO EMAIL RECIPIENTS 1. The information contained in this email and accompanying attachments constitute confidential information which may be legally privileged and is intended for the sole use of the intended addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this information, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This information is the property of O’Mara Law Group. If you received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or by calling (407) 898-5151. 2. This email transmission may not be secure and may be illegally intercepted. Clients of O’Mara Law Group are asked to use their best judgment in determining whether the topic of an email response is such that it would be better saved for a more secure means of communication. 3. The sender believes that this email and any attachments were free of any virus. However, by reading this message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking remedial action regarding any viruses or other defects.


6

4. All O’Mara Law Group attorneys are licensed to practice law in Florida and do not intend to give legal advice to anyone with legal matters not involving Florida law or federal law as it may relate to family law matters.




STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFA

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant.I

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE

COMES NOW the Defendant, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, by and through his undersigned

counsel, and hereby files this his Motion to Continue, and as grounds therefore states as follows:

i . The case is presently set for trial during the trial period beginning June 1 0, 2013

before the Honorable Debra Nelson.

2. That Mr. Zimmerman is charged with the offense of second degree murder based

upon an event that happened on February 26, 2012 which resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin.

3 . On April 1 2, 2012, the undersigned counsel filed a notice of appearance involving

Mr. Zimmerman in formal discovery pursuant to Rule 3.220. Since that time there has been an

initial discovery response from the State and i i supplemental disclosures. In addition, there has

been other discovery forwarded to the defense, that have not been formally identified as

supplemental discovery disclosures.

4. That the first discovery disclosure was provided to the defense on May 14, 2012 and

additional discovery through the State's i i supplemental disclosures as recent as December 13, 2012.

5 . While it should be noted that the State Attorney's Office has assisted the defense by

organizing and presenting State witnesses for deposition without need for subpoena, there have been

other problems andlor delays with discovery.

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COUI{T OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND


STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFA

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant. _______________________________ 1

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE


counsel, and hereby files this his Motion to Continue, and as grounds therefore states as follows:

1. The case is presently set for trial during the trial period beginning June 10, 2013

before the Honorable Debra Nelson.

2. That Mr. Zimmerman is charged with the offense of second degree murder based

upon an event that happened on February 26, 2012 which resulted in the death of Trayvon Martin.

3. On April 12, 2012, the undersigned counsel filed a notice of appearance involving

Mr. Zinlmerman in formal discovery pursuant to Rule 3.220. Since that time there has been an

initial discovery response from the State and 11 supplemental disclosures. In addition, there has

been other discovery forwarded to the defense, that have not been formally identified as

supplemental discovery disclosures.

4. That the first discovery disclosure was provided to the defense on May 14,2012 and

additional discovery through the State's 11 supplemental disclosures as recent as December 13,2012.

5. While it should be noted that the State Attorney's Office has assisted the defense by

organizing and presenting State witnesses for deposition without need for subpoena, there have been

other problems and/or delays with discovery.

1


6. The state has taken a formalistic approach to their discovery responses, both in their

specific discovery filings, and in their positions taken with regard to "informal" discovery. While

this more limited or static approach to discovery disclosure is not in violation of the rule, it does

require a great deal more vigilance by the defense, and carries with it inherent delays in the discovery

process. Rather than being able to simply address and resolve concerns with ongoing discovery, the

State has taken the path ofrequiring formal discovery demands and litigation. The examples of this

approach by the State, and the necessary response to it by the defense are as follows:

A) At a hearing on October 1 9, 2012, this Court entered an order granting the

Subpoena Duces Tecum for Twitter and Facebook information for Trayvon Martin and Witness 8.

Immediately after the hearing, undersigned counsel requested the identifying information for

Trayvon Martin and for Witness 8 be forwarded to the defense as that is a necessary requirement to

proper issuance ofthe subpoenas. It should be noted that in recent conversation, Mr. de la Rionda

states that he does not recall that conversation just after the hearing. Nonetheless, those requests

were reiterated over the past three weeks. Mr. de la Rionda most recently stated that he would not

forward that information to undersigned counsel. It only leaves the option of setting five minute

depositions ofmembers ofthe Martin family solely and specifically to gain that information so that

subpoenas can be issued. Similarly, defense counsel will have to set a five minute deposition of

Witness 8 to ascertain the same information from her.

B) The defense has repeatedly asked the state over the past two months when and

howthe State became aware ofthe existence ofWitness 8. This issue carries particular relevance for

the defense in determining how and why this witness was treated in such a unique, awkward way in

accomplishing her recorded statement. The State will not address that question, and it leaves the

defense having to track down that information through yet additional depositions of surrounding

witnesses.

2

6. The state has taken a formalistic approach to their discovery responses, both in their

specific discovery filings, and in their positions taken with regard to "informal" discovery. While

this more limited or static approach to discovery disclosure is not in violation of the rule, it does

require a great deal more vigilance by the defense, and carries with it inherent delays in the discovery

process. Rather than being able to simply address and resolve concerns with ongoing discovery, the

State has taken the path of requiring formal discovery demands and litigation. The examples of this

approach by the State, and the necessary response to it by the defense are as follows:

A) At a hearing on October 19,2012, this Court entered an order granting the

Subpoena Duces Tecum for Twitter and Facebook information for Trayvon Martin and Witness 8.

Immediately after the hearing, undersigned counsel requested the identifying information for

Trayvon Martin and for Witness 8 be forwarded to the defense as that is a necessary requirement to

proper issuance of the subpoenas. It should be noted that in recent conversation, Mr. de la Rionda

states that he does not recall that conversation just after the hearing. Nonetheless, those requests

were reiterated over the past three weeks. Mr. de la Rionda most recently stated that he would not

forward that information to undersigned counsel. It only leaves the option of setting five minute

depositions of members of the Martin family solely and specifically to gain that information so that

subpoenas can be issued. Similarly, defense counsel will have to set a five minute deposition of

Witness 8 to ascertain the same information from her.

B) The defense has repeatedly asked the state over the past two months when and

how the State became aware of the existence of Witness 8. This issue carries particular relevance for

the defense in determining how and why this witness was treated in such a unique, awkward way in

accomplishing her recorded statement. The State will not address that question, and it leaves the

defense having to track down that information through yet additional depositions of surrounding

witnesses.

2


C) Even at the FDLE meeting on January 9, 2013, attempts to get quick answers

in order to focus ongoing discovery were rebuffed, and delayed progress. As an example, even

though FDLE chiefcase agent David Lee was in the room with the attorneys, when defense counsel

attempted to get answers to very specific factual and administrative questions which would have

allowed progress to be made, those were not allowed, and we were advised to wait until a deposition

was scheduled. Further delay ensued.

D) It became known to the defense that the State Attorney's Office personnel

(not FDLE personnel) had removed Trayvon Martin's cell phone from the evidence locker at FDLE

and sent it to a law enforcement agency somewhere in California for analysis. Defense has repeatedly

asked for information on the agency, the analyst and the tests performed on this significant piece of

evidence. To date, the State has refused to answer that inquiry, leaving the defense to resort to

deposing someone unknown, to find out who took the phone out ofevidence, which was then sent

to some unknown agency for some unknown analysis to be performed by some unknown analyst

to be returned to some unknown person at the State Attorneys Office. Surely, the State can be

expected to do better.

7. Again, while the State is within its right, under the letter ofthe rule, to demand such

formalities, that has cost hundreds of hours of additional time to be expended, which has delayed

work and progress on other substantive matters.

8. In an effort to move this matter forward, and to allow the defense to focus dozens of

hours ofwork on substantive issues rather than formalistic partial inquiries ofwitnesses, the defense

would request this Court to require the information listed above (the Twitter and Facebook

information for Trayvon Martin and Witness 8; the information regarding the disclosure of Witness

8's identity to the State; and the particulars regarding the cell phone analysis done in California, be

forwarded to the defense within i O days of hearing on this matter.

