home

George Zimmerman's Credibility

Note: This post is around 4,000 words. You may have to read it in pieces. Comments must address the topic. After familiarizing yourself with the facts and issues under discussion, feel free to post a civil response.

Despite his lawyer's statement that George Zimmerman has some repair work to do on his credibility, I'm even less convinced than I was before that Zimmerman's credibility should be affected by the matters presented in the state's motion to revoke bond or the judge's order revoking bond.

Neither alleged George Zimmerman lied. They allege he was deceitful through his silence. I think why he was silent needs to be examined, and in examining it, I can't quite decipher what his lawyer, Mark O'Mara is saying: Is he falling on his sword because Zimmerman deceitful to him and the Court, or is he acknowledging his own missteps for failing to properly inform Zimmerman and by extension, his wife?

Here is the full docket in the case, and here are the publicly released pleadings. The State's Motion to Revoke Bond is here. The transcript of his wife's testimony at the April 20th bond hearing which the state is relying on is here. The audio of the June 1 hearing revoking bond is here. The video of the Judge's ruling on June 1 is here. [More...]

The state's complaint at the bond revocation hearing was not that Zimmerman omitted something from his testimony, but that he didn't correct his wife's testimony after she testified they had no other assets they could easily liquidate to make bond, that she didn't know how much money “currently” was in the website account, and could not estimate how much had been raised by the website in total. There was also argument by his lawyer based on the testimony of his relatives that Zimmerman and his wife had no money to post a bond, and the family was trying to raise money. There was no testimony by Zimmerman about money at his bond hearing. He took the stand only to state an apology to the Martins and the subject of money never came up during his testimony – not even on cross-examination by the prosecutor.

There was no illegal activity discussed in the taped jail conversations submitted to the Court at the June 1 hearing. The funds were lawfully acquire. There was nothing illegal in Zimmerman’s instructions to his wife to transfer funds from one account to another or to disperse the funds. He had every right to put the money to whatever use he wanted. He had even stated on his short-lived website that he would make the final decisions as to how to spend the money.

The state argued, and the Judge agreed, that Zimmerman’s silence at the bond hearing, given his wife’s testimony and lawyer’s arguments, was deceitful. His lawyer has since said that his client should have disclosed the funds raised by his website, and that his failure to do so was the product of his “fear, mistrust and confusion.”

I don’t think O’Mara means his client should have disclosed the funds directly to the court at the hearing, but rather, he should have disclosed the amount of funds to him, either before the hearing or after his wife’s testimony at the hearing. Zimmerman, who had exercised his right to remain silent at the bond hearing except for the specific and limited purpose of issuing an apology to the Martin family, had no duty to speak up and correct his wife's testimony or lawyer’s argument at the hearing.

Defendants speak through their lawyers in court. They don't usually interrupt them to tell them they are wrong or address the judge directly to provide different information. Any defendant, especially one in a case where the proceedings are being televised nationally, might be hesitant to speak up if not being directly addressed by his lawyer or the Judge, let alone speak up to contradict his lawyer. Defendants presume their lawyers know what they are doing. Zimmerman knew his lawyer had talked to his wife and other family members and was going to call them as witnesses. Why would he think his wife’s testimony presented a problem, even on the issue of website funds, unless after she was was cross-examined, his lawyer leaned over and asked him about it? Even if O’Mara didn’t know before the hearing that some money had been collected from the website, surely he knew after the cross-examination of Shellie Zimmerman, since she testified to them and said her brother-in-law would know how much had been collected. All he had to do was ask Zimmerman the same question the prosecutor asked his wife: Do you know how much money was collected or is in the account?

Going back to O’Mara's press release stating his client now knows he was wrong not to disclose the funds and that his failure to disclose them were the product of his “fear, confusion and mistrust,” let’s try and break that down.

The fear is evident by the use of shorthand (not coded language) in the phone calls between George Zimmerman and his wife in the week prior to the bond hearing, in which they left the zeros off the dollar amounts they were discussing. There's no indication it was done for deceitful purposes. It’s common sense and smart not to mention how much money you or your wife have on a recorded jail line. Someone may overhear, like another inmate, who may decide to tell someone to rob you or your wife. A guard might overhear and innocently mention it to someone else who then decides to set up a robbery. He was probably the highest-profile inmate in the jail.

Since the state said in its motion to revoke bond that Zimmerman and his wife knew their calls were being recorded, it’s unlikely Zimmerman was speaking on a personal cell phone in his cell as opposed to on a jail line. It would take a wiretap to record calls on a personal cell phone, and wiretap applications are made ex parte. The orders are secret. Neither he nor his wife would have be aware of a wiretap or thus on notice their calls were being recorded. (I wouldn’t be surprised to learn law enforcement did get a wiretap order on his or his wife’s cell phone after the shooting, but neither of them would have been aware of it.) So it’s a fair assumption their calls were recorded on a jail phone which was used not only by Zimmerman, but other inmates as well, and that inmates were notified their calls were being recorded either by a sign posted near the phone or in the jail regulations they were given a copy of when booked into the jail.

As to confusion and mistrust, I think the timeline is key.

O'Mara only entered the case the day charges were filed and Zimmerman was arrested on April 11. (The Miami Herald says he took the case the night of April 11.) Zimmerman made his first court appearance on the 12th, with O'Mara, who told the media he was not taking fees and his client had no money. Zimmerman, you will recall, had been hiding for a month, out of state. Until that day, he was represented by other lawyers who advised him by phone and who had never met him in person.

The bond hearing was not until April 20. All of O’Mara’s meetings before the bond hearing took place at the jail. For much of that first week, from April 13 at least until April 16, O’Mara’s time was taken up with the issue of disqualifying the first judge. O'Mara had initially decided to delay requesting bond. He filed the motion for bond on April 16 (and the certificate of service shows he drafted it and sent a copy to the state’s attorney on April 12.). There were only four days between when he filed the motion and the hearing, to learn of any discrepancies.

The website Zimmerman set up to accept donations didn't go live until April 9 -- just 2 days before O’Mara entered the case and told the media Zimmerman he was working pro bono because Zimmerman had no money, and Zimmerman was charged and jailed.

O'Mara says in his website statement that their first conversation about the website funds was on April 25, the day before he went on CNN and told Anderson Cooper he had learned of the funds and two days before he told the Court. It may be that Zimmerman didn't tell him about the funds before that because he didn't understand the funds had any relevance to the amount of bond the judge would set. Perhaps he thought that money was “spoken for” – set aside for legal fees and living expenses and therefore not his money. Perhaps he thought it would be a misrepresentation to those who had contributed to use the money for bond, when he had represented on his website it would go to legal and living expenses. O’Mara told Anderson Cooper on April 26 that Zimmerman’s defense could cost between $500,000 and $1 million. If O’Mara had told Zimmerman that, surely he didn’t think the donations exceeded the amount needed for legal expenses.

While O'Mara had discussions with Zimmerman's wife (and likely his parents) to prepare them for their testimony at the bond hearing, he may not have had the same discussions with Zimmerman -- or even have told Zimmerman before the hearing what questions he was going to ask his wife and parents at the hearing.

If O'Mara had brought up the subject of available funds directly with Zimmerman between April 16, when he was told by his wife how much money was in the account, and April 20, the day of the bond hearing, O’Mara seems to think Zimmerman would have told him. O'Mara told the media on April 27 that "The moment I asked him about it, he acknowledged it and forwarded the money."

Shellie Zimmerman told the prosecutor on April 20 during cross-examination that George's brother knew how much money had been collected through the website, and that he was available to be contacted by phone. O'Mara confirmed during his direct questioning of Shellie Zimmerman that he and she had previously discussed the family finances. Did O'Mara not ask her about the website donations or learn it was George's brother who could answer questions about them?

Since the issue of the website money came up on cross-examination of Shellie Zimmerman on April 20, why didn't O'Mara ask her or his client or his client’s brother about the funds immediately after the bond hearing? Why did not he not think about it before April 26, when he says Zimmerman spontaneously brought them up during a discussion of shutting down Zimmerman's internet presence?

Not to be overlooked is that the prosecutor on cross-examination never asked Shellie Zimmerman if she had discussed the amounts raised by the website with George Zimmerman. He asked her whether she had discussed the amounts with her brother-in-law, whom she said was the person who would know the amount of funds in the account. She even said he was probably available to answer via telephone, but the prosecutor dropped the issue. From the transcript:

Q. Okay. Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A. I'm aware of that website.
Q. And how much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was --
A. Currently, I do not know.
Q. Who would know that?
A. That would be my brother-in-law.
Q. And is he -- I know he's not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A. I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q Okay. So he's not there now.
A. No, he is not, sir.
Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven't talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?
A. No. No, I have not
Q. Okay. And how long has that website been in existence, ma'am?
A. I do not know. I have not been with my husband since he's been in hiding. I do not know.
Q. Okay. So you mentioned your husband was in hiding. I understand he left the state, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q - Okay. And did you continue to have contact with him while he was out?
A. Yes, every day.
Q. And that was every day?
A. Yes.

The last conversation between Zimmerman and his wife that the state relied on in its motion to revoke bond took place on April 16, when she told Zimmerman there was 135 in it (allegedly referring to $135,000.) The website donations went to a Paypal account. The way Paypal works, money stays in the Paypal account until the account holder instructs Paypal to move a particular dollar amount to another account. Zimmerman (or someone acting on his behalf with his paypal account password) directed funds from paypal be transferred to his credit union account. It’s unlikely it was Zimmerman since he was arrested on April 11, just 2 days after the site went live. That leaves his wife and/or brother.

While the taped jail calls make it clear Shellie Zimmerman transferred funds from George’s credit union account to her credit union account, it’s not clear to me that she, as opposed to George’s brother, was the person who moved the money from Paypal to Zimmerman’s credit union account. It could have been either of them, or both of them, acting together or independently. The state never introduced documents from Paypal at the bond hearing, only statements from Zimmerman and his wife’s credit union accounts.

While Shellie Zimmerman knew the amount of funds in George’s credit union account on April 16, she may not have known the amount in the website/Paypal account on April 20, which is what she was asked by the prosecutor, particularly since money was coming in every day and her brother-in-law may also have been able to move funds out of the Paypal account. She may not have checked the Paypal account after April 16. She may not have wanted to speculate and give an answer that was wrong.

Shellie Zimmerman did not know when George Zimmerman started the website. He was in hiding and they had not been together since he left. The transcripts of the calls introduced by the prosecutor show that she was only provided access to “the account” on April 12, the day after Zimmerman’s arrest. The taped calls also reveal that a male had to change the security and give her a password. How could she know the total that had been raised or even give a reliable estimate if she didn’t know when the account was opened or what monies had been dispersed before she got access, or whether her brother-in-law had withdrawn money from the account? On April 16, Zimmerman instructed his wife to move the money not from the paypal/website account, but from his credit union account to her credit union account. Even if she had directed Paypal to move money to his credit union account, if she wasn’t the only one with access to the paypal account, how could she know for sure what was in it on April 20?

What about mistrust? What’s that about? I suspect O’Mara is saying Zimmerman didn’t trust O’Mara enough to tell him about the money before the bond hearing. Particularly if Zimmerman didn't understand the legal significance of the donations to the court's determination of the amount of bond, it's not surprising he didn't volunteer the information to O’Mara without being asked. He had known O'Mara for all of four days when O’Mara filed the motion for bond which asserted he had no money for bond. I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Mara has since learned that in other taped jail calls between Zimmerman and his family members (and there were more than 100 calls, about 14 a day between April 12 and April 20), they discussed not telling O’Mara about the funds, because they weren’t sure they trusted him yet.

With O’Mara taking over Zimmerman's representation when he was jailed on April 11, they hardly had enough time to develop a trusting relationship. Zimmerman probably (and justly) had a distrust of lawyers after hearing his first set of lawyers opine on his mental state to the media. It may not have been until after the bond hearing on April 20, when Zimmerman had an opportunity to assess O’Mara’s performance at the bond hearing, that he decided he was comfortable with him and would keep him as his lawyer. And he did volunteer the information about the funds to O’Mara on April 25, just five days after the hearing.

If Zimmerman was hiding the money to mislead the Court and get a low bond, why would he have asked O’Mara five days after the bond hearing what he should do with the money? According to O’Mara’s interview with Anderson Cooper on April 26, Zimmerman told O’Mara about the funds in the context of "What should I do with the money? There’s no suggestion Zimmerman told O’Mara about the funds in the context of "I should have told you about this earlier." It sounds to me like on April 25 when Zimmerman told his lawyer about the money, he was still clueless as to its relevance to the issue of bond.

Similarly, if Zimmerman intended to keep the funds a secret, why did he immediately agree to turn over control of them to O'Mara? (Since Zimmerman was not in court on April 27 when O'Mara advised the court of the money raised through the paypal account, and that the money had already been transferred to O’Mara’s trust account, Zimmerman had to have effectuated the transfer before court on the 27th.)

Also, Zimmerman did not lie about his finances during his intake interview with pretrial services, which makes a recommendation as to bond. Here's his intake form. He was never asked about the amount of money he has, only whether he's employed and was seeking a public defender. He truthfully said he was not employed and his lawyer was Mark O’Mara.

I don't see anything to indicate Zimmerman knew or believed in advance of the April 20th bond hearing that the funds he had raised were “assets”, in the way most people think of assets, like a car or house or savings or investments. Nor do I see any indication he knew before the hearing his wife would be asked about the website funds, and that they had agreed to deceive the court about them.

It seems more likely to me Zimmerman didn't know the website donations were relevant to the court's decision on the amount of bond and therefore had to be disclosed because no one, including O'Mara, had asked him about the funds or explained their relevance to him.

I don’t see a conspiracy between Zimmerman and his wife to hide money from the court to get a lower bond. I see the difficulties that arise when a lawyer is new to a case, has limited time to spend with the client because he's in jail, and has to prepare for a bond hearing relying primarily on information from relatives.

O'Mara's first week on the job was spent giving interviews to counteract the massive, prejudicial media bias created by filing of charges and relentless attacks by Team Crump; moving to recuse the first circuit court judge; and trying to establish a meaningful relationship with a newly jailed client who had just fired his first lawyers and been charged with an offense that carries a possible life penalty.

