State Identifies Some Witnesses in George Zimmerman Case

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 12:16:36 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The State's Attorney yesterday filed its 5th Supplemental Discovery notice, stating that pursuant to an earlier court order, it was releasing the names of five witnesses whose statements had previously been provided in redacted form. These are witnesses who appeared in the media and identified themselves. They include Brandy Green, Mary Cutcher and her roommate Selma Mora, Cheryl Brown and her son Austin McClendon, and Cynthia Wibker, former Homeowner Association Treasurer.

Today the state re-released 30 pages of witness statements with the witnesses names filled in. I have uploaded them here. Other witnesses are identified besides the 5 named above.

I think the state misidentified Cutcher and Mora's house number. The notice says it is 2031 Retreat View Circle instead of 2831 Retreat View Circle. 2031 RVC isn't in the first block of houses that back up to the shared path between houses where Trayvon Martin's body was found. I assume it's a typo. (Added: Or else they have moved, but the only address relevant to the case is the one they lived at on 2/26 and that is 2831 Retreat View Circle.)

I think the state should also have released the names of Chad, who has been interviewed with his mother Brandy Green on Fox News, and Witness 18, the "Teacher," who made numerous TV appearances with her attorney. Even though the Teacher didn't use her name, she told her story on TV and the Court's disclosure order isn't limited to those who used their real name.

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | Court Orders C.U. to Deny Media Access to James Holmes' School Records >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

State Identifies Some Witnesses in George Zimmerman Case | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The redaction game (none / 0) (#2)
by MJW on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:34:46 PM EST

For those who would like to play, I believe the interview documents were produced with MS Word, using margins set 7 apart, in 10 pt. MS Sans Serif font.

I may be wrong about Chad (none / 0) (#3)
by MJW on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:39:33 PM EST

I may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion about Chad's last name. So for now, never mind.

: No problem - I already never minded (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:50:19 PM EST

: I deleted your comment (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:07:35 PM EST

since you retracted it.
I prefer not to publish the identities of witnesses ordered not disclosed by the court. So please don't guess here as to real names, etc. Chad has been on TV. Other witnesses have chosen not to reveal their identities. Others were interviewed and will not be witnesses. So no guessing games here, thanks.

Could There Be More? (none / 0) (#6)
by RickyJim on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 05:43:01 PM EST

Jeralyn, you have been following high profile cases for many years. What do you think of the chances that there could be more significant evidence to come, that has so far eluded leaks and reporters? If we pretty much have it all, just what could the prosecution be thinking?

Then there is witness #14 (none / 0) (#7)
by heidelja on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:21:04 AM EST

Per CFNews13 here:

Since that witness is under 18, we have chosen not to release his name.
Witness 14 is the son of one of the other witnesses. He told police a man in red was on the bottom during the struggle. Zimmerman was wearing a reddish-orange jacket the night Trayvon Martin was shot.

under 18 (none / 0) (#9)
by LeaNder on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:27:23 AM EST

that was my spontaneous reaction. But his name is known already anyway, and strictly I could imagine he does not mind.

I do not agree with Jeralyn concerning the teacher, I think her name should be protected if she went to the media anonymously. So yes, disclosing her name feels a bit revengeful. She didn't support Zimmerman after all. Jeralyn may not trust her, but I think it is pretty easy to imagine that there must have been a verbal argument, initially. Not that it is completely impossible, but very, very unlikely. Others heard something too before the screams.

Admittedly, I find it very, very hard to believe that Trayvon simply hit a man supposedly only walking by. But yes, personally I usually don't use flashlights on a dark path, so he may not have simply passed by.

If we have the same witness in mind (the boy with the dog) in mind, the red jacket could have been suggested by interviewers. At least that is what he claimed in hindsight. And we have slight problems concerning color discernment in the dark, obviously. What about the white shirt on top? I'd love to see the original colors in the same light environment and distance. I have the same problems with people that believe it is so easy for us to understand the direction of the source of sounds. It is not a bit. Sound spreads in a ball shape. You can be completely mistaken if you are trying to translate what you feel you are hearing into a precise location.