3

C) Even at the FDLE meeting on January 9,2013, attempts to get quick answers

in order to focus ongoing discovery were rebuffed, and delayed progress. As an example, even

though FDLE chief case agent David Lee was in the room with the attorneys, when defense counsel

attempted to get answers to very specific factual and administrative questions which would have

allowed progress to be made, those were not allowed, and we were advised to wait until a deposition

was scheduled. Further delay ensued.

D) It became known to the defense that the State Attorney's Office personnel

(not FDLE personnel) had removed Trayvon Martin's cell phone from the evidence locker at FDLE

and sent it to a law enforcement agency somewhere in California for analysis. Defense has repeatedly

asked for information on the agency, the analyst and the tests performed on this significant piece of

evidence. To date, the State has refused to answer that inquiry, leaving the defense to resort to

deposing someone unknown, to find out who took the phone out of evidence, which was then sent

to some unknown agency for some unknown analysis to be performed by some unknown analyst

to be returned to some unknown person at the State Attorneys Office. Surely, the State can be

expected to do better.

7. Again, while the State is within its right, under the letter of the rule, to demand such

formalities, that has cost hundreds of hours of additional time to be expended, which has delayed

work and progress on other substantive matters.

8. In an effort to move this matter forward, and to allow the defense to focus dozens of

hours of work on substantive issues rather than formalistic partial inquiries of witnesses, the defense

would request this Court to require the information listed above (the Twitter and Facebook

information for Trayvon Martin and Witness 8; the information regarding the disclosure of Witness

8's identity to the State; and the particulars regarding the cell phone analysis done in California, be

forwarded to the defense within 10 days of hearing on this matter.

3


9. These delays in the progress ofthe substantive issues have included other discovery

concerns, which have taken extraordinary focus ofdefense resources to attend to and resolve. These

include:

A. PICTURE OF INJURIES TO MR. ZIMMERMAN'S FACE

i . In the State's first discovery exhibit dated May 14, 2012, defense

received a black and white photocopy ofa printed out picture ofMr. Zimmerman's face. That picture

was taken minutes after the February 26 incident occurred and before Mr. Zimmerman was attended

to and cleaned up by medical personnel. A copy ofthat black and white photo is attached hereto as

Exhibit A. It should be noted that this picture was taken by a law enforcement officer, Sanford

Police Officer Wagner on his cell phone, in a digital (.jpg) format. This picture was forwarded to

Chieflnvestigator Christopher Sermo on March 21, 2012, and was therefore available to the State

well before its first discovery disclosure.

2. That undersigned counsel and the defense team made numerous

attempts to accomplish receipt of this digital file after receiving merely the black and white photo.

3. That three months later, on August 24, 2012 the State filed its 7"

Supplemental Discovery disclosure forwarding to the defense a color photocopy ofthe image. The

colors were muted and, most importantly, the defense still did not receive the requested digital

image. A copy of the color photocopy received is attached hereto as Exhibit B as comparison.

4. After receipt of this photocopy, the defense continued its ongoing

requests for the digital image from the State, to no avail.

5. Thereafter, on October 1 2, 20 1 2 undersigned counsel filed a Motion

to Compel Discovery and specifically requested the digital original format of that picture.

6. On October 26, 2012 a hearing was held where the Motion to Compel

was addressed. Only after being directed to do so by this Court did the State offer to try to find and

forward the original digital picture. Finally on October 29, 2012, the defense received an email from

9. These delays in the progress of the substantive issues have included other discovery

concerns, which have taken extraordinary focus of defense resources to attend to and resolve. These

include:

A. PICTURE OF INJURIES TO MR. ZIMMERMAN'S FACE

1. In the State's first discovery exhibit dated May 14, 2012, defense

received a black and white photocopy of a printed out picture of Mr. Zimmerman's face. That picture

was taken minutes after the February 26 incident occurred and before Mr. Zimmerman was attended

to and cleaned up by medical personnel. A copy of that black and white photo is attached hereto as

Exhibit A. It should be noted that this picture was taken by a law enforcement officer, Sanford

Police Officer Wagner on his cell phone, in a digital (.jpg) format. This picture was forwarded to

Chief Investigator Christopher Serino on March 21, 2012, and was therefore available to the State

well before its first discovery disclosure.

2. That undersigned counsel and the defense team made numerous

attempts to accomplish receipt of this digital file after receiving merely the black and white photo.

3. That three months later, on August 24, 2012 the State filed its 7th

Supplemental Discovery disclosure forwarding to the defense a color photocopy of the image. The

colors were muted and, most importantly, the defense still did not receive the requested digital

Image. A copy of the color photocopy received is attached hereto as Exhibit B as comparison.

4. After receipt of this photocopy, the defense continued its ongoing

requests for the digital image from the State, to no avail.

5. Thereafter, on October 12, 2012 undersigned counsel filed a Motion

to Compel Discovery and specifically requested the digital original format of that picture.

6. On October 26, 2012 a hearing was held where the Motion to Compel

was addressed. Only after being directed to do so by this Court did the State offer to try to find and

forward the original digital picture. Finally on October 29,2012, the defense received an email from

4


Mr. de la Rionda which included the requested digital photo. A printed version of that long

requested digital photo is attached hereto as Exhibit C as comparison. (It should be noted that

Exhibit C which is attached to this Motion is a print out ofthe digital image from the defense's color

copier).

7. This example of delay is presented to this Court not solely for the

purpose ofevidencing delay in receipt, but that dozens ofhours oftime was spent on this one issue

and those dozens ofhours oftime were not available to defense to attend to other more substantive

matters.

B. WITNESS 8 RECORDED INTERVIEW WITH BENJAMIN CRUMP

I . That the State's first discovery exhibit dated May 14, 2012 the defense

received a recorded interview of Witness 8 conducted by Benjamin Crump, without the benefit of

law enforcement being present. The interview was of very poor quality and is, in large part,

unintelligible.

2. On August 24, 2012, defense inquired of the State regarding the

recording, as to where it came from, how it was produced, whether or not it was digital or analog

and whether the defense could get a better copy.

3 . Upon receiving no response from the State to that inquiry, the defense

followed up in writing on September 19, 2012, specifically requesting whether any efforts to

improve the quality of the recording were made, whether Witness 8 had ever been interviewed by

any federal or state agent and to identify whether or not ABC News, who it became apparent was

present during the initial recording, had access to that recording or had done their own recording.

Defense also requested the State identify those who were present in the room when the recording was

made as they would be relevant witnesses. A copy of the email correspondence is attached hereto

as Exhibit D.

5

Mr. de la Rionda which included the requested digital photo. A printed version of that long

requested digital photo is attached hereto as Exhibit C as comparison. (It should be noted that

Exhibit C which is attached to this Motion is a print out of the digital image from the defense's color

copier).

7. This example of delay is presented to this Court not solely for the

purpose of evidencing delay in receipt, but that dozens of hours of time was spent on this one issue

and those dozens of hours of time were not available to defense to attend to other more substantive

matters.

B. WITNESS 8 RECORDED INTERVIEW WITH BENJAMIN CRUMP

1. That the State's first discovery exhibit dated May 14,2012 the defense

received a recorded interview of Witness 8 conducted by Benjamin Crump, without the benefit of

law enforcement being present. The interview was of very poor quality and is, in large part,

unintelligible.

2. On August 24, 2012, defense inquired of the State regarding the

recording, as to where it came from, how it was produced, whether or not it was digital or analog

and whether the defense could get a better copy.

3. Upon receiving no response from the State to that inquiry, the defense

followed up in writing on September 19, 2012, specifically requesting whether any efforts to

improve the quality of the recording were made, whether Witness 8 had ever been interviewed by

any federal or state agent and to identify whether or not ABC News, who it became apparent was

present during the initial recording, had access to that recording or had done their own recording.

Defense also requested the State identify those who were present in the room when the recording was

made as they would be relevant witnesses. A copy of the email correspondence is attached hereto

as Exhibit D.

5


4. On October 12, 2012, defense filed a Motion to Compel in order to

get the original recording of Witness 8.