While O'Mara undoubtedly discussed with his client how the bail process works and the possible outcomes with Zimmerman, given the limited time for jail conferences amidst all else that was going on, O'Mara may not have personally grilled him on his assets and amount of funds in his bank accounts, particularly since he was relying on his relatives for that testimony.( It is extremely rare to put a client on the stand at a bail/detention hearing, which is why O’Mara called him only for the limited purpose of apologizing to the Martins.)

Ignorance of the law may not be a defense to criminal liability, but it doesn't equate to deceit. While there may be additional information we are not yet privy too, based on what we know now, I don’t think George Zimmerman misrepresented anything to the court, or that his silence after his wife’s testimony indicates an intent to deceive the court. I don’t see how his credibility is diminished , particularly on the topic of the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

All three instances where Zimmerman’s credibility is being called into question in the court of public opinion seem to involve miscommunications with his lawyer. O’Mara says he didn’t ask about the website funds before the April 20 bond hearing. He apparently didn’t ask after the April 20 bond hearing, since he says Zimmerman brought them up in a conversation on April 25 while they were discussing other matters. On the passport issue, O’Mara says Zimmerman found and transferred it to him within days of the April 20 hearing, but he left it in his pleading file for a month, mistakenly thinking he had filed it with the court.

As to Zimmerman's wife's testimony at the bond hearing, O’Mara prepped her for her testimony. She was his witness. O’Mara knew in advance what she would testify to on direct and should have prepared her for handling cross-examination. Most lawyers tell their witnesses to listen carefully to the question and answer the question truthfully, but not to volunteer information. O’Mara later said he never gave the website funds a thought. If he never gave them a thought, it’s unlikely he explained their importance or relevance to the issue of bond to either Zimmerman or his wife.

O’Mara may not be "at fault" given the enormous pressures and time constraints he was working under, the limited time he had to develop his client’s trust, and the unfavorable conditions for conferences with his client, but if he didn't ask or discuss the website funds with his client, despite knowing he had such a website, how was Zimmerman to know the funds were still considered “his” even though he had earmarked them for other purposes, and had to be disclosed?

What's clear is that Zimmerman intended to use some of the donated funds for bond; that he knew the amount on hand as of April 16 when his wife told him “135"; and that he ceased having the ability to direct the disbursement of the funds from the website after April 25 or 26,when he turned them over to O'Mara. I don't see a defendant with diminished credibility. I see a poorly informed client.

Since O’Mara is now saying his client made a mistake in not informing the court of the funds, and includes his client's “mistrust” along with fear and confusion as the explanation, it may be that Zimmerman actually misled O’Mara because he didn’t yet trust him, and O'Mara is falling on his sword for his client, rather than that O’Mara dropped the ball. O’Mara comes across as a seasoned practitioner who takes his time to consider his available options. He seems to act after deliberation, rather than spontaneously.

But if that’s not the case, and he didn’t explain what “available funds and assets" were to Zimmerman and his family; he didn’t ask about the website donations even after his wife was grilled about them on cross; and the passport snafu was his, I don’t see why his client's credibility is diminished for things his lawyer could have, and perhaps should have, anticipated and inquired about, which potentially could have avoided the problems entirely.

< Eric Holder Assigns U.S. Attorneys to Investigate Leaks | Saturday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I can see a fairly innocent explanation... (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by unitron on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:37:58 AM EST
    I think perhaps a lot of what Zimmerman didn't do perfectly with regard to the money and the two passports could be chalked up to he just isn't particularly bright, rather than some elaborate plot he and his wife hatched up to deceive the court and give him an "ace in the hole, absconding-wise".

    It's been hypothesized by someone else that maybe He and his wife were confused as to about which passport the other was speaking, and I can accept the possibility that Zimmerman was lax in keeping up with his passport and may have thought the recently found lost one issued in 2002 was the replacement from 2004.

    I don't think he was out to kill anybody that night, I think that in his mind Martin did look suspicious and similar in appearance (more age and attire than specifically race) to the people who'd been doing the breaking in around there recently.  I do think he didn't give enough consideration to the possibility of being mistaken.

    I think much of what Zimmerman has done may be best explained by the old saying about never attributing to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

    But O'Mara must be the only person in the world with an interest in the case not to know Zimmerman was getting online donations and that the money involved was probably more than just pocket change.


    i would say this, in part, would explain (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    the events for which mr. zimmerman is currently under arrest and being held for trial. that said, the last time i checked, not being very bright isn't much of a defense. as well, not being very bright tends to cause people to have a somewhat dim view of your credibility, which is at issue on this thread.

    Parent
    never spend one minute (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by LeaNder on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:50:58 AM EST
    Admittedly I never spend one minute to ponder if Z could be a risk of flight. I don't think he is, I think he presumes and many support him in this estimation that he will go free. Note, I am not denying he may fear the larger process.

    Strictly they moved out of Retreat at TL. That's the perfect scenario to find matters in rather unexpected places.

    he just isn't particularly bright, rather than some elaborate plot ...

    Well strictly he has an associate degree in criminal law so he should know some basics. Besides the "brother-in-law", his brother, seems to be a lawyer and his father is a retired judge. So no, I wouldn't sign the not "particularly bright", if it is meant to stand for: as uninformed about juridical matters as the average US citizen, or even less.

    I don't think he was out to kill anybody that night,

    Neither do I. What bothers me in the context is that TM at no point had a chance to really understand the preconceptions in GZ's mind.  GZ thought he knew it all, I doubt TM ever had a chance to really understand what GZ's action were about, other than perceiving that he obviously had already decided what he was about. Reminds me very, very much of my juvenile obsessions.

    I never listened much to either Crump or other black leaders usually listed as deceiving the masses, it is the central human story that attacks me.

    And yes, I doubt TM ever intended to kill George Zimmerman.

    Parent

    Still With The Passports (none / 0) (#7)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:18:08 AM EST
    It's been hypothesized by someone else that maybe He and his wife were confused as to about which passport the other was speaking . . .

    There's no evidence either of them knew about the second passport at the time of the conversation.

    Parent
    Exactly when... (none / 0) (#74)
    by unitron on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    Exactly when was the lost 2002 passport found relative to both the conversation and the bond hearing and the turning over of that passport?

    Parent
    the 2002 passport (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:43:23 PM EST
    was turned over at the first bond hearing on April 20. The 2004 passport was fedexed to O'Mara on April 25, 2012 and put in his file with a notice of filing on April 26, 2012. The court site I linked to has "passport records" and you can listen to what O'Mara told the Court which the prosecution didn't challenge and the judge believed at the hearing link I gave. The minutes of the bond hearing link shows a passport was turned over.

    The appliciation for the 2004 passport explains he lost it and and hadn't found it.

    Parent

    I never thought Bond was meant to impoverish (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by BJohnM on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    I'm not an attorney, so excuse any ignorance, but first let me caveat this. I would not be considered to be on GZ's side in this case, and I'm not sure I could, as a juror, render an impartial verdict. However, in this case, I think the judge and prosecutor are wrong.

    First, it is kind of a no harm/no foul situation in my opinion. GZ was out on bond, and doing everything expected of him, and had not skipped the country, and if he were living next door to me, I don't think I'd feel he was a threat.

    Second, I never really thought that a bond was intended, in and of itself, to be a punishment or to impoverish someone. I thought it was supposed to be enough to guarantee ones appearance in court.

    Third, Yeah, his wife's testimony may lack some credibility, but why didn't the prosecutor ask GZ those same questions. That makes this situation seem like GZ is being punished for something his wife may have done.

    Fourth, having once been involved in a serious legal case, and since it was only once, I can tell you that these procedural hearings are very confusing, and I was always told by my Attorney to keep quiet, that he'd speak for me.

    All that said, I think this was a brash over-reaction on the part of the State and the Court.

    Pretty good summary (none / 0) (#33)
    by bmaz on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:36:58 AM EST
    for not being a lawyer. For my money, you have it just about right.

    Parent
    When (none / 0) (#41)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:17:22 PM EST
    Zimmerman took the stand at the original bond hearing he addressed three questions that Sybrina Fulton wanted answers to.

    He could be asked anything in relationship to those answers but anything else, especially regarding the fund, would have been outside of the scope, wouldn't it?

    Parent

    yes, he couldn't be questioned (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:27:11 PM EST
    about matters unrelated to his direct testimony, which was the apology.  The prosecutor tried to ask questions about texts and emails. They were objected to and the court sustained, making it clear questions had to be related the subject matter of his direct.

    But why didn't the prosecutor ask the court to get the brother on the phone, since according to Shellie Z., he was available and would have the answers he sought? The judge could have administered the oath by phone -- or the notary who was with his wife and parents could have sworn him in by phone.

    And why didn't the Judge give O'Mara a chance to talk to his client after hearing the state's presentation? Zimmerman wasn't at the June 1 hearing, there had been no notice the motion would be heard that afternoon, and the Judge denied O'Mara's request to hear it at a later date so he could have an opportunity to prepare. The Judge said, "This is something you can do on the spur of the moment, you can do this on the fly."

    Parent

    Yeah, this one (none / 0) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:44:02 PM EST
     is a little perplexing.  It seemed to me that the judge overreacted in a really strange way, I would even call it petulant. As you know, I'm no fan of GZ, but if he's eventually found guilty I want to be sure it was strictly due to the facts, and not because of some bizarre and/or unfair actions by the trial judge.

    Since the charges GZ is facing are so severe I believe the judge owed it just for the "appearance" of fairness to not punish him this harshly for an issue not germane to one he's charged with. Especially when the remedy was right at hand.....a phone call.


    Parent

    Impoverish? (none / 0) (#77)
    by ks on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:15:50 PM EST
    Where does that idea come from?  The judge set GZ's bail at 150K which, frankly, was reasonable.  More importantly, the judge relied on representations from O'Mara about GZ being indigent and from SZ about the Zimmermans financial status.  

    During a later court hearing, the prosecution  presented information that the judge found compelling and he determined that the earlier claims made by O'Mara and SZ about the Zimmermans financial status, which he relied upon to grant the 150K bail, were material misrepresentations and, as such, he revoked GZ's bail.  Apparently, there's some sort of hearing schedule for 6/29 where this will be hashed out.

    Whether you agree with it or not, it's pretty straigtforward and has nothing to do with any attempt to impoverish Zimmerman.

    Parent

    How is 150K bail (none / 0) (#80)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:50:44 PM EST
    "Reasonable" given that we know that GZ was still in country (despite repeated death threats that I'm sure you love to ignore)and had repeatedly cooperated with police PRIOR to the first arrest? Maybe you could argue it's reasonable NOW (given the alleged misrepresentation about finances by the wife and the second passport "issue"), but how was it reasonable THEN?

    Seriously, the higher the bail, the more problem it is to pay 10 percent of it, and to unemployed and normal people, 15 grand doesn't just come out of one's bottom very easily.


    Parent

    What would you consider reasonable? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:52:42 PM EST
    Bail is supposed to be low enough that, with some effort, could be met, and high enough that skipping out would be very painful for the defendant and the bondsman.


    Parent
    For the working class.. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Romberry on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:38:19 PM EST
    ...bail that exceeds their annual income by a multiple factor is in my opinion excessive. In a case as ambiguous as this one in which the defendant is cooperating, what's "reasonable" by current standards/precedent and what I think is reasonable are not the same. Me? No indication of flight risk. I'd say 25k for bail for a working class individual is plenty.

    Parent
    In any case... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Gandydancer on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:10:17 AM EST
    ...we now know by demonstration that $150k was sufficient. The same amount again amounts to a $15k fine, apparently.

    Parent
    Plus jail time. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Gandydancer on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:11:07 AM EST
    Most of the issues are (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    explainable, I agree.

    Since O'Mara is now saying his client made a mistake in not informing the court of the funds, and includes his client's "mistrust" along with fear and confusion as the explanation, it may be that Zimmerman actually misled O'Mara because he didn't yet trust him, and O'Mara is falling on his sword for his client, rather than that O'Mara dropped the ball.

    But how does the credibility of a guy that misleads people out of mistrust, fear, and confusion stand up on the witness stand, hardly a comfortable situation?

    former police detective discusses bond matter (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lily on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    https:/statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-10-they-did-wha t

    excerpt-
    To whatever degree Zimmerman didn't play strictly by the rules, he behaved foolishly.  I'm still confused about what Mr. O'Mara knew about this and when he knew it--to say nothing of whatever advice he may have given Zimmerman-so he may yet bear some portion of whatever blame might reasonably be apportioned.  I'm also confused about what the judge knew and about his intentions in dealing with this.  There is, as far as I can determine, nothing preventing him from demanding and receiving a day by day, penny by penny accounting of the Internet account about which he was aware from the first day of this case, yet he apparently chose not to do that, in essence, ensuring that he would be, to at least some degree, uninformed.  He noted that he needed to research the issue to determine what powers he had in dealing with this money.  Did he determine that he had no powers?  Did he simply let it slip his mind?  Why is he apparently behaving as though he was blind-sided by an issue about which he was aware from day one?  Most unusual and confusing.

    Willis' comment was deleted for (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:13:39 PM EST
    falsely stating the facts about the passport. The court minutes for the April 20 hearing show O'Mara turned in his clien'ts passport.

    As to the second passport, at the June 1 hearing, O'Mara provided documents showing the passport had been in his file since April 26. He showed the court the Fedex receipt for April 26 when he received it.  He drafted a notice of filing to give the passport to the court on April 26, and he provided the court with the Wordperfect directory from his computer showing the datestamp he drafted the document. The Court said O'Mara has always been "completely candid" with the court.

    Zimmerman was released from jail the night of the 22nd and it was three days later that he found the second passport and sent it to O'Mara.

    I thought the second passport was (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:35:20 PM EST
    "found" in the safe-deposit box, as discussed between the Zimmermans in the phone call from the jail. a call that took place on April 17th - before the original bond hearing.

    The passport may have been retrieved from the box three days after Zimmerman was released from the jail, but I think it's pretty clear that it was "found" while he was still in custody.

    Parent

    That Is Not Correct (none / 0) (#61)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:13:54 PM EST
    The passport discussed in the phone call would be the first one, which was turned over at the bond hearing. No evidence contradicts that.

    Parent
    Zimmerman is still indigent. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:35:07 PM EST
    In addition to any debt he had before this incident, he now owes millions in legal expenses and he has to pay for his family to live in hiding.

    He lost his job and will remain unemployed for the foreseeable future. His wife was about to graduate but that was interrupted so she will she not be able to get a job as a nurse.

    By conservative estimates his debts still outnumber his assets by a factor of 10 to 1, including the donations.

