Skip to main content

George Zimmerman
George Zimmerman after his arrest (Gary Green/Pool)
After several days spent pondering evidence from a bizarre, nearly three-hour-long hearing that almost amounted to a "mini-trial" last Friday morning, Florida Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. has granted indicted slayer George Zimmerman release from the Seminole County Jail if he can come up with bail of a million dollars. The prosecution had sought to have him held without bail after he lied about his financial circumstances.
It was not immediately clear how long it would take the 28-year-old Zimmerman to arrange his release.

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said Friday that Zimmerman’s legal defense fund had a balance of $211,000, more than enough to cover the 10-percent non-refundable portion charged by most bonding companies.

Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 slaying of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old Miami Gardens boy who was living out a week's school suspension at his father's girlfriend's apartment in Sanford, a central Florida city of 54,000. The case became a matter of nationwide fury and international headlines after police failed to arrest—and the Seminole County prosecutor failed to charge—Zimmerman. All the attention has put the spotlight on self-defense laws, racial profiling and criminal-justice in general.

(Continue reading below the fold)

9:19 AM PT: Here is where you can read Judge Lester's order.

O'Mara barely touched on the key issue surrounding the hearing—why Zimmerman had lied to obtain low bail. He sought instead to paper over that issue and rouse sympathy for his client by justifying the action that landed him in jail in the first place. He said Zimmerman had concealed the significant amount of money he had acquired through a defense fund website because he feared for his life.

Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda shot that claim down when it was his turn: “Mr. Zimmerman sat there and allowed [his wife to make the false claim], manipulating the whole thing. They were lying to the court, and that is the most egregious part, and makes this an even more disturbing crime.”

Zimmerman has all along claimed he was attacked by Martin and shot the boy in self-defense. Due to the public uproar about the killing, which has included large protests in Sanford and elicited a comment from President Obama, Gov. Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor, Angela Corey, on March 22. Three weeks later she laid the charge against Zimmerman.

Zimmerman had been previously released on bail of $150,000 after an Aprll 20 hearing before Judge Lester. The bail was revoked June 1 when the judge learned a website had been bringing in $1,000 a day for Zimmerman. His wife Shellie had testified by telephone at the bail hearing that the couple was broke. It was subsequently learned that she had $57,000 in her personal bank account that day. The two had access to a total of at least $130,000 at the time.

A few days after bail was revoked and Zimmerman surrendered to police, Corey charged Shellie Zimmerman with perjury, accusing her of lying about the couple's finances. If convicted, she could face a year in jail. When Judge Lester revoked his bail, he stated that Zimmerman "...has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process."

In his argument, O'Mara said Martin "was killed because of his own doing." De la Rionda said, “Our contention is that [Zimmerman]’s the aggressor and the person who could claim self-defense is the victim, Trayvon Martin.”

Witnesses for the defense Friday included a forensics accountant who traced the Zimmermans' money but apparently missed cash that had been transferred to a sister's account. He agreed that the transfers could have been an attempt to appear broke. Zimmerman's probation supervisor said he had followed all the rules after being granted bail, including keeping his court-ordered electronic tracking bracelet fully charged. The paramedic who treated Zimmerman at the scene of the shooting explained what injuries he found on Zimmerman, including extensive blood on his head and what he thought was probably a broken nose. Zimmerman's father Robert also testified.

But Zimmerman himself, his hair grown out and dressed in a suit and tie unlike in his previous appearance when he wore prison garb, did not testify. O'Mara tried to persuade the judge to allow his client simply to read a statement but not be cross-examined by the prosecution. When that failed, he chose not to put Zimmerman on the stand.

The defense played videotapes and audiotapes in the courtroom. One of those came from the security camera at a local 7-11 where Martin had gone to buy Skittles and tea the night he was shot to death. On the tape Martin is shown wearing the hoodie that itself has drawn extensive commentary and been used by supporters—including a U.S. Congressman on the floor of the House—as a protest against racial profiling. The showing in court of the 7-11 tape seemed itself to epitomize racial profiling, the apparent point being to show that Martin was somehow a scary presence the day he was killed, justifying Zimmerman's calling him suspicious and following him.

De la Rionda asked the judge to keep Zimmerman in the slam. He said the 28-year-old had racially profiled an innocent kid, behaved as if he were a police officer and shot Martin without having a clear threat to his life. He then argued that Zimmerman's wife had lied about their financial circumstances and the defendant himself was complicit in misleading the court because he didn't speak up and correct her.

As those who have followed the case know, it went further than mere omission in the courtroom. The couple had communicated in code about the money in recorded phone conversations while Zimmerman was held in jail before the first bail hearing.

After Friday's hearing, Benjamin Crump, lawyer for Martin's parents (Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton), had told The Miami Herald: “Tracy and Sybrina have always said they want the killer of their child to remain in jail until the trial. Our position is: Just because you claim to be scared and confused, that’s still no justification for lying to the court. What kind of message does that send?"

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:35 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Ridiculous, after the cr@p he and his wife pulled? (30+ / 0-)

    How could anyone not consider him a flight risk?

    If you play Microsoft CD's backwards, you hear satanic things, but that's nothing, because if you play them forwards, they install Windows.

    by Unit Zero on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:37:02 AM PDT

    •  Hadn't He Hidden a Passport? nt (24+ / 0-)

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:39:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know. His face is pretty (6+ / 0-)

      famous now. Where would he go?

      •  Most of the photos show him with his head shaved (8+ / 0-)

        and a heavy 5 o'clock shadow let him grow his hair out or put a wig on and shave and I would bet that most people would not recognize him.

        If you play Microsoft CD's backwards, you hear satanic things, but that's nothing, because if you play them forwards, they install Windows.

        by Unit Zero on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:50:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Spend his entire life on the run, underground, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phil S 33, jennyp

          to avoid facing trial? In the electronic age, it is very difficult to hide.

          •  No point in running when there is a decently good (12+ / 0-)

            chance that he'll be acquited. The most disgusting part of this is that both he and his wife are determined to turn this whole trial into a money maker once it is over. Even if he is convicted, the wife is set for life and will almost certainly write a book and sell the story to make a lifetime movie.

          •  Especially when his chances for acquittal... (18+ / 0-)

            ...are better than 50-50, in my opinion. Not that I think he should be acquitted based on publicly available evidence I have read. But how the jury won't learn about his lying on bail and will probably not learn of his previous run-ins with the law. It will depend on whether they believe Zimmerman or Travyon Martin, who won't be on hand to tell his side of the story.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:56:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If one thing the bizarre bond hearing last week (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phil S 33, Unit Zero, jennyp, lgmcp

              somewhat clarified is that the witness reports are almost entirely useless- for either the prosecution or the defense.

              Though some might favor Zimmerman just a little - it all boils down to: no one saw anything of significance.

              Unfortunately, the one of the two actual eyewitnesses is dead.

              My reading of the physical evidences, in my opinion, seems to support Zimmerman's version of the story just enough to make reasonable doubt a very strong possibility.

              It will be interesting to see how the State runs their prosecution during trial.

              Of course, we might never get to trial if a SYG hearing gets the whole case tossed - but I find that outcome extremely unlikely.

              Power-Worshipping Fascist

              by campionrules on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:03:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Does anyone else think... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                llywrch, amsterdam, Avila

                it interesting that there hasn't been a motion filed for a Stand Your Ground Hearing? I realize it can be done any time before the trial, but I if it were me awaiting trial I would want it sooner rather than later.

                This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

                by Tonedevil on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:20:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  As a regular old person, my (5+ / 0-)

                thoughts about Zimmerman's injuries are this:

                1.  the relatively small trickle of blood running down the SIDE of his head leaves me thinking he was not on his back for any length of time.

                2.  the giant bandaids on his head in the police video are almost comical in relation to the size of  the "cuts".

                3.  the "bruises" under his eyes look like shadows from the giant and ill-fitting bandage on his nose more than anything.

                4.  he comes across as a very small man, in stature and attitude,  who needed a gun to feel important.

                I freely admit I am biased and have more information than the jurors will see/know.  I doubt much of his past will be allowed in court. We know the pictures taken by a friend are inadmissable because there is no way to verify when they were taken.  The police video.....well, we'll have to see if Z's story stays the same.