5. At a hearing on October 19, 2012, this issue was addressed and Mr.

Crump was directed to bring the original recording ofthe interview to his deposition and to identify

the witnesses present during the interview.

6. Circumstances changed due to email correspondence between the

defense, the State and Mr. Crump which raised further issues regarding the recording, and how the

original recording was maintained.

7. On November 9, 2012, counsel for defense sent another email

correspondence requesting clarification concerning the recording and previous correspondence.

Defense counsel also requested that the original unedited recording of Witness 8 be turned over to

the Florida Department ofLaw Enforcement. A copy ofthe email correspondence is attached hereto

as Exhibit E.

8. Defense counsel and Mr. de la Rionda again discussed this issue on

November 1 9, 201 2, where Mr. de la Rionda suggested or indicated that perhaps Florida Department

of Law Enforcement could make a copy of Mr. Crumpts recording.

9. On November 28, 2012, defense counsel again attempted to reach Mr.

Crump by phone but was unsuccessful. Counsel then sent an email to the State specifically

requesting the original recording be surrendered to law enforcement due to the previous copy'spoor

quality and obvious edits. A copy ofthe email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

lo. On November 30, 2012, defense counsel filed a Motion to Compel

Discovery from Third Party requesting specifically that the original recording be surrendered to the

Florida Department Law Enforcement.

i i . Finally on December 7, 2012, the State filed a Response to Defense

Motion to Compel Production stating that "The State has now arranged for the recording device to

4. On October 12, 2012, defense filed a Motion to Compel in order to

get the original recording of Witness 8.

5. At a hearing on October 19,2012, this issue was addressed and Mr.

Crump was directed to bring the original recording of the interview to his deposition and to identify

the witnesses present during the interview.

6. Circumstances changed due to email correspondence between the

defense, the State and Mr. Crump which raised further issues regarding the recording, and how the

original recording was maintained.

7. On November 9, 2012, counsel for defense sent another email

correspondence requesting clarification concerning the recording and previous correspondence.

Defense counsel also requested that the original unedited recording of Witness 8 be turned over to

the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. A copy of the email correspondence is attached hereto

as Exhibit E.

8. Defense counsel and Mr. de la Rionda again discussed this issue on

November 19,2012, where Mr. de la Rionda suggested or indicated that perhaps Florida Department

of Law Enforcement could make a copy of Mr. Crump's recording.

9. On November 28,2012, defense counsel again attempted to reach Mr.

Crump by phone but was unsuccessful. Counsel then sent an email to the State specifically

requesting the original recording be surrendered to law enforcement due to the previous copy's poor

quality and obvious edits. A copy of the email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

10. On November 30, 2012, defense counsel filed a Motion to Compel

Discovery from Third Party requesting specifically that the original recording be surrendered to the

Florida Department Law Enforcelnent.

11. Finally on December 7,2012, the State filed a Response to Defense

Motion to Compel Production stating that "The State has now arranged for the recording device to

6


be turned over to FDLE and have a digital copy ofthe recording made from the recording device and

provide such to defense counsel."

12. To date, it has been seven months since the defendant received the

poor quality recording and nearly four months since the first time defense requested a better copy.

Only after receipt ofthis digital copy did it become apparent that the original has at least seven starts,

stops and edits in that the phone call lasted approximately 26 minutes, but there are only

approximately 14 minutes of recording.

i 3 . Again dozens of hours have been spent on this issue and the issue is

still not fully resolved.

C. TRAYVON MARTIN'S CELL PHONE

i . Defense counsel set up a meeting to review all existing tangible

evidence at the Florida Department ofLaw Enforcement. This evidence review occurred on August

8, 2012. During that evidence review, undersigned counsel identified a piece ofevidence as Trayvon

Martin's cell phone. Inquiry was made from the persons present and a State Attorney Office

investigator stated the phone was found wet and inoperable at the scene. Undersigned counsel then

inquired further as to whether a charger was available so that the phone could be powered up to see

if it was working at that time.

2. After further inquiry, an FDLE analyst, later to become known as

Steven Brenton. came into the evidence review room and powered up the phone. As the phone came

on, it was noticed that the phone was "locked out" in that someone had attempted the password more

than the maximum number of times.

3 . It was then determined that Mr. Brenton had actually performed an

analysis of the phone. This was previously unknown to the defense, and no information in this

regard has been forwarded in any ofthe previous eight discovery disclosures. Discussion was had

with both the State and Mr. Brenton confirming his analysis.

7

be turned over to FDLE and have a digital copy of the recording made from the recording device and

provide such to defense counsel."

12. To date, it has been seven months since the defendant received the

poor quality recording and nearly four months since the first time defense requested a better copy.

Only after receipt of this digital copy did it become apparent that the original has at least seven starts,

stops and edits in that the phone call lasted approximately 26 minutes, but there are only

approximately 14 minutes of recording.

13. Again dozens of hours have been spent on this issue and the issue is

still not fully resolved.

C. TRAYVON MARTIN'S CELL PHONE

1. Defense counsel set up a meeting to review all existing tangible

evidence at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. This evidence review occurred on August

8,2012. During that evidence review, undersigned counsel identified a piece of evidence as Trayvon

Martin's cell phone. Inquiry was made from the persons present and a State Attorney Office

investigator stated the phone was found wet and inoperable at the scene. Undersigned counsel then

inquired further as to whether a charger was available so that the phone could be powered up to see

if it was working at that time.

2. After further inquiry, an FDLE analyst, later to become known as

Steven Brenton, came into the evidence review roon1 and powered up the phone. As the phone came

on, it was noticed that the phone was "locked out" in that someone had attempted the password more

than the maximum number of times.

3. It was then determined that Mr. Brenton had actually performed an

analysis of the phone. This was previously unknown to the defense, and no information in this

regard has been forwarded in any of the previous eight discovery disclosures. Discussion was had

with both the State and Mr. Brenton confirming his analysis.

7


4. On August 24, 2012, the State then filed its 7th Supplemental

Discovery including a CD with some of Mr. Martin's cell phone data.

5 . Analyst Brenton's deposition was then set and occurred on September

26, 2012. During that deposition it was determined that the information forwarded in the State's 7"

Supplemental Discovery was incomplete, in that it did not have all ofthe information which Analyst

Brenton had in his FDLE file regarding Mr. Martin's phone. It was further determined during that

deposition that Mr. Brenton could access what is known as the "SlIM card" and the 'SD' card, but

that he could not access the internal "flash" memory. Only at that point did the defense receive the

report from Analyst Brenton, which was generated on March 26,2012, six months earlier.

6. Ongoing discussions were had between the State, FDLE and defense

counsel in an attempt to identify how to access the flash memory over the next several weeks.

7. At some point in this process, the State attorney's office removed the

phone from FDLE evidence and forwarded it to a law enforcement agency, unknown to the defense

at this time, for additional analysis. Seemingly this analysis allowed access to the flash drive in some

format, but there has been no report generated to date. The State has refused to answer questions

regarding this event.

8. The Florida Department ofLaw Enforcement then regained possession

ofthe phone and it was further analyzed by CelleBrite, a company in New Jersey. This occurred on

January 7th and 8th, 2013.

9. During that analysis, CelleBrite was able to access the flash memory

ofthe phone and an enormous amount ofadditional information has been gathered from that phone.

That information was forwarded to defense counsel on or about January 1 8, 2013. Initial analysis

was done by undersigned over the weekend ofJanuary i 9, 201 3 and there was specific concerns with

information that is missing from that analysis. As illustrative example, while the analysis includes

4. On August 24, 2012, the State then filed its 7th Supplemental

Discovery including a CD with some of Mr. Martin's cell phone data.

5. Analyst Brenton's deposition was then set and occurred on September

26, 2012. During that deposition it was determined that the information forwarded in the State's 7th

Supplemental Discovery was incomplete, in that it did not have all of the information which Analyst

Brenton had in his FDLE file regarding Mr. Martin's phone. It was further determined during that

deposition that Mr. Brenton could access what is known as the "SlIM card" and the 'SD' card, but

that he could not access the internal "flash" memory. Only at that point did the defense receive the

report from Analyst Brenton, which was generated on March 26,2012, six months earlier.