    The judge should also consider that this internet fund raising for court costs and the speed at which large sums were donated is unprecedented and that O'Mara was entering unchartered territory himself.

    I seriously doubt Mr. Zimmerman (3.00 / 2) (#81)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:05:23 PM EST
    owers "millions" in legal fees and costs as this very early stage of the proceedings.  

    Parent
    Who knows the exact amount (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:22:05 PM EST
    of the expenses incurred so far, in addition to the expenses that are certain to come?

     O'Mara already quoted a million dollars and that was before he stated he intends to depose at least 50 witnesses. And another high profile, and presumably expensive, lawyer has since been added to the team.

    Parent

    Here's what you stated: (3.67 / 3) (#87)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:31:50 PM EST
    he now owes millions in legal expenses


    Parent
    I hate to waste another post on this but (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:35:28 PM EST
    thanks for illustrating why it is a bad idea to give ESTIMATES to an adversary who will use it against you no matter what.

    It is best just to say 'I don't know' when you don't have an exact answer, particularly in court.

    Parent

    criminal fees (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:51:29 PM EST
    are usually paid in advance and held in trust to be withdrawn as they are earned according to a fee agreement.

    Very few criminal lawyers bill monthly, what happens when the client goes to jail and hasn't finished paying your fee?

    Most lawyers I know would require $500 to $1 million put in trust up front, against which legal fees, experts, investigators, etc. would be billed.

    O'Mara said on April 26 he was putting 8 to 10 hours a day on the case and his  rate in family law cases is $400 an hour. There are now two lawyers in the case.

    For the upcoming determination of bond on June 29, Zimmerman is in no different situation than the court thought he was in on April 20 -- he does not have access to the raised funds (they are in a trust account he has no access or control over -- either does O'Mara, they are administered by an an independent third party). And he's worse off because he's out the $15k he paid or owes the bondsman for the premium on the first bond. The bondsman is local, but the underwriting company is national. I doubt they'd go for writing a second bond for no extra premium. (Maybe they'd give him a discount though.)

    So on June 29, GZ's finances will be worse than they were on April 20.

    Even when setting bond after revocation, the purpose can't be to punish, it must be what the court determines is reasonably necessary to assure the person's appearance at trial and the safety of the community.

    Parent

    Perhaps I'm wrong, but, as I recall, (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:54:50 PM EST
    Mr. O'Mara sd. he took this case pro bono.  

    Parent
    that was when he didn't (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:28:07 AM EST
    know about the funds. As of April 26, that all changed. He said he would be paid out of the funds. Check his April 26 appearance on Anderson Cooper.

    Parent
    I understand, (3.00 / 2) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:03:24 PM EST
     from O'Mara himself, that donations are pouring into the website since Z's bail revocation.

    He's received approximately a quarter million dollars in a very short period of time. I presume the donations will keep on coming.

    The million dollar legal services figure is just plain nonsense, and I'd like to see the source of your other bizarre claim:

    "By conservative estimates his debts still outnumber his assets by a factor of 10 to 1, including the donations."

    I'm not picking a fight, but your claims just don't make sense.

    Parent

    Perhaps you can share (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:09:27 PM EST
    The budget for the state?
    You can't because the have a blank check.

    Parent
    the legal team is now (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:56:25 PM EST
    2 lawyers and likely to grow.

    He's entitled to raise as much as he can for his legal funds. He's under no obligation to raise money for bond.

    Financial resources is only one factor to be considered in setting bond. The others, such as length of time in the community, lack of prior criminal record, no history of failing to appear, not a danger to the community, subject to electronic monitoring, all go in his favor.

    A million dollars is not bizarre at all, especially in a high profile case. It could even be on the low end.

    Parent

    my apologies (none / 0) (#140)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:24:40 AM EST
    was not aware criminal lawyers charge up-front fees.

    Parent
    On average... (none / 0) (#216)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:09:56 PM EST
    On average, I'd suspect the credit rating of those charged with crimes to be lower than that of the general population, and criminal attorneys to be aware of that, as well as aware that if found guilty a person might feel the lawyer didn't earn it and if found innocent a person might feel "I don't need the lawyer for anything anymore, he can wait for the money 'til I feel like paying it".

    Parent
    sorry about that (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by labrat on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:39:19 PM EST
    but isn't his credibility on the bond issue supposedly going to affect his credibilty of his version of events? That's the only reason I went there.I won't go there on this thread again, If you prefer you can delete my post I have copied the first paragraph and would gladly re-post.


    labrat, that would be great (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:21:40 PM EST
    if you could repost without that paragraph.

    Yes, at trial whether his version would be accepted by the jury will depend on his credibility. But here I'm just discussing whether his credibility should be affected by the financial issues at the bond hearing.


    Parent

    An interesting read, Jeralyn, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:02:49 PM EST
    ... in all honesty, I think I'm going to refrain from participating in future posts about this case, because I'm all Zimmerman'ed out.

    As I said last week, I think Mark O'Mara has his work cut out for him. And I'll have to leave it at that.

    Regarding the Z-man's credibility and culpability, well, ultimately, that's what trials are for.

    But thank you for offering some truly illuminating and fascinating insight from a defense counsel's perspective. I daresay that most people never truly appreciate the work that criminal attorneys do -- until, of course, comes a time and place when and where they actually need one.

    Anyway, aloha from Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon). We're going on a tour of the old South Vietnamese presidential palace this morning, and then a river cruise later this afternoon and early evening. If you post an open thread later on -- hint, hint! -- I'll tell you all about it. It'll probably be late in the evening for you and most folks, though, as Vietnam is 13 hours ahead of Denver.

    Have a great evening. I'm just starting my day here, and the rest of the family is still asleep.

    Ciao 4 now.

    IANAL and a noob, to boot :-) (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Aunt Polgara on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    I have been lurking for awhile, and I certainly appreciate that this site insists on original sources as much as possible and keeps the speculation to a minimum. I'm glad to have found you.

    My question is: how can anyone judge Zimmerman's credibility with respect to the PayPal account when the judge refused to give O'Mara time to prepare to address the prosecutor's motion to revoke bail over the PayPal account? The hearing on June 1 was supposed to be about media access to the discovery, not the PayPal account. And how is George responsible for what his wife says?

    Even Lester didn't know if the PayPal account was usable for bail, as he admitted in the hearing (at the 1:50 mark on the video) on April 27th.

    And now he revokes George's bail because George didn't know what he, himself, didn't know?

    And after the prosecution edited Shellie's testimony about the PayPal account in the motion to revoke bail, they sure have shown themselves to have a credibility problem IM (never to be)HO.

    Hopefully, someone here can enlighten me.

    I learned something long ago as a trial lawyer (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by expy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:27:10 PM EST
    If it takes 4,000 words to make a point, no one is going to buy it.  

    Florida law provides:

    (1)(a) All information provided by a defendant, in connection with any application for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court personnel, or individual soliciting or recording such information for the purpose of evaluating eligibility for, or securing, bail for the defendant, under circumstances such that the defendant knew or should have known that the information was to be used in connection with an application for bail, shall be accurate, truthful, and complete without omissions to the best knowledge of the defendant.

    (b) The failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) may result in the revocation or modification of bail.

    - Florida Statutes 903.035

    You can put whatever window dressing you like on the facts, but the point is that the law imposes an obligation on the defendant as part of a bail application.

    The defendant's financial resources are a factor that the court is required to consider when setting bond.  Section 903.046(2)(c)

    (I always provided my clients with a legal pad and a pen during hearings. As they were sitting at counsel table next to me, whenever they heard a witness say something they knew to be wrong, they passed me a note. Solved the shouting-out problem quite nicely.)

    to the best knowledge of the defendant... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:11:10 PM EST
    Shellie Zimmerman was unable give an answer to the precise question that was accurate, truthful, and complete ,due to the fact that the exact balance was in constant flux.

    She willingly informed the court that her brother-in-law was in charge of the account and could give an answer that was accurate, truthful, and complete. They failed to follow through for whatever reason.

    Parent

    Except she was asked to give an (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    estimate.

    Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

    Since she and GZ had been discussing the amount of $135 (thousand) on the jail phone three days prior to the bond hearing, she knew funds had been donated to that PayPal account, and she could have given an estimate as of her most current knowledge, which may or may not have been the jail house number discussed. And she could have also said that the brother-in-law was in charge of the account and you should call him to find out exactly how much is in there (which she did say).  I still believe she was evasive and withheld information.  My opinion.

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:46:31 PM EST
    1.  This statute doesn't apply to her, since she is not "the defendant".

    2.  Shellie Zimmerman was entirely able to give an estimate of the amount of money, which is what she was asked.  

    3.  Shellie Zimmerman was also asked about any major assets they had that they could use to pay a bond or legal expenses:

    O'MARA: Do you own the home that you live or lived in?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

    O'MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.

    O'MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have.

    O'MARA: And is - are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Uhm, not ... not that I'm aware of.


    She and George were specifically discussing the use of the Paypal accounts to pay his bond in their recorded conversation, so she obviously knew these monies could be used (at the very least) to pay bond.  In fact, they used some of the money to pay his bond fee just a few days later, and spent @ $50,000 of it before telling O'Mara how much was raised.

    4)  

    She willingly informed the court that her brother-in-law was in charge of the account and could give an answer that was accurate, truthful, and complete. They failed to follow through for whatever reason.

    No - she willingly feigned ignorance of the account, offering instead that they could "probably get him on the phone".

    Parent

    I think perjury is a huge stretch (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MJW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:08:06 PM EST
    O'MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.

    A cash account is not an asset that can be liquidated.  Assets that can be liquidated are things that can be sold for cash, such as stocks, property, and such.

    O'MARA: And is - are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Uhm, not ... not that I'm aware of.

    When asked in relation to other questions about the Zimmerman's joint assets, that question seems to refer to assets possessed separately by Shellie.

    As to the estimate question, I don't know what it means factually to say one can or can't give an estimate.  How accurately would Shellie have to know the amount in order to give an estimate? If she has a lower bound, but no accurate upper bound, can she give an estimate?

    I don't understand why O'Mara doesn't emphasize the fact that in her testimony Shellie told them exactly who to ask about the money in the PayPal account.  If she were trying to mislead the court, why did she do that?

    Parent

    Contortions (3.50 / 2) (#113)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:31:17 PM EST
    A cash account is not an asset that can be liquidated.  Assets that can be liquidated are things that can be sold for cash, such as stocks, property, and such.

    I didn't mention anything about perjury, but putting aside the issue of whether a Paypal is an asset that can be "liquidated" versus one that is already liquid, attempting to read O'Mara's question as a reference to assets possessed "separately by Shellie" is beyond a stretch.  There is nothing in his question which would even suggest he suddenly switched from talking about their assets to her assets.


    As to the estimate question, I don't know what it means factually to say one can or can't give an estimate.  How accurately would Shellie have to know the amount in order to give an estimate? If she has a lower bound, but no accurate upper bound, can she give an estimate?

    Sure, she can.  She can say, "As of 4 days ago, the account had approximately $135,000.  I'm not sure how much has come in since then, so I couldn't give a precise, current amount."

    Parent

    The contorting is all yours (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MJW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:51:09 PM EST
    There is nothing in his question which would even suggest he suddenly switched from talking about their assets to her assets.

    That's simply false.

    O'MARA: And is - are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

    If the question isn't directed specifically at Shellie's own assets, it would make no sense to asked what she could do to assist in the costs.

    She can say, "As of 4 days ago, the account had approximately $135,000.  I'm not sure how much has come in since then, so I couldn't give a precise, current amount."

    If she said that, how much would you say is currently in the account?  You can't say, so it isn't really an estimate.  Witnesses are generally advised to answer the question that's asked, not to helpfully provide any related information.

    Parent

    Not "false" at all (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:38:20 PM EST
    O'Mara used the pronoun "you" throughout all of his questioning of Shellie Zimmerman, and never once suggested he was referring to assets that were solely hers.  In fact, as you noted above, he also used the pronoun "you" when he was referring to joint assets:

    When asked in relation to other questions about the Zimmerman's joint assets, that question seems to refer to assets possessed separately by Shellie.


    O'MARA: Do you own the home that you live or lived in?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

    O'MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.

    O'MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have.

    O'MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I'm aware of.

    O'MARA: I understand that you do have other family members present with you and I'll ask them questions of them but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pool together some funds to accomplish a bond?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: We have discussed that, trying to pull together the numbers of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can.

    So when did O'Mara's use of the pronoun "you" switch from referring to joint assets to include only assets held individually by Shellie Zimmerman?  She clearly knew the Paypal funds could be used for his bond, as that's what they were specifically discussing in their phone call.  Moreover, she had transferred @ $135,000 into her credit union account prior to the hearing.  Also completely unbelievable that she claims that her brother-in-law was managing the account, yet she didn't talk to her brother-in-law about how much money had been collected/raised in the account,  while at the same time she was having discussions with their family members to "scrape up anything we possibly can."

    Parent

    He didn't switch (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by MJW on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:45:11 PM EST
    becuase in each case he was using "you" to refer to Shellie individually.

    Watch the hearing video.  Shellie's testimony begins at about 13:00.  I transcribed it as accurately as I could.  Words are underlined to show emphasis in the speech, not to show my emphasis.

    O'MARA: Another condition or another concern this court would have is the bond amount.  Um, I would ask you then, realizing that one option is for the court to grant a monetary bond, um, if you could advise the court of your financial circumstances.  I'll asked you a couple of questions.

    O'MARA: Are you working presently?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: No, I'm not.

    O'MARA: And how do you -- and what do you do with your time?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: I am a nursing student.

    O'MARA: Okay. Is that a full-time endeavor presently?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, it is.

    O'MARA: Okay, and how long have you been doing that?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Well, I am four weeks away from my graduation

    O'MARA: Um, okay.  You are not earning any income presently?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Correct.

    O'MARA: Do you own the home that you live or lived in?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

    O'MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.

    O'MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have.

    O'MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

    S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I'm aware of.

    In every question up to that about the home, "you" has referred only to Shellie, not the Zimmermans jointly.  Even if O'Mara meant to refer to both -- and I don't think he did -- Shellie could have reasonably assumed that George had been asked, or would be asked, about his assets and the joint assets, and she was being questioned about her individual assets.

    Parent

    No he wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 05:14:00 PM EST
    ... talking about Shellie Zimmerman's separately/individually owned assets, and the use of the word "you" doesn't mean he was.  You even stated:

    When asked in relation to other questions about the Zimmerman's joint assets, that question seems to refer to assets possessed separately by Shellie.

