If the state reviewed the photographic images, videos and text messages in the bin files and found any that could be favorable to the defense or impeaching of state witnesses, it has to identify and provide them. The defense was able to retain an expert with access to software that could read some of the files, which is how it obtained the materials it disclosed earlier today. But it has no idea if the state is sitting on more of these kinds of items, since it refuses to acknowledge its obligation to turn them over.

The defense writes:

The State was fully aware at that time that there was information resident on Trayvon Martin's cell phone, including pictures of Trayvon Martin in possession of at least one weapon, pictures of marijuana plants, pictures of Trayvon Martin smoking marijuana, pictures of marijuana blunts, and texts discussing, securing or purchasing firearms, and bragging about being involved in fights, etc.

It accuses the state of continuing to hide discovery and disclose discoverable material.

The State, for its part, makes a third request for a gag order on the defense (available here.) In my view, its their weakest one to date, consisting of two complaints, neither of which has any substance.

4/30/2013, Defense Counsel commented about potential evidence to HLN.

Watch the video the state cites in support of its allegation. O'Mara didn't opine on the evidence, he said the experts are all over the place. He said the jury might decide either way on its own without expert testimony. That's not a prejudicial extrajudicial comment. The rules clearly allow lawyers to talk about what is at issue in the case and what issues will be decided at an upcoming hearing.

The state also complains:

Defense Counsel commented to HLN about a matter discussed during the incamera hearing that were supposed to remain confidential until the Court determined it should be disclosed.

Here's the video it cites. On April 30, attorney Don West confirmed to HLN the jury will be sequestered and a juror questionnaire will be utilized. At the hearing on April 30 (see very end of hearing, video here) the judge said nothing in court about the jury matters being confidential. She referenced the juror questionnaires in open court. She asked the prosecutor whether it was necessary to have discussions about the juror issues on the record. The prosecutor responded the discussion did not have to take place on the record. (He did not say the matters were confidential.) At O'Mara's request, the judge agreed to meet with the lawyers to discuss the issues that day after lunch. The meeting was held in chambers. So the court acknowledged there would be a a questionnaire, and on May 10, the defense filed a motion seeking an anonymous jury (and asking that the jury and jury panel be sequestered.) None of this is secret let alone prejudicial.

The state cites Rule 4-3.6 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar:

Trial Publicity

(a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communications if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation or an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

(b) Statements to Third Parties. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule. (my emphasis)

In my opinion, the only lawyers making prejudicial comments to the media are those representing the Martin family. Today, they referred to the release of defense discovery about Trayvon Martin as "red herrings" and a "distraction." Those are comments on the evidence with a tendency to prejudice the public. The state wants it both ways. They want Crump to be considered counsel on the case for the purpose of avoiding having his deposition taken (which he is not) but they don't ask that Crump & Co adhere to the ethical rules for lawyers when making public comments.

That the state complains about O'Mara and West while giving Team Crump a pass speaks volumes about the blinders the state has donned. It's okay for lawyers associated with its side of the case to prejudice the public against the defendant, but a when the defense accurately describe pleadings and court proceedings in neutral terms, it wants a gag order.