Here is exactly what I was hoping someone would share when I asked the question yesterday about how Mark O’Mara’s involvement into the HOA settlement with the Martin Family could be considered. This author has digested the information, considered the surrounding issues, and formulated an up-side opinion to O’Mara being involved in the civil matters around the case.
In short – this person sees a positive or bright side approach. This well though out guest post came via e-mail and the author has approved my sharing it with you.
[…] Like many, I was outraged the first day or two when the story broke nationally, then I started wondering what the heck was going on after Obama made his comment. I then started paying attention and thought something smelled bad. I found your site shortly after Angela Corey become involved and reading your posts about what Crump and company needed to achieve in order to make money was eye opening, especially as I watched it unfold in the manner consistent with your assertions.
Anyway, in response to your blog, I would like to state this about Omara being involved in the settlement process with the HOA. I am no fan of Omara, but its brilliant.
Lets take a step back. Anyone on the HOA board would know George and probably want to help him. They knew without doubt that Crump is a money grubber or figured it out quickly. By getting Omara involved, he became privy to all communication from Crump and company while creating attorney client work product privilege as to his knowledge. He would have full access to all calls and messages and would be able to quickly discern what this was really all about.
It would seem to me that the settlement agreement would call for not only all settlement information to be kept confidential, but all negotiations as well. But maybe it didnt, O’mara would have been smart to make sure that was not part of the agreement. If it was, by Crump now putting in front of Nelson what he has in order to shore up his claim being “some kind of opposing counsel”, he has unwittingly violated that clause and now the whole set of interactions can be revealed. Unless of course Nelson seals it as Crump is requesting.
Why does it matter?
One, he can throw it in DeeDee’s face. Imagine her under oath at the depo answering that no promises of money or financial remunerations was made to her, then presenting a letter to her from Crump to the HOA demanding $15 million? Let her know they are walking away with millions while she is left to twist. To always look over her shoulder that some pretend crazed Zimmerman fan will always be after her. Or that she could be left to hold the bag and looking at prison for perjury. Think that would get her to flip on them?
Second, if he does get to depose Crump or put him on the stand, Omara can put Crump’s demands to the HOA out there again to build the issue that Crump was basically trying to manufacture a case.
Third, whether or not Crump is put on the stand if this farce gets to trial, all of Crump’s action to block being deposed is on the record, as DeeDee’s honesty is now in question because she was influenced by the mother’s presence, it can be put in to show with the demands for money to the HOA that Crump had a motivation to find someone to lie. Look at the way the appeal to the appellate court is crafted, it is calling Crump into question in order to undermine DeeDee’s assertions.
Even if he is never deposed, never put to the stand, the negotiations can get in front of the jury one way or the other. It can be done by calling the HOA members as character witnesses for George and then bringing out the negotiations that way. Get in front of the jury how many millions he was asking for through out, along with all the other lies, it will be a powerful question in the jury’s mind that would have to raise reasonable doubt regarding DeeDee, assuming she even showed up to court.
Frankly, its a much better strategy to go after Crump’s intentions rather than the parents in terms of garnering jury sympathy. As I said before, be mindful of the fact that the HOA called in Omara, it doesn’t necessarily translate it that it was done for to hurt George.
{snip – email ends here}
[*The only thing I will add or clarify, is that I’ve never said, nor implied, that O’Mara engaging in the civil matters was intentionally nefarious. My questions were about propriety and conflict of interest. I do not think there was a specific intent to harm George; My concern was/is that harm could occur as an unintended consequence….. /SD]