    What "joint assets" was she being questioned about, and what other pronoun was used (other than "you") that distinguished these questions from the prior questions about assets?  Do you mean the question about whether she owned the home?  You're seriously suggesting that O'Mara was questioning her about joint assets when he asked "Do you own the home that you live or lived in?", but suddenly meant only individual assets from that point forward?  You can tell that from watching the video?

    Heh.

    BTW - The prior questions about her employment status and status as a student are, by definition, questions about herself individually.  People have individual jobs and/or status as a student.  Married couples, OTOH usually own assets jointly, such as homes, bank accounts, etc., and even if an asset is titled individually, it doesn't mean the spouse without their name on the title/account doesn't have an ownership interest in the property.  That being said, she transferred @ $135,000 into her credit union account just before the hearing.

    Parent

    I'm perfectly serious (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by MJW on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:07:35 PM EST
    You're seriously suggesting that O'Mara was [not] questioning her about joint assets when he asked "Do you own the home that you live or lived in?"

    (I assume you meant to add the "not.")

    Why wouldn't he be asking her that?  I'm far from an expert on Florida law, but I believe that if Shellie owned a house before marrying George, she would be the sole owner unless she had the title changed to both of their names. There's nothing unreasonable about asking Shellie what non-marital property she could use for bail.  After all, O'Mara later ask about the property of other family members.

    As I mentioned before, Shellie may have reasonably assumed that George would answer about his separate assets and their jointly-held assets, and that she was there to answer about her individual assets

    You rather mockingly asked me when O'Mara switched from using "you" for the Zimmermans to using it for only Shellie.  But we know without question that either he used it only to refer to Shellie, or he switched without any indication from using it for only Shellie to using it for the couple.

    Parent

    One last time (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:19:20 AM EST
    You rather mockingly asked me when O'Mara switched from using "you" for the Zimmermans to using it for only Shellie.  But we know without question that either he used it only to refer to Shellie, or he switched without any indication from using it for only Shellie to using it for the couple.

    No, "we" don't.  I'm not remotely suggesting that his use of the pronoun "you" means he was restricting his questions to separate, non-marital assets.  I asked about his "switch" because you were suggesting that he was discussing joint assets and then began talking about individual assets, based on his use of the pronoun "you".

    From your original post:

       O'MARA: And is - are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

        S. ZIMMERMAN: Uhm, not ... not that I'm aware of.

    When asked in relation to other questions about the Zimmerman's joint assets, that question seems to refer to assets possessed separately by Shellie.

    When I pointed out that O'Mara used the word "you" in each of his questions (including those that you stated were referring to joint assets), you stated that the question made no sense unless O'Mara was talking about her individual (as opposed to joint) assets:

    If the question isn't directed specifically at Shellie's own assets, it would make no sense to asked what she could do to assist in the costs.

    (BTW - Of course it would make sense.  If my wife was in jail and her lawyer asked me "are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?", I would have to answer "Yes", despite the fact that almost all of our assets are joint assets.)

    My point is - if you acknowledge the initial questions where O'Mara used the word "you" were about joint assets, why do you suddenly believe the subsequent questions were restricted only to individual assets?

    Moreover, you keep ignoring the fact that - even if you accept your premise as true (which I don't) - Shellie Zimmerman had transferred the money from George's credit union account into her own credit union account, as noted above.

    Parent

    expy, no one ever said (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:46:53 AM EST
    the statute reads differently. It does not mean George Zimmerman violated it. He didn't provide any information about his finances to the court or court personnel or anyone affiliated with the court concerning bond. His lawyer and wife provided information to the court. He sat silent. If he didn't provide any information, he couldn't have provided false information.

    That was the whole point of the judge's "potted palm" theory -- that he didn't provide any information to correct his wife's testimony and his lawyer's argument. The judge's criticism was that he stayed silent. Except the statute refers to a defendant who provides false information. A precondition of a defendant  providing false information is that he provided some information in the first place.  He provided nothing. And the statute makes no reference to a defendant causing another person to provide false information.

    Even his interview with the pre-trial release officer was accurate (As I pointed out before, Defendants aren't asked about their criminal history, see the statute, that's why that section was crossed out by the officer -- she didn't ask those questions. They do a records check.)

    No one said the court doesn't have to consider financial resources, but that's just one factor among many in how the court arrives at a bond figure.  

    (3) In determining whether to release a defendant on bail or other conditions, and what that bail or those conditions may be, the court may consider the nature and circumstances of the offense charged and the penalty provided by law; the weight of the evidence against the defendant; the defendant`s family ties, length of residence in the community, employment history, financial resources, need for substance abuse evaluation and/or treatment, and mental condition; the defendant`s past and present conduct, including any record of convictions, previous flight to avoid prosecution, or failure to appear at court proceedings; the nature and probability of danger that the defendant`s release poses to the community; the source of funds used to post bail; whether the defendant is already on release pending resolution of another criminal proceeding or is on probation, parole, or other release pending completion of sentence; and any other facts the court considers relevant.

    Not surprisingly, you glossed over the critical component of the false information portion of the statute:

    All information provided by a defendant in connection with any application for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court personnel, or individual soliciting or recording such information for the purpose of evaluating eligibility for or securing bail for the defendant,

    There is no evidence of Zimmerman, as opposed to his family and lawyer, providing information to "the court, court personnel" and the information he provided to the pre-trial officer who is "an individual soliciting or recording such information for the purpose of evaluating eligibility for or securing bail" was accurate. At most, he provided information to his lawyer, and "defendant's lawyer" isn't "the court, court personnel, or individual soliciting or recording such information for the purpose of evaluating eligibility for or securing bail."

    I'm not impressed that the Judge found that Zimmerman's not speaking up was "good cause" for revoking his bond. "Good cause" is a lesser standard than probable cause.

    I find it far more troubling that this was an adversarial hearing, one that had not been put on the docket before the hearing began, and that it proceeded over objection n the absence of the defendant, without allowing his lawyer the chance to consult with him before having to respond to the state's . Unless he had been charged with committing another offense or the state had evidence he was about to abscond, I think that's a due process violation. At the very least, the judge should have continued the hearing before making a final ruling, ordering him to appear and respond, if he chose to respond. And if he chose not to, the judge could rule and have him right there to put into custody.

    The judge based his June 1 ruling on the state's motion, which didn't even accurately describe the wife's testimony. It left out the part about her brother-in-law knowing how much money was in the account. The exhibit to its motion was three pages of the transcript, pages 15, 26 and 27. One page had the language omitted from the motion,  but who knows if the judge even bothered to read the exhibit -- he probably wouldn't think he needed to fact-check the state's attorney. The judge hadn't reviewed all the tapes, there were over 150 of them, and the state evidently didn't provide transcripts except as to the portions it cherry-picked.

    In his closing argument on April 20, O'Mara said he (O-Mara) didn't know how much money was in the website account. The Judge didn't say "Well, find out and get back to me", he said O'Mara's motion for bond "was well taken." The Judge knew there was a fund on April 20 because the Prosecutor had cross-examined Shellie on it. The judge heard her say her brother-in-law was available by phone and could answer the question. If it was so important to the Judge, why didn't he say, "let's get him on the phone, I need to know that."

    Also, perhaps you didn't notice George Zimmerman was shackled? Look at how difficult it was to shake his lawyers hands in a seated position. I doubt he'd be able to write very well.

    I'd rather write 4,000 words and be accurate than 100 words and be wrong or misleading.

    Parent

    What is the remedy? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Aunt Polgara on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    I find it far more troubling that this was an adversarial hearing, one that had not been put on the docket before the hearing began, and that it proceeded over objection n the absence of the defendant, without allowing his lawyer the chance to consult with him before having to respond to the state's . Unless he had been charged with committing another offense or the state had evidence he was about to abscond, I think that's a due process violation. At the very least, the judge should have continued the hearing before making a final ruling, ordering him to appear and respond, if he chose to respond.


    Presuming that the judge did violate Zimmerman's due process rights, what is the remedy?

    It seems to me that O'Mara would be between a rock and a hard place if he tries to do anything, such as getting the judge removed from the case or appealing the ruling, especially if he has to go before Lester on other cases.

    After the case is done, can O'Mara go back and try to get GZ's bond money back since Lester did not afford GZ the opportunity to confront his accusers or have time to prepare a defense?

    Or do O'Mara and GZ just have to suck up the punishment?

    Parent

    Shackles (none / 0) (#137)
    by expy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:10:59 AM EST
    Also, perhaps you didn't notice George Zimmerman was shackled? Look at how difficult it was to shake his lawyers hands in a seated position. I doubt he'd be able to write very well.

    I've had shackled clients. At the very least, I've always requested that one hand be freed to enable them to write, for any sort of hearing that involves sitting at counsel table while testimony is heard. There's case law on this -- shackling is not permissible if it interferes with the ability of a defendant to communicate with his lawyer.

    Parent

    What law required Zimmerman... (none / 0) (#96)
    by citizenjeff on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    ...to pass a note to his lawyer? With respect to the time and manner of "correcting" his wife, what exactly was GZ required to do that he didn't do?

    Parent
    credibility - re post (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by labrat on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:14:43 PM EST
    I think the credibility of the judge and prosecution should be questioned here. Their selective outrage isn't over the fact that there was a defense fund, it was established as a point of fact at the bond hearing that George was trying to raise funds BECAUSE he and his wife had no means to finance his inevitably very expensive defense. They were offered a means to establish the actual amount and rejected it - why? I can only assume they expected the amount to be small. That they are outraged only after they found out there was a substantial amount is disingenuous and not the defense's fault. If it was truly material it would have been pursued that day. For them to make it material after the fact is foul play the way I see it. I personally don't care for the way O'Mara is approaching this. I think he should be defending his client to the hilt on this - not conceding blame. As for GZ's crediblility he did not lie under oath regarding his finances and I have yet to see evidence that he signed anything that wasn't factual. It pisses me off that the man is sitting in a jail cell over this and his lawyer is content to let him stew there. I, for one, don't understand them taking this sitting down. First the man is arrested because of a lynch mob and now he's been railroaded back into a cell, and everyone is just sitting around taking it all so calmly - like it's no big deal.


    I wonder (none / 0) (#112)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:28:30 PM EST
    if they decided to place the funds into a trust to avoid tax implications. Were they worried that half of the money would belong to the IRS? Did they turn it over to the brother inlaw so they could state they had no control over the fund?

    Parent
    Paypal (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:46:38 AM EST
    Paypal keeps records of the funds and if the account was in George's name, then it's attached to his social security number. I didn't think the funds went into a trust until O'Mara got involved. The money went from Paypal to his credit union account, not to a trust account.

    When George set up the website, he knew he was likely to be arrested any day and unable to access the money. If he turned over the website info to his brother, it would be so his brother could direct Paypal to transfer the money to his credit union account, not a trust.

    "Trust" is a bit misleading when you are talking about lawyer's trust accounts. It's just a checking account that contains only client funds rather than the lawyers' money. There's no trust agreement, no beneficiary, or anything like that. It's just a way of keeping client's funds separate from the lawyer's funds. All money the lawyer gets that is not earned fees is supposed to go into their trust account. Sometimes, if it's a lot of money from one client, the lawyer might open a separate trust account at the bank for that client's money so it can earn interest. Otherwise, interest goes to the state bar to fund projects for economically disadvantaged people. In some places, you have to apply for a court order to place the funds in a separate, interest-bearing account.

    O'Mara told the court on April 27 the money had gone into his trust account until he could establish the kind of trust you are thinking of -- and which he has now done. As I understand it, the money is no longer in O'Mara's trust account but a trust run by an independent third party and O'Mara says neither he nor Zimmerman have direct access or control over the money. The trustee makes the decisions.

    So I don't think taxes factored into anyone's decisions.


    Parent

    Re taxes: I would think the money (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:27:14 AM EST
    Is taxable income to Mr. Zimmerman from the perspective of the IRS. No state income tax in FL.  

    Parent
    It is taxable (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    but I thought the commenter was asking if that is what motivated Zimm.or his brother to put it in a trust. Putting it in a lawyer's trust account doesn't change the tax consequences to Zimmerman

    Parent
    My speculation (none / 0) (#159)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    is that they may have decided to create a "trust", independent of O'Mara, in the days prior to the bond hearing.

    Parent
    Entrapment at the bond hearing (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Stan25 on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:05:42 AM EST
    The State used the bond hearing as an entrapment proceeding:

    1. The State had the tapes before the hearing and "broke" the "code" so it knew there was 135k available four days before the hearing;
    2. The State would have listened to every tape before the hearing;
    3. The State deliberately asked Shellie the ambiguous question about what she knew about the current balances "RIGHT NOW";
    4. The State, even though it already knew the amounts raised as of four days ago, never asked for the balances FOUR DAYS AGO;
    5. Shellie answered 'No" correctly when asked if she knew the current balances "right now" and said her brother in law had the information needed and was available to be asked;
    6. The State itself, knowing the amount available, withheld that information from Judge Lester;
    7. The State could have simply asked Shellie for the amounts available as of four days ago. But it didn't;
    8. The State wasn't interested in getting the information in order to use it in front of Judge Lester, it was only interested in entrapping Shellie with an ambiguous question about balances "right now";
    9. The State was just as culpable as Shellie because it never told Judge Lester the amount available;
    10. If the State, knowing the information on the amount raised, had provided it to Judge Lester at the hearing, a perjury charge would have been more difficult because materiality, a necessary element for perjury, possibly might not be there;
    11. At worst, if the State disclosed the amount at the hearing, O'Mara may have had an opportunity to repair any damage, possibly by calling the brother in law himself. So the State had further incentive to withhold the information to solidify a perjury charge;
    12. The State abused the Court by pulling an entrapment scam against Shellie and was even more culpable than Shellie for the "misinformed" Lester bond order;
    13. The later revocation of bond was a staged action caused by the State, by not informing the Court what it knew on the day of the bond hearing, thereby creating the environment for new bond;
    14. There is no reason for the State to not inform the Court of the amount raised because it would have increased the bond amount ... except to entrap Shellie.


    Credibility - my opinion. (4.20 / 5) (#16)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:21:27 AM EST
    From transcript: (emphasis mine)

    Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

    A.(Shelly Zimmerman):  I do not.