                I can understand how the situation with Martin got out of hand.  But I can also understand that if George Zimmerman had not gotten out of his truck, none of it would have happened.  And that is the defining action in this whole case that makes him guity of murder.  

                David Koch is fucking Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

                by PsychoSavannah on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:22:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The jury almost certainly will (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  amsterdam, Tonedevil

                  hear from experts about what type of impact could cause the injuries received by Zimmerman since its Zimmermans clait hat he was repeatedly beat against the concrete

                  So I don/t think the point about the head wound is a small one

                  •  Wait a minute - doesn't the dispatcher encouraging (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tonedevil, schnecke21

                    Zimmerman to NOT get out of the car have any weight?

                    If Zimmerman got out anyway, he owns the consequences.

                    You accost/attack someone in this instance, you don't get to play the victim card.

                    This is, of course, the difference between republicans and human beings - Captain Frogbert

                    by glorificus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:41:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That can be interepreted in diffeernt ways (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      It will have some weight

                      But its only  a part of a larger story that will be proven through circumstantial evidence I believe

                      It will go to state of mind of the defendant

                      I don't think this case will be one or lose on one piece of evidence or another

                      I think it will be the totality

                      I was only responding to one piece of evidence and the questionable nature in which people are using it

                      There is also an unstated conversation going on with that bit of evidence

                      That if the defense prove injuries that ends the case and the question becomes why does anyone believe that given the legal standard?

                      Will they assume that a black man attacking a white one is automatically in the wrong?

                      That although the legal standard is serious bodily injury or death that the actual details will not matter once  any  injsury is shown?

                      The underlying conversation of the injuries is about race

                      But no one seems willing to go there

                      Indeed so does your piece go to that issue

                      Since why was Zimmerman following or suspicious of this guy in the first place in terms of the reasonableness of the suspicion

                      But it goes to a different element of the case

                      •  What kind of evidence (0+ / 0-)

                        Can be introduced to show state of mind?

                        •  I am a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          I have enough knowledge to know how to read the legal standards and facts and figure o ut what should b the case versus what is actually happening

                          In other words to cut through the bs of both the pro and anti Zimmerman arguments

                          i say all of that to say that I am not sure because I ahve not dug enough into this to know the anaswer to y our question

                          when I say state of mind- I mean- intent which is a basic element of case and in some ways leak over to the defense

                          because if he intended to confront Martin he was th eaggressor and that changes the d ynamics to one that he was trying to create rather than avoid

                          •  I think that was my point: (0+ / 0-)
                            because if he intended to confront Martin he was th eaggressor and that changes the d ynamics to one that he was trying to create rather than avoid

                            This is, of course, the difference between republicans and human beings - Captain Frogbert

                            by glorificus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:44:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Which is why I also think his issues over race (0+ / 0-)

                            are a factor

                            Whether it willb e admitted due to its prejuedice or is not good evidence etc I don't know

                            But it does goes to do we believe his happened as he said

                            This is one of the reasons I dislike how Talk left talks about the discussion

                            There are quite clear reasons from a legal stand point why the prosecution would try to get this stuff admitetd  that goes to the nature of who was the aggressor that night

                            Thse things overalp and are connected

                            For example if the jury finds that the defendant was the aggressor trying to create a fight that night then it can choos to ignore his st ory in whole or in part about what happened later by inferring from the other evidence that he'slying

                            whether they will hear that evidence I don't know and I don't know its validity either

                            I am pointing out that the case is not as simple a slamdunk as SYG means a get out jail free card

                          •  Oh, I'm convinced race was a factor. However, (0+ / 0-)

                            since race is a tricky subject in this country it seemed to me Zimmerman ignoring the dispatcher and confronting Trayvon would show Zimmerman actively sought trouble.

                            While Trayvon was the victim, even if he got in a couple of punches in self-defense.

                            This is, of course, the difference between republicans and human beings - Captain Frogbert

                            by glorificus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes even if you leave out race (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            its a problem for zimmerman that he was followiing

                            although he tries to claim he wasn't but I think he is going to have a hard time convincing  jury of that

                            because it becomes an issue of whether Martin was defending himself and if he was (again circumstantial evidence doesnt help Zimmerman here as far as the physical evidence about whether the body was located etc) and he is found to be the agressor then he will have  hard time raising self defense

                            aggressors can not generally raise self defense and he can not easily explain why his force was necessary given the threat even if he says that Martin was the aggressor

                            There are a lot of landmies for the Zimmermna defense in this case where teh jury can believe on evidence submitted different versions of the story that get zimmerman convicted of at least manslaughter

                            and there in lies the problem

                            to me his story requires a perfect storm of believin him on each legal of the story as he explains it

                          •  I was kind of struck (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil, solliges

                            By this exchange between the investigator and Zimmerman, in the voice stress test video. This exchange takes place before the test took place. He asks the investigator whether she ever had to shoot someone. When she replies with no, he tells her why he thinks she probably never had to. What he says seems fit right into the prosecution's case, that Zimmerman was playing cop.

                •  Exactly, PS. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  He was instructed not to engage and he ignored the instruction, if "we don't need you to do that" can actually be construed as an instruction rather than a suggestion.

                  I've heard that you run from a knife and fight a gun. It matters little to me who did what first. Zimmerman was advised not to engage Trayvon Martin. He did. Zimmerman was armed, Martin wasn't.

                  Zimmerman says he didn't pull his gun until Martin tried to take it out of his holster. Then  he had to not only draw it, but use it. My understanding of "stand your ground" is that it can be applied at any time during an altercation and who aggressed initially is of no concern. That would be an incredibly stupid law.

                  I too believe Zimmerman may be acquitted. It is Florida after all.

                  But if Zimmerman walks, he had better run.

                  I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

                  by Gentle Giant on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:40:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The eyewitnesses do contradict (4+ / 0-)

                each other. The weakest part for the defense is the location where Trayvon was shot about 40 to 50 ft south of where Zimmerman claims the altercation took place.

              •  What physical evidence (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                amsterdam, Tonedevil, Quicklund

                His injruies are not enough to demonstrate threat of serious bodily harm nor do you know how he recieved them other than  he told you how he received them

                The fact that he is lying or not therefore becomes critical

                The nature of evidence is in its ability provide reasonable inferences

                What is the basis for the reasonable inference that there is just enough evidence not to convict based on the physical evideence?

                Can you give some examples

                •  Examples? Google 'em (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Meteor Blades

                  There are plenty of articles with examples of Florida's SYG cases. Wildly inconsistent, which is understandable because this ridiculous law is vague and unworkable. Cases under this law have wildly inconsistent outcomes.

                  But there is no need for any injuries to Zimmerman for him to get off under this law; the injuries merely bolster his case by supporting his account of being attacked. Their severeity is irrelevant. If he had a reasonable belief that he was facing imminent death or serious harm - and the jury decides what "reasonable" means - he can shoot.

                  The other element - who initiated - automatically goes for the defense, because there is no witness to say otherwise.

                  This case is a defense lawyer's dream - Zimmerman will be easily acquitted. A travesty of justice, but its because this is law is both a dumb idea and poorly written.

                  •  Under no definition of SYG or Self Defense (0+ / 0-)

                    is there a standard where evidence is unnecessary

                    A jury may ignore or or accept evidence in whole or part but they don't get to make decisions without it

                    TO do so is jury nullification and nnot a matter of what laws are on the books

                    The last line is just ignorance masking itself as thinking

              •  The witnesses (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tonedevil, Unit Zero, solliges, doroma

                Do all seem to agree about one thing. Nobody heard anything that sounded like hitting. The witnesses that saw something describe it as a scuffle or wrestling.