6. Ongoing discussions were had between the State, FDLE and defense

counsel in an attempt to identify how to access the flash memory over the next several weeks.

7. At some point in this process, the State attorney's office removed the

phone from FDLE evidence and forwarded it to a law enforcement agency, unknown to the defense

at this time, for additional analysis. Seemingly this analysis allowed access to the flash drive in some

format, but there has been no report generated to date. The State has refused to answer questions

regarding this event.

8. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement then regained possession

of the phone and it was further analyzed by CelleBrite, a company in New Jersey. This occurred on

January 7th and 8th, 2013.

9. During that analysis, CelleBrite was able to access the flash memory

of the phone and an enormous amount of additional information has been gathered from that phone.

That information was forwarded to defense counsel on or about January 18,2013. Initial analysis

was done by undersigned over the weekend of January 19, 2013 and there was specific concerns with

information that is missing from that analysis. As illustrative example, while the analysis includes

8


GPS locating records for Mr. Martin's phone for all of the time that he was in the Sanford area,

specifically absent is any such data for February 26, 2012, the date ofthe event.

lo. Similarly, there seems to be missing entries regarding phone calls

made to the phone or texts made to or from the phone in the evening hours of February 26,20 12.

Expert analysis is required to further identify these issues.

i i . Lastly, at the depositions of other FDLE analyst witnesses on

September 26, 2012, it was determined that the State had given black-and-white copies of

photographs from Analyst Gorgone's file. These photographs attached hereto as Composite

Exhibit G, which show the virtually indistinguishable characteristics of items reported to be items

ofclothing worn by either Mr. Martin or Mr. Zimmerman. It was only while viewing the file across

the table from Analyst Gorgone at his deposition that defense counsel identified that color copies

existed. These color copies were then received by defense counsel and are attached hereto as

Composite Exhibit H. As is apparent, the information in Composite Exhibit H (the color photos)

is of specific evidentiary value while the Composite Exhibit G is not.

D. FDLE FILE INFORMATION

i . FDLE reports in the State's 2nd Supplemental Discovery dated June 14,

2012, defense received 35 FBI reports and 24 FDLE investigative reports. The FBI reports came as

a group without any transmittal correspondence or other information documenting how FDLE came

into receipt of these documents or whether or not this was a complete package from the FBI.

Similarly, the 24 FDLE investigative reports pursuant to that initial receipt of discovery from the

Florida Department of Law Enforcement depositions were set of those FDLE witnesses. These

depositions took place on Wednesday, September 26, 2012. At those depositions, itwas determined

that several ofthe FDLE witnesses including Steven Brenton, Alvin Guzman, Anthony Gorgone and

Amy Siewart had information in their FDLE files from which they were testifying, that had not been

GPS locating records for Mr. Martin's phone for all of the time that he was in the Sanford area,

specifically absent is any such data for February 26, 2012, the date of the event.

10. Similarly, there seems to be missing entries regarding phone calls

made to the phone or texts made to or from the phone in the evening hours of February 26,2012.

Expert analysis is required to further identify these issues.

11. Lastly, at the depositions of other FDLE analyst witnesses on

September 26, 2012, it was determined that the State had given black-and-white copies of

photographs from Analyst Gorgone's file. These photographs attached hereto as Composite

Exhibit G, which show the virtually indistinguishable characteristics of items reported to be items

of clothing worn by either Mr. Martin or Mr. Zimmerman. It was only while viewing the file across

the table from Analyst Gorgone at his deposition that defense counsel identified that color copies

existed. These color copies were then received by defense counsel and are attached hereto as

Composite Exhibit H. As is apparent, the information in Composite Exhibit H (the color photos)

is of specific evidentiary value while the Composite Exhibit G is not.

D. FDLE FILE INFORMATION

1. FDLE reports in the State's 2nd Supplemental Discovery dated June 14,

2012, defense received 35 FBI reports and 24 FDLE investigative reports. The FBI reports came as

a group without any transmittal correspondence or other information documenting how FDLE came

into receipt of these documents or whether or not this was a cOlnplete package from the FBI.

Similarly, the 24 FDLE investigative reports pursuant to that initial receipt of discovery from the

Florida Department of Law Enforcement depositions were set of those FDLE witnesses. These

depositions took place on Wednesday, September 26,2012. At those depositions, it was determined

that several of the FDLE witnesses including Steven Brenton, Alvin Guzman, Anthony Gorgone and

Amy Siewart had information in their FDLE files from which they were testifying, that had not been

9


previously disclosed to the defense. While some copies of some of the previously undisclosed

documents were received on the day of the deposition, others were not.

2. In response to those issues, defense counsel filed a Demand for

Specific Discovery requesting the entire file from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement

including all information contained within that file. That matter was heard before this Court on

October 26, 2012.and During that hearing Assistant State Attorney John Guy stated to this Court as

follows:

MR. GUY: Just briefly, Your Honor. Judge, fwe can begin with the proposition that theDefense is not entitled to every shred ofevidence in possession ofthe State. What they'veaskedjor in the specc demand is every conceivable shred or electronic piece ofdata toDOJ, the FBI and FDLE, and to date the State has supplied every report that it is aware offrom FDLE, Department offustice and the Federal Bureau oflnvestigations. Additionally,we have provided the statement ofevery witness that has been taken by a member of thoseagencies. So I submit to date the State has complied with its obligation under the FloridaRules ofDiscovery. And we understand it's a continuing obligation, and we will abide bythat, accordingly. (Emphasis added)

3 . The Court stated that, rather than ordering that the entire file be copied,

Defense Counsel was authorized to go to FDLE and review the entire file, identifying what was

necessary for copying.

4. 1-lowever, on November 8, 2012 the State Attorney's Office forwarded

its Ninth Supplemental discovery which included more than 30 additional FDLE reports and more

than 10 FBI reports. All ofthe FDLE reports included in that disclosure were completed by FDLE

by April 20, 2012, and according to Investigator David Lee at his deposition, were forwarded to the

State Attorneys office contemporaneously with being finalized, a process that is to be accomplished

no later than twenty days after the conclusion ofthe event reported. The reports were, then, at least

seven months delayed in disclosure by the State to defense. Similarly, all of the FBI reports were

completed in May of2012, making their disclosure six months late.

5. Based upon the Court's authority for defense to review the FDLE file,

the defense set up a meeting at the FDLE headquarters in Orlando, Florida. This was coordinated

lo

previously disclosed to the defense. While some copies of some of the previously undisclosed

documents were received on the day of the deposition, others were not.

2. In response to those issues, defense counsel filed a Demand for

Specific Discovery requesting the entire file from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement

including all information contained within that file. That matter was heard before this Court on

October 26,20 12.and During that hearing Assistant State Attorney John Guy stated to this Court as

follows:

MR. GUY: Just briefly, Your Honor. Judge, if we can begin with the proposition that the Defense is not entitled to every shred of evidence in possession of the State. What they've asked for in the specific demand is every conceivable shred or electronic piece of data to DOl. the FBI and FDLE, and to date the Stale has sUllplied every report that it is aware of trom FDLE, Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Additionallv. we have provided the statement of every witness that has been taken by a member of those agencies. So I submit 10 date the State has complied with its obligation under the Florida Rules of Discovery. And we understand it's a continuing obligation, and we will abide by that, accordingly. (Emphasis added)

3. The Court stated that, rather than ordering that the entire file be copied,

Defense Counsel was authorized to go to FDLE and review the entire file, identifying what was

necessary for copying.