Crump's friend Alisia claimed (none / 0) (#12)
by MJW on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 03:55:28 PM EST

If we have the same witness in mind (the boy with the dog) in mind, the red jacket could have been suggested by interviewers. At least that is what he claimed in hindsight.

More Crumpification. Alisia Adamson has been part of the "justice for Trayvon" movement from early on. She's worked with Crump on other cases. He called her "my legal mentee."

Austin McClendon originally told the police he saw someone on the ground in a red hoodie. He told the special investigators the same thing. The family had since retained Adamson as their lawyer, and she was present in the second interview. Adamson was concerned about McClendon's statement about the red hoodie. She claimed that in the first interview McClendon may have been persuaded to say that by the police, and that he felt obligated to repeat it in the second interview.

When she became concerned in the interview, was it because McClendon had told her he was pressured be the police? If so, why did she, according to the report, only say he may have been persuaded to say that? And if he'd told her couldn't tell the color of the clothing, wouldn't she have said to him that he should correct the statement, not repeat it? And why would the police persuade McClendon to say a red hoodie instead of a red jacket? I think Adamson's concern about the red hoodie statement was that it went against her favored narrative.

I do not know (none / 0) (#16)
by LeaNder on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 09:12:27 AM EST

I do not know Alisia Adamson. But she looks like a professional. Why should Crump not support a colleague whose work he estimates?

The family had since retained Adamson as their lawyer, and she was present in the second interview. Adamson was concerned about McClendon's statement about the red hoodie. She claimed that in the first interview McClendon may have been persuaded to say that by the police, and that he felt obligated to repeat it in the second interview.

I have problems with "since retained" in this context. So she is the family's lawyer anyway? And they looked for her advise in this special context too?

You know what this little exercise at dot connecting reminds me of? One of the Stately McDaniel supporters, a lady, if I remember correctly, seemed very outraged at the fact that the Martin/Fulton family in fact had such good access to lawyers.

I don't know what led the family of the boy to look for legal support, but why should I question their decision?

I could imagine that it may have been traumatic for the boy in hindsight, that he did chase after his dog instead of helping someone that was shot. Legal advise on the part of the family may have been an afford to help him deal with it.

Besides the hoodie may reflect the perception that he in the actual encounter immediately thought about two youth struggling and did not feel like an elder man was involved. This may also have been a reason, why at the time, he felt he did not need to take a closer look. These kind of fights do not usually end in the dead of one.


What's the problem? (none / 0) (#19)
by MJW on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 12:46:06 PM EST

What do you object to? I'd almost bet money that Adamson wasn't their attorney on Feb. 26., so they must have retained her services between that time and the second interview. What I wouldn't bet on, but believe is more likely than not, is that she either offered her services to them, or was recommended to them by Crump or someone in Crump's firm.

I question her service because she's a member of the "Justice for Trayvon" crowd, and I think her involvement in the case is to further that cause, not to protect the Brown family's interests. You're welcome to disagree.


: I do not object (none / 0) (#23)
by LeaNder on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 06:51:34 PM EST

I am wondering what exactly you suggest. I mainly feel the resentment, but I cannot grasp it's origin. And I somehow don't like it; especially since the basis feels like speculation.

Austin's Interviews (none / 0) (#17)
by RickyJim on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 10:19:16 AM EST

I only heard red shirt here. Where did red hoodie come from? Here Austin says red t-shirt. I find the idea that the police put the red shirt idea into Austin's head hard to swallow.


An interesting point (none / 0) (#18)
by MJW on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 12:33:40 PM EST

I'll have to look into that. The red hoodie description comes from T.C. O'Steen's March 27 memo describing the SAO interview with Brown and McClendon. One wonders whether it was "red" by the police, or "hoodie" by Adamson that was added to McClendon's story.