            •  His chances of aquittal are actually (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              amsterdam, Tonedevil, Gentle Giant, doroma

              significantly l ess than 50/50

              The bond hearing was always going to be this way from what I have read

              it certainly does not reflect on the judge's view of the merits of the case by the state

              His case until recently amounted to he said she said with the one party being dead

              So all things being equal that made it 50/50

              Two important things have happened:

              One, the physical evidence is starting to come out and that does not back his account of the events of that night. I don/t think many lay people appreciate the fact that most cases are won or lost on circumstantial evidence rather than smoking guns. The circumstantial evidence against the defendant's account of that night is starting to become quite significant as far as reasonable inferences that one can make and therefore what can be discounted by a jury. Many of those inferences are not favorable to the defendant. For example, his injuries alone are not enough to build a case for self defense as far as requiring the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self defense. Two bits of evidence underscore the problem for Zimmerman- the wounds are no consistent with what he claimed Martin did to his head (repeatedly beat it against concrete) and Zimmerman's refusal of treatment provides no evidence that his claims oe event that night. The two taken together are not good for Zimmerman's stated out. His case depends on the jury buying his argument in whole or part and if they don't he's screwed

              Two, his credibility has been harmed. It matters a lot

              There is also the third point: The jury instructions will include lesser offenses such as voluntary manslaughter if I remember correctly because that's typical of FL again if I remeber correctly. That means the defendant could be convicted of a lesser offense

              In fact I have predicted that he will likely be convicted or plea to manslaughter if he loses the SYG hearing , which I strongly suspect he will lose

              •  I agree about SYG hearing. As for the rest... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                ...we're stuck with our opposite opinions. It will all be up to the jury. Having covered courts and cops (as a reporters) for several years and having been on five juries, I don't think anybody can state with any certainty what verdict will come back when the jurors make their decision. That's why I said "in my opinion."

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:33:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I really don't understand why you bothered (0+ / 0-)

                  to respond at all if you weren't going to provide your reasoning behind your 50/50 assertion. Telling me its your opinion adds  nothing considering that/s a given. What's not a given is that my analysis is the same as your assertion. The difference being I actually bothered to give it and you simply say that your opinion is of equal weight without explaining it and some vague statement about juries.

                  •  Assuming that you've read all the public... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rubyr, Unit Zero

                    ...documents available, then we've seen the same evidence. I didn't really see the point of arguing with you about your interpretation of the "reasonable inferences" by the jury. As noted, I have seen juries in action, both as a reporter and as a juror, twice as a jury foreman.

                    You say:

                    For example, his injuries alone are not enough to build a case for self defense as far as requiring the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self defense. Two bits of evidence underscore the problem for Zimmerman- the wounds are no consistent with what he claimed Martin did to his head (repeatedly beat it against concrete) and Zimmerman's refusal of treatment provides no evidence that his claims oe event that night.
                    For quite some time, it was the opinion of a large percentage of Kossacks commenting on this case that Zimmerman did not have a broken nose and that he had no injuries at all to his head. That turns out not to be the case if the EMT who treated him is to be believed. As for the injuries to his head not being consistent with being repeatedly — 3 times? 5 times? 25 times? — banged against concrete: says who? Deep and numerous cuts are not necessarily the result of such banging. Refusal of treatment doesn't necessarily mean anything either. The EMT said that there was nothing further they could do about Zimmerman's nose. That being the case, why get treated by a specialist that night.

                    You believe that reasonable people on a jury will see his claims of being in fear for his life as ridiculous. And you may be right. Or you may get a jury where three or seven or twelve people think they would be in fear for their lives if an athletic young man were to punch them in the nose, knocking them down and then were to proceed to slam their heads against the sidewalk. (If they believe this is what happened, of course.)

                    Personally, I don't think Zimmerman can legitimately claim lethal self-defense as his right in this case. Personally, I think he's the kind of guy who goes looking for trouble and occasionally finds it. Personally, I think that he overstepped the boundaries of reasonable behavior last February, followed somebody who his taped comments indicate he already had animus toward (generically) and wound up shooting him when the stalking led to a somewhat murky confrontation. But a jury in central Florida is going to make the decision and a murky law will be part of the equation. So I will stick to my view that there is a high possibility of acquittal, imo, higher than 50%.

                    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:32:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A few thoughts (0+ / 0-)

                      (1) Threre is a reason I rarely post here anymore. This is not a fact or evidence driven site so what people here think on the case means very little to me. I looked up the info my self for just that reason. I didn't want it filtered by pro or con sides arguing politics as a legal case

                      (2) I believe that reasonable people will have a hard time with the entire story that Zimmerman presents because his defense comes down to believing him and his own statements make that hard to do. The head injuries are a part of a larger pattern of evidence and I think thats a problem for the defense

                      Could  the jury ignorea ll of that> Sure thats why we get jury nullifcation all the time. Thats why race here matters


                      However after the SYG hearing if this case is still going on- the case is no longer 50/50 in terms of the legal issues and reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence

                      Its not about what I think personally

                      Its about what hte law actually says and whether its followed

                      No one can guaranteee that it will be

                      But it snot 50/50  

                      •  Oh, puhleez... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Unit Zero
                        Threre is a reason I rarely post here anymore. This is not a fact or evidence driven site so what people here think on the case means very little to me. I looked up the info my self for just that reason. I didn't want it filtered by pro or con sides arguing politics as a legal case.
                        I have followed this case in detail from the beginning. I have read all the evidence that is available. I am not making a political case. I am arguing this on the basis of what has ACTUALLY happened in SYG-based cases in Florida, on the basis of what I have seen juries ACTUALLY do, on the basis of the law, and on the basis of the Zimmerman evidence.

                        Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But for you to argue that you're basing your analysis on facts and I am not is baloney.

                        The reality is what you said here:

                        (2) I believe that reasonable people ...
                        You believe.

                        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 12:08:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Below you mistake that the law actually says (0+ / 0-)

                          I am not going to do tit-for-tat with you other than to point out that reading and underestanding are nto the same thing

                          And telling me that the law has been misapplied in the past while in relative obscurity out of the public eye has no value in terms of outcomes in a high profile case as far as whether this judge will allow its miapplication

                          At this point I am going to end this

                          I really get nothign from debate you to be quite honest

                    •  If you look at the (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Unit Zero, Tonedevil

                      Medical report, he was seen by a physician assistent, not by a doctor. The broken nose is on the report because Zimmerman told the pa that's what the EMT'S had told him. The EMT report doesn't mention a broken nose, and the EMT that testified at the bond hearing didn't mention a broken nose.
                      I agree that it will depend on the jury. There are plenty of people on the blogs that think his injuries legitimizes his actions, so I think it is possible that some jurymembers may agree.

              •  If only one juror finds his injuries compelling (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Meteor Blades

                enough to render doubt or any other piece of evidence for that matter, the case will be an acquittal.  One juror is all it takes and why it will be so incredibly hard to get a conviction in this case.

            •  Here, yet once again (0+ / 0-)

              Judge Lester (an outstanding jurist by my reckoning) has indicated to the State in this ruling that bond is re-issued because of their lack of proof permitting otherwise, and that the State's case is substantially weak. From what lies "between the lines", it would seem Judge Lester does NOT believe this is due to lack of evidence.

              Extra caution is judicious. Too much is a perversion of justice. It appears as if the Judge is (at least for the time being) erring on the side of caution.

              I did REALLY find his examination of the motive for Zimmerman's perjury to be instructive. Defendant Counsel to an indigent? Wow! I'll bet there were some interesting conversations about THAT!

              Nurse Kelley says my writing is brilliant and my soul is shiny - who am I to argue?
              Left/Right: -7.75
              Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

              by Bud Fields on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:07:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Heard on NPR this morning, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              there is a witness for the prosecution who is close to Zimmerman and says he is not only racist, hating black people, but also very confrontational. Apparently, this isn't the first time he's got into someone's face over race.

              Whether that witness pans out remains to be seen.

              I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

              by Gentle Giant on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:31:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  25 cents bet on this? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              This guy is going down, says I.

              Please read and enjoy my novella, Tulum, available in soft cover and eBook formats.

              by davidseth on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:46:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Why did he ditch the skinhead look? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Avila, Tonedevil, Gentle Giant

          To look less menacing?

          David Koch is fucking Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

          by PsychoSavannah on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:41:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course. His lawyer spends at least some time (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            in the real world and wants to win.

            And the new look would help with some people, especially since Trayvon cannot change his.

            This is, of course, the difference between republicans and human beings - Captain Frogbert

            by glorificus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:44:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  he's got an ankle thing, right? (5+ / 0-)

      how would he get around that?