    She was asked if she had any estimate....and just days prior she and GZ had discussed the amount $135 (thousand), so she knew there had been at least that much collected so far.    

    I find her answer no to be evasive.  Her credibility is in question with me.  

    As for GZ, I find it hard to believe his passport story.  A passport is a very important document and the fact that he had reported his first one lost or stolen and then turns it in knowing there was another one somewhere in his possession, well, I just find it hard to believe that the new passport was discovered when they were packing up to leave a few days later.  SZ mentioned a passport that was in the safety deposit box and GZ mentioned one in his bag during the jail phone call, and logic tells me the new passport would be the one in the safety deposit box, the one GZ told SZ to hold on to.  The story just doesn't sound right to me.  I believe he should have at the very least mentioned to his lawyer and the judge that there were two passports, one defunct and one current.  His credibility is in question with me.

    Doesn't giving his lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Kyreth on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    the second passport count as "at the very least mentioning the second passport to his lawyer?"

    Parent
    yes, it should (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:55:12 PM EST
    But it's interesting that people looking for a way not to believe GZ will use anything, even something the judge said wasn't an issue. O'Mara explained the passport was his fault for leaving it in his file for a month when he thought he had submitted it to the Court, and the Judge found his explanation credible and dismissed the suggestion that bond should be affected by it.

    That's part of the problem. People believe what they want to believe even when the facts countering that belief are right in front of them.

    There's nothing wrong with applying for a second passport if you can't find your passport and think you've lost it and tell the state dept you think you've lost it. Which is what GZ did.

    Parent

    I should have made myself more clear, but I was (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    discussing the events up to and including the bond hearing.  At that time GZ had not told O'Mara about the second passport.  I understand the second passport has been turned in, but that didn't happen until after the bond hearing, and it happened around the same time that O'Mara found out about the website and PayPal account funds and how much had been donated. And as far as people believing what they want to believe, there is a flip side to that, and it's that some people will refuse to believe anything regardless of the facts.  All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, GZ's credibility is questionable to me at this time.  In addition to the PayPal and passport issues, he made a statement at the bond hearing about TM's age that differed from what he said on the non-emergency 911 tapes the night of the event.  I think a reasonable person might question whether or not someone is credible based upon changing statements.  An example of that is the changing statements of a couple of the witnesses.  Most of us have said they don't have much credibility because their changing statements.  You can't have it both ways.

    Parent
    In regards to his credibility concerning (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Kyreth on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    TM's age, I can think of a couple of plausible explanations for the discrepancy, though I don't know if I should be speculating here as to what might have been running through George's mind when he first saw him versus the moment he fired the shot.

    But everyone seems to assume he lied on the stand about TM's age; but that's not the only possibility I can think of.

    Parent

    Judging Zimmerman's credibility based (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cashmere on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    upon his judgment of Martin's age during the call to the non-emergency dispatcher is, to me, a moot point for several reasons.  One, he may have re-evaluated Martin's age after he was being beaten by Martin (if true, and evidence thus far seems to support this), and two, when a 28 year-old states that he thought someone was a bit younger, that can be construed many ways.  Sometimes it is hard to judge one's age, especially in the heat of the moment.  Regardless, why does it matter how old Martin was?  He was close to adulthood, and if true that Martin was attacking Zimmerman, such that he (Zimmerman) feared for his life or great bodily harm, should he be expected to restrain himself in his own self defense as he did not know exactly how old Martin was?  Seems absurd to me. The only reason Zimmerman attempted to address the age issue at the bond hearing was because Sybrina Fulton stated on national television that this was a question she hoped would be answered.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:30:10 PM EST
    when he assessed TM as being in his late teens, it was during the 911 call as TM was walking towards him. He may have revised his opinion of his age when they were face to face, during either the verbal or physical encounter.  

    But please let's get back to the credibility issues pertaining to the finances, which is why bond was revoked.


    Parent

    explaining that away will only take 2000 words. (none / 0) (#157)
    by LeaNder on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    he made a statement at the bond hearing about TM's age that differed from what he said on the non-emergency 911 tapes the night of the event.  I think a reasonable person might question whether or not someone is credible

    I agree, but that was clearly planned with O'Mara, which means it may not have been altogether GZ's own idea or decision. Although yes, from the moment I heard him say it, I thought that part was the most important part of his whole statement. The excuse seemed only serve to provide the right packaging. Interestingly that part was left out by most media reports.

    To pick up Jeralyn's argument maybe O'Mara didn't trust Zimmerman completely at the time. He watched GZ closely at that point, I would have loved to read both minds. ;)

    Parent

    She chose to not hazzard a guess (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Juan on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    or "estimate" the amount of money collected. She acknowledged she was aware of the website. She offered that her brother-in-law would know the amount of money as a result of the website "right now" as "currently" she did not know. She suggested "we could probably get him on the phone". Hardly being "evasive" or lacking in "credibility". If the amount of money was such a material element in setting the bond, why was the bil not called to testify ? That was out of her control.

    Parent
    have you never been asked a question (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:37:02 PM EST
    by someone to whom you would absolutely not give a speculative answer?  I have, I live with him.  He's and ex-cop and unless I have the exact answer, the best he is getting out of me is "I do not know".
    Given the fact that prosecutors love to catch you in inconstant statements, SZ gave the true answer and the smart one.  Can't blame her at all.

    Parent
    Actually SZ wwas asked to give an estimate only. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:20:06 PM EST
    And this is a case where had she given a "to the best of her knowledge" estimate, she wouldn't be in the current situation. I doubt the prosecution could catch her in an inconsistent statement if she had been truthful to what she knew.  This was a bond hearing, not a murder trial.  

    Parent
    she was asked to give an (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:05:51 AM EST
    estimate of what had been raised since the website began. That's not the same thing as asking her to give an estimate of what is the account now. Since she didn't know when he started the website, she would have no way to estimate what had been collected in total.

    You are blaming her for the prosecutor's inartful questions. Witnesses are supposed to answer the question asked, not what they think the person means by their question.

    Her jail conversation with her husband was about the total amount in the account (155) not what had been raised in total.

    Perhaps she could have answered the estimate question by saying, "No, I can't estimate the total amount raised by the website since I don't know when the website began accepting funds, but again, my brother in law would know that."

    I don't think it makes her answer a lie or decitful.

    Parent

    no way (none / 0) (#153)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:51:55 AM EST
    would I get pulled in to that quick sand.  Good for her for refusing.

    Parent
    I understand exactly (none / 0) (#73)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 06:35:45 PM EST
    what you are saying.  Mr. Z is a scientist, and I do the same thing you do as far as answers are concerned.  To him, speculation is anathema.

    Parent
    "I find her answer "no" (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:19:40 PM EST
     to be evasive."

    Not really; "evasive" would be something like, "I'm not sure, it changes every day."

    Her answer, "no," was dishonest and a falsehood.

    I don't think the judge would have been so severe in his actions if it was simply, an "evasive" answer.


    Parent

    I'm getting the feeling that the (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:18:46 PM EST
    Zimmermans were not forthcoming with O'Mara and were afraid to disclose that they had moved money from the PayPal account to their credit union account.  Otherwise, the natural answer to the question Shellie Zimmerman was asked was, "well, three days ago, the balance was X; we moved Y dollars into our joint account so there would be funds to pay for the bond - I don't know how much more has come in since then."

    That would have been the honest answer - the one she gave tells me she was afraid there was something wrong with what they had done with the money.

    They seem to be a textbook example of why it's foolish to withhold information from the lawyers hired to keep you out of prison.

    I don't know that there was anything malicious in their omissions, but what it does is make people wonder about what else has been withheld, and what may have been omitted from whatever it is that Zimmerman told the cops that night, and why people should be able to rely on Zimmerman's version of the events during the time period when there were no witnesses - the most critical part of the event.

    Parent

    Except O'Mara and any good lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:15:20 AM EST
    would have told her, when preparing her for her testimony and cross-examination in particular, just answer the question asked and don't volunteer information or try to explain.

    If O'Mara thought there was something to clean up or flesh out after her cross-examination, he would have anticipated doing that on redirect.  Of course, in this instance, since he hadn't thought to ask her or his client about the funds before the hearing, he didn't know that the sites had raised a large amount of money or that his client and  his wife knew the site had raised a lot of money.

    Still, the best answer is a direct one that answers the precise question asked and does not attempt to add explanations.


    Parent

    You really think O'Mara is that stupid? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by expy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:19:28 AM EST
    You wrote:
    Of course, in this instance, since he hadn't thought to ask her or his client about the funds before the hearing,

    I honestly cannot imagine any minimally competent lawyer not asking that question.  

    I will concede that there is no way for us to know what, if anything, O'Mara asked his client or his client's wife in preparation of the bail hearing -- but given Mr. O'Mara's previously excellent reputation as criminal defense lawyer, I am surprised that you assume him to be inept.

    Parent

    That's what O'Mara (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:22:40 PM EST
    has said. You can watch him say it here.

    Parent
    Agree that the best approach is always (none / 0) (#150)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    to just answer the question asked, and don't elaborate, however...O'Mara, who is, presumably, an excellent attorney, must have been the only person on the planet who seemingly didn't know about the website, which makes him not thinking to ask her or his client about it before the hearing difficult to reconcile - especially in light of the reason for the hearing: getting that client out on bond, and making the representation that neither his client, nor his client's family, had the means/assets at their disposal.

    If I'm claiming that my client is indigent, and with that client's credibility being under a media and public microscope, there's no way I'm taking any chances, and it shocks me a little that we're just supposed to accept that O"Mara "forgot" to ask - just as he "forgot" to turn over the passport.

    I can't speak for O'Mara - or for you and your own experience - but speaking for mine, in a legal field that is deadline driven and where missing them costs the client - and the firm - money, and even though no client's situation is exactly the same each time, the process, the procedures, the checklists: those are ingrained in me to the point where it makes claiming "forgetfulness" exceedingly hard to accept.

    What will be your take if there are more instances of either Zimmerman or his attorney "forgetting" some important piece of information?

    Parent

    Anne are you serious? (3.50 / 2) (#154)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:52:13 AM EST
    It may have escaped your notice but there were a total of 3 accounts online that were receiving money for George Zimmerman, and it may also have escaped your notice but O' Mara had taken the case less than a month before the hearing.

    We also know that O'Mara knew of the other two accounts. Geez, how hard do you think it is for me to believe that he assumed that was all of them?

    Parent

    "When you assume .... (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by expy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    you make an ass out of u and me"

    I think that most trial lawyers are very much aware of the pitfalls of making "assumptions" -- certainly they will learn that lesson soon enough with a busy trial practice.

    Asking for "all" account records and questions like "is that everything?" or "is there anything else not included?" should be second nature when it comes to tracing assets.  

    (The passport is a different matter. It probably would not have occurred to me in the past to ask a client whether he has more than one unexpired passport, given the fact that generally people only hold one at a time. However, now that the US Passport agency offers all citizens the option of simultaneously requesting both a Passport Card and Booklet, I wouldn't make the "only one" assumption in the future.)

    Parent

    Any estimate (3.50 / 2) (#190)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:27:04 PM EST
    .

    Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

    A.(Shelly Zimmerman):  I do not.

    She was asked if she had any estimate....and just days prior she and GZ had discussed the amount $135 (thousand), so she knew there had been at least that much collected so f

    ar.  

    Having no estimate is not the same as an estimate of zero.  I have no estimate of my wife's weight, although I am certain it is not zero.  

    Note she was asked if she had an estimate rather than being asked to make an estimate.  Under the circumstances it is not surprising that she did not volunteer information that was not asked for.

    .

    Parent

    Far be it from me (3.50 / 2) (#3)
    by whitecap333 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:10:55 AM EST
    to suggest that the Zimmermans made the correct decision here.  At the same time, I can appreciate their dismay occasioned by the intimations of both judge and prosecutor that their fund could be taken from them as bond/bail money.  This would have struck me as grossly unjust.  I am familiar with the rationalizations offered to justify such an expropriation by the court, and find them most unpersuasive.

    As concerns Mrs. Zimmerman's refusal to offer an "estimate" of the amount contained in the fund, I believe it is customary for defense lawyers to instruct their clients to refuse to "guess" at anything, and an "estimate," by other words, is just a "guess."

    Are you degrading working class GZ (3.50 / 2) (#124)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:50:07 PM EST
    Working class GZ made the bail, was processed out of jail and was out on bond in two days after it was set.  

    I am curious - why do you minimize the importance of incarceration?

    Lets assume - I know you won't agree - that no crime was actually committed.

    If you were innocent but accused, how would you characterize your incarceration for just two days?

    What if by some turn of fate the loud iron clank shuttered your cell?

    I am curious but confident that a test is practicable.

    Just stop (none / 0) (#132)
    by ks on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:33:27 AM EST
    That you continually allowed to post such dubious stuff is amazing.  

    Parent
    sorry that's a fair response (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:29:31 AM EST
    to your comment suggesting that 2 days in jail is no big deal. I spend a lot of time at jails and don't even get to see the dismal living conditions, just the visiting rooms, but I still have to go through the clanking doors nonetheless.  For security reasons, one door has to clank behind you before the next door clanks open in front of you, and clank is the best description of the sound -- these are huge metal doors that weigh tons. It's a tremendous reminder that you are no longer in control of your life when you are within those walls.

    I think having to spend one night locked up in a county jail would be horrible. And I've never had a client who was eligible for bond tell me, no big deal, just get me out whenever its convenient.

    You are either completely naive or oblivious or just determined not to offer a morsel of empathy to the defendant in this case. It's your mocking sarcasm to Zimmerman, the defendant, that is objectionable in my view.

    Parent

    What? Please read again (none / 0) (#156)
    by ks on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:11:42 AM EST
    I never suggested that at all.  Wow.  I simply said it took two days for GZ to make bail in response to other posters claims that 150K was some sort of impoverishing bail. My meaning was pretty clear.  

    Then lousy started baiting me with the "two days in jail" stuff.  I never made any suggestion that being in jail for two days was "not a big deal" or whatever.  In fact, I didn't say anything about GZ being in jail at all.  Good. Bad or Indifferent.

    Where did you get that from and why are you using your interpretation to insult me? That's not fair.

    Again, please read the posts in question again.

    Parent

    It took two days to raise the money (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Slayersrezo on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    ...because a crapload of people online donated to help GZ out. If that hadn't have happened the parents were looking at having to sell their house to raise this "reasonable" bond, which you constantly poo-poo. I hope if it ever happens to you, that you can count on the "ks defense fund" to help you out with the 15 to 100 k that many bails require to be posted.