Red Hoodie = Red Herring (none / 0) (#20)
by RickyJim on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 01:54:29 PM EST

If you compare the dates of the two youtube interviews with March 27, the answer is obvious. Any interview conducted by Bernardo de la Rionda is worthless as evidence. I keep harping on the outrageous aspect of US criminal procedure that allows prosecutors to usurp the legitimate function of the police as independent investigators. Or is this only something that Florida and a few other states engage in?


Don't know myself, but... (none / 0) (#21)
by MJW on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 02:35:05 PM EST

Mike McDaniel of the Stately McDaniel Manor blog, who says he has "a bit less than two decades of experience as a civilian police officer where [he] served as a patrolman, juvenile officer, detective, field training officer, taught at a state law enforcement academy, served as a shift supervisor, division commander, firearm trainer and SWAT officer," asserts:

One major issue is that--unlike TV and the movies would have us believe--prosecutors NEVER interview suspects. They commonly meet witnesses only just before a trial begins, and then, only to introduce themselves and tell the witness when they can expect to testify and to put them at ease. They do not discuss the details of testimony with witnesses.

NEVER Means Except in Florida? (none / 0) (#22)
by RickyJim on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 04:50:22 PM EST

Jeralyn should know at least what is OK in Colorado.


That's just false (none / 0) (#24)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 09:38:43 PM EST

First of all, the person you are citing lumps suspects with witnesses as if they are the same.

Prosecutors don't interview suspects upon arrest because the case hasn't been turned over to them yet. It's cops who make arrests and do the initial investigation, and then turn it over to the prosecutor, with a recommendation of charges. The final charging decision is up to the prosecutor. Once charges are filed, suspects become defendants who are provided counsel if they don't already have one or can't afford one. Prosecutors and cops can not longer interview a defendant represented by counsel, except with counsel's permission.

As to witnesses, once charges are filed and prosecutors enter the case, they sit in on and conduct debriefings of witnesses all the time. They prep witnesses for their testimony. They have a law enforcement agent with them, so it doesn't become their word against the witness' word if the witness goes south on them, but they are there and often take the lead in questioning.

Dee Dee is not a suspect, she's a witness. She was interviewed by de la Rionda, and will be prepped by proseuctors for her testimony. One of the first questions Dee Dee will be asked on cross-examination is "How many times did you meet with the prosecutors and review your testimony?"

De La Rionda also interviewed Witness 6 and Witness 13, among others.

Please don't cite that source again here please.


I don't thiink he's lumping (none / 0) (#25)
by MJW on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 09:57:25 PM EST

I don't think the writer is lumping suspects and witnesses together when he says:

I think he's making two separate statements: 1) Prosecutors never interview suspects; and 2) They commonly meet witnesses only just before a trial begins, and then, only to introduce themselves and tell the witness when they can expect to testify and to put them at ease.

Those claims may both be wrong, but I think the absolute claim is confined to suspects.


life is not a movie (none / 0) (#27)
by LeaNder on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:08:05 AM EST

That there is a difference between a movie and the reality of law enforcement is a standard with every law enforcement officer I met or know; and I am fan of detective stories or crime fiction generally, and often are sad they cannot talk about their more interesting cases.

Considering my earlier inability to understand your use of "since sustained".

There are two basic legal issues involved on the side of every witness that come to mind. The first was especially on my mind concerning John from the very start. His fiancee he told enforcement didn't want him to go out, but she did alert him to the quarrel outside after all. ...

denial of assistance
failure to render assistance (in an emergency)

This may be more a human issue in our case, and may not be important in a legal sense, but it's not that it is not on some people's mind in hindsight.

The second is clearly in the air during all the later interviews. All the witnesses are confronted with their earlier statements. Some accept it really fast, others take some time to first take a close look at what they wrote.

The legal issue here would be false or changing testimony. Not the kind of change resulting from elaboration on some specific points of course. John for instance is among the people that states that strictly he does not believe he could tell from which direction the "noises" came initially, all he can say is that they became louder and thus seemed to approach only in his longest interview later; just as he modifies his MMA style fight later.