4. However, on November 8, 2012 the State Attorney's Office forwarded

its Ninth Supplemental discovery which included more than 30 additional FDLE reports and more

than 10 FBI reports. All of the FDLE reports included in that disclosure were completed by FDLE

by April 20, 2012, and according to Investigator David Lee at his deposition, were forwarded to the

State Attorneys office contemporaneously with being finalized, a process that is to be accomplished

no later than twenty days after the conclusion of the event reported. The reports were, then, at least

seven months delayed in disclosure by the State to defense. Similarly, all of the FBI reports were

completed in May of 20 12, making their disclosure six months late.

5. Based upon the Court's authority for defense to review the FDLE file,

the defense set up a meeting at the FDLE headquarters in Orlando, Florida. This was coordinated

10


through Mr. David Margolis, Esquire, counsel for FDLE, and the State Attorney's Office. This

meeting occurred on Wednesday, January 9 at i :00 p.m

6. At the meeting on January 9, 201 3, yet additional information,

previously undisclosed by the State, was identified. These items include many documents which

were generated in March and April of 2012, including a map created by an FDLE analyst showing

the whereabouts ofTrayvon Martin's phone during the hours ofFebruary 26, 2012; a report of an

incident involving Trayvon Martin created by the Miami Dade School Police Department; a picture

given by Tracy Martin to the Sanford Police Department identified as a current photo of Trayvon

Martin (which was previously specifically requested by the defense), and approximately 150 pages

of additional discovery and several discs of discovery.

7. In addition to the concerns referenced above, and in large part caused

by those concerns, the defense still has significant work to be done in preparation for the Self

Defense Immunity Hearing, and. possibly, trial. A brief overview of some particular concerns are

as follows:

E. ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

DEPOSITIONS

i . That there more many State witness to still be deposed including

Martin's family members, additional Sanford Police Department witnesses, FBI agents, Witness 8,

Benjamin Crump, and numerous other witnesses, who have only most recently been identified

through presently evolving discovery. A majority of these newly identified witnesses will take

additional investigative efforts, coordination ofdepositions, and the probability ofongoing motions

for subpoenas duces tecum. These include, by way of example:

Benjamin Crump: Only recently Mr. Crump has identified that he intends

to file motions attendant to his planned deposition and defense counsel was recently contacted by

counsel who may become involved in the case representing Mr. Crump and his firm. Therefore, it

11

through Mr. David Margolis, Esquire, counsel for FDLE, and the State Attorney's Office. This

meeting occurred on Wednesday, January 9 at 1 :00 p.ln

6. At the meeting on January 9, 2013, yet additional information,

previously undisclosed by the State, was identified. These items include many documents which

were generated in March and April of2012, including a map created by an FDLE analyst showing

the whereabouts of Trayvon Martin's phone during the hours of February 26,2012; a report ofan

incident involving Trayvon Martin created by the Miami Dade School Police Department; a picture

given by Tracy Martin to the Sanford Police Department identified as a current photo of Trayvon

Martin (which was previously specifically requested by the defense), and approximately 150 pages

of additional discovery and several discs of discovery.

7. In addition to the concerns referenced above, and in large part caused

by those concerns, the defense still has significant work to be done in preparation for the Self

Defense Immunity Hearing, and, possibly, trial. A brief overview of some particular concerns are

as follows:

E. ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

DEPOSITIONS

1. That there more many State witness to still be deposed including

Martin's family members, additional Sanford Police Department witnesses, FBI agents, Witness 8,

Benjamin Crump, and numerous other witnesses, who have only most recently been identified

through presently evolving discovery. A majority of these newly identified witnesses will take

additional investigative efforts, coordination of depositions, and the probability of ongoing motions

for subpoenas duces tecum. These include, by way of example:

Benjamin Crump: Only recently Mr. Crump has identified that he intends

to file motions attendant to his planned deposition and defense counsel was recently contacted by

counsel who may become involved in the case representing Mr. Crump and his firm. Therefore, it

11


is anticipated that additional litigation will be necessary to address and resolve issues surrounding

Mr. Crump's deposition.

Witness 8: The planned deposition of Witness 8 is delayed until defense

counsel is fully prepared, and with all preparatory work completed, including a determination by this

Court regarding a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to ABC News, to

accomplish a better copy of the recording of the interview taken by Mr. Crump; the determination

ofthe accurate 'Twitter handles' and Facebook information (such as her address) ofWitness 8 and

of Trayvon Martin, so that the subpoenas authorized by this Court can be served on Twitter and

Facebook, and litigated, if necessary; expert assistance is required to identify the specific

conversation that was had between Mr, Crump and Witness 8, and to determine the starts, stops and

edits ofthe tape, as the phone call lasted 26 minutes and the recording only lasted 14 minutes.

In addition, it has been determined through discovery that Witness 8 was flown up to

Jacksonville, Florida to be interviewed by Mr. de la Rionda. This was accomplished through the

FDLE agents, yet to date, no reports of that process or the interview has been disclosed.

Martin Family Witnesses: The Martin family witnesses are a chapter of

this case which will take an enormous amount oftime and focus. The family members have, through

their publicity firm and their numerous public and media appearances, generated an extraordinary

amount of information, much of it relevant to the case at hand. While the gathering of that

information is ongoing, the analysis of it is tedious and time consuming.

Investigator Erwin: Defense counsel examined Investigator Erwin at a

deposition on October 17, 2012. The deposition revolved around Investigator Erwin's contact with

George Zimmerman, focusing on the Voice Stress Analysis Test.

In a deposition on the November 1 9, 20 1 2, Defense counsel deposed Sanford

Police Captain Robert O'Connor regarding his involvement in and awareness of the investigation.

In that deposition, Captain O'Connor testified that he had a conversation with the Assistant State

12

is anticipated that additional litigation will be necessary to address and resolve issues surrounding

Mr. Crump's deposition.

Witness 8: The planned deposition of Witness 8 is delayed until defense

counsel is fully prepared, and with all preparatory work completed, inc1 uding a determination by this

Court regarding a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to ABC News, to

accomplish a better copy of the recording of the interview taken by Mr. Crump; the determination

of the accurate 'Twitter handles' and Facebook information (such as her address) of Witness 8 and

of Trayvon Mart.in, so that the subpoenas authorized by this Court can be served on Twitter and

Facebook, and litigated, if necessary; expert assistance is required to identifY the specific

conversation that was had between Mr, Crump and Witness 8, and to determine the starts, stops and

edits of the tape, as the phone call lasted 26 minutes and the recording only lasted 14 minutes.

In addition, it has been determined through discovery that Witness 8 was flown up to

Jacksonville, Florida to be interviewed by Mr. de la Rionda. This was accomplished through the

FDLE agents, yet to date, no reports of that process or the interview has been disclosed.

Martin Family Witnesses: The Martin family witnesses are a chapter of

this case which will take an enormous amount of time and focus. The family members have, through

their publicity firm and their numerous public and media appearances, generated an extraordinary

amount of information, much of it relevant to the case at hand. While the gathering of that

information is ongoing, the analysis of it is tedious and time consuming.

Investigator Envin: Defense counsel examined Investigator Erwin at a

deposition on October 17,2012. The deposition revolved around Investigator Erwin's contact with

George Zimmerman, focusing on the Voice Stress Analysis Test.

In a deposition on the November 19, 2012, Defense counsel deposed Sanford

Police Captain Robert O'Connor regarding his involvement in and awareness of the investigation.

In that deposition, Captain O'Connor testified that he had a conversation with the Assistant State

12


Attorney handling this matter, Bernie de la Rionda, during which he advised Mr. de la Rionda some

two weeks before his deposition (placing the conversation between O'Connor and de la Rionda

during the first few days ofNovember, 2012), that he spoke with Investigator Erwin sorne three

weeks before (placing thai conversation between O'Connor and Erwin some time during the

beginning ofOctober, 2012).

During the O'Connor-Erwin conversation, Investigator Erwin stated that he

was in the investigative office during the time that lead investigator Christopher Sermo had

Mr. Tracy Martin in that office. Investigator Sermo played the 91 1 tape which contained, in the

background, screams for help br Mr. Martin to hear. Investigator Sermo then asked Mr. Martin

whether or not those screams were the voice of his son, and Mr. Martin stated "no".