      "A recent study reveals Americans' heads are larger than they were 150 years ago but sadly there is no indication that the extra room is used for anything." - entlord

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:51:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The legal standard for bail is low (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amsterdam, Avila, Tonedevil

      This was expected

      The only real issues were (1) the bail amount (2) the restricts  and (3) What the judge would have to say about the defendant's actions

      Neither of the 3 if you read the order are favorable to defendant

      The most damning is that the judge no longer trusts the defendant which is not good going into the Stand Your Ground hearing

    •  Read the decision. (5+ / 0-)

      The judge is very clear about his reasoning. He is still majorly PO'd*, but is constrained by Florida law and precedent.

      He walks step by step through the 11 criteria the law requires him to consider. Some interesting points:

      In the discussion about the criterion involving The defendants family ties. the judge basically accuses the entire family (not just the wife) of being involved in the attempt to defraud the court.

      He also states:

      Although there is no record of flight to avoid procesecution, the Court finds that the circumstances indicate that the Defendant was preparing to flee to avoid prosecution, but such plans were thwarted
      and then he finishes up with:
      ... the Court finds that the bail should be set at $1,000,000. The Defendant has the ability to post such bail. The increased bail is not a punishment; it is meant to ally this Court's concern that the Defendant intended to flew the jurisdiction and a lesser amount would not ensure his presence in court.
      Basically, he trusts Zimmerman about as far as he can spit, but felt that, in the absence of any actual charges being filed against Zimmerman over the fraud, he not allowed to hold him without bail.

      He did however tighten up the conditions of the bail: Z cannot leave the county, must submit to electronic monitoring, must check in every 48 hours, may not enter the property of the airport, may not open or maintain a bank account and may not apply for a passport.

      *Note to future defendants: Lying to the judge is not a good idea.

  •  Zimmerman a proven liar (16+ / 0-)

    The defense is off to a good start here.  The case is barely underway and Zimmerman has already been unmistakenly shown to be a liar and involved in a effort to hide facts from the court.

    This of course raises reasonable questions about the veracity of other statements made by Zimmerman regarding the fact of the shooting.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:45:48 AM PDT

    •  The question will be does the physical evidence (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo, thestructureguy, campionrules, cap76

      support his story.

      He may not even testify himself, especially if the video is admitted.  The main questions will be (1) do his medical records support the notion that he was assaulted,and (2) is there any evidence as to who physically assaulted whom first?

      I kind of think the whole bond thing will be a non-issue at trial -- I doubt it 's even admissible.  

      •  should be used to rebut any attempt by the defense (8+ / 0-)

        to state that their client is truthful.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:02:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wouldn't that video (7+ / 0-)

        Be hearsay unless he takes the stand? That is what I heard the State say at the hearing.
        Also the medical report shows that he was seen by a pa and not a doctor. It also shows that Zimmerman had told the pa that EMS had told him his nose was broken. So he was never diagnosed as having his nose broken.

      •  His "injuries" alone don't support (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amsterdam, Avila, Tonedevil

        hist story.  In the picture of the "cuts" on his head, the blood is "running" the wrong way for someone on their's running toward his face, or straight down.  It was come the blood isn't smeared everywhere?  And those bandaids?  Damn near comical in their size.

        David Koch is fucking Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

        by PsychoSavannah on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:37:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's not the legally relevant issue (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amsterdam, Tonedevil

        Self defense requires imminent threat of a serious bodily harm or injury that can kill

        Its an objective test

        That means that its not just enough to show he was assaulted and that gets him out of jail free

        Your questions are a threshold  set of questions rather than one that digs into what the jury will likely be asked to dig into

        The deeper and necessary questions to the affirmative defense is that the defendant was in danger for his life and that it was immiment

        There is a reason why Zimmerman at the very least embelished his story

        Thats because assault is not enough to justify the use of deadly force even if one chooses to beleive his version of the events that night in every other way

        In other words you don't get to shoot a guy for punching you in the nose

        Thats not self defense under the law even if the jury choose to believe that Martin hit Zimmerman

        Thats why the nature of the wounds is criticial

        Their severity etc

        They provide evidence from which one can make reasnable inferences about the circumstantial evidence to determine was it reasonable for Zimmemran to be in fear of his life or bodily harm

        •  I strongly recommend that you read the... (5+ / 0-)

          ... the outcome of Florida cases in which SYG was used as a defense. Normal self-defense cases are objective, using reasonable person standards. The test in SYG cases is highly subjective.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:36:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right, Meteor Blades. (0+ / 0-)

            The definition I heard of self-defense in SYG is based solely on the view of the person exercising it. In other words, if Zimmerman says he feels his life was threatened, that satisfies justifiable cause under SYG.

            A stupid, stupid law. God bless the NRA.

            I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

            by Gentle Giant on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:52:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, you are wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Gentle Giant

              Here's the law

              "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force."


              The key word from a legal stand point is "reasonable"

              That's an objective test

              Not subject

              This is part of the reason why people do not understand this case that well

              I can't say whether people will ignore what the law says or a jury will nullify but I can see in its plain text that is not a subject test

              •  I must be missing something, bruh1. (0+ / 0-)

                It reads to me like I said it- the person using the deadly force is the one called upon to view it as reasonable or not.
                But I might not get it. This is the second Monday this week after all.

                I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

                by Gentle Giant on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:22:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Whenever there is the imposition of a (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Gentle Giant

                  reasonable requirement its never from a subjective stand point

                  This is one of the more basic elements of law

                  Reasonable is always an objective standard

                  If this were not a reasonableness test it the language would read

                  "to the extent that the person believes...."

                  Reasonable would be omitted.

                  its basic statutuory construction

                  What sounds like has been happening in FL is that hte law has been severely misapplied in the past and everyone is basing their views of this case on that

                  Soome of the ways it has been used has been absurd given what the law is meant to cover

                  See this




                  Many of the things listed seem to have little if anything to do with SYG

                  This is a different issue from what the law says versus how it is being applied

                  •  Thx for clearing that up. (0+ / 0-)

                    I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

                    by Gentle Giant on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 12:33:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No problem (0+ / 0-)

                      Part of the issue is that peole are using slight changes in the wording of the law (see below) to rationalize what are not a matter of the law but people misapplying what the statutory language says

                      Until now reaosnableness was  understood to mean objective but because there is a political agenda here in Florida that mean is being thrown out of the window

                      The outcomes there as the article point out are leading to some absurd results in terms of the law

                      The best the other side has is that the law is poorly written not that its applicable support the subjective standard

                      And as has ben pointed out- that lack of clarity means that in a high profile case like this the judge will get to decide

                      I dont see him using a subject standard as others have done in misapplying the concept from the statute

              •  You fail to make note of the difference... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                navajo, Bailey2001

       the way that the previous self-defense laws were written and the way this one is.

                Before Stand Your Ground laws, police and law enforcement officials assessed whether a “reasonable person” would have resorted to the level of violence used to thwart an attack; the new law turns that standard on its head and immunizes an individual from criminal charges if he asserts he had a “reasonable” fear of grave harm.
                The fact that so many outrageous decisions freeing people have been made under SYG in Florida reflects this difference. And it is, in part, this change in language, plus the lack of a requirement to retreat if possible, that prompted the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys to vociferously oppose the law when it was being debated.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 12:55:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your argument wholly relies on misapplication (0+ / 0-)

                  of what the law says

                  hence why a jury could come up with your view

                  But not because the law says that

                  The best you have as an argument is not that the law says subjective but that people don't realize that its not a subjective standard due to the wording

                  The problem your argument faces is 2 folds

                  (1) misapplication of the law is not likely tob e a factor here given the high profile nature of the case


                  (2) Reasonableness is a term understood to be an objective concept regardless of where located in the sentence

                  THere would be no reason to say "reasonable" if its solely based on what the defendent believes

                  In terms of statutory consruction that language would be redundant

                  Pointing out that people don/t get this is not evidence that I am wrong. Its evidence at best that hte statute is poorly drafted and poorly understood

                  Hence why you can get a case like in Texas with similar laws and rulings and still find a guy is convicted

                  Here/s a pat of the article above that underscores the reality that at best you can argue poor statutory construction

                  " People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.