    Parent
    No, it didn't (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:17:42 PM EST
    It took two days to raise the money

    The Zimmerman's already had $135,000 from the Paypal account by the time of the bond hearing.

    Parent

    That they were reluctant to use (none / 0) (#172)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    according to O'Mara.
    He stated that they continued to seek second mortages on their parents and grandparents home to use for bond and it took him considerable time to convince them otherwise.
    There may or may not be a rational explaination although O'Mara stated fear and distrust as contributing factors.

    Parent
    Off on a tangent (none / 0) (#170)
    by ks on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    Poo-poo?  Wha?  This is getting odd.

    The bottom line is that the judge granted GZ bail based on what he was told by Gz's team in court.  Nobody on GZ's team objected to the amount.

    Our disagreement about whether that amount was reasonable is besides the point.  GZ made the bail quickly and was out on bond.

    Parent

    you just said it again (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:28:27 PM EST
    GZ made the bail quickly and was out on bond.

    Two days behind bars isn't quick.

    And O'Mara said at the June 1 hearing they used $5k from the website fund and the bondsman agreed to take an IOU for the rest which is still outstanding. So but for the goodwill of the bondsman, he would have spent longer in jail. And now, he has to make a new bond, coming up with more cash.

    O'Mara said it's not clear if the legal fund can pay for the bondsman, but he's checking in to it.

    Parent

    "Said it again"? (none / 0) (#195)
    by ks on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:09:02 AM EST
    Really?  If you were granted bail today and was out of jail by Wednesday that wouldn't be quickly?  We are going to have to agree to disagree on that one though I'm not sure how my making bail quickly = your and lousy's being in jail is "not a big deal".

    In any event just to be clear, my piont about GZ making bail quickly was related to the earlier discussion about the amount of bail, not the time spent in jail between bail being granted and getting out of jail.  

    Parent

    Apologies (none / 0) (#198)
    by ks on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:17:00 AM EST
    I overlooked your latter point and didn't respond.  I see what you're saying but, "if.." scenario aside, it was figured out and GZ got out.  What happens on the 29th is TBD. We'll see.

    Parent
    Coming Clean (3.50 / 2) (#130)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:10:55 AM EST
    I can think of no better way for Zimmerman to utterly destroy his credibility and infuriate Judge Lester that to attempt to weasel out of admitting that he and his wife attempted to conceal this fund from the court.  They had a powerful incentive for their evasions: preservation of the fund for legal fees and living expenses.  Their perception that a fully informed court might very well require this fund to be exhausted for bail/bond money was hardly unreasonable.  Anyone who isn't eager to hang Zimmerman from the nearest tree will sympathize with his attempt at self-preservation.  I see no indication that O'Mara is going to walk into court and deny that the Zimmermans understood the thrust of the questions put to them.  Who would believe it?  Certainly not Judge Lester.  It will certainly be interesting to see how he is going to react to the proposition that funds that could have been devoted to bail/bond money on 4/20 are now beyond the court's reach, in trust.  

    I will suggest, again, that the magnitude of the infraction here must be viewed against the backdrop of the threat of, from the Zimmermans perspective, judicial expropriation of their defense fund.  To me, that threat seems quite unconscionable.    

    He didn't seem upset (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:32:02 AM EST
    O'Mara disclosed the existence of $200,000 or so, on April 27th.  Lester didn't seem perturbed about the presence of the money, and if I recall correctly, wasn't sure if he had any power over those funds in the first place.

    Parent
    State Of Mind (none / 0) (#158)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:04:21 AM EST
    I'm still working on getting up to speed on all this, and I don't know if I will before we move on to other things.

    Off the top of my head, I think Lester's concern might be that the jailhouse conversations showed that the Zimmermans believed, rightly or wrongly, that they could use the money for the bond. De la Rionda hit that point hard at the hearing.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#161)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    I'm reading too much into the judge's "potted palm" remark and his suggestion that the prosecutor consider whether Mrs. Zimmerman should be charged.

    Parent
    Cboldt, You did remember correctly (none / 0) (#184)
    by Aunt Polgara on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    Lester didn't seem perturbed about the presence of the money, and if I recall correctly, wasn't sure if he had any power over those funds in the first place.

    Here's the link to the video.

    Parent

    O'Mara seems to concur (none / 0) (#131)
    by MJW on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:26:44 AM EST
    and you are both probably correct, even though I think a good argument can be made by parsing the questions and answers.

    Nevertheless, pointing out that Shellie clearly pointed to her brother-in-law as someone who could provide an accurate accounting of the PayPal account isn't weaseling, and undermines the accusation that they were trying to conceal the fund from the court.

    Parent

    Agreed, (none / 0) (#148)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:33:50 AM EST
    and O'Mara will doubtless go through the motions of muddying the water a bit.  But what I don't understand is what decisions Judge Lester will be making that could be affected by his perception of Zimmerman's credibility.  Unless he desires to be the centerpiece of an auto-da-fe, he's not going to dismiss this case on the "immunity" defense.  O'Mara will just use this procedure like a Motion for Summary Judgment, I would think, to force the prosecution to disclose more of their cards.  As far as the amount of the new bond, Lester knows Zimmerman "pulled a fast one" on him, and I don't see any getting around that.  On the other hand, knowing that Dershowitz (who has already said this is no big deal) is now looking over his shoulder should inspire some restraint.    

    Parent
    Judge Lester is obliged to follow the evidence (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:38:29 AM EST
    -- what I don't understand is what decisions Judge Lester will be making that could be affected by his perception of Zimmerman's credibility. --

    There are competing narratives, and under Florida's Dennis decision, the trial judge is obliged to weigh the evidence.  One one side, Lester will be presented with the state's evidence and testimony.  Ostensibly that Zimmerman showed signs of anger on leaving his truck, that he chased Martin down, and had the upper hand (or at least, was at no risk) for some seconds while Martin was screaming for help.  Then Zimmerman shot Martin for no good reason.

    On the other side is Zimmerman's account, with whatever support it finds in the testimony of eyewitnesses, injuries, and forensic evidence.  The ultimate question in the Dennis hearing necessarily involves Zimmerman's credibility.  Judge Lester will either find Zimmerman told the truth to investigators, or that he lied to them.

    Parent

    Dennis (none / 0) (#160)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    Not to stray too far afield, but you read Dennis to say that the judge can't "kick the can" by ruling that Zimmerman failed to demonstrate his right to dismissal by a "preponderance of the evidence"?  That he must make a finding of fact concerning whether (for sake of example) Zimmerman or Dee Dee is telling the truth?  I agree that's what it -seems- to say, but I'm not a lawyer.  Adverse rulings here could have a disastrous impact on potential jurors.  Not sure I would risk it, given the "popular clamor" the court is being subjected to.  

    Parent
    What the Judge has to find (none / 0) (#162)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    -- you read Dennis to say that the judge can't "kick the can" by ruling that Zimmerman failed to demonstrate his right to dismissal by a "preponderance of the evidence"? --

    I'm just saying he has to follow the evidence.  He can call it whatever he wants, for example, he can say that DeeDee and John are equally credible; that based on the evidence, it is equally (or even more) likely Zimmerman was at physical advantage, etc.

    He'll have to reach a conclusion, and he'll have to justify it based on the evidence.  I suppose, as you point out, that he may be unwilling to reach a finding on the relative weight of DeeDee's testimony, over John's (and by implication, Zimmerman); and even the implied conclusion of SPD; and similar to Judge Hirsch in the Wyche case, conclude that the evidence is in equipoise - or he can conclude that the evidence of self defense is weak, that it's more likely the shooting was NOT self defense.

    Zimmerman's credibility is a big factor in all that.

    -- Adverse rulings here could have a disastrous impact on potential jurors. --

    Maybe, maybe not.  I don't think that speculation can be fairly settled either way via debate.  O'Mara and Zimmerman will do their own calculus.  Personally, my opinion is that failure to move for dismissal on immunity grounds would be malpractice, in this case.

    Parent

    Wyche (none / 0) (#173)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    seems to leave the judge at liberty to say "I've studied on this 'until my eyelids will no longer wag' and find the evidence in equipoise."

    Parent
    On what basis (none / 0) (#174)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:44:36 PM EST
    I was composing my remarks under the assumption that the judge will objectively weigh the evidence.  I suppose, in the broadest sense, he's at liberty to do other than that.  My impression of the evidence is that it weighs quite heavily in Zimmerman's favor, and that a decision that finds otherwise will be riddled with logical fallacies and other common signs of "make it up as you go along" law.

    Regardless of how Lester comes out, Zimmerman's credibility is part of the calculus of weighing the evidence.  You'd originally remarked that you didn't see how Zimmerman's credibility mattered, and my contention is that Lester's view of Zimmerman's credibility is important, if Lester does what he is supposed to do, which is weigh the evidence put before him.  If Lester thinks Zimmerman is a flat out liar, all the time, the the case goes to trial.  If Lester finds Zimmerman's story more likely true than Corey's, then Zimmerman doesn't stand trial.

    Parent

    I expect the court to (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:00:46 PM EST
    Examine the evidence presented and also determine credibility of those who testify. And hear from counsel. Stories?  Hope not.

    Parent
    I'll certainly (none / 0) (#180)
    by whitecap333 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    raise a glass in your honor, should your assessment prove correct, but I'm reasonably satisfied the judge will be disinclined to risk seeing his family harassed, his home burned, and his dog shot.

    Parent
    The judge's decision in the (none / 0) (#186)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:29:56 PM EST
    immunity hearing (SYG) is subject to appeal to the DCA.  I think the assumption that the judge will objectively weigh the evidence is one that should be made.  The matter of Zimmerman's credibility of testimony bolstered by logical, reasonable and correlative evidence should be the makings of the judge's decision.    However, the credibility of Z. should not be keyed to the bond hearing.  If the Judge thinks Z. is a flat out liar all the time and the decision is riddled with logical fallacies, it may be found that the judge abused his discretion and the decision would not survive appeal.   And, Zimmerman would not, in that case, stand trial.  

    Parent
    Trust but Verify (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cylinder on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:08:25 PM EST
    The matter of Zimmerman's credibility of testimony bolstered by logical, reasonable and correlative evidence should be the makings of the judge's decision.

    As a layperson opinion, I would go further and predict that Zimmerman's credibility will be judged almost solely on his statements v. the body of evidence. One of the unique features of this case is that the claim of justification is specific and will only fit a very narrow set of facts established by evidence. In thqat respect, it differs from a more nebulous claim like I shot him from ten feet away because of a threatening gesture or something similar.

    Even if the court found him deceptive on the matter of bond (e.g. the claim that he conspired with his wife to hide assets)I don't see that it would have great moment in any hypothetical claim of immunity.

    Parent

    Credibility, when? (none / 0) (#163)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:13:57 PM EST
    Just to add a point - Zimmerman's credibility around February 26-28 is more important than his credibility on April 20.  I understand the simple argument that if he lied on April 20, then he probably lies about everything; but Lester is apt to admit that Zimmerman had a different attitude and mindset after being arrested for murder and jailed for a week, and might look for separate clues of Zimmerman credibility during his February interrogations.

    I think the evidence speaks well for Zimmerman's credibility.  He called SPD in the first place, made no attempt to flee, and was cooperative with investigators.  Those all cut against "guilty conscience" and "ill will in the first place."

    Like you, I think if you ask him if he was hiding money and/or a passport on April 20, he'd either confess that he was, or he'd fail the voice stress test.

    Parent

    Credibility (none / 0) (#192)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:57:45 AM EST
    In view of Wyche, there would appear to be little danger that the court would make prejudicial findings of fact in an immunity hearing, so I'll eat my words on that.  I'm not sure how much Zimmerman's perceived credibility would come into play on what appears to be the key issue, whether he believed he had to use deadly force to avert the danger of "great bodily harm."  In view of the testimony of Witness John and the 911 recordings, the court would really have to strain to here find an "equipoise of evidence."  Everything else appears to be window dressing.

    Concerning the amount of the bond, I can't see any nexus between Zimmerman's "credibility" and the amount needed to deter him from taking flight.

    Parent

    I think it's a critical point (none / 0) (#194)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:43:33 AM EST
    -- I'm not sure how much Zimmerman's perceived credibility would come into play on what appears to be the key issue, whether he believed he had to use deadly force to avert the danger of "great bodily harm." --

    Not yet in evidence from the state, but remarks from Zimmerman's brother and father have Zimmerman claiming that Martin saw the gun (or maybe Zimmerman just thought he did), uttered a death threat (Serino found this assertion to be "contrived"), and that Martin was smothering him.  There are no other witnesses for these facts.  Zimmerman's credibility could be critical on these points, because as far as the head bashing goes, he acted in way that could be taken as Zimmerman's state of mind being "that risk has been mitigated."  He shifted his body so further blows would land his head on the grass, not pavement; and Martin has to be tiring out at some point.

    Off the "Zimmerman's credibility" topic, DeeDee's testimony is irrelevant at this critical point.  Her observations stop when the fight starts.  IOW, DeeDee is a witness for the murder case (Zimmerman chased, caught, and confronted), but not for the self defense case.

    I don't think the bond hearing potted palm "act" hurts Zimmerman at all, but I'm not Judge Lester.

    Parent

    Credibility Issues (none / 0) (#200)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:56:49 AM EST
    Looks like Serino drew a bead on Zimmerman from day one.  I don't doubt there's some "payback" involved here.  What's the source for the thought that Zimmerman had managed to remove his head from the concrete to the grass?  In his recorded interview (the long one), Witness John is very firm on his observation that he saw Martin work Zimmerman from the grass onto the concrete.  Is the standard for fear of harm here, under the immunity analysis, objective or subjective?

    Parent
    Hearsay? (none / 0) (#202)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:26:23 AM EST
    Occurred to me to wonder how the remarks of Zimmerman's father and brother about what Zimmerman said to them could find their way into evidence.

    Parent
    The way I understand it (none / 0) (#205)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:54:04 PM EST
    is that if GZ told them directly and they repeated it verbatim then it is not hearsay.  If they are repeating what he said thru a third source, for example: Shelly Z, then it is considered to be hearsay.

    Anyway I look at it it is still not the words coming out of George Zimmermans mouth.  As such the father or other family members are proxies so I take it all with a grain.  

