During Oct and Nov 2025-- there was a slew of motions and replies filed by the parties for the case that I found very interesting.
During October, I'm sorry but not surprised to report that the defense was caught in another blatant falsehood regarding DR's mental health status. See 10/29 - STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS.
This exact situation came up two years ago when the defense attempted to have DR removed from Miami County Jail and sent to Juvenile Detention. At that time, the defense made the same claims, and produced school records citing DR previously presented with ADHD behavior but was not receiving any medical treatment for ADHD. However, when the defense could not produce any diagnosis or record prior to DR's arrest confirming Autism, they presented a statement from Dr. Campbell, who never examined DR or met with him in person, but opined that DR may exhibit characteristics common with autism!
Dr. Campbell was scheduled for deposition in October, but the defense halted the deposition shortly after it started. Then the doctor's clinical notes were not delivered to the State as promised. Finally, when obvious that the defense could not comply, they motioned to withdraw Dr. Campbell as their witness. Seems to me that the Court is not going to let this repeated falsehood go.
Remember when we learned that the defense was hinting they were going to blame the step-father (victim's husband) for the crime? We have a Motion filed by the State on 11/7 MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT OF UNSUPPORTED DEFENSE THEORY OF THIRD-PARTY GUILT PURSUANT TO KING V. STATE, MOTION TO PRECLUDE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF DURESS AND NECESSITY.
It appears we are finally learning the State's theory on DR's motivation to murder his mother. Please read 11/7- STATE’S NOTICE TO ADMIT SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO F.S. 90.404(2)(a) AND/OR INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED EVIDENCE. (pgs 1-7).
11/17 - DEREK ROSA’S RESPONSE TO STATE’S NOVEMBER 7, 2025 NOTICE TO ADMIT SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO F.S. 90.404(2)(a) AND/OR INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED EVIDENCE (pgs 1-7).
11/20 - STATE’S REPLY TO DEFENSE’S RESPONSE TO NOTICE TO ADMIT SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO F.S. 90.404(2)(a) AND/OR INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED EVIDENCE (pgs 1-6).
11/17- STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER IN LIMINE; CRIME SCENE AND AUTOPSY PHOTOS ARE RELEVANT, AND THEIR ADMISSION WOULD BE MORE PROBATIVE THAN PREJUDICIAL (pgs 1-7).
11/14 - STATE’S MOTION FOR WRITTEN ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO FLA. R. GEN. PRAC. & JUD. ADMIN RULE 2.505(f)(1). STATE’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF COURT’S RULING PERMITTING MR. JOSE BAEZ TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD.
Attorney Jose Baez appears to be playing games with the Court!
After the Parties met in Chambers with the Judge on 11/13, the Court agreed to allow Baez to withdraw from the case for personal reasons, docs filed with the clerk under seal, and where Michelle Medina and Dayliset Rielo agreed to continue representing the Defendant in the absence of Mr. Baez. The Court allowed Mr. Baez to excuse himself prior to the Court announcing the withdrawal of Mr. Baez as counsel of record in open court. Mr. Baez was advised and agreed that this would occur in open court in his absence.
Following the hearing, it was brought to the State’s attention that a public statement was released via the Baez law firm’s Instagram account. In this joint public statement with the father of the Defendant, Mr. Baez represents that he will “remain as Derek’s attorney."
The State is requesting a hearing with the Defendant and his father present so they can be informed of this Court’s ruling on the motion to withdraw as counsel made by Mr. Baez. Additionally, the State is requesting that a written order be entered pursuant to Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin Rule 2.505(f)(1).
Oct - Dec 2025 Docket Attached