                  • Similar cases can have opposite outcomes. Depending on who decided their cases, some drug dealers claiming self-defense have gone to prison while others have been set free. The same holds true for killers who left a fight, only to arm themselves and return. Shoot someone from your doorway? Fire on a fleeing burglar? Your case can swing on different interpretations of the law by prosecutors, judge or jury."

                  The difference in outcomes above can not be explained by the use of a subjective standard

                  It can however be understood through either poor statutory language (at best for your argument ) or more likely misapplication of the law:

                  "he number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using "stand your ground" in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described "vampire" in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier."

                  There is nothing on the face of the law that suggests it was intended in the above instances and yet people are applying it that way

                  •  In fact, I forgot to include this quote from (0+ / 0-)

                    the article

                    "Discrepancies among cases cannot all be explained by small differences in the circumstances. Some are clearly caused by different interpretations of the law. "

                  •  I will buy most of your argument here... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    ...but much of the problem with misapplication is poor statutory language, both problems assigned to the law the the prosecutors' association blasted it. Whatever the case, we'll probably not be finding out how a jury feels about this until 2013.

                    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 01:50:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Could you explain SYG (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eric Nelson, Tonedevil

            What I understand is that this would be a pre trial hearing in front of judge Lester.
            Am I wrong?

            •  Two phases: (6+ / 0-)

              A judge can choose at a hearing (which O'Mara hasn't yet announced he will seek) to throw the case out on SYG grounds or send the case to trial. If it goes to trial, the jury can consider the SYG parameters as part of its determination of a verdict.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:07:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  does it require that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Zimmerman take the stand?

                •  No. But I find it hard to imagine how... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  amsterdam, rubyr, navajo, Tonedevil

                  ...a persuasive case can be made without his doing so. That he will be problematic on the stand under prosecution is obvious.

                  Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:39:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  No, you are never required to take the stand. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  amsterdam, Meteor Blades

                  In this case and in Florida, Zimmerman will abide by Florida's affirmative defense law which allows evidence that does not have to be his own testimony.  It is low burden...the evidence can be multiple things.  Florida's law specially allows evidence to be used in the place of or to be used with testimony of a defendant using self- defense.  The defendant does not have to testify if there is other evidence to claim the self-defense. He doesn't have to testify regardless but in the issue of affirmative defense and in the state of Florida, Murray V State allows other evidence besides a testimony.    Medical records, witnesses, physical evidence etc. can be used in place of testimony, after which the state must prove beyond reasonable doubt that not only was the crime was committed but self-defense does not apply.

                  Murray v. State 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense is the law that will be relevant here.

                  Also, this is just for regular self-defense.  Stand Your Ground is even more lenient and will be a separate hearing before his jury trial....if it is used by Zimmerman. In Stand Your Ground, the whole case can be thrown out before a jury ever hears it....if a judge feels like self-defense was employed, and thus one of the reasons for controversy of that law.

              •  Yep SYG will be a part of the jury instruction (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Meteor Blades

                Dan Gelber former Florida state senator & former federal prosecutor @  MSNBC - @ Ed Show video & transcript:
                 The SYG law will still play an important role, because even if the state gets passed the SYG immunity hearing and continues to trial SYG will still be part of the jurys' instructions for consideration.

                well, second-degree murder, it may be a little difficult, simply because it is a fairly precise intent. it's very likely, though, that there'll be a lesser included of manslaughter, which is a very serious felony in florida when it's with a weapon. and that's an easier standard. so you may see that the jury is trying to debate the different elements to determine whether or not mr. zimmerman committed the crime. now, remember something. the stand your ground law's ?tk a big part of going to this. because even if you get past -- even if the state gets past that initial judge hearing, which is what they'll have to do, that stand your ground law is still part of the jury instruction that's given to the jury. so they're going to be told as long as mr. zimmerman was where he could be lawfully, and he felt reasonable, and of course, the only other person who was right there is deceased, he's going to have the benefit of that stand your ground instruction. whether or not the jury buys it or not, at that point, is another question. _ Dan Gelber
                So getting past the SYG at the hearing doesn't mean the law can't still effect the outcome - is how I took it.
                •  Its relevance to the trial (0+ / 0-)

                  woould seem to be meaningless because of th burdens

                  The burden will be on the prosecution at trial not the defendant where as in the hearing its on the defendant so I dont see how  it going into trial helps the defendant at all

          •  Misapplication of the law doesn't (0+ / 0-)

            provide  useful information here regarding outcomes in this  case.

            Here's a quick discussion of the law itself

            "Although a person may stand their ground without first retreating or attempting to retreat, they cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to defend themselves. In other words, they may use such force as is reasonably necessary to prevent being assaulted.

            The word “reasonable” means the test is objective, not subjective. That is, it’s based on the objective set of facts and circumstances, as opposed to a person’s perception of the facts and circumstances. In other words, a person may use such force as a reasonable person in the same situation would perceive as reasonably necessary to use in preventing an assault."

            This is why the reason Texas case was mentioned. Its the exacrt same law in many ways. The core is still a reasonable person. What the law does is (1) shift the burden of proof to the defendant by a proponderance and (2) eliminates the need for a trial if the defendant can prove their claim in a hearing.

            The standard is still objective in the SYG hearing or is supposed to be even if judges and law enforcement were not applying it that way.

            So no thanks- I am not interested in a failure to apply the law correctly in the past

          •  the syg statute is ambiguous (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            amsterdam, Tonedevil

            a similar statute in another state was held to impose an objective standard.

            when judge lester reaches point of interpreting this statute, from what i have seen so far of his legal analysis skills and approach, i think he will also interpret as objective.

            Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

            by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:13:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  disappointing. (24+ / 0-)

    No question that odds were in Z's favor to get bond due to constitutional right to bail.

    But, i was hoping that judge would keep on no bond status for violating florida rules that were the grounds to revoke bail in first place: lying to court.

    this rule serves to provide judicial integrity that you can't lie about information key to whether you get bond. Now, there is also no deterrence for other defendants to not lie since Z got away with it.

    Other thing that bugs me is that Z will pay for bond with money from his "fans."  typically, bond is paid by family members or friends, usually 2nd mortgage on house or something, so there is a reason for defendant to not flee so that he does not screw his friends or family.

    That purpose of bond not here when money from strangers.

    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:50:08 AM PDT

  •  bail's set; he'll screw-up again by (5+ / 0-)

    being beholden to some of his online benefactors

    Präsidentenelf-maßschach"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Ensanguining the skies...Falls the remorseful day".政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:54:33 AM PDT

  •  I'm not surprised by this (12+ / 0-)

    Setting aside the high barrier for denying bond - Zimmerman also been a cooperative suspect, outside of not objecting to his wife's false statements.

    He's wearing an ankle bracelet and surrendered voluntarily both times(First when charged, and again with his bond was revoked).

    In my opinion, he was too cooperative earlier. Never in a million years would I have met with police without a lawyer - not only for questioning the night of the shoot but also taking them back to the scene for a walk through.

    Regardless of your guilt or innocence - don't talk to cops without a lawyer - even if you are a lawyer.

    Power-Worshipping Fascist

    by campionrules on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:57:04 AM PDT

    •  Yep. In California, good counsel in case you... (12+ / 0-)

      ...legitimately kill someone in self-defense is to call the cops. When they arrive, tell them: "I didn't do anything wrong, and I have nothing more to say until I see my lawyer."

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:11:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This will come up in trial from both sides (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, Avila, Tonedevil, Unit Zero

        From the State arguing that any 'inconsistencies' in Zimmerman's account point to his guilt - and - from O'Mara arguing that it speaks to his client's innocence and willingness to help that he provided so much information.

        Cops are trained to find inconsistencies and speaking to them without a lawyer is often a gift wrapped way for them to make a more solid case and get a conviction.

        Setting aside the details of this particular case - I don't trust our law enforcement system enough to ever provide information without counsel in a situation that I was involved in.

        Power-Worshipping Fascist

        by campionrules on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:24:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I always told my kids (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      if you are arrested, be very polite, but all you give them is your name, your address and then you say, 'I want to have a lawyer present when questioned."    And then shut up.  

      My son never actually got arrested, but when cops detained a large number of kids at a party looking to hand out MIPs, his politeness paid off and the cops let him go.  