The State Attorney's Office failed to disclose this exculpatory information to

the Defense, even though Mr. de la Rionda was aware of it no less than two weeks before the

deposition of Captain O'Comor.

The Defense was then required to file a Motion To Take Additional

Deposition dated December 3, 2012 to flesh out Investigator Erwin's testimony in this regard, and

to memorialize it for use in the upcoming proceedings, as the State woLild not agree to a second

deposition of Investigator Erwin for that PulPose.

On December 7, 20 1 2. the State filed its response to defendant's motion to

take additional deposition and stated that the State had "no objection" to Investigator Erwin being

deposed a second time.

That deposition must still be taken.

Investigator Christopher Sermo, Sanford Police Department: As the

primary investigator for the Sanford Police Department, Investigator Serino's deposition will be

taken aller all other witnesses relevant to the investigation have been completed. Recently, several

13

Attorney hand ling thi s maller, Bcrnic de la Rionda, during which he advised Mr. de la Rionda some

two weeks before hi s deposition (placing the conversation bctween O' Connor and de la Rionda

during the rust few days of Novcmber, 20 12), that he spoke with In vcstigator Erwin some three

weeks before (p lacing that convcrsati on between O' Connor and Erwin some time during the

beginning of October, 20 12).

During thc O 'Connor- Erwin conversation, Investi gator Erwin stated that he

was 111 the investigati ve office during the time that lead investi gato r Chri stopher Serino had

Mr. Tracy Martin in that officc. Investigator Serino played the 9 11 tape which contained, in the

background, screams for help for Mr. Martin to hear. Investigator Serino then asked Mr. Martin

whether or not those screams werc the voice of hi s son, and Mr. Martin stated "no" .

The State Attorney's Office fail ed to di sc lose thi s exculpatory information to

the Defense, even though Mr. dc la Rionda was aware o f it no less than two weeks before the

deposition of Captain O 'Connor.

Thc Defen se was then required to file a Motion To Take Additional

Deposition dated December 3, 2012 to flesh out Investi gato r Erwin 's testimony in this regard, and

to memoriali ze it for use in the upcoming proceedings, as thc State wo uld not agree to a second

deposition of Investigator Erwin fo r that purpose.

On Dcccmber 7, 20 12, the State filed it s rcsponse to defendant' s motion to

take additional deposition and statcd that the State had " no objection" to Investigator Erwin being

deposed a second time.

That dcposition must still be taken.

Investigator Christopher Serino, Sanford Police Department: As the

primary investi gator for thc Sanford Police Department, In vesti gator Serino ' s deposition wi ll be

taken after all other witnesses relevant to the investigat ion have been completed. Recently, several

13


additional 'draft' reports were forwarded to defense, indicating additional work to be done regarding

the basis for the changes in the drafts, and other information.

EXPERT ASSISTANCE

In addition, defense counsel needs additional time to recruit experts which will

be necessary in the preparation of hearing and trial in this matter. This can only happen after the

discovery issues wrapped around these 'expert subject matters' are addressed and resolved.

ADDITIONAL INFLUENCE ON THE DEFENSE'S ABILITY TO PREPARE

In addition to the discovery frustrations outlined above, there have been other

issues that have taken the defense time and effort including the following:

I . In responding to the court order revoking Mr. Zimmerman's

bond, the defense team had to spend literally hundreds of hours addressing the issue of the order

revoking bond and the fallout from that order. This resulted in a Writ of Prohibition to be prepared

and presented to the 5th District Court ofAppeal. This consumed an extraordinary amount of time

from July through August, 201 2. Therefore, attention was focused on discovery matters starting in

earnest in September, 2012.

2. Because ofthe nature ofthis case, numerous witnesses have

had their identity protected. While the defense understands, accepts and agrees with this level of

protection, it has made the process ofidentifying these witnesses, redacting all statements, handling

the information and coordinating discovery regarding these witnesses more time consuming.

3 . In addition, many witnesses, such as all of Sanford Police

Department, some Retreat View witnesses and most family members have retained counsel, which

require additional coordination of appearances.

4. Because ofthe high profile nature ofthis case, there has been

an extraordinary amount of information which has flowed through various social media sites, blogs,

media outlets, and other vehicles. This is a new and unique facet to the criminal defense ofsuch a

14

additional 'draft' reports were forwarded to defense, indicating additional work to be done regarding

the basis for the changes in the drafts, and other information.

EXPERT ASSISTANCE

In addition, defense counsel needs additional time to recruit experts which will

be necessary in the preparation of hearing and trial in this matter. This can only happen after the

discovery issues wrapped around these 'expert subject matters' are addressed and resolved.

ADDITIONAL INFLUENCE ON THE DEFENSE'S ABILITY TO PREPARE

In addition to the discovery frustrations outlined above, there have been other

issues that have taken the defense time and effort including the following:

1. In responding to the court order revoking Mr. Zimmerman's

bond, the defense team had to spend literally hundreds of hours addressing the issue of the order

revoking bond and the fallout from that order. This resulted in a Writ of Prohibition to be prepared

and presented to the 5th District Court of Appeal. This consumed an extraordinary amount of time

from July through August, 2012. Therefore, attention was focused on discovery matters starting in

earnest in September, 2012.

2. Because of the nature of this case, numerous witnesses have

had their identity protected. While the defense understands, accepts and agrees with this level of

protection, it has made the process of identifying these witnesses, redacting all statements, handling

the information and coordinating discovery regarding these witnesses more time consuming.

3. In addition, many witnesses, such as all of Sanford Police

Department, some Retreat View witnesses and most family members have retained counsel, which

require additional coordination of appearances.

4. Because of the high profile nature of this case, there has been

an extraordinary amount of information which has flowed through various social media sites, blogs,

media outlets, and other vehicles. This is a new and unique facet to the criminal defense of such a

14


high profile case and has heightened the need for defense counsel to be able to review this

information flow and to cull from it information that may be helpful to the defense, or may impact

negatively on the state's case. In addition. the defense must be vigilant to discover what

misinformation has been broadcast to the public, and therefore oicntialjurors, so as to address those

issues either peremptorily, or through jury selection. As such, a great deal of time has to be spent

sifting through this information in order to glean from it the potentially relevant information. Failing

to do so in a case of this magnitude would be deficient.

WHEREFORE the Defendant respectftilly requests this 1-lonorable Court to enter an Order

continuing the trial in this matter.

Respectftilly submitted this 3O" day ofJanuary, 2012. /fl

MARK M0'MARA, ESQUIR'I x-Florida BarNo.: 359701O'Mara Law Group141 6 East Concord StreetOrlando, Florida 32803Telephone: (407) 898-5151Facsimile: (407) 898-2468E-Mail: Markmarkomara!aw.cornCo-Counsel for Defendant


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished byFacsimile/E-Mail this 30th day ofjanuary, 2013 to:

Bernie de la Rionda, Assistant State AttorneyJohn Guy, Assistant State AttorneyOffice of the State Attorney220 East Bay StreetJacksonville. Florida 32202-3429

Donald R. West, Esquire636 West Yale StreetOrlando, Florida 32804 j J f' fi,.

MA

15

high profile case and has heightened the need for defense counsel to be able to review thi s

information flow and to cull fro m it information that may be helpful to the defense, or may impact

negatively on the state's case. In addition, the defense must be vigilant to di scover what

misinformation has been broadcast to the public, and there fo re potential jurors, so as to address those

issues either peremptorily, or through jury selection. As such, a grcat dea l o f time has to be spent

sifling through thi s info rmation in order to glean from itthe potentiall y relcva11l information. Failing

to do so in a ease o f thi s magnitude would be de ficient.

WHEREFORE the Defendant respectfully requests thi s Honorable Court to enter an Order

continuing the trial in thi s matter.

Respectfully submitted thi s 30,h day of January, 20 12.

