Mike Morrison Demands
His Constitutional Protections

If you are a long time reader of VolusiaExposed, you may be aware of the October 2012 shooting of Michael Morrison, by the Holly Hill Police Department.

VolusiaExposed has our own theory about the cause of the Morrison shooting. In short, we believe the evidence suggests, that it was an accidental police shooting, that has been sustained as a legitimate use of deadly force.

Please feel free to review our below linked earlier articles on the Morrison affair.

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

US CONSTITUTION
Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Mike Morrison's Demands
&
The Court's Frustrations

Morrison's problems with the court, and his attorney, David Damore are actually very simple. He, Morrison, is demanding that his accusers be deposed prior to his trial, or his consideration regarding any plea bargains offered by the State Attorney. Two of his accusers are local police officers, one of which, put a bullet into Morrison's back.

In our opinion - it's unfortunate for the Court, but fortunate for justice in general, that Morrison was paying attention in his sixth grade civics class, when his teacher was instructing him that in this country, all persons charged with a criminal offence, have the right to challenge his (her) accusers / witnesses. (Reference the Sixth Amendment To The U.S. Constitution)

The Plea Offer


According to court records, Morrison is being prosecuted on the charge of aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer, a felony charge, that carries a mandatory minimum of 3 years in prison. Recently, the State Attorney's office has offered Morrison a plea bargain. They are willing to drop the charge down to misdemeanor assault of a law enforcement officer, with no further jail time, and six months of supervised probation. Mr. Damore, and even Judge Marriott, (see April 15, 2015 video) have advised Morrison that the State's plea offer is a "good deal". (It's always helpful to receive the judge's opinion on a plea bargain)

When VolusiaExposed questioned Morrison on his opinion of the deal - he replied, that both Damore and Judge Marriott are correct, it is a good deal, for the State of Florida, but not for him, for he is an innocent man.

Morrison is quick to voice an opinion that this plea deal was not offered for his benefit, but rather to assist Damore's graceful exist from a case in which he never really intended to pursue. Morrison expects this plea deal to disappear with the same quickness that Damore vanished from his duties.

Apparently, Morrison holds the beliefs that his case should be prosecuted within the confines of the U.S. Constitution, AND he should be given the criminal defense that he paid Damore $10,000 to conduct. Morrison believes he is being denied both.

The Difference Between $5,000 & $10,000


According to Morrison, on the day he hired Attorney, David Damore - Mr. Damore advised him that his fee would be a mere $5,000 to negotiate a plea bargain with the State Attorney's office, OR $10,000, if Morrison wanted him to take dispositions, and to prepare for trial. Morrison states that he paid Damore his requested fee of $10,000, plus additional admin fees.

Judge Marriott Allows Damore To Withdraw As Morrison's Attorney

According to court records, Morrison's trial was scheduled to begin on April 20, 2015. However, on that very day - Judge Marriott granted a motion filed by Damore allowing him to withdraw as Morrison's attorney. VolusiaExposed video recorded this hearing - and the apparent rationale for allowing Damore to withdraw was Damore's refusal to depose Morrison's accusers, and thus the probability of a 3.850 motion

The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure allow for such a postconviction relief motion (3.850) for several reasons, one being that the criminal defendant had ineffective legal counsel.

It was with great interest, that during the April 20, 2015 hearing that Damore mentioned his belief that his continued participation in Morrison's case might cause the filing of a 3.850 motion. Further, it is noted that Judge Marriott agreed with Damore's concern regarding the possibility of the 3.850 motion being filed. Not understanding the terminology - Morrison inquired from Judge Marriott what the 3.850 motion meant. Judge Marriott clarified that there were concerns that Morrison could make post conviction allegations of ineffective counsel.

We (VolusiaExposed) found it interesting that apparently both Judge Marriott and Attorney Damore were on the same page regarding the 3.850 motion - especially given that such a motion can deal with a myriad of reasons, one being ineffective counsel.

In the end doesn't it simply come down to this - Does Morrison have a right to depose his accusers? Is it too much for Morrison to expect that his PAID attorney would do these depositions?

Have Central Florida Officials Obtained A Sixth Amendment Exemption?

Last year (2014), VolusiaExposed posted the below linked article, in which we voiced our rationale, on why Brevard Circuit Court Judge John C. Murphy needed to be removed from the bench.

From our perspective, Judge Murphy engaged in unethical judicial behaviors, in an attempt to deny criminal defendants their U.S. Constitutional rights. In the particular, their right to counsel, and their right to a speedy trial, as stated in the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (see above - top right).

The Murphy matter is currently under review by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) The JQC has the task, to determine whether Judge Murphy unethically secured criminal defendants speedy trial waviers, by first denying them their legal counsel.

Given the developments in the Morrison case, we (VolusiaExposed) are left wondering, if our Central Florida Judiciary take seriously our U.S. Constitutional rights?

While we are not yet alleging any misconduct by Judge Marriott, it would appear, that Marriott allowed Damore to withdraw, due to Damore's refusal to depose the accusers in the Morrison case. Frankly, it's our opinion, Morrison has a Sixth Amendment right to face / depose those individuals. So, how is Judge Marriott going to resolve this problem? Morrison also has the right to counsel, and to secure witness statements in support of his defense. All of these rights are guaranteed within the Sixth Amendment.

What if Morrison secures yet another high priced defense attorney, that gladly accepts his money to conduct these depositions, and to prepare Morrison for trial - but in the end -this attorney files a motion to withdraw - because Morrison will not waive his Sixth Amendment rights, and refuses to accept the State's plea bargain - will Judge Marriott grant that withdrawal too?

VolusiaExposed holds the opinion, that Morrison sure holds some novel concepts, especially given what is transpiring within today's criminal justice system.

Like Don Quixote's battle with windmills, we predict that Morrison will continue his crusade for justice.