  •  I knew he wouldn't put Z on the stand (9+ / 0-)

    he doesn't want him lying TWICE under oath.

    •  almost no criminal defendants take the stand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I won't be surprised if Zimmerman never testifies.  Almost no criminal defendants do.

      •  in this case he has to (5+ / 0-)

        he has to explain his version otherwise it doesn't come in.

        •  No he doesn't, even using affirmative defense (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          per Murray v. State 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006)

          •  you keep citing a case without context (0+ / 0-)
            •  I have repeated myself multiple times in this (0+ / 0-)

              thread, but I will do so again.

              Murray v. State 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced evidence that he acted in self-defense the jury is then entitled to consider that defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense is the law that will be relevant here.

              Basically after he introduces evidence, and the evidence does not have to be his own testimony, it is then the burden of the state to prove he did not act in self-defense.  

              •  the context is that the law you are citing (0+ / 0-)

                does not mean that the defendant does not have to offer a strong case

                it simply is defining what minimum case he needs to put on

                That doesn/t mean a jury is required to buy the defense's case if they believe a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty

                In fact, as described the facts help the defendant not at all

                Its only with his narrative that he can argue effectively here

                What can he reasonably argue to win the case?

                Not what can he reasonably argue to meet hte legal standard

                The former is the context.

              •  and practically speaking (0+ / 0-)

                what evidence would he introduce?

                Contradictory eye-witness testimony AFTER the fact?

                None of that is likely to tell his story, and none of that is likely to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense.

                You sound like a guy who knows the law but not the practicalities. He has no choice but to testify, and he will in fact testify.

                IF he had decent evidence from eyewitnesses then he might be able to not testify, but he doesn't. It's the whole reason why he's attorney worked so hard to get him out of jail, because he needs all that time to work with and prep him to testify.

        •  Nope. His lawyer can use the physical evidence (0+ / 0-)

          and the testimony of other witnesses, and draw inferences.  Like, his nose was broken, he had lacerations to the back of his head, and Martin had bruising on his hand/knuckles.

          That's enough right there for the defense lawyer to argue that Martin hit him, hard enough to break his nose and to cause those injuries to the back of his head.  And the lack of similar injuries to Martin, and the lack of similar bruising on Z's hands, suggests that Z did not hit Martin in that same way.

          That, in and of itself, is enough for the lawyer to make the argument that one reasonable inference is that M hit Z, and hit Z's head against something (injuries to his face and the back of his head), with enough force to cause those injuries, and Z fired in response to being physically beaten.  

          Add Z's Dad testifying that it's his son's voice crying help,help.  Add witness who saw Martin on top of Z hitting him "MMA style," and that's more than enough for a lawyer to argue that Martin was on top of Z beating him up when Z shot Martin.  

          •  Trayvon had one (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            solliges, Tonedevil, doroma

            1/8 by 1/4 inch wound on his left ring finger below the knuckle. There was one witness who said he saw the mma style hitting, which he changed later to holding down. He also said he never heard the sound of someone hitting or banging.

            •  I'm not saying whether it will be convincing or (0+ / 0-)

              not.  What I'm saying is that the lawyer can use evidence besides the testimony of Zimmerman to argue that one reasonable conclusion is that Martin was hitting Zimmerman in the head hard enough to break his nose and cause lacerations to the back of his head, and that Zimmerman shot in response to that.  

              The prosecution can certainly point to other evidence and argue that some other scenario makes sense as well.  But that physical evidence, plus the witness statements (and in a case like this, what witnesses originally told police, before all the publicity, is likely to carry more weight than what they later said after all the publicity and memories had faded) is enough for Zimmerman's lawyer to argue that he shot Martin in response to Martin beating on him.  

              •  the relevant question is whehther it wil (0+ / 0-)

                me the burdens of the parties in the case

                introducing evidence that does not overcome the prosecution proving beyond a reasnable doubt that it wasnt self defense hardly helps Zimmerman

                He doesnt even need to testify for the proseuction to point out his story is inconsistent through comparing his statements prior to trila to the physical edivence

                how does the defense ignore that? it really cant

              •  It looks like Trayvon (0+ / 0-)

                Died of asphyxia. He had severe swelling of the brain and cyanotic nailbeds. One of the female witnesses, who testified she saw Zimmerman on top of Trayvon after the shot, claims she saw his foot moving. They also describe him as putting pressure on his back. He may have hastened Trayvon's death. What would that mean for his self-defense claim?

              •  not sure (0+ / 0-)

                why that contradicts what I said. Yes, he CAN put on evidence that contradicts the governments case, but if that evidence is not compelling or convincing then it's fairly well useless unless the government has a fairly weak case.

          •  that doesnt get his version of events in (0+ / 0-)

            I've been a defense attorney for a lil bit and while in technical terms it's "enough to argue" in practical terms it is not.

            He has to testify, and he will testify, guaranteed.

      •  He will not testify. No way. (0+ / 0-)
  •  The title is misleading (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A million dollars bail, it would seem, is almost the same as no bond at all.

  •  Disheartening when progressives... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Progrocks, HairyTrueMan, cap76, Mariken

    Become draconian law-and-order types.  Let's not be on the wrong side of criminal justice issues because we're outraged over the nature of the crime involved.

    •  Yup Yup Yup (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A terrible thing happened here, but we are WAY to involved in punishing people before they are convicted with ridiculous bail amounts being required.  Too many judges do not even consider the likelihood of appearance when making the bail determination, they just throw out a number.  

      What would Bulworth do?

      by Progrocks on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:15:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The reality is that bail is class-based... (11+ / 0-)

        ...Thousands of impoverished people languish in jail all the time because they can't find collateral or don't have friends to help them come up with surprisingly small amounts of money for a bond.

        The judge in this case already knew that Zimmerman would be able to cover the 10% required for a $1 million bond because his lawyer said as much at the hearing.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:33:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it's class based (0+ / 0-)

          So your position is it should be HARDER for anyone awaiting trial to post bail?  Because that's clearly what your asking for in this case.

          Of course, I'm opposed to hate-crimes legislation too, as it gives prosecutors an extra tool at their disposal.

          •  The judge set bail at a reasonable level... (9+ / 0-)

            ...given what he was told about the Zimmermans' finances. They lied. Under Florida statute, bail may be revoked if a defendant lies about something of substance at a bail hearing. But the judge chose to grant bail anyway, and he did so knowing that Zimmerman has the means in hand to cover it. So what exactly is the problem?

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:47:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  okay (0+ / 0-)

              It's not my understanding that bail is supposed to be set at a level that makes posting it impossible.  

              The real question here would be is Zimmerman a flight risk, and, as others on here have said, that appears to be highly unlikely.  I just don't get why you would care whether he's granted bail, why you're asking for harsher treatment from the judge against a man who hasn't been convicted of anything.  

              The real issue in this case is a sicko law that put this schmo in a position where he felt a legitimate right to act as a law enforcement officer, as well as the subsequent effort to protect him (or, more to the point, protect the law) by local officials.  Zimmerman and his wife aren't the point here, and demonizing them is counterproductive on many levels.

              •  Yes, he is. He deliberately kept his latest (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                amsterdam, Tonedevil, Unit Zero, CaliSista

                passport (only handing in the earlier version) and even used money laundering tactics (multiple transactions of $9,999 and $9,990 to avoid reporting requirements) to hide the money.

                There is no saving throw against stupid.

                by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:29:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  No less than the judge in the case makes (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                a strong statement that he was/is a flight risk. He was given relatively low bail the first time around but since he LIED (at least by omission) he should be treated more harshly.

                Zimmerman was the one who pulled the trigger so by definition he is the "point" To the extent that his wife and sister aided him in money laundering and retaining his 2nd passport, they have made themselves the point as well.

                Most of us are perfectly capable of protesting a horrible law and demonizing relating George Zimmerman's actions at the same time.

                "Someone just turned the lights on in the bar and the sexiest state doesn't look so pretty anymore" CA Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Texas budget mess

                by CaliSista on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 01:53:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  by the way... (0+ / 0-)

              you are 1000X smarter than me and people (fortunately) are influenced by what you write.  I just think you're off on this one and wanted to make sure you've thought it through fully.  

              thanks for engaging me on this...