MARK I . O'MARA, ESQU IR : Florida Bar No.: 35970 I O ' Mara Law Group 14 16 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Te lephone: (407) 898-5151 Facsimile: (407) 898-2468 E-Mail: Mark(ill.markomara law.col11 Co-Counsel fOI: Defendant

CE RTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[ HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and corrcct copy of the foregoi ng has been furni shed by Facsil11ile/E-Mailthis 30th day of January, 20 13 to:

Bernie de la Rionda, Assistant State Attorney John Guy, Assistant State Attorney Office of the State Attorney 220 East Bay Street Jackso nville, Florida 32202-3429

Donald R. West, Esquire 636 West Yale St reet Orlando, Florida 32804

15


I M A G I N G http:11147. i . i .237: 10050/imaginglpublic/Crirninallmage.jsp

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN ND FOR SEMINOLE CO3NTY, FLORIDA. Page:.

02/05/2013 9:56 AI Case # 2012CF001083ASThTE OF FLORIDA vs ZIt*ERMAN, GEORGE � OBTS 5901121590

Agency: SOSC CD: SD Loge 900 Tape:I¡OTION Opened At. 09:00 AN on 02/05/2013 In Courtroom SD, With the Folowing:

Circuit Judge: DEBRA S N1LSOW Deputy C1erk SARA MLNATTState Attorneys BERTI DE LA RIONDA & Defenoe Attorney; OARA, MARK P4 & DON WESTPublic Defender: Deputy Sheriff/Bailiff.: DON 4ARLQWCourt Reporters DIGITAL-5D .

.. Charge(s): t

Becription . Citation nord Bondsman1 MURDER IN TRE SECOND DEGREE X1M0000086 MAGfC u s

Defendant Was FreenL for NOTIONState Attorney BERNIE DE LA RIONDA & JOHN GUY Was PresentDefenne Attorney OMARA, MARK M & DO S'EST Was Present a

FEB o 5 2013For Charges 3. MORDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE

Defendant co::tinued on bor.d CLERi SEMINOLE COuiTr

Docket Sounding continued to 03/05/2013 at 09:00 1 in Courtroom 5D, at the CriminalJustice BuildIng, 101 Bush Blvd1 Sanford FL 32773 before udge DEBRA S NELSON

THE STAll 1ND DEFENSE WAIVED THE PRESENCE OF A COURT RSPORTER FOR TODAY' S HEARThG, AND ACCEPTSTHE JTGITAL RECORDING.

ATTY OMARA IWDRESSEI THE COURT REGARDING PREVIOUS RULINGS BY ThF COURT AND REQUESTED WRITTENORDERS BE SIGNED BY THE COURT

ATTY DF :A RIONDA RESPO1'TJED, HAVING NO OBJECTION TO THE COURT SIGNING WRITTEN ORDERS.THE COURT SIGNED ORDERS 0Th THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE FROM THIRD-PARTY,NENDED DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY(2), MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITICAL DISCOVERY, MOTION TO

MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE, MOTiON TO TAXE ADOTTIONAL DIPOSITION, AND MOTION FOR CLARfl'ICATIONOF ORDER SETTING BAIL.

-NOTION FOR ORDER ISSUING SUBPOENA DUC3S TECUM W 7-ELEVEN, INC. -ATTY OMAA PRESENTED ARGUMENT TO THE COURT.ATTY DE LA RIONDA HAD NO OBJECTION.

ATTY OMARA TO PREPARE A WRITTEN ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION, AND IS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE STATE,PRIOR TO BE SENT TO THE COUPT FOR SIGNATURE.-MOTION TO CONTTNUE-

ATY OMAR.A ADDRESSED THE COURT.ATTY DE LA RIONDA RESPONDED.

ATTY OMARJ RESPONDED TO THE ARGUMENT BY THE STATE.THH COURT DENIES THE MCTION TO CONTiNUE THE TRIAL.-NOTION FOR SPEC.FIC DISCOVIRY-ATTY O1'tRA PRESENTED ARGUNENT TO THE COURT.ATTY DE iA R:ONDA RESPONDED.AS TO 3 OF THE MOTION:THE COURT ADVISED COUNSEL ON HOW TO GET WITNESS 6 ND THE MARTIN FAMILY,rDEN'IFYNG INFORMATION FOR FACEBOOK AND TWITTER.AS TO *4 OF THE MOTION:TliE COURT ADVISED COUISEL TO TAKE 'i'HE DEPOSTION OF WLINESS NO.8AS TO S OF THE MOTION:THE STATE IS 'XC PROVIDE THE DEFENSE, TuF CHAIN OF CUSODY REGARDING THECELL 'UONE, BY 2/8/13.

THE COURT HAS OPENED 3/5/13, 4/2/13, AND 4/30/13 FOR HEARING TIMH FOR THE PARTIES.ATT? BLACKWELL AS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ATI'Y CRUMP, AND ADDRESSED THE COIRT, REGARDING TAKINGATTY CRUMP'S DEPOSITION.

ATTY BLACKWELL FILED, IN OPEN COURT, A WR.TTEN AFFIDAVIT OP ArTY CRUMP.


IMAGING http://147. i . i .237: 1 005 0/imaging/public/Criminallmage.j sp?Action=View

:N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 18TH JUJICIAL CIRCUIT, N ND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDAPager 2

02/05/2013 9:56 AM Case J 2012CP'001083ASfATE OF FWR:DA v ZINMERMAN GEORGE OBTS k 5901121590

THE COURT WTZL REVIEW FHE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY AT1Y BLACKWELL, .ND THE DEPOSITION SCHEDULED FORTODAY OF ATTY CRUMP, IS POSTPONED AT THIS TIMi.DOCKET SOU1'DING WAS ALSO HELD TODAY.

RECi:PT OF DEFENDANT:

I'

hereb a owled receipt of the foregoing

{ _t- --J.-t.___._

*1 lef darits Signature Address

Judge _________

(include city, State & Zip) Phone N:ibor


this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance



appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification f the time before the scheduled

than 7 if you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.

WITNESS THE CLERK AND SEAL ON 02/05/2013, nd I hereby furnish the above nameddeL%ndart a true copy hereof, and furnished other true copies to those indicated be1ow_____ Probation

- rniii'f'/Bondsman MARYANNE NORSE, CLERK CIRCUIT COURT

- :efendant

/ etense Attorney By:_____ C.erks Finance Depu ' Clerk




STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant.I

CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFA

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST (REDACTED)


attorney, and files this his Supplemental Witness List of the names and addresses of all persons

known to him to have information which may be relevant to the defense of the pending charges:

Sanford Police DepartmentAyala, Ricardo Sgt.Bentsen, KristenCiesla, Leon Sgt.Davila, CarlosDorival, WendyErvin, WilliamJohnson, AdamLee, Bill ChiefLynch, SteveMcCoy, StacieMead, JonathanO'Conner, BobRaimondo, Tony Sgt.Santiago, JosephSermo, ChristopherSingleton, DorisSmith, DianaSmith, Randy Sgt.Smith, TimothyTaylor, Mike Lt.Wagner, Mike


Florida Department of Law Enforcement - (Orlando Florida)Batchelor, JohnBrenton, StephenCrosby, DaleGorgone, AnthonyGuzman, AlvinKrejci, StephanLee, DavidOrta, PattyRodriguez, TonySiewart, Amy

State Attorney's Office (Jacksonville, Florida)Gailbreath, K.D.O'Steen, T.C.

