An interesting ideological dilemma now exists regarding the 5th District Court of Appeals (DCA) about who should respond to their request for “Position” – ie. “order to show cause“.
The DCA is requiring “The State” be the respondant – they have to, there is no other way for the DCA to ask for an affirmative position to Nelson’s ruling.
Remember, the integral aspect to Judge Nelson’s ruling (essentially no deposition for Crump) was based in large part on the position that Benjamin Crump represented “Opposing Counsel” against Don West/Mark O’Mara and George Zimmerman. Subsequently she used the phrase “co-counsel”, a position from which the State of Florida, via Bernie De La Rionda, never distanced themselves from.
At the time, on February 24th, we wrote a follow-up post titled “An open letter to Don West” because, predictively we saw makings of an ideological dilemma. Essentially, what was outlined in that post / letter, was the missed opportunity for Don West to turn to the State of Florida (via BDLR) and ask the question: “do you accept Ben Crump as co-counsel”?
Your honor, if you are going to use, and afford, referenced case-law to protect the non-party Crump from deposition, thereby assigning him a new status of central party or conjoined counsel with the state, it is prudent to ask the State Prosecutor Mr. Bernie De La Rionda if he accepts such distinctions? (link)
Why this question was/is important is now spotlighted by the request from the 5th DCA’s request for The States’ position in their “order to show cause“.