    His dad clearly loves his son.  He has an innate interest to protect him.  The same goes for the Fulton-Martins.  I don't think that either of these families can be asked to emotionally detach themselves from the circumstances in which their respective children ended up.

    Just IMO.  And I am certainly not a lawyer.

    Parent

    Why would they ever be called? (none / 0) (#220)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:52:26 PM EST
    "...if GZ told them directly and they repeated it verbatim then it is not hearsay."

    How do you prove that they have repeated it verbatim?

    How do you prove that he told his relatives the truth?

    If Zimmerman is available to stand trial he can take the stand himself and tell his account of what happened.

    If he's not available, no trial.

    Parent

    The sequence of the struggle (none / 0) (#206)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:01:23 PM EST
    The statements of Zimmerman's father and brother don't come into evidence at all.  They are a public surrogate for "trial" evidence comprising George Zimmerman, Jr.'s account of the sequence of the struggle, with the "trial" evidence coming from Zimmerman himself.

    By coming from Zimmerman himself, I mean to cover his statements to SPD while he was interrogated, any sworn statements by defendant in a motion for a finding of 776.032 immunity, and live testimony, or any combination of those.

    "Trial" in scare quotes only because that evidence comes in at a pre-trial immunity hearing, as well as at trial, if there is a trial.

    Parent

    Matters Evidentiary (none / 0) (#207)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    Before this discussion gets vaporized, perhaps you or one of the other lawyers here will be kind enough to enlighten me on a couple of points.  As I vaguely understand this business, the prosecution will be permitted to put into evidence only "inculpatory" statements made by Zimmerman.  Is this concept limited to admissions of wrongful conduct, or does it extend to statements which are merely contradictory to, or inconsistent with, the testimony of other witnesses?  Suppose O'Mara were to decide that Zimmerman seems most credible in his "reenactment." Would he have any problems getting that into evidence?  Would he have to agree to submit Zimmerman to cross examination to accomplish this?

    Parent
    It's a free for all! (none / 0) (#208)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:14:29 PM EST
    The state can enter any evidence it wants, not just evidence that is unequivocally inculpatory.  As a general matter of persuasion, it's my opinion that admitting weakness in evidence, or entering evidence that seems to favor the other side, shows confidence on the part of whichever side makes the admission.  Nothing to hide, we aren't cherry picking, we went through all of the evidence, and the reason we resolve the difference the way we did is .... [insert persuasive reasoning].

    Contradictory statements by Zimmerman will tend to undermine his credibility, unless the contradictions are on relatively immaterial points (he may estimate the elapse of 20 seconds, when in fact it was a minute, etc.).

    O'Mara would have no trouble getting any part of Zimmerman's statements into evidence.  He may want to suppress some parts of Zimmerman's statements to police (defendant has a right to suppress involuntary confession, but I don't think Zimmerman made any statements that come remotely close to confession of wrong).  The state can introduce Zimmerman's statements too, and I think they intend to, in a way that makes Zimmerman's account "incredible," it could not have happened the way he says it happened.

    I'm of a mind, at this point, that Zimmerman need not take the stand in order to introduce his version of events at the Dennis hearing.  I believe he may make sworn statements in writing, within the four corners of the Motion for Immunity.  The state would attempt to impeach those statements, or render them equivocal.  If Zimmerman makes his case in writing (and only in writing) then he will not be exposed to cross examination.

    I think the best strategy for arguing self defense is to limit the window of inquiry to the time between maybe 10 seconds before getting punched in the nose (who decided to close distance? who spoke first? what was said?  who made the first move that is reasonably taken as initiation of unwelcome contact?), until the gunshot.  Again, in keeping with the intended function of this thread, I think Zimmerman's credibility in that accounting is critically important - but for parts of that interval, he has the benefit of independent evidence (John, forensics, injuries).

    Others disagree with my belief that Zimmerman can mount a Dennis hearing self defense case without taking the stand.

    Parent

    There (none / 0) (#209)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:33:29 PM EST
    was some consensus that Zimmerman handled himself well under cross in the original bond hearing.  I didn't get that impression at all.  I thought he looked uncomfortable at best and withered at worst.

    If MOM can avoid putting GZ on the stand, he will take any opportunity to do just that.  Let the evidence speak for itself.

    "Others may disagree" but I am hoping you are correct.

    Parent

    Is it your reasoning (none / 0) (#210)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    that uncertainty (or an equipoise) about who initiated "unwelcome contact" might tip one way or the other the court's determination of whether Zimmerman had exhausted all other alternatives to avert the danger of "great bodily harm"?  I can't otherwise see where the preliminaries matter.  

    Parent
    There is no duty to avert danger (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:20:55 PM EST
    -- whether Zimmerman had exhausted all other alternatives to avert the danger of "great bodily harm"? --

    I don't think I addressed this.  Zimmerman has no legal duty to "exhaust all other alternatives."  Serino's legal theory that Zimmerman could have avoided the incident by sleeping late, or not getting out of his truck, or by explaining himself to Martin with different words, yada yada yada - that's all legally worthless.  Doesn't hold water.  Zimmerman could have dogged Martin from a few feet away and taunted him for minutes, and that would not give Martin the right to touch Zimmerman.

    Once Zimmerman loses any physical advantage he might have ever had (and there is only DeeDee with her "Zimmerman shoved" and "Martin said get off" to support Zimmerman having the upper hand at the start; and Sybrina's "that's Martin's voice on the 911 recordings" (all half a minute of it, if she's to be believed) to support Zimmerman having the upper hand during most of the fight), the notion of "averting danger," on his part, is nonsense.  He is not in control of Martin and he claims he couldn't escape.  John sees him in a physically inferior position.

    Zimmerman's duty is to not use any more force than is necessary under the circumstance.  In order to be justified in use of deadly force, he has to have a reasonable fear (and Lester, not Zimmerman, gets to decide what is "reasonable") of serious injury or death.  Head banging is probably enough.  Being smothered out or choked is certainly enough.  Receiving a death threat in combination with your (currently in a physically superior position) opponent's failure to "stop" and "surrender or retreat" after he sees your gun is certainly enough.

    The end game of self defense is all about Zimmerman's credibility, especially his credibility right after the shooting.  There are no other witnesses to the last 10 seconds.

    Parent

    Who started it is in 776.013 (none / 0) (#212)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:03:54 PM EST
    At first blush, I think the question about aggressor or provocateur needs to come up, if the court is to make a complete set of findings to chapter 776 of Florida law.  That's because even though the aggressor is allowed to assert deadly force in self defense, if he finds his life at risk; not all aggressors are.  It depends on the nature and timing of the aggression.  Self defense is a highly fact-dependent inquiry.  Certainly one who starts a shoving match can respond in kind if his opponent decides to escalate to deadly force.  FWIW, the guy who starts the shoving match committed a crime, even if his self defense was justified.

    But, IMO, it's easier, not as morally distasteful if you will, to find the person who is asserting self defense to have NOT started it in the first place.  But if he started it, the case file should show the right legal standard from 776.013 being applied.

    I'm not sure if you and I are using "unwelcome contact" the same way.  I mean it in the legal/tort/crime sense.  Initiating unwelcome contact involves some form of touch.  Being an obnoxious jerk with just words is NOT making unwelcome contact or initiating use of force.  Asking a person what they are doing, or even telling them, in error, to get out, is NOT an unwelcome contact, provocation, or being an aggressor, as a matter of law.

    Back to your question, uncertainty or equipoise about whether or not Zimmerman shoved Martin before getting a punch in the nose does not affect the finding of justification for use of deadly force, the way I reason out the case.  The deadly force came over a minute into the fight.  I don't know if Zimmerman was unable to reach his firearm before then, but if we believe what his father said, it was later in the fight that Zimmerman came to fear for his life.  Either being smothered out, or Martin sees the gun and utters a death threat, or a combination of both.  That situation is enough to overcome the elevated burden of justification if one finds it more likely than not, Zimmerman started the physical action with a shove, hold, or attempt to restrain Martin.

    I think the case turns on the last 20 or 30 seconds of the fight, from the time when Zimmerman first apprehends the risk of his own death - but accounting for all of the time going back to coming within arms reach provides a more satisfying context for the decision-maker.  Put yourself in Lester's shoes.  How much do you need to know (go back in time from the gunshot) in order to have a clear conscience saying more likely than not, Zimmerman was justified?

    The Wyche case is a good one for that backward look, and there are a few others.  Generally, the finder of fact looks back at least to the start of the fight - not that the start of the fight determines the outcome of the legal analysis, just that going back that far is required in order to fill in all of the factors that appear in 776.013, and assure that the proper legal standard is fully satisfied.

    Parent

    Muddying the waters? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by MJW on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:29:50 PM EST
    How is it muddying the waters to point out that Shellie told them exactly who to contact to find out how much was in the account?  How does that fit into a nefarious plan to hide the account from the court?

    Parent
    Just a reminder (3.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:38:48 PM EST
    personal attacks are not allowed here -- on the participants, the lawyers, their family members or other commenters. You may not label anyone a racist. I just deleted one such comment. I was going to ban the commenter, but thought I'd give one last reminder.

    Also, you may not rate a comment a "1" because you disagree with the opinion expressed. A "1" rating is reserved for trolls, comment violators and incoherent or wildly off-topic bizarre comments.

    Goodness (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:07:04 AM EST
    And I thought a certain poster was giving me "1's" in grudging admiration of my logic and polished style.  Where does one go here for an explanation of the finer points of forum usage?

    Parent
    Here you go: Ignore the ratings. (none / 0) (#204)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:02:22 PM EST
    They are irrelevant.

    Parent
    Incredible work, J (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:55:45 AM EST
    But for me, honestly, the phone call GZ made to the police that night (along with maps of the crime scene) are what led me to conclude he is not credible, either intellectually or emotionally. IMO, this episode is nothing compared to the credibility hit GZ takes when his actions the night of alleged crime are put under the light -- the night an unarmed kid got shot to death walking back to his dad's girlfriend's condo (put this way, the passport and bail stuff seem very less than). Hell, coming where I come from as a person, having lived in a real ghetto with even more serious crimes to worry about, I should identify with GZ.  But I don't.  Because, based on the evidence so far, he does not seem a stable or credible personality.  Now, conversely, do the state and its prosecutors seem stable or credible right now? Um...no.  

    Sorry, off topic but (4.25 / 8) (#8)
    by Kyreth on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:26:00 AM EST
    I see this statement a lot and it kinda bugs me:

    "the night an unarmed kid got shot to death walking back to his dad's girlfriend's condo"

    Actually, the evidence suggests that the kid got shot to death while holding someone to the ground and giving him a beating.

    Parent

    Dadler, please keep your (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    view of the evidence regarding the shooting to a thread where that is being discussed. I just had to delete 10 comments objecting to your characterization because they went the other way and accused TM of something which has not been established.

    Comments to this post should be about the effect of the bond revocation and the judge's finding he and his wife misrepresented their finances on his credibility.

    Parent

    Since this SOMEHOW wasn't deleted (none / 0) (#221)
    by fredquick21 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:58:38 PM EST
    i will respond. What evidence are you talking about? Is it the same evidence that has GZ arrested,charged ( for murder 2 i believe ) and currently isolated in jail while his family is in hiding ?..

    Parent
    Started posting on this site (1.00 / 1) (#217)
    by fredquick21 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:32:01 PM EST
     maybe 3 weeks ago and the one thing that bothers me is that most post blame SZ,Brother -in-law, MoM,Judge and prosecutors (for bond/bail being revoked) prosecutors,TM or SPD (his charges) for Zim's predicament there are very few if any post that put any blame at his footsteps. I don't know if he lied or misled or misrepresented nor do i know guilt or innocences of Zim but i do know that everything involving Mr Zimmerman's current predicament can't be everyone else's fault. AGAIN i'm not saying he's guilt or innocence of anything ( bond/bail being revoked or charges )  but he is responsible for most if not all of his current predicament.

    Because... (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:51:12 PM EST
    the people posting on this site know that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    Despite the fact that you claim to not have predetermined the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman, a quick glance over your prior posts seem to indicate otherwise.

    Just my opinion.  No one else's.  And most importantly, IANAL!

    Parent

    Rent Scam (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:06:09 AM EST
    It's common sense and smart not to mention how much money you or your wife have on a recorded jail line. Someone may overhear, like another inmate, who may decide to tell someone to rob you or your wife. A guard might overhear and innocently mention it to someone else who then decides to set up a robbery. He was probably the highest-profile inmate in the jail.

    Good point. I'd add that you would want to be careful about mentioning access to funds to avoid the "rent" scam, where fellow inmates extort for commissary goods or even outside payments in order to gain protection from other inmates - who are often part of the scam itself.


    Having been a defendant (none / 0) (#6)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:16:34 AM EST
    on a fairly serious crime, I downplayed a lot of the information to my family and to my friends.  I virtually put everyone on a need to know basis.  And I never answered anything I wasn't directly asked about by them.

    That said, the last person I did that to was my lawyer, however. I didn't know this guy from Adam when I first met him and I poured my whole story, warts and all, to him.  I even volunteered information that had no relevancy to the crime itself.  He was the friendly face I was paying out the nose for.

    Methinks Zimmerman was that way with his first set of lawyers.  He never even met them in person, IIRC.  All contact was done by phone. And, IMO, they failed him big time.  Especially, their use of the media when issuing statements on his behalf.  IMO, again, they did much more harm than good.

    I can totally see Zimmerman's newly established mistrust of lawyers being extended to Mr. O'Mara and thus his hesitancy for full disclosure.

    It seems to me that MOM has had to be in a "reactive" state for well over a month now.  He has never seemed to get in a position of being "proactive" on behalf of his client.  I think that the initial distrust is the reason for this and all of the repercussions that have followed since then.

    I like Mr. O'Mara.  He is well-respected amongst his peers.  If he thought that he would have to fall on a sword for his client or had his doubts he would not risk his hard-earned reputation for a client he didn't believe in.

    George Zimmerman is a very lucky man to have him.

    Well I'd say that I have Zimmerman's testimony (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    Except, gosh darn, we don't have most of that yet.

    At this point all we have is speculation. We can at least try to keep speculation to the known facts, but when we do that we find that TM should have been home before he even encountered George Zimmerman, assuming he did nothing but merely walk home. We do know when he left the 711 after all.

    I have no desire to speculate unfavorably about TM, indeed, I suspect that at least part of the reason - and maybe the whole reason - he was so slow is that he did stop to take shelter from the rain, and probably gabbed with DeeDee or someone else while doing so.