              •  I think you are misinterpreting what I wrote: (5+ / 0-)

                ... Where in the post do I argue for higher bail? Where do I argue that the judge made the wrong move? Where do I "demonize" either of the Zimmermans?

                They lied. Reporting that they lied and that they used code to conceal their financial situation is simply factual.

                My take that O'Mara's approach in court was odd and atypical of a bond hearing is not just my opinion but that of three lawyers I spoke to after Friday. The judge said so, too. Challenging that approach, mildly as I did, or more ferociously, is not demonizing either.  

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:41:33 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

                  You're right, you don't explicitly take a stance on this ruling.  And the demonizing that dominates this (and other) threads about the Zimmerman's isn't your responsibility (and my initial post here was in reference to the other comments, though I'll admit  subsequent ones have become conflated).  

                  But you do have to know that lacking a clear point, your posts are going to contain an implied opinion (and maybe not one that you've intended) as the vast majority of writing on here is editorial.  

    •  Up is down lately (0+ / 0-)

      Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
      Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

      by The Dead Man on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:17:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting that O'Mara says that $211,000 (4+ / 0-)


    more than enough to cover the 10-percent non-refundable portion charged by most bonding companies
    I guess O'Mara doesn't anticipate charging more than $111,000.

    We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

    by NoMoJoe on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:09:56 AM PDT

  •  Enlighten me (5+ / 0-)

    Okay, Zimmerman will be let out of jail most certainly.  Gotta few questions:

    1.  Can the prosecution present his lying about his finances so as to get no bail be presented in the general trial?

    2.  Is 2nd degree murder the only option for the jury in this case?

    3.  Who is paying for Zimmerman's defense costs? And, more pointedly, where is that money coming from?

    4.  Will the fact that Trayvon registered a "drug" substance in his blood and the fact that he was under suspension from school be presented at the trial?

    I only ask these questions from an "Enquirer wants to know" kind of aspect.  I mean, it seems almost given that the fact that Zimmerman "went after" Trayvon with a gun puts him as the aggressor and as such, has no standing under the "stand your ground" defense.  But, strange things happen in these things.

    Thanks to anyone that knows and cares to answer this stuff.

    The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

    by commonsensically on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:10:30 AM PDT

    •  My thoughts on some answers. (3+ / 0-)

      1.  Probably not, unless Z takes the stand -- and maybe not even then.  The fact that he may have lied has no bearing on whether he was acting in self-defense.  If he takes the stand and testifies to the jury, then maybe you could argue that he has put his personal credibility at issue at trial, but even then the judge may well decide that its prejudice outweighs its probative value.  The fact that somebody lied about something is not, under he law, evidence that they committed this kind of crime.

      2.  That hasn't been decided yet, I think.  Typically, the prosecution will ask the jury to be able to consider  "lesser includeds" like manslaughter.  

      3.  We don't know -- but there's nothing illegal about people who want to giving Z money to pay his defense counsel.  Think about it this way -- that's better than forcing you to pay for his defense counsel (like a public defender).  

      4.  I could see the first fact being more likely to come in than the second, because if Z claims self-defense, he may argue that the marijuana in his system played some role in M's lack of judgment in supposedly "attacking" Z first.  As for the suspension, probably not.  If he had been suspended for randomly hitting people who annoyed him or something like that, maybe that would be probative on Z's argument that M hit Z first.  

      •  Perfect (0+ / 0-)

        Hey, thanks,  coffeetalk.

        The truth is sometimes very inconvenient.

        by commonsensically on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:28:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I generally agree. I never practiced criminal (4+ / 0-)

        law and the Florida Rules of Evidence may be different than the Federal Rules with which I'm familiar, but ...

        1.  This is bail for the "general trial."  He's out on bail through the end of the trial unless he does something else that convinces the judge to yank his bail again.

        Given that the entire case turns on Z's contention that he reasonably believed that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, it seems to me both that his credibility is already at issue and that he can't establish that reasonable belief without taking the stand.  If he does testify about what happened that night, Federal Rule of Evidence 608 would permit questions about the earlier lying (as I said, I don't know what the Florida rule is).

        Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness;

        We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

        by NoMoJoe on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:40:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think he can argue self-defense without (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          taking the stand.

          Most importantly, there's the evidence of his physical injuries that can come in through the EMT and the doctor he saw the next day  -- that will give the lawyer license to argue that he was physically assaulted before he shot.  And the fact that Martin had no similar injuries -- no evidence of punches, etc. (except some bruising on his hand, consistent with hitting someone/something) gives the lawyer license to argue that the reasonable inference is that Martin hit Z enough to break his nose and cause the lacerations to the back of his head.  That gives the lawyer enough, I think, to argue self-defense without Z taking the stand.  

          And, of course, the prosecution may well introduce the statements Z gave to the police.  I don't know that they can actually establish that it was Z who pulled the trigger without Z's admission of that to the investigating officers.  Once they introduce PART of Z's statement to the police, the rest will come in.    

          •  HE can not argue self defense without (0+ / 0-)

            taking the stand given  not easily here with the physical evidence that contradicts the case he would be arguing versus the statments he already made prior to the trial

            all of what you wrote depends on a narrative

            who is going to supply the narrative?

        •   Murray v. State (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster, coffeetalk

          per Murray v. State 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), use of other evidence can be used in affirmative defense in the state of Florida.  

          •  the other evidence must allow one to (0+ / 0-)

            produce the inference that the attorney wants

            are yo usaying that the mere existence of injuries is an inference of how he obtained said injuries

            •  No,I am saying that any evidence such as injuries, (0+ / 0-)

              physical evidence, witnesses or any other evidence can and will most likely be used in lieu of actual testimony in this case.  It is actually quite low burden.

              Zimmerman does not have to testify and in Florida he can claim self-defense and/or SYG without going on the stand, as long as he has any such evidence per Murray v. State.  The burden will then lie with the state to prove he did not act in self-defense or did not act within the even more lenient boundaries of SYG.

              Some people have thought that Zimmerman would be compelled to testify if using affirmative defense and that is just not true.  If he is at all sane (making a leap of faith with that one) and he has any kind of sound counsel, he will not testify.  

              •  the part you misunderstand is the second part (0+ / 0-)

                Yes of course Zimmerman's attorney can put on hardly any case at all (which is what you are advocating) because yes of course the burden is on the state to prove that it wasn't self defense

                The problem is that once the defense puts on a self defense and then leaves it to the state, the state can offer evidence that can prove beyond a reaosnable double that it wasn't self defense if all the defendant provides is the bare minimum as you describe.

                For example, the minute that the defense puts on basic evidence claiming self defense the prosecution can then enter evidence to prove that the defendant is in fact lying about that self defense and the jury can ignore all or part of the evidence provided by the defense counsel

                In fact if all the defense does it offer the bare minimum that you describe (which may be the l aw but there is more to being a lawyer than that) the inferences from the available evidence would beyond a reasonable doubt rule out self defense unless the defendant offers more

                Why do I say that?

                Because circumstantial evidence (unless a jury is nullifying) and inferences from that circumstantial evidence would be a huge problem for the defendant

                The jury will be looking for a narrative. If all the defense does as you describe they will not providing a narrative. The only way to avoid the negative narrative that the prosecution will build even with the bare facts of the defense included (if they are facts) is to build a counter narrative and the evidence describes doesn/t do that.

                So far you have heard mostly how the case will be argued by the defense rather than understanding how thoe same rules will be usied by the prosecution

                People can and do get convicted on less even in the state of Florida

                That's true even with the misapplication /misinterpreation of the SYG law which I expect this judge to interpete strictly to mean objective standard for defense

                Finally I am not basicin g my views on what people here think

                I am basing it on trying to understand the law

                •  First, I am not "advocating" anything. I was (0+ / 0-)

                  simply answering a question and making a point.  Second, I am well aware that the state has the right to put on a case and hopefully they would arrive at the courtroom with such a plan in place.....otherwise they themselves would also be lacking in the sanity department, eh?  Third, a good defense attorney can lay out a narrative for the jury without the need of testimony of his or her client.  It is done all the time to keep a defendant off the stand.  Videos, recordings, phone records, witnesses etc. can be used to do just that. The same will be used to provide a counter narrative by the state.  They too will most likely have to provide a timeline/story/narrative without the use of his live testimony.