Let's assume for a moment legal issues were the reason the parents looked for legal advise, or protection of their boy since he wondered about these or other issues in his own layman terms. If they then contacted a lawyer, what sense would it make to not retain him/her until the trial?

So again, what are you suggesting with the use of that term? My suspicion admittedly is, you are trying to suggest, if there weren't these rabble-rouser like in this instance black lawyers, no one would have paid attention. But why should this be the case in our context? Or what evidence do you have for your suspicion?

Without Tracy Martin's activities, his search for a lawyer and his following the advise of a member of his family, who is a lawyer herself, Crump et al wouldn't be involved. And as I understand, Crump initially told Tracy Martin to be patient, and let law enforcement do their job.

And you do not know what made the family look for legal assistance and obviously retains it till things are over.

Concerning your little dot connection between Crump and Adamson, they are both Florida lawyers for longer now, isn't the likelihood they know each other higher than they do not? Every law suit has after all two sides, represented by two different lawyers. So why would it be surprising they met before? Or maybe they even looked for each other's help in their special field of expertise? Wouldn't that be life just as much as a theme in movies?


ALL the later interviews? (none / 0) (#28)
by MJW on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 12:29:06 PM EST

Didn't sound to me like DeeDee was "confronted" with her earlier statements. Sounded more like she was led through them.


: I didn't talk about (none / 0) (#29)
by LeaNder on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:17:21 PM EST

I didn't "talk" about Dee Dee, you do.
DeeDee didn't write an early statement and was confronted with it in a later interview.

So It Isn't Just in Florida (none / 0) (#26)
by RickyJim on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 10:23:23 PM EST

Thanks for the clarification Jeralyn. I was amazed when I read the source MJW mentioned. I am sure you know some harsh critics of the situation where lawyers for both sides prep their witnesses. What about Prof William Pizzi of the University of Colorado, author of "Trials Without Truth"? Have you imagined how your life would change if the US switched to the inquisitional methods of other countries where most of the questioning of witnesses at trial is done by a panel of judges?

Just compare the interview of Witness 6 by John Bachelor of the FDLE with de la Rionda's interview of DeeDee to see how differently a real investigator goes after the truth and an advocate tries to bolster their case.


George Zimmerman's parents ... (none / 0) (#8)
by heidelja on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 06:27:50 AM EST

...launch new website, plan to move. Updated Friday, July 27, 2012 @ 06:26AM here.

question to the legal experts here (none / 0) (#10)
by LeaNder on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 07:36:38 AM EST

How long will judge Lester have to decide on the motion of O'Mara and Zimmerman?

: Immediately, if not sooner (none / 0) (#11)
by MJW on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:26:13 PM EST

The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration say the judge should rule immediately (meaning very expeditiously, of course, not instantly) on the motion. If there's no ruling in 30 days, the motion is automatically granted. Judge Lester was just leaving for a -- two week, I think -- vacation when the motion was filed, so that may account for the delay in ruling.

comment deleted (none / 0) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:05:03 PM EST

posting Chad Green's birth name and other details. Please wait until the court has authorized the release of his name. He went on Fox News as Chad, son of Brandy Green, and maybe as Chad Green, but since the state hasn't released his name, I don't want to publish it here. We're not trying to break news in the case but analyze the case.

So be it (none / 0) (#14)
by MJW on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 10:54:53 PM EST

Obviously it's up to you to decide what's appropriate for your blog. I'm not sure why, though, it's okay to use the name "Chad Green" because it came from a news report based on an interview with him, but not okay to use the name I mentioned, which also came from a news report based on an interview with him. Neither name has been released by the court. My own interest in his name is just how he fits in to the witness numbering scheme.


: To me, the difference is (none / 0) (#15)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 12:56:46 AM EST

in the Fox News video, they identified themselves or were present as their names were used by the reporter. A news article about them isn't the same thing. Since he's a juvenile, I'd like to remain on the side of caution.