    However, I will not do what so many here do: assume that George Zimmerman didn't see anything that anyone would have reasonably regarded as suspicious, esp when I don't know all of his testimony.

    No one here is going to (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:44:02 PM EST
    attack either GZ's or TM's character because I've said 100 times we don't allow it. I also asked that comments relate to the topic -- the effect of the bond revocation on GZ's credibility.

    Comments alleging misbehavior by either one of them on the night of the shooting will be deleted.

    Parent

    Except... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 02:36:44 PM EST
    there is no evidence Martin knew of the gun's existence, until the moment it was shot and there is no evidence Zimmerman was 'stalking' Martin.

    the comment you are (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 02:39:37 PM EST
    replying to was deleted. Again, the topic is the revocation of bond based on GZ and his wife's statements and silence on their finances.

    Parent
    This is supposed to be about GZ's (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cashmere on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:47:58 PM EST
    credibility based upon the judge's ruling to revoke bail and his reason's for doing so, as well as Omara's handling of the case for the reasons the bond was revoked.   I predict your post will be deleted for being off topic and 100% speculation about evidence that does not exist.


    it was deleted and (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    one more such post by that commenter will result in him/her being banned from the site.

    Parent
    J you've made a very strong case for (none / 0) (#58)
    by Doug1111 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:52:59 PM EST
    Zimmerman's credibility not properly being trashed before a jury or even this judge.

    Admissibility (none / 0) (#86)
    by Handbasket2H3LL on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:30:52 PM EST
    Can somebody please explain to me, with reference to the Florida Evidence Code (e.g. 90.404, 90.608-610) and pertinent case law, why Crump thinks that there is even a snowball's chance of getting evidence of GZ "sitting like a potted plant" at the bond hearing admitted to rebut GZ's credibility at trial or at a SYG hearing?

    Parent
    No, because Crump is not (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:49:25 PM EST
    not a party to the case and won't be making decisions about what evidence the state will seek to introduce.

    Unless the state says it will try to introduce such evidence, I wouldn't spend any time trying to figure out his spin.

    Parent

    How about O'Mara? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Handbasket2H3LL on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:55:38 AM EST
    OK, you state:

    "Despite his lawyer's statement that George Zimmerman has some repair work to do on his credibility, I'm even less convinced than I was before that Zimmerman's credibility should be affected by the matters presented in the state's motion to revoke bond or the judge's order revoking bond."

    How can Zimmerman's credibility need "repair work" or be "affected" if "sitting like a potted plant" at the bond hearing is not admissible to impeach GZ's credibility pursuant to the Florida Evidence Code? It seems to me that GZ's credibility can only be damaged or "affected" by admissible evidence. So my question is: would it be admissible? I currently don't see how. No false statement, no conviction, isolated incident not admissible to demonstrate reputation for truthfulness, no prior inconsistent statement. GZ merely remained silent (5th Amendment right), he was not called to the stand, and did not testify on the matter.

    The reason I mentioned Crump, is that he appears to be driving things with his "credibility, credibility, credibility" and "main focus" contentions and that others might be falling for this pitch without thinking things through.

    Parent

    4th and final post for the day. (none / 0) (#60)
    by willisnewton on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:10:46 PM EST
    If Shellie is asked by GZ to testify about what happened, shouldn't she retain her own lawyer since there is a conflict of interest between what is best for her, and what is best for Mark O'Mara's client?  

    She could do a good job on clearing up a lot of questions but she faces possible perjury charges.  What's best for her may or may not be what is best for George.  And even if they are all on the same page, Mark O'Mara needs to avoid the appearance of having a conflict of interest.  

    IANAL however and am asking what is the proper way to handle such issues.  Would she appear MORE credible with her own counsel or less so?  Will she likely testify?  What is in the defense playbook here?

    I apologize if my viewpoint doesn't always jibe with the majority around here.  But without dissent, you don't have a real discussion, you have a pep rally.  

    More than perjury (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by expy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:13:17 PM EST
    Under Florida law:

     Any person who intentionally provides false or misleading material information or intentionally omits material information in connection with an application for bail or for modification of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor or felony which is one degree less than that of the crime charged for which bail is sought, but which in no event is greater than a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

    Florida Statutes 903.035 (3)

    Parent

    Not "more" than perjury (none / 0) (#100)
    by MJW on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:41:15 PM EST
    Perjury in an official proceeding is a 3rd degree felony, as is the maximum violation of the 903.035.  A person can't be charged with both for the same false statement, because it would be double jeopardy.

    Parent
    Can't be charged with both (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:42:22 PM EST
    Shellie Zimmerman can't be charged with both perjury and making a false statement on a bail application in Florida, it's a violation of double jeopardy.

    The maximum penalty for the statute you cite (a third degree felony) is 5 years, same as perjury

    § 837.02.  Perjury in official proceedings

      (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

    (2) [pertains to capital offenses, not applicable here]

    ....(3) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of the crime of perjury under subsection (1) or subsection (2), and the defendant's mistaken belief that the statement was not material is not a defense.

    State v. Anderson, 695 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1997):

    Section 837.02 punishes one who knowingly makes a false statement under oath in an official proceeding, and section 903.035 punishes one who intentionally makes a false statement in an application for bail. Both statutes punish the same basic crime (i.e., the violation of a legal obligation to tell the truth), and differ only in terms of the degree of violation. Under section 837.02, the violation is of a formal oath, while under section 903.035, it is not.

    Because the two crimes are degree variants of the same underlying crime,  Anderson's dual convictions cannot stand. See generally Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.

    George can't be charged with perjury at all since he didn't make any false statements under oath.

    Parent

    Shellie Zimmerman (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:13:24 PM EST
    would of course have her own counsel before testifying. O'Mara represents George Zimmerman and he would not attempt to represent Shellie Zimmerman given the judge and prosecutor's view she may have criminal liability.

    I doubt she will testify at the new bond hearing. Nor can the state require her testimony. She would clearly be able to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

    Parent

    You are correct (none / 0) (#218)
    by fredquick21 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:40:27 PM EST
    this seems to be a pep rally filled with blame for anyone not named GZ...

    Parent
    Pep Rally (none / 0) (#225)
    by Tamta on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:26:45 AM EST
    I do not see that pep rally. I see  intellectual empathy.

    Parent
    Family had one million in mind when testifying. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:03:53 PM EST
    Another thing to keep in mind.

    "Zimmerman's family testified last week at his bond hearing that they did not have the kind of resources that would have been necessary to meet the prosecution's suggested $1 million bond."
    -CNN

    In addition, the State Dept. forms (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:48:58 PM EST
    Mr. Zimmerman submitted regarding the lost or missing passport and applic. for passport clearly state Mr. Zimmerman was required to turn in the missing passport if he recovered it.

    Do you have any evidence that (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Aunt Polgara on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 08:46:33 PM EST
    George even knew that the passport that he turned in was the old one? There are lots of scenarios in which he may have thought (since he believed that the old one was lost) that the one he turned in was the current one. He certainly had a lot on his mind.

    As they were moving, they found the new one and realized their mistake. At which point they gave the new one over to O'Mara. Not everyone is anal retentive about such things (as I am), especially if they don't use it much. At any rate, the judge did accept the explanation, so it is a dead issue.

    Parent

    Exactly, (none / 0) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:28:28 PM EST
    "So it is a dead issue"

    It's just another little "factoid" that people (jurors?) will tuck away in the corner of their minds. When the time comes for deliberation they can utilize it, either for, or against GZ, depending on how they interpret it.

    Parent

    What are the chances that (none / 0) (#107)
    by Aunt Polgara on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:08:41 PM EST
    anyone on the jury will remember the passport issue when this finally gets to trial (if it ever does)?

    And is the passport issue likely to be admissible in court?

    Parent

    What makes you think (none / 0) (#111)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:18:52 PM EST
    the jurors will hear it? I don't see how it's pertenaint to the case and I doubt if it can/will or should be introduced.
    If you're blogging for fives it appears to be an important point to harp on....

    Parent
    Ha. "[B]logging for fives." (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:56:38 PM EST
    It's the judge, of course, who will decide bond, not the jury.  

    Parent
    it would make me feel better (none / 0) (#123)
    by labrat on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:31:44 PM EST
    If his lawyer requested a new hearing ASAP and has not  delayed it for weeks.

    labrat, you don't need to correct (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:48:56 AM EST
    your posts in response to an objection by another commenter, only if I ask you to. I deleted the comment saying what you wrote is unacceptable here. Commenters don't speak for TalkLeft.

    Parent
    Please remember that the judge is not (none / 0) (#138)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:15:05 AM EST
    back until June 25th, 2012.  The hearing has been scheduled for the Friday June, 29th. The courts don't even schedule on Fridays according to their docket calendar. It would appear that it is scheduled at the earliest MOM could get it.

    Judge Lester apparently cleared his schedule for the 4th thru the 11th.  Then there is an additional 2 weeks.



    Parent

    Hearing Date (none / 0) (#143)
    by Tamta on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:15:23 AM EST
    I see no reason to view the 6/29 date as anything more than an issue of scheduling and availibility.

    Parent
    the court issued a statement (none / 0) (#144)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:23:46 AM EST
    saying it was a bond hearing.

    Circuit Judge Kenneth R. Lester will preside over a bond hearing for George Zimmerman on Friday, June 29, at 9:30 a.m., in courtroom 5-D of the Criminal Justice Center in Sanford.


    Parent
    Is this customary? (none / 0) (#145)
    by labrat on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:13:23 AM EST
    If a judge assigned to a case is on vacation or gets sick a defendant has to wait in jail until he is available? No other judge can make that decision?

    Parent
    Another judge (none / 0) (#182)
    by expy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 05:46:57 PM EST
    would have legal authority to consider a bond application, but from a practical standpoint it may be very likely that a different judge would set a reasonable bail given the revocation and the fact that the case has been assigned to Judge Lester.

    Usually most judges will respect the decisions of their colleagues on the bench and will be reluctant to overrule them.  

    Also, we don't really know the reputation of the local judiciary, but O'Mara does. Maybe the other local judges tend to set higher bonds in any case.

    Parent

    typo (none / 0) (#189)
    by expy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:32:04 PM EST
    I meant to write:

    it may not be very likely that a different judge would set a reasonable bail

    Parent

    Dershowitz / Corey: Breaking News (none / 0) (#211)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:02:41 PM EST
    Not sure where to put this, since the previous thread on this subject is full.  Dershowitz doubled down on his criticisms of Corey this morning in an interview aired on First Coast Connect, a Jacksonville radio program.  He claimed he had received numerous emails from Florida prosecutors and attorneys about this dispute, 90% expressing approval and support.  One of the callers was a lawyer (I think he claimed to be a prosecutor), who undertook to explain to him how Corey had adhered to her ethical and legal duties in drafting and submitting the Probable Cause Affidavit.  Dershowitz begged to differ, emphatically.  He insisted there could be no excuse for failing to disclose "facts" which might give rise to doubt about "probable cause."  Some of his language I jotted down: "bordering on criminal," "pattern of abusive office," "reign of terror," and "she's lying."  He concluded by challenging Corey to a public debate "the day the case is over."

    You can find a link to the interview in an article by Charles Broward in his blog Jacksonville.com, in today's edition of the Florida Times-Union.

    Bernie needs to quit crank calling Dershowitz! (none / 0) (#219)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:41:58 PM EST

    One of the callers was a lawyer (I think he claimed to be a prosecutor), who undertook to explain to him how Corey had adhered to her ethical and legal duties in drafting and submitting the Probable Cause Affidavit.

    8-)

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#223)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:01:01 PM EST
    I should add that Dershowitz was clearly under the impression that the Probable Cause Affidavit was carefully and thoughtfully reviewed by a magistrate.

    I seem to recall that he referred to himself as a "Floridian."  He said he owned property there, and was in the process of retiring there.  

    "Abusive office" above = "abuse of office."  

    Parent

    Dershowitz makes the interesting... (none / 0) (#226)
    by Gandydancer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 01:55:02 AM EST
    ...assertion (@08:35 of the interview) that Florida is "a unique state" in that Bar charges cannot be filed against an elected State's Attorney. Is this true?

    Parent
    Speaking of full threads... (none / 0) (#227)
    by Gandydancer on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 02:40:17 AM EST
    ...I'd like a reply to this, which can't be done there, although I have since noticed in Gerstein(SCOTUS 1975) that Justice Powell says
    In Florida, indictments are required only for prosecution of capital offenses. Prosecutors may charge all other crimes by information, without a prior preliminary hearing and without obtaining leave of court. Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.140 (a); State v. Hernandez, 217 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1968); Di Bona v. State, 121 So.2d 192 (Fla. App. 1960).

    ...which I can't find explicitly in Fla Crim Proc, but if still true may indicate Herr was the first judge to glimpse the case and rule on PC. Also see 3.140(g).

    Parent
    Signals? (none / 0) (#228)
    by whitecap333 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:37:47 AM EST
    What do you make of his revelation that he just finished assisting, in a consulting role, without charge, a Florida prosecutor in a case he took a personal interest in?  

    Parent
    "Git the rope!" (none / 0) (#229)
    by whitecap333 on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 12:30:06 PM EST
    Judge Lester has just made ominously clear his stance on this matter in his order revoking bond, filed with the court yesterday.  See Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law . . .' (Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel, June 12, 2012.)  Looks like Zimmerman may be in the slammer for the duration.  

    breaking - wife arrested on perjury (none / 0) (#230)
    by willisnewton on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    CNN aired the story.  No url yet.  

    Where is the warrant (none / 0) (#231)
    by Redbrow on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    and perjury probable cause affidavit for George?

    Oh, that's right, George did not actually commit perjury. And being a "potted palm", otherwise known as exercising ones constitutional rights under the 5th amendment, is not a crime. Yet George is the one being punished by having his bail revoked.

    Parent

    URL for Shellie Zimmerman Arrest (none / 0) (#233)
    by cboldt on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 03:56:12 PM EST
    George Zimmerman's wife arrested, charged with perjury - Orlando Sentinel, June 12, 2012

    She was booked on a perjury charge, with bond set at $1,000. She is currently "in the process of posting bond," deputies said.

    Go team!!!

    Parent

    The capias for Shellie (none / 0) (#236)
    by Aunt Polgara on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    Thread closing, new thread on Shellie (none / 0) (#237)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 06:42:31 PM EST
    is here.