                   Circumstantial evidence or even direct evidence can always help or harm a defendant and none of us can read what each juror with infer from the evidence thus far.  You must remember that the jury has yet to be selected, and that is a huge part of the process.   The evidence has yet to be allowed, allowed evidence has yet to be presented and presented evidence has yet to be examined.  Witnesses have yet to be called and witnesses have yet to testify or be crossed. We do not know if hearsay witnesses will be called or allowed or even if the state or defense has expert witnesses lined up that will provide expert testimony to various pieces in this case.  Physical and direct evidence has also yet to be allowed or disallowed, thus none of us can say with any certainty what will happen at trial or how any juror or spectator for that matter will feel even after it is all laid out.  Your very own mind might change after this trial...if there is a trial.  

                  •  Here's a good example of what (0+ / 0-)

                    I mean by narratives

                    This is based on the bail hearing where the outcome I expected to happen actually did

                    "The Judge believes (none / 0) (#27)
                    by expy on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:32:56 AM EST
                    that George Zimmerman orchestrated the handling & concealment of the money, base on the jail tapes where he is clearly giving his wife directions on how the money is to be handled.
                    That defeats any argument that GZ "didn't provide the info" because his attorney & his wife did -- because it shows GZ actively involved, albeit outside of court.

                    The Judge obviously was frustrated with the defense at the bail hearing for skirting around the issue. The forensic accountant could explain the $9999 transactions (PayPal policy), but I don't think any explanation was offered as to why money was being split between various family accounts (I think the wife, the sister, & maybe cash also in a safe deposit box).  

                    It looks like a plan to conceal funds.  Maybe it wasn't -- maybe GZ just wanted to get the funds out of PayPal and available to the family members who weren't in jail -- but that explanation wasn't offered. Instead, O'Mara appeared to concede the intent to conceal funds, but argued that GZ was frightened & confused & felt betrayed by the system -- all of which probably struck the judge as being a lame excuse.  

                    Unfortunately for GZ, the jail tapes are pretty damning. Focusing on the logistics as to when GZ should have spoken up in court is missing the focus of the Judge's concern.  "

                    What the comment is getting at is that the defense thought they could rely on the legal standard and offer very little evidence in the way rebutting the case put on by the state

                    This seems to be the same mind that drives the pro GZ arguments

                    He doesn't have to worry because...

                    Because of SYG - althoguh SYG has been badly misapplied in the past (which meas past usuage is not a determination of what we may see in this case) and its not a get out of jail free card. Its basically a modified form of self defense wher eyou still have to prove reasonableness (objective test) to some degree. So he can't just provide the head wounds which aren't severe and say see I was being reasonable

                    This is a high profile case- what may have happened in those other cases where no one had others looking over their shoulders to make sure the law wasn't being applied right so that people who shouldn't be getting off were doesn/t apply

                    Same way it doesn't apply as far as a misuse of the law in a pro prosecution way.

                    Or he doesn't need to worry... for other reasons

                    I am not asking you who you are supporting because I don't care about that

                    I am making a point about the assumptions people are making in this case

                    Oh its slam dunk either way is b.s.

                    Its not going to be easy for the defense because their client has with his prior statements  and physical evidence placed a lot of constraints onw hat they can do during trial

                    My point is narratives matter

                    he needs to be able to explain for example in a way that makes sense why he was following the other guy and why he wasn't the agressor

                    Remember Martin had the right to stand his ground too and that means those wounds were a product of SYG of Martin then the defense is also out

                    The law is unclear on that point but the defense should not be relying on unclear statements of law to win the case

      •  Regarding point 3, is the money he's getting (0+ / 0-)

        from donations on his website taxable? It is income. When I had to hire a lawyer to make a speeding ticket turn into an expensive parking ticket, I didn't get to use tax free income. I don't see why Zimmerman's case should be any different.

        "How come when it’s us, it’s an abortion, and when it’s a chicken, it’s an omelette?" - George Carlin

        by yg17 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:05:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's a gift (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          People can give other people money for whatever crazy reason they want.

          It may be a tax on the giver - depending on the amount - but not for the recipient.

          See the poor bus monitor that got bullied - she's somewhere north of half million dollars I think.

          Power-Worshipping Fascist

          by campionrules on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:15:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hmm, guess I'll have to ask my boss if he can just (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            give me my salary as a gift ;)

            Thanks for the clarification. Was hoping he'd have to give a 3rd of that to the taxman.

            "How come when it’s us, it’s an abortion, and when it’s a chicken, it’s an omelette?" - George Carlin

            by yg17 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:21:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  what I know (0+ / 0-)

        1. He will not take the stand. SO that one is out. It does matter as far as the judge perception of him and thats big even during the trial phase in front of the jury

        2. I read that its not the prosecution but that the instruction of lesser offenses are included as a matter of course which is why I think he will be convicted of at the very least manslaughter

        3. the money matters because if it dries up I question how much OMara will care about the case then and although unsaid will create a pressure to negotiate a plea

        4. There is no chance of the MJ issue being brought up or the supension

    •  I'll give it a try: (5+ / 0-)

      1. Probably not.
      2. Lesser included charges will also be options. Manslaughter, etc.
      3. Z is paying for his attorney. Part of the money will come from what is left of that which he got from contributions. O'Mara mentioned some kind of fund for indigent defendants.
      4. I don't know. The amount was fairly minute. I'm not sure how good a defense it is to malign a dead teenager who was unarmed.

      Your left is my right---Mort Sahl

      by HappyinNM on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:34:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Would someone expound on bail vs bond? And (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avila, Eric Nelson, CaliSista

    the details about how one makes either/or? I don't think I fully understand. Thanks.

  •  I don't see that the strength of the murder case (5+ / 0-)

    is overly relevant to the question about whether he lied to obtain bail.  He and his wife DID lie and engaged in deliberate (though remarkably clumsy) deception.

    Ergo, there should be no bail.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:27:11 AM PDT

  •  I don't have a problem with this, presuming (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster

    that he's actually turned over all his passports now.  I think bail should be much more available now.

    SCANDAL: Bush Supreme Court nominee Roberts upholds Romney's individual mandate! Another politically motivated decision!

    by Inland on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:51:19 AM PDT

  •  So the court refuses to hold Z in contempt via.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ..[state vs Paul 783 so 2d Florida 2001] holding:
    Judge Lester -

    This court thus far, declined to exersize its contempt powers and the state failed to prove that the Defendant may be held without bond.
    ianal but after deceiving the court about his passport and how much money he has at his fingertips, taken with the fact that his wife has been charged with perjury for her role in that deception.
    Corey charged Shellie Zimmerman with perjury, accusing her of lying about the couple's finances. If convicted, she could face a year in jail.
    So lying to the court is not grounds for contempt in this case(?)
    If the roles between defendant and victim were reversed, I can't help but think that the court would have been much less lenient towards the killer and his contempt for life

    Thx MB

    •  I'd say you are projecting (0+ / 0-)

      onto the jurist here. I would also, if given an opportunity to opine, say that the Judge is preserving his challenges, "picking his battles" for what will be one whale of a sentence unless every possible attention is paid at every point. I think he's let them know that on several occasions, including this one.

      Nurse Kelley says my writing is brilliant and my soul is shiny - who am I to argue?
      Left/Right: -7.75
      Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

      by Bud Fields on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:32:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Referring to this disparity in an overall sense.. (0+ / 0-)

        ..Not necessarily this particular judge:

        For example, whites are more likely to be offered bail than people of color.
        racial profiling
        Yet this makes sense:
        ..the Judge is preserving his challenges, "picking his battles"..
  •  Ready to flee (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This article indicates that the judge did not think too highly of Zimmerman and his family's ability to tell the truth.

  •  My prediction: (0+ / 0-)

    He will be acquitted, then have a wingnut author ghostwrite a book for him about his experiences as the neighborhood watchman, then go on Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. to pimp the book, and come out of this ordeal a millionaire.

    I don't know why, but for some reason people say I'm glass is half empty sort of dude.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:45:00 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site