Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Was Zimmerman Affidavit Redacted? (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let me clarify (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I didn't say Corey's office redacted this document.  I said we don't know who did that.

    I do say that Corey's office is responsible for withholding a large number of other public records, in violation of the law.

    And I also say that Corey along with O'Mara plan to seek the Court to "seal" not just particular records that could be "sealed" - but "the public records" that surround this case.

    •  Charlie - I think you will see a lot of exceptions (4+ / 0-)

      As I read the Florida sunshine law if both the prosecution and defense believe it is in the interest of justice and all parties they can keep the lid on all evidence until a trial. I think that given the problem the prosecutors are going to have finding an impartial jury that this case will be an exception to the normal Florida practice and that you will not see any evidence until a hearing requires it, or the trial itself.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Apr 12, 2012 at 10:50:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is they are trying to go beyond that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        they are already withholding public records that are not among those that they can legitimately get the Court to withhold normally.

        And that is the troubling aspect of what they are saying they are going to ask the Court to do in granting a very wide "seal" on not just evidence but as O'Mara phrased it this afternoon - "on the public record."

        I have no problem with those things which the Sunshine law legally allows to be withheld during an investigation or trial.

        Its their withholding things that are not exemptible under Chapter 119.

      •  So for example (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There is an "ongoing criminal investigation" exemption.

        So lets say they want to exempt "the evidence" from being released.

        That is fine.

        However, if part of that evidence comes from the public record, the established case law confirms that it cannot, in fact, thereby be rendered exempt from being provided by the agency which owns that record.  It cannot be excluded as a public record just because it, among all the other evidence, is being considered as a piece of evidence.

        For example they are already trying to do this with the video of Zimmerman.

        But they cannot exempt that video - because it is a public record of the police department.  You can't make them give the copy they have in evidence as a public record, you can't even make them disclose that they have considered that as evidence, but not being able to get it from the prosecution or Court does not mean the Police Department can deny it.

        And that is already taking place.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site