State Attorney's Office (Eighteenth Circuit, Florida)Artingstall, TomBeatty, GaryCarter, JimHines, Kelly JoPost, JimRick, JimSalmons, StaceyVeaudry, BobWhitaker, PatWolfinger, Norm

Sanford Fire RescueBrandy, MikeLivingston, StacyO'Rourke, KevinRochfort, TylerTaylor, Mike

Medical Examiner's Office (Volusia County Florida)Bao, ShipingMalphrus, Tara

Seminole County Sheriffs OfficeKnoffke, SeanMorales, JeffreyRumph, Ramona

Civilians (all addresses in Sanford, Florida unless otherwise indicated)Akkawi, KhaledAnderson, Larry


Bonaparte, Jr, NortonBrantly, JamesCrump, BengaminFrazier, SterlingFulton, Jahvaris (e/o SAO)Fulton, Sybrina (e/o SAO)Hackett, BrianMartin, Miriam (e/o SAO)Martin, Ronquavius (e/o SAO)Martin, Stephen Sr. (e/o SAO)Martin, Tracy (e/o SAO)McKinney, GregMcLeod, ScottMehier, DannyOsterman, Sondra (e/o OLG)Perillo, JeffSmith, Mike (e/o OLG)Stinnet, D'AndreTaafee, FrancisTaylor, KentWright, JohnZimmerman, Gladys (e/o OLG)Zimmerman, Sr, Robert (e/o OLG)GZW1GZW2GZW3GZW6GZW7GZW8GZW11GZW12GZW13GZW14GZW16GZW17GZW18GZW19GZW2OGZW21GZW23GZW24GZW25GZW26GZW27GZW29GZW3OGZW31


GZW4IGZW42GZWAGZWBGZWCGZWDOZWEGZWFGZWGGZWHGZWIGZWJGZWKGZWLGZWMGZWNGZWOGZWPGZWQGZWRGZWSGZWTGZWUGZWVGZWWGZWXGZWYGZWZGZW AAGZW BBGZW CCGZW DD

Respectfully submitted this 21 st day c

O'MARA LAW GROUP1416 East Concord StreetOrlando, Florida 328031'elephone: (407) 898-5151Facsimile: (407) 898-2468E-Mail: Mark(•rnarkomara1aw.cornCo-Counsel for Defendant



I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has een furnished byU.S. Mail this 21st day ofMarch, 2013 to Bernie de la Rionda, Assistant Stat ttorney and JohnGuy, Assistant State Attorney, Office of the State Attorney, 220 East Bay t cet, Jacksonville,Florida 32202-3429 and to Donald R. West, Esquire, 636 West YaleStr et Orlando, Florida32804. II

QUIRE




STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant.

CASE NO.: 2012-001083-CFA

DEFENDANT'S SECOND AMENDED WITNESS LIST (REDACTED)


attorney, and files this his Second Amended Witness List ofthc names and addresses ofall persons

known to him to have information which may be relevant to the defense ofthe pending charges:

Sanford Police DepartmentAyala, Ricardo Sgt.Bernosky, MikeBentsen, KristenBlake, JamesCiesla, Leon Sgt.Davila, CarlosDodson, LewisDorival, WendyDunn, WilliamErvin, WilliamFlowers, DonaldFrancis, MiguelGoller, Chase1-lemandez, MichaelHerx, Paul1-linkley, MickeyJankowski, PeterJohnson, AdamJustiniano, PeterKelley, ShawnKuchcinski, Robert


Lee, Bill ChiefLynch, SteveLugo, SanjuanitaManley, RobertMcCoy, StacicMcIntosh, TammyMead, JonathanMorgan, AlfredMurray, JackO'Conner, BobRaimondo, Tony Sgt.Ricks, AndrewRivera, LanceRivera, PedroSantiago, JosephSantiago, StevenSermo, ChristopherShull, Robert FI.Singleton, DorisSmith, DianaSmith, GregorySmith, Randy Sgt.Smith, TimothyTaylor, Mike Lt.Timpano, Michael'I"ucker, MichelleWagner, MikeWalsh, JohnWalsh, KathrynWells, KellyWhite, DebbieWillis, WilliamWright, Done!!

Florida Department of Law Enforcement - (Orlando, Florida)Batche!or, JohnBrenton, StephenCrosby, DalcGorgone, AnthonyGuzman, AlvinKrcjci, StephanLee, DavidOrta, PattyRodriguez, 'I'onySiewart, Amy


State Attorney's Office (Jacksonville, Florida)Gilbreath, K.I).O'Stcen, 'I'.C.

State Attorney's Office (Eighteenth Circuit, Florida)Artingstall, TomCarter, JimPost, JimSalmons, StaccyVeaudry, BobWhitaker, PatWolfinger, Norm

Sanford Fire RescueBrandy, MikeLivingston, StacyO'Rourke, KevinRochfort, TylerTaylor, Mike

Medical Examiner's Office (Volusia County, Florida)Bao, ShipingDorton, BenFuller, PriscillaMalphrus, 'Tara

Seminole County Sheriff's OfficeKnofike, SeanMorales, JeffreyRumph, Ramona

CiviliansAkkawi, Khaled (1349 S. Orange Blossom l'rail, Apopka, Florida)Anderson, Larry (1349 S. Orange Blossom Trail, Apopka, Florida)Bonaparte, Jr, Norton (300 N. Park Ave., Sanford, FL 32771)Brantly, James (4745 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida)Crump, BenjaminFrazier, Sterling (4700 S. U.S. I-Iighway 17-92, Casselberry, Florida)Fulton, Jahvaris (e/o SAO)Fulton, Sybrina (e/o SAO)1-Jackett, Brian (3750 Flagg Lane, Lake Mary, Florida)Martin, Miriam (e/o SAO)Martin, Ronquavius (e/o SAO)Martin, Stephen Sr. (e/o SAO)Martin, Tracy (e/o SAO)MeKinney, Greg (3008 Brittncy Way, Tampa, Florida)


McLeod, Scott (1447 Willingham Road, Chuluota, Florida)Mehier, Danny (3750 Flagg Lane, Lake Mary, Florida)Osterman, Sondra (do OLG)Perillo, Jeff (4700 S. U.S. I-Iighway I 7-92, Casselbeny, Florida)Smith, Mike (e/o OLG)Stinnet, D'Andre (4745 5. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida)Taaffe, Francis ( i 460 Retreat View Circle, Sanford, Florida)i'aylor, Kent (6972 Lake Gloria Boulevard, Orlando, Florida)Wright, John (905 West I 3th Street, Sanford, Florida)Zimmerman, Gladys (e/o OLG)Zimmerman, Sr, Robert (e/o OLG)GZW1GZW2GZW3GZW6GZW7GZW8GZWIIGZW12GZW13GZW14GZW16GZWI7GZW18GZW19GZW2OGZW2IGZW23GZW24GZW25GZW26GZW27GZW29GZW3OGZW3IGZW4IGZW42GZWAGZWBGZWCGZWFGZWGGZW IIGZWIGZWJGZWK


GZWLGZWMGZWNGZWOGZWPGZWQGZWRGZWSGZW TGZWUGZWVGZWWGZWXGZWYGzwzGZW AAGZW BBGZW CCGZW DDGZW EEGZW FFGZW GGGZW III-IGZW JJGZW LLGZW MMGZW NNGzw 00GZW PPGZW QQGzwssGzw TTGZW UUGZW VVGZW WWGzw xxGZW YYGZW ZZGzw AAAGZW BBBGzw CCCGZW DDDGZW EEEGZW FFF


OtherAny witness identified through State's discoveiy not otherwise disclosed herein

Respectfully submitted this I 7th day of April, 2013

MARK M. O'NtA'RA, ESQUiREFlorida BarNo. 359701O'MARA LAW GROUP141 6 East Concord StreetOrlando, Florida 32803'l'elcphonc: (407) 898-5151Facsimile: (407) 898-2468E-Mail: [email protected] for 1)c¡endant


I HEREBY CER'l'IFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been frirnished byU.S. Mail this 17th day ofApril, 2013 to Bernie de la Rionda, Assistant State Attorney and JohnGuy, Assistant State Attorney, Office of the State Attorney, 220 East Ba'Street, Jacksonville,Florida 32202-3429 and to Donald R. West, Esquire, 636 West Yale S(reet, Orlando, Florida32804. I , I

MARK N4\Q'MAR\ESQUIRE


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH … Zimmerman 13-1233/13-1233...IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIFTH … Zimmerman 13-1233/13-1233...IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF...