home

Zimmerman's Bail Bond Agents to Testify at Bond Hearing

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:56:55 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Mark O'Mara, attorney for George Zimmerman, filed a pleading today stating he would call two witnesses from All Star Magic Bail Bonds at the June 29 hearing for bond.

I assume they will testify of the difficulty the family had in coming up with the $15,000. bond premium, as evidence that George and Shellie Zimmerman didn't think of the money raised by the website as their money, but money earmarked for legal fees, living expenses while waiting for trial and creditors. O'Mara has said in the past that the Zimmerman's didn't fully appreciate that the money belonged to them.

O'Mara has said he explained to Zimmerman why his belief was wrong, and he now understands.

Shorter version: Zimmerman wasn't lying, just mistaken, and had no intent to deceive the court.

Will he get another bond? Absolutely, in my view. First, he's legally entitled to it. Second, he will have spent 29 days in jail for his mistake -- that's a steep enough penalty. The judge is not concerned Zimmerman is a flight risk. He may not even raise the bond amount since the money is no longer under Zimmerman's control, but the control of a independent third party trustee. [More..]

Bail is not intended to be punishment. It's intended to assure the person's appearance at trial. Zimmerman, having ceded control of the raised funds to a trustee, is in no better financial condition today than when he was arrested on April 11.

O'Mara said at the June 1 hearing he still owed the bondsman $10,000. of the $15,000. premium on the first bond. Since the premium is the bondsman's fee for making the bond, he might give George a break on a new bond, but I doubt he'll forego his fee entirely. Local bondspersons use national insurance companies to underwrite the bonds, they don't put their own money at risk. The national company has to get paid too, and it's unlikely in my opinion, they would view Zimmerman as different than any other client.

Could the judge reinstate the old bond now that it's been discharged and turned in? I'm not sure, but I think not, since that would again involve the national insurance company that underwrote the bond and their contract probably says their obligations end when the bond is discharged.
Maybe someone who practices in state court can fill us in.

The agents may also testify to how compliant Zimmerman was while released on bond, but I doubt that's the reason they are being called. I think they are being called to support that Zimmerman didn't think the money raised from the website was available for bond, as was evident from the difficulty they had paying the $15,000, and that $10,000. is still owed to them for the first bond.

Yes, there's a call in which Shellie tells George that's what the money is for, and he says he'll think about it, but there's no indication from that transcript whether he agreed that's what the money was for. He could have been agreeing to think about whether it could be used for that purpose, and since he ultimately only used $5,000.00 of it, it's more likely he didn't agree that is what the money was for. He said on his website the money raised would be used for legal expenses and living expenses.

< Financier Allen Stanford Sentenced to 110 years | Wikileaks' Julian Assange Loses Final Extradition Appeal >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Zimmerman's Bail Bond Agents to Testify at Bond Hearing | 203 comments (203 topical)
    hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by jharp on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    "George and Shellie Zimmerman didn't think of the money raised by the website as their money, but money earmarked for legal fees, living expenses while waiting for trial and creditors."

    Interesting that someone could think money donated to them was not theirs but was to be used to pay for their living expenses and legal fees. Right after they asked for donations for living expenses and legal fees.

    Makes me wonder whose money they normally use for living expenses.

    I think they call that a loan as opposed to a donation. And I don't recall any language asking for loans yet I do recall them asking for donations for living expenses and legal fees. But I am not a lawyer and just a dumb layperson.

    Also interesting that the Zimmerman's don't consider bond legal expenses. I wonder what they would call them.

    Should be fun to watch.

    Sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:49:40 PM EST
    when caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you have to grasp at straws.

    Parent
    Bingo. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:00:26 PM EST
    None of this "use of cash" business can be reconciled with talking in code or money movement intended to hide funds and transfers.  If it on the up and up you don't us deceptive means to talk about or move money.  You just move it all and you speak about it plainly.  

    Parent
    Or you do something really radical, (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:48:52 PM EST
    and ask your freakin' lawyer whether it is okay to use the money collected from donations for legal expenses, including bond.  Imagine that - a client asking his lawyer a question!

    I'm sorry, I just don't buy all this stuff about being confused or being unsure or not knowing.  This is why one has a lawyer: to answer these and every other question a client or his or her spouse has as they begin to confront these issues.

    Either this client and his lawyer have the worst communication skills possible, or we're being asked to suspend common sense and most of our intelligence in order to believe the story O'Mara is telling.

    Parent

    Zimmerman's previous lawyers (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by friendofinnocence on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:21:14 PM EST
    His previous lawyers called a press conference and implied he was having problems with PTSD.  This could have given him some trust issues with his new lawyer.

    Parent
    Mark Garagos was on CNN... (none / 0) (#115)
    by deanno on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:28:36 AM EST
    and called his previous lawyers "clowns."

    I don't think those two guys were technically his lawyers in the first place.  Nor did they to my knowledge ever meet with George face to face.  From press reports and interviews I saw on TV I think they were there to sort of represent his POV during TV interviews.

    I don't think they signed on or were compensated officially as his legal representatives.

    Parent

    In all fairness (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by expy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:12:47 PM EST
    ... we're being asked to suspend common sense and most of our intelligence in order to believe the story O'Mara is telling.

    O'Mara hasn't made the argument or even hinted at it - this post is Jeralyn's speculation as to why O'Mara plans to call the bond agents to testify.  

    O'Mara's public statements thus far have taken a somewhat different tack. I would be very surprised if he plans to try to sell some lame excuse to a Judge who is already ticked off at his client. It would be counter-productive to say the least.

    I'm thinking he probably wants the bond agents there to address practical issues related to reinstatement of bond, not to testify as to finances.  He would be treading on very dangerous ground to offer up testimony at this point that bears in any way on Shellie Zimmerman's testimony, given the perjury charge against her.


    Parent

    it is my assumption (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:22:34 PM EST
    as I clearly stated, and it's based on rewatching what O'Mara has said in several media interviews since the hearing. The "fully appreciate" were his words. He said he has since explained it to him and he gets it now.

    He's not going to argue Zimmerman was right. He says, as I've recounted, Zimmerman now knows he was wrong. But since O'Mara is making the point it had to be explained to him after the bond revocation hearing, he's saying George was mistaken, and he wasn't, by his silence, trying to mislead the court. And he wasn't in some kind of conspiracy with his wife to mislead the court.

    Again this is my assumption, but it's based on what O'Mara has been saying. You can go to You Tube or any of the Florida news sites and easily watch most of his statements.

    If he was just going to present testimony about the practical issues of the bond, he wouldn't need two bail agents from the same company, one would suffice. I think he's calling two because each had conversations with George or Shellie or members of the family.

    Parent

    Risky strategy (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by expy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:40:34 AM EST
    I think he's calling two because each had conversations with George or Shellie or members of the family.

    I can't think of a bigger gift to the prosecution than to provide an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses concerning conversations they had with the Zimmermans.  (The prosecutor has everything to gain and nothing to lose in that setting).

    Obviously neither you nor I can possibly know what is in O'Mara's mind. But I really don't see how the testimony of the bond agents about such conversations could possibly help in this situation.

    If there were conversations before the first bail hearing in which the defendants claimed they had no money for bail, that just plays into a narrative that they were concealing the assets from everyone, intending to hoard the funds for their own benefit. If, on the other hand, the Zimmermans informed the bond agents that any part of the premium was coming from internet donations, that would undermine any assertion that they didn't know the funds could be used for that purpose.

    The only legitimate issue for the Judge to be looking at whether the defendant is likely to flee; and what amount of bond would be sufficient to ensure against that. Who said what when probably isn't going to make much of a difference, and may simply tend to reinforce the negative opinion the Judge already has formed. I'd think the defense would want to focus on Zimmerman's demonstrated willingness to appear in court and obey court orders, rather than trying to refocus the court's attention on the issue of the financial disclosure.

    Parent

    Z now knows he was wrong (none / 0) (#62)
    by jharp on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:51:51 PM EST
    "He's not going to argue Zimmerman was right. He says, as I've recounted, Zimmerman now knows he was wrong."

    Having your wife arrested for perjury somehow does that most of time. Especially when you are conspiring with her to deceive the judge.

    Parent

    It's not (none / 0) (#133)
    by Doug1111 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    entirely implausible to me that George Zimmerman believed he was sort of contractually bound by what he said on his website to potential donors any money raised would be used for.  

    Though I agree that it's not much of a stretch to consider bail bond fees to fall within legal expenses.  

    It's surprising to me that the bail bondsmen put up the bond when they'd only actually been paid 1/3 of their 15k fee.

    Parent

    gz (none / 0) (#141)
    by Asha on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    "entirely implausible to me that George Zimmerman believed he was sort of contractually bound by what he said on his website to potential donors any money raised would be used for."

    I think GZ's actions show he felt no contractual or ethical obligation to spend the donated funds in a particular way.  In fact, and I would imagine to the dismay of those who donated to him, the money was even used to pay off their American Express and Sam's Club credit card debts.

    Parent

    Credit card debts (none / 0) (#156)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    are not living expenses?

    Would it be a better  if they allowed the interest and penalties to continue to accrue?

    Parent

    Mark down this day, lousy 1 (none / 0) (#160)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 03:28:00 PM EST
    I agree with you!

    I can't believe we've used up over 150 comments, (probably 100 on this topic alone) on something that I think is just so simple.

    Does anyone really believe all those supporters  who flocked to Zimmerman's website to make contributions sat down first and calculated, "let's see, 20% for living expenses, 25%, lawyer's fees, etc?" Of course not.

    I think they just felt, "here you go, George, here's xxxx $'s, use it any way you feel is best for you."

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#170)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:58:02 PM EST
    Its nice to know that at least in your estimate I am nearing the exalted status of a snapshot of a  calender - right once a month :)

    Parent
    once a month ? lol (none / 0) (#173)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:56:23 PM EST
    The way I see it, if a "Snakehead" can make peace with a Mary Matalin, why not a Shooter with a lousy1 Biker?

    vroom.....

    Parent

    Actually, O'Mara made very much... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:31:34 AM EST
    ...the argument, about Z not understanding what the availability of the website funds was, at the bail revocation hearing. Particularly emphasized was the fact Z had only paid $5k, iirc.

    Why $5k was ok but $15k wasn't is harder to understand. If O'Mara's trustee hasn't coughed up the other $10k by now I might, if I were the bondsman, be running through my list of kneecap breakers...er, debt collectors, that is.

    Parent

    Maybe GZ wasn't sure... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by citizenjeff on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    ...if the website money could be used for bond, and in case such use wasn't kosher, he was willing to take only a 5K risk. He might have thought the smaller the amount, the less chance he'd get in trouble, and/or the easier it would be to come up with a reimbursement if necessary.

    Parent
    If he did argue that (none / 0) (#79)
    by expy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 05:37:16 AM EST
    then it's already been shown that argument won't fly with that Judge -- since obviously the Judge revoked bail.

    If O'Mara believes that it is possible to get a reasonable bail set at the next hearing, then it would be tactically wise to figure out what the Judge might want to hear (perhaps a profuse apology?) and give him that, rather than trying to rationalize the previous misleading testimony through additional testimony.

    On the other hand, if he thinks that the Judge is dead set against him and is going to deny bail, then I suppose it would be appropriate to make the best possible record for appeal.

    But I think the Judge might be very likely to reset a bail an a slightly higher, but not insanely higher, amount -- if he gets the sense that Zimmerman has clearly gotten the message, and if O'Mara emphasizes that the internet-raised funds are no longer available directly to Zimmerman.  

    Parent

    I was thinking the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:20:05 PM EST
    All of these questions are what you pay your lawyer to answer. If you don't trust him to answer simple questions like that, you need to find another one.

    Also I don't understand why he would not consider bond as part of his legal expenses.

    None of it makes any sense to me.

    Parent

    Ask any lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:17:56 AM EST
    if their fee agreement with their client addresses costs or expenses. Ask them if their agreement contains examples of costs and expenses. Then ask them if they have ever included bond as a potential cost or expense.

    I would bet the answer to the first two questions will be yes and the answer to the third question will be no.

    Here's an example of a recommended fee agreement from the New Hampshire state bar:(Not every state provides them.)

    In addition to legal fees, all costs in connection with the representation of this matter shall also be paid by the Client. Examples of these costs and out-of-pocket disbursements
    which the Attorney may make in connection with this matter are, without limitation, filing fees, witness fees, expert witness fees, travel, sheriff's fees, deposition expenses,
    transcript expenses, investigation, copies, telephone calls and other incidental expenses.

    You can view some from other states, including Florida here.

    Parent

    Uh... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by bmaz on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:29:57 AM EST
    ...Confirmed.

    And I might note that any lawyer who did so would be a bloody idiot. Not to mention probably acting quasi, if not straight up, unethically because he/she would be creating a potential conflict from the instant execution of the fee agreement.

    Parent

    However, ask those same lawyers... (none / 0) (#82)
    by unitron on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:09:07 AM EST
    ...if they won't go to a bond hearing and argue that their client needs to be out to help prepare their defense, so while bond may be separate and apart from one's legal fees that one pays to the lawyer, it seems it could still quite validly be considered part of one's legal expenses.

    Of course that's the kind of thing one might be able to find out by asking one's lawyer.

    Parent

    It's a surety (none / 0) (#83)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:21:44 AM EST
    If the defendant puts his assets at risk, with the promise the risk will be terminated if he appears before the court, then there isn't any expense at all.

    The function of bail is to insure appearance.  Once it has been determined that defendant is entitled to bond (absence of Proof Evident in this case), the court has to find flight risk, risk of witness intimidation, or risk of danger to society if defendant is released, in order to justify revocation of bail.  IIRC, Judge Lester expressly found absence of danger to society, and there is no suggestion that Zimmerman will intimidate a witness, so we are left with risk of flight.  There is nothing is Zimmerman's past to indicate that he won't respond to process.

    Parent

    bond (none / 0) (#142)
    by Asha on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    "The function of bail is to insure appearance.  Once it has been determined that defendant is entitled to bond (absence of Proof Evident in this case), the court has to find flight risk, risk of witness intimidation, or risk of danger to society if defendant is released, in order to justify revocation of bail.  IIRC, Judge Lester expressly found absence of danger to society, and there is no suggestion that Zimmerman will intimidate a witness, so we are left with risk of flight.  There is nothing is Zimmerman's past to indicate that he won't respond to process."

    The criteria to post bond you listed above applies to a defendant's initial bond hearing. But if the defendent commits perjury and a second bond hearing is ordered, I would imagine the criteria would change. If the only penalty for perjuring oneself at a bond hearing is an increase in the bond, it would be in the best interest of any defendent to lie. By reinstating his bond, the judge would effectively be setting a precedent for all future defendants. I don't think his bond will be reinstated.  

    Parent

    Except (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    The defendant isn't charged with perjury in this case.

    Parent
    The criteria don't change (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    -- But if the defendent commits perjury and a second bond hearing is ordered, I would imagine the criteria would change. If the only penalty for perjuring oneself at a bond hearing is an increase in the bond, it would be in the best interest of any defendent to lie. --

    A couple points.  Committing a crime while out on bail is, IIRC, grounds for bail revocation.  Violating a condition of bail is grounds for revocation.  But Lester's order doesn't accuse Zimmerman of committing a crime, and the prosecutor hasn't charged him with a crime.

    Assuming that Zimmerman's actions don't constitute a crime or violation of conditions, the judge can still revoke bond.  But he's stuck using the conditions for revocation that the law provides.  "He's a liar" or "he's a potted palm" aren't on that list of reasons.  The judge would have to find that Zimmerman poses a flight risk, or that he is a danger to the community, or that his freedom will result in a compromise to the trial (for example, Zimmerman will intimidate a witness).

    I'd have to reread a few cases to recall which one provides so, but the conditions/criteria  for denial of bond don't change between the initial bail hearing and any later bail hearing.

    At this point, the Judge seems to be claiming that Zimmerman's bad attitude somehow puts the integrity of the judicial process at risk.  That's crazy talk.  The integrity of the judicial process is assured by obtaining truthful and complete testimony from witnesses.  The attitude of the defendant is irrelevant to the process (certainly doesn't prevent finding him guilty!), until it manifests in the form of witness intimidation, juror intimidation, or similar.

    IMO, if Lester is going to revoke bail, it will be on flight risk grounds.

    Parent

    An importatnt distinction (none / 0) (#157)
    by MJW on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:42:46 PM EST
    In talking about bail, I think it's important to distinguish between revocation and pretrial detention.  Revocation means the current bail is taken away, but it doesn't necessarily mean bail won't be granted again; pretrial detention means no bail.  For instance:

    Committing a crime while out on bail is, IIRC, grounds for bail revocation.  Violating a condition of bail is grounds for revocation.

    Under Florida law, both are grounds for revocation, but committing a crime while on bail is grounds for pretrial detention, while violating a condition of bail is only grounds for pretrial detention if "the violation, in the discretion of the court, supports a finding that no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons or assure the presence of the accused at trial."

    Parent

    Thanks for the distinction (none / 0) (#159)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    I had been looking at "pretrial detention" and "bail revocation" both as generic terms, but i can see good reason for "pretrial detention" being a term that means no bail, period - we've had the bail discussion, and you're in the clink until acquitted or your jail term runs out.

    Parent
    But misrepresentations ARE a ground for revocation (none / 0) (#163)
    by expy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 04:47:27 PM EST
     "He's a liar" or "he's a potted palm" aren't on that list of reasons.

    Misrepresentations or failure to make complete disclosures by the defendant ARE on the list of reasons for revocation, under Florida statutes & Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    So if the Judge feels that Zimmerman bears responsibility for the financial misrepresentation that were made on his behalf -- then Florida law does allow for revocation, and that is exactly what the Judge cited to in his order.

    I personally think that bail will be reinstated, though the amount may be increased. But I do think the Judge probably has the power under Florida law to refuse bail if he still feels that Zimmerman is being evasive or lying to him -- or at least he can try and let the appellate courts figure out whether he has that ability.

    That's why I think more evasions in the form of "explanation" would backfire.  The question for the bail hearing isn't what Zimmerman and his wife were really thinking at the time, it is what the Judge is going to accept and believe at the forthcoming hearing.

    I think Zimmerman is better off to be perceived as by the Judge as wrong but remorseful and truthful than as continuing to present a litany of excuses.     No one can really know what was going on in his mind at the time, but the excuses as posited in this thread tend to give the impression that the person making them is still refusing to accept responsibility and is likely to do the same or similar things in the future.

    Parent

    That's one reason I pointed to the distinction (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MJW on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:26:50 PM EST
    Misstatements at the bond hearing allow bail to be revoked, as they must in at least some cases, since the misstatements could be on matters that would have resulted in a denial of bail.  However, it doesn't follow that misstatements at a bond hearing are themselves grounds for pretrial detention.  I don't believe they are.  Nothing in the statute or corresponding rule suggests pretrial detention is appropriate; unlike section 903.0471, which applies to crimes committed while on bail:

    903.0471 Violation of condition of pretrial release.--Notwithstanding s. 907.041, a court may, on its own motion, revoke pretrial release and order pretrial detention if the court finds probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a new crime while on pretrial release.

    Sections 907.041 and 903.0471 provide a comprehensive legislative scheme for determining when pretrial detention is appropriate.  Misstatements at the bond hearing aren't, in themselves, part of that scheme, though matters involved in the misstatements could be.

    Parent

    Problem with your reasoning is that (none / 0) (#158)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:45:29 PM EST
    George has not been charged with perjury.

    Parent
    I get that now (none / 0) (#114)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:24:38 AM EST
    that in the strict definition of 'legal expenses' meaning fees you pay your lawyer, bond does not qualify. Maybe GZ's previous lawyer explained that to him and so that is why he did not even ask O'Mara to clarify the situation about how the web site money could be spent, even though the words on the web site asking for donations were not spelled out as specifically as that.

    I can see it being confusing. I'm sure GZ knows by now that it could have all been avoided by an honest discussion with his lawyer.

    Parent

    Sometimes not much of an expense (none / 0) (#68)
    by friendofinnocence on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:16:12 AM EST
    If you post the full bond, you get it all back, minus fines - if you incur any - and some kind of fees.

    Parent
    ABG this has already (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:38:27 PM EST
    been discussed. There was no code, it was shorthand. And it could have been to avoid being overheard by other inmates who could have directed a robbery against them. See our earlier threads on this.

    Parent
    Only GZ Knows That (none / 0) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:12:58 PM EST
    If he is in isolation seems odd they would stick him with a bunch of other prisoners to make a phone call.  But then again, it seems off he would use code a kid could decipher.

    Didn't he direct SZ to pay off some credit cards ?  AmEx and Sam's Club I think.  Look at the bills, anything on there that predates the case ?  Might show how concerned he was with intermingling his personal finances with donated money.

    Did he use the funds to post his bond ?  Seems like a bond hearing and the actual bond are one in the same as to how he viewed the money.  I don't think anyone could argue he didn't think the money was important at the bond hearing if he used it to post the bond.

    Parent

    Zimmerman doesn't consider bond legal expenses (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Tamta on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:03:24 PM EST
    Well in the recorded conversations, I did not observe that GZ did not consider bond legal expenses, only that he did not want to pay his bond in a large sum up front or the way that his wife was offering/suggesting.

    GZ may have been wanting to defer to MOMs advisement as to how to pay his bond, or waiting to see what kind of plan he could work out with the bondsmen.

    I also see bond as a distinct category, just as court fees, and attorney fees are a distinct categories as well.

    Parent

    Observation (none / 0) (#18)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    Well in the recorded conversations, I did not observe . . .

    It has been observed many times that so far the prosecution has been choosing what parts of those conversations to present.

    Parent
    choosing what parts (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jharp on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:58:58 PM EST
    "It has been observed many times that so far the prosecution has been choosing what parts of those conversations to present."

    Again, not a lawyer. But what is wrong with that?

    They are prosecuting him after all. That is waht they are paid to do. Shouldn't they present the parts of the conversations that strengthen their case and not hurt their case?

    Good grief.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:40:45 PM EST
    The prosecution does not have to present the defenses take on on evidence  or to introduce all of the evidence into the a legal pleading.

    What they do need to do however is to make all the evidence pertaining to their pleading available to the defense AND  allow adequate time for the defense to study that evidence so that the can respond.

    This was not done in this case. It was an ambush.

    If the laws of Florida allow for handcuffing the defense then IMO the courts of Florida needs to establish a high burden on the state as a seeker of justice rather than an adversarial player

    Parent

    a prosecutor's job (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:25:57 PM EST
    is not to convict but to see that justice is done. That you don't know this is really sad.

    Parent
    and a defense lawyer's job (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Tov on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:12:39 PM EST
    is not to get his client off= but to see that justice is done? Obviously most people would say not.
    Just asking...a common error in public knowledge and discourse.

    Parent
    question mark ? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Tov on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:15:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Ridiculous. Defense counsel's (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:52:32 PM EST
    job is to try and persuade the jury (or court, if no jury) there is reasonable doubt.  

    Parent
    and what is reasonable doubt? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Tov on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:09:12 AM EST
    ...to get the defendant aquitted? Right? Does reasonable doubt always equal justice?  I would say not a ridiculous query...sorry you don't understand my point and question.

    Parent
    Punishing those who break the law. (none / 0) (#65)
    by jharp on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:01:53 AM EST
    a prosecutor's job (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:25:57 PM EST
    is not to convict but to see that justice is done. That you don't know this is really sad.

    Once the prosecution decides to prosecute the goal is to to convict. Or accept a plea. In other words, justice. Punishing those who break the law.

    No one is claiming otherwise.

    Parent

    Correct me if I am wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    Correct me if I am wrong, but is it the prosecution's job to publicly state they are seeking justice for Trayvon and claim that they have prayed with the parents of the victim?

    Parent
    Whats my line (none / 0) (#171)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:14:20 PM EST
    John Charles Daly - Mr Lousy1 your turn.

    Lousy1 - Mr Mystery Guest, I think I'm getting close.
    Were you previously a DA in Durham, North Carolina who believed that justice was not your job?

    Guest -

    Once the prosecution decides to prosecute the goal is to to convict.


    Parent
    I think it's more about relevance (none / 0) (#92)
    by amateur on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:54:07 AM EST
    than cherry picking.  Including the snipped parts of the testimony neither helps nor hurts their case against SZ.  What's the point of including the parts that don't have much or anything to do with the charge?  If she says she doesn't know about any money but someone else does, and the prosecution has evidence that she did know, the fact that she said someone else knew makes no difference.

    Parent
    Leaving out the ellipses... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    ...is a lie, and not the first time that Corey or her minions have put lies in documents they've filed in this case. Shellie lied too, IMHO, though -why- is a puzzle to me. But when and how does Corey get called on it? Dersh says she's immune from Bar action.

    Parent
    Completely agree. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:59:08 PM EST
    The Zimmerman's had to know the money was accessible to them because they used it to pay for non-legal expenses, i.e., living expenses.  Creditors, etc., were paid off.  A bondsman is probably a creditor, yes?

    Parent
    Even aside from that (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by amateur on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:55:50 PM EST
    he spoke explicitly of how much of it to use to pay the bond.  Not whether or not it would be ok to use it, but how much of it.  

    Parent
    It has been observed over at Legal Insurrection (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by gadfly on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    that the Affidavit for Probable Cause filed with regard to Shellie Zimmerman's arrest used altered text from the GZ bail hearing to implicate her in the perjury charge. The omitted text relates to testimony that GZ's brother knew how much money was collected from the website and could be reached by telephone.

    "Q: Who would know that?
    A: That would be my brother-in-law.
    Q: And is he -- I know he's not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
    A: I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
    Q: Okay. So he's not there now.
    A: No, he is not, sir."

    Note: the Affidavit of Probable Cause prepared by the prosecution does not use an ellipsis or any other indication to show that words were omitted.

    Studying elipses placement... (none / 0) (#31)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:24:56 PM EST
    Isn't really how one get's to justice is it?

    Parent
    Failing to make it clear (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:55:50 PM EST
    that a transcript was altered to remove an important element of the continuous conversation is how one subverts justice.

    Parent
    submitting a (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:50:54 PM EST
    misleading edited version of a transcript is how justice is not achieved.

    Your better argument would be that the full transcript was submitted as an exhibit and the court could have read that.

    To which I said in our other thread on this, the court had three hours to review the motion and tapes. It may not have even read the exhibit, not expecting to have to fact check a state's attorney.

    The ellipsis is critical, it tells the reader there was something edited out of the conversation.

    Parent

    yes we have two threads on that (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:45:06 PM EST
    please keep this one to bond. Thanks.

    Parent
    Those credit union transfers... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:30:00 PM EST
    ...for amounts perfectly suited to avoid federal disclosure laws, IMO, render the Zimmermans complete and utter bullsh*t artists on the matter of that money.  

    PTSD I can buy for Zimmerman, but not for the reasons his lawyers would present.  See the novel CRIME AND PUNISHMENT for a case study of the psychology that seems to be at work.

    C in CTR is for Currency (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Robocop on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:50:02 AM EST
    The disclosure law that you and I believe everyone else seems to be referring to is that found in the Bank Secrecy Act involving cash transactions in excess of $10,000. The purpose is to make it difficult for criminals to launder money. Your standard ACH transfer between bank accounts, however, are not subject to this law.

    A reasonable explanation as to the nature of the transfers is that Paypal enforces a $10,000 limit on transactions.

    Parent

    It's not about PayPal (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Deep Enough on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:38:04 PM EST
    "A reasonable explanation as to the nature of the transfers is that Paypal enforces a $10,000 limit on transactions."

    But there is no evidence that Shellie ever transferred any funds to or from any PayPal account.  There is no evidence that she ever even had access of any kind to any PayPal account.

    I am quite sure PayPal has a $10K limit to avoid hassles with any reporting requirements that larger amounts might (that's 'might' not 'would') entail.  It simplifies their life.

    And, that, I suggest, is the only reason Shellie restricted herself to amounts under $10K.  She obviously was not laundering money or involved in any of the other activities the reporting laws are intended to inhibit.

    I will assume that she, like almost everyone, is aware that there are, at least sometimes, paperwork requirements on amounts over $10K.  I also assume that she, like 99.9% of the population (including almost all of the people discussing the matter here), doesn't actually know what those requirements are.  I see no evidence that she was doing anything other than trying to obey the (federal) law by avoiding situations where she didn't know what it is.  How, exactly, is that deceptive? And who does it deceive?  Where is the presumption of innocence?  

    Parent

    There is no presumption of innocence (3.50 / 2) (#175)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:09:09 PM EST
    When you've totally brought into the prosecutions story, hook, line & sinker, like so many on here seem to have.

    I've known about the 10,000 dollar reporting requirements for at least 12 years now, and probably longer. I am reasonably sure I found out about them on the web- but even if not, the reporting information is on plenty of financial forms that banks and other places give you - this isn't some weird, obscure requirement that only a money launderer or some other criminal would know about. Indeed, if I ever have a need to make multiple legal purchases in the several thousand dollar range, I might not take money out or disburse it in a big chunk myself. I don't want needless hassle, and it's really no one's business what I'm doing with that hypothetical 15 or 20 grand if I'm not breaking any laws.

    The other thing constantly overlooked with this "issue" is that the finances in the Georges account were in constant flux. There was one week, about a month or so ago when he was in prison where his account pulled in over 100k. With such amounts, unless Shellie looked at it daily, she might be very hesitant to give ANY figure, I know I would be. I'd simply do what she did -refer off to the person who controls the account. George probably had even less knowledge than she did as he couldn't sign on to his account and probably had to get any updates from her.

    Lastly, I love how it is assumed:
    A. George and his lawyer had lots of contact prior to his first arrest
    B. He got tons of time to talk to Mr. Lawyer whilst in prison.

    All these people - he must have known the LAW, he must have consulted...b.s. We don't know that.

    Parent

    Excuses, excuses... (2.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:24:10 AM EST
    I believe the reason Shellie "couldn't" give an estimate is not because she really had no idea, but because she didn't want to open the door to revealing how much of the money had been moving in and out of their various accounts, or that there was money stashed in the safe-deposit box, or how much of the money had been spent and what it had been used for.

    And I believe that if there had been more disclosure as between George and O'Mara before O'Mara went into court to represent that his client was indigent and they had no means of assisting with the payment of the bond or legal expenses - because I do not believe that O'Mara goes in there knowing everything and allowing his client's wife to deceive the court - Shellie Zimmerman wouldn't be facing a perjury charge and George Zimmerman would still be out on bond and people wouldn't be casting a skeptical eye on his credibility.  And O'Mara wouldn't be playing clean-up, trying to mitigate what happened in that initial hearing so he can get his client out on bond - again.

    In the end, a lawyer can't force a client to tell him or her everything, but the client needs to know the consequences of that.  Which is why I'm pretty sure O'Mara's had a conversation with George that went something like this: "George, every time you withhold information from me, there's a chance that, in the long run, it's going to end up hurting my ability to defend you, and it's going to cost you more money.  If we had had an open discussion about the PayPal account, it's likely you and Shellie would never have had  those conversations from jail that are the reason you're back in here and your wife so pissed off the judge that she's facing a perjury charge.  Now, she's going to have to pay for a lawyer and I'm racking up the hours preparing for this new hearing when we should be working on your defense.  You're the client, George, so a lot of this is your call, but I'm just telling you, again, that I can't do my job if you're going to be second-guessing my need to know and withholding information from me.  And if I can't do my job, the end result her is that this may not work out the way you want it to.  When all is said and done, I won't be the one sitting in a jail cell because of what you didn't tell me; if that's not where you want to end up, I suggest you think seriously about what I'm telling you."

    What I see a lot of here is people wanting it both ways; they want to make George out to be this simple and confused soul who just didn't know or understand anything when that works for the story, and they want to make him the several-credits-shy-of-a-criminal-justice-degree-community-hero to show that he did know the law when that works.

    They want to make it complicated when it's simple, and simple when it's complicated.

    Sometimes, it just is what it is, and trying to make it something else begins to look a lot like that thing we know as denial.

    Parent

    It is what it is (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:59:01 AM EST
    You made up that whole conversation and you're "pretty sure" they had it. Whatever floats yer boat, I reckon.

    Parent
    If O'Mara didn't have a Come to Jesus meeting (none / 0) (#184)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    with Zimmerman then he isn't the lawyer of his reputation.  Any good lawyer who is defending their client on a murder charge will sit their client down and tell them in no uncertain terms what the deal is - you lie to me or withhold important information from me - it ends up hurting you.  Zimmerman has got to trust his attorneys if he's going to beat this rap.

    Parent
    I've worked with lawyers and with (none / 0) (#190)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 04:47:56 PM EST
    clients for too many years not to know that there is a high probability that O'Mara has now had that conversation with George - he would be remiss if he didn't - but you don't need to point out that I "made up that whole conversation" in my comment, because I made no secret of the fact that that's what I was speculating about.

    If your imagination will allow you to come up with a scenario where George Zimmerman is where he is, facing another bond hearing, and his wife facing a perjury charge, if he actually had been forthcoming with O'Mara in advance of the first one, we're all ears.  But keep in mind that you're going to find that that's going to involve casting some pretty serious aspersions against O'Mara, so you might want to tread carefully.

    Or as you might put it, "vewy, vewy carefuwwy."

    Parent

    I won't be making up any stories (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:50:01 PM EST
    imaginary or otherwise about conversations I wasn't privy to. I'm not pitching anything here.
    You've been selling guilty since day one.

    I'll give you credit. Your imaginary conversation is a creative way to get your narrative in. But it's just another version of the same tired ol' sales pitch. Not buying it here.

    Parent

    Oh, I see how this works... (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:49:13 PM EST
    you won't be making up any stories, but you're fine with the ones others are making up as long as they are ones you like.

    Give me a break...

    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#191)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 05:08:15 PM EST
    You never fail to crack me up.

    It's funny though, how some people who may be Casper Milktoasts in real life become Rambos when propped behind a keyboard.


    Parent

    Anne is great (none / 0) (#192)
    by lore hahn on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:02:38 PM EST
    I agree, Anne is great. ;)

    Parent
    I'm glad I can make you laugh, Shooter... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    if only you could see my rolling eyes, and hear my muttered are-you-kidding-me's, I'm sure you could add "rolling on the floor" to the general hilarity.

    The response I usually consider making to some of these people is, "the commenter to whom you are replying has you on his or her Ignore list."

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#107)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:58:26 AM EST
    I have been giving them both the mental "side-eye" since the amounts were announced.  

    It never occurred to me that it was PayPal putting restrictions on the 10k dollar amount.

    Parent

    If I'm not mistaken the money was being (none / 0) (#113)
    by Angel on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    transferred from GZ's account to SZ's account and his sister's account, not directly from the PayPal account.  

    Parent
    okay (none / 0) (#116)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    but the funds would be transferred to GZ first then disbursed.

    IIRC, unless SZ's account is listed with them as a verified alternate account, PP can't electronically send funds directly into it.

    Sorry, it has been a long time since I used PP and I have time constraints for looking it up right now.  Apologizing in advance if I am in error.

    Parent

    C in CTR is for Currency (none / 0) (#131)
    by Dilbert By Day on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    "A reasonable explanation as to the nature of the transfers is that Paypal enforces a $10,000 limit on transactions."

    According to the Information, SZ was shuffling digits between credit union accounts, not the PayPal account. There was also the mention of cash [withdrawals] held in a safety deposit box. The $10,000 cap on PayPal transactions is unrelated to the case against SZ.

    ISSUE CAPIUS

    Your Affiant has obtained official copies of Insight Credit Union records of George Zimmerman, Shellie Zimmerman and George Zimmerman's sister. The records show that Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $74,000 from George Zimmerman's account to her account from April 16, 2012 to April 19, 2012. The transfers were in the amounts of $9,990 (4 times), $9,999 (2), and $7,500 (2). - Source

    Until this issue was raised in the Zimmerman case, I assumed the $10,000 Federal disclosure law applied to all deposit/withdrawal transactions including ACH/Wire transfers. It's possible the defendants were laboring under a similar misconception.

    Regarding the suspicious movement of funds in non-cash deposit/withdrawal transactions, you may want to read post #123 from Wednesday's thread titled: Shellie Zimmerman Arrested, Charged With Perjury. The poster "ks" seems to have an educated opinion on this matter; unfortunately, I do not.

     

    Parent

    So, here's a question: (none / 0) (#139)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:24:28 PM EST
    when the capias mentions that

    The records show that Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $74,000 from George Zimmerman's account to her account

    is "George Zimmerman's account" his credit union account, or the PayPal account?  If it's the latter, the amounts transferred make more sense, given PayPal's limitations.


    Parent

    It's a legitimate (none / 0) (#162)
    by Dilbert By Day on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 04:40:00 PM EST
    question Anne, and one which I considered myself. There is a subtle lack of clarity with respect to the account locations, but the overall context leads me to speculate that the transfers in question were conducted as inter-bank transactions.

    The Information makes multiple references to "Insight Credit Union records" showing that SZ transferred varying sums of money from "George Zimmerman's account." If SZ were making these transfers directly from the PayPal account, in accordance with PayPal transfer limits, wouldn't these transactions refer back to the state's perjury charge?

    Under questioning at the bond hearing, SZ said she couldn't provide the court with an estimate of how much money had been collected through donations. She said her brother-in-law would have that information.

    Bond Hearing

    Page 5 of 5.

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

    A. I do not.

    Q. Okay. You haven't talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amounts of how much money?

    A. No. No, I have not. - Source

    According to SZ's testimony, I'm left to assume that her brother-in-law had control of the web-fund while GZ was incarcerated awaiting bond. If it were later determined that SZ had direct access to the PayPal account, and was in fact manipulating that account, her perjury defense could become rather complicated. Pure conjecture here, and I don't believe this to be the case.

    Emphasis mine:

    ISSUE CAPIUS

    Page 5 of 5.

    The Insight Credit Union records also reveal that on April 24, 2012, after George Zimmerman was released from jail on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account back to George Zimmerman's account.

    Having already funneled the donation money into various personal accounts (SZ & GZ sister), and withdrawn a specific amount in cash (safety deposit box), would it make sense to transfer $85,500 back into the custody of GZ's PayPal account after his release? He's suddenly back on the street with a new defense team, mounting legal costs and living expenses, all of which are hard to predetermine. If I were in a similar situation, I might want to remain as liquid as possible, but that's merely a personal projection on my part, and the Z's may reason to react differently.

     

    Parent

    So, then the question becomes, when (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:02:35 PM EST
    did the PayPal money get moved into the credit union account?  I mean, it didn't get there by magic, and neither of them seem to be surprised that the money's in the credit union account.

    It will be interesting to hear from the Zimmerman's brother as to what he told George and/or Shellie about the transfers.

    And it will get harder, I think, to claim to be so oblivious and confused about all of it.

    Parent

    I agree with your first paragraph. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:54:01 PM EST


    Parent
    It is weird for (none / 0) (#66)
    by Oats on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:02:17 AM EST
    people who have never had to hide money before to know how to do it. According to Z's friends and family, they've never been good with money, so it's hard to believe they would know of these little loopholes, especially considering they've probably never made bank transfers above a few thousand dollars before.

    It's like they were taking advice from a friend or an accountant.

    Parent

    Maybe just avoiding paperwork (none / 0) (#78)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 04:27:49 AM EST
    -- It's like they were taking advice from a friend or an accountant. --

    I can't recall ever moving $10,000 in one chunk, except for writing and depositing checks, so this is pure speculation.  Maybe the motivator for sub ten thousand dollar transactions was to avoid filling out a form at the bank.

    Not to say your speculation is incorrect, just adding another possibility to the pile.


    Parent

    Going over 10K (none / 0) (#81)
    by unitron on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:01:31 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure that does trigger having to fill out some form to keep the feds happy, and it could be they were trying to avoid the extra hassle.

    Of course several transfers just under 10K also trigger federal notice because the banks have to be super vigilant not to accidentally run afoul of the know your customer rules.

    Parent

    Actually you don't (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:58:23 AM EST
    even see or fill out the form, the bank does it electronically.  Of course they do tell you that since you are moving more than $10,000 in cash it must be done.  If you plan to leave or enter the country with more than $10k you do fill out a form yourself and then try to find the strange hidden office in the airport to turn it in.  I wonder who really looks at those forms.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#90)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:34:03 AM EST
    Banks can and will sometimes report cash deposits of less than 10,000 bucks.

    Parent
    As was pointed out (none / 0) (#130)
    by lousy1 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    10K is a limit for CASH deposit. After that some paperwork is involved.

    Domestic electronic bank transfers inherently provide an audit trail. No additional paperwork is required.

    Parent

    Oh, and Paypal transfers are limited to 10 grand. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Kyreth on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:07:17 PM EST
    Dunno if that's related (can see how it could be, ie if brother in law was transferring the money out of paypal 10k at a time as Shelley transferred it, etc), but:

    https:/www.paypal.com/webapps/helpcenter/article?currentIssueID=11196&m=SRE

    Parent

    And sorry! (none / 0) (#137)
    by Kyreth on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    Screwed up the link and can't seem to edit it to fix.

    Parent
    how to link (none / 0) (#194)
    by lore hahn on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:31:21 PM EST
    How to link

    As my dear late friend David Mills thought me.

    You can of course simply Google  html link tag

    And can test in preview, to see if it works. ;)

    Parent

    Ken (none / 0) (#94)
    by amateur on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:56:52 AM EST
    It's like they were taking advice from a friend or an accountant.

    SZ mentions a Ken in one of the phone conversations.  Something like "Ken says I should have as much cash on hand as possible".  That's not an exact quote because I'm not looking at it right now.  I don't know who Ken is.

    Parent

    About Ken: (none / 0) (#111)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    I got the impression that Ken is probably a member of the personnel at the Credit Union.  Without looking it up, I think it was in relation to the gift cards, which I am again assuming to be in the form of prepaid VISA cards.

    I am also wondering about the safety deposit box.  I would like to know when that box came into exsistence.  They are relatively young and in goo health.  They have no tangible assets thus titles to a house or a car, stock certifcates, or even a will(s) to put in a box for safe keeping prior to these legal troubles.  

    Parent

    They weren't (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:14:14 AM EST
    exactly financial wizards

    Parent
    Are you saying Zimmerman's (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Rojas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:34:30 AM EST
    legal expenses, incuding bond fees paid in relation to this case will be deductable on his FIT?
    It occurs to me that there is a distinction between business and individuals in the IRC. To conflate the two seems jaw dropping stupid IMO, but then I really am just a dumb ol' country boy.

    how the IRS treats (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 09:51:12 AM EST
    them is not relevant to this discussion. I deleted that comment as misleading. This is about what Zimmerman thought.

    Parent
    I don't feel they're guilty (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by spectator on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:32:38 AM EST
     as some think, do you really believe they thought this could happen?

     the usual criminal knows they're doing wrong and could end up in big trouble.

     I think both Z's were unsure and had no confidence in what was going on.

    i think they were totally confused and O'Mara was a tad also.

    Bond was not designed for such a unique situation, and in a way seems partly pointless.  

    unfair treatment is a real concern when you have to move and effectively hide.

    I'm not happy how the SPO went about this.

     i'm wondering why they seem to be so cruel and unfair.

    i almost feel it's because they were embarrassed or think they have some sort of bombshell evidence on GZ ?,

    i'm probably looking to deep.

    I think you're looking too deep (none / 0) (#132)
    by AF on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:35:22 AM EST
    They knew they had over $100K in donations to spend on legal expenses and living expenses.  They transferred most of the money out of Zimmerman's account days before the bond hearing, then transferred most of it back a few days after.  Zimmerman's wife testified at the hearing that they had no money for bail or legal expenses.  So the idea that they were confused about what the money could be used for doesn't hold water.  Even if it were true, it wouldn't explain why Shellie said they had no money for legal expenses, or why she said he didn't have "any estimate" of how much money they had received in dontaions, or why they transferred the money out of Zimmerman's account right before the hearing and then back right after.  Clearly, they were playing games.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that Zimmerman isn't entitled to bail.  

    Parent

    I personally donated money... (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by deanno on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:26:34 AM EST
    to GZ and I had no intention that the money was to be used for bond.  It was for his legal expenses (to hire a good lawyer) and to pay normal bills when the man could not work. Mark O'Mara is on record as saying that his fee alone will be in the range of 500K to 1 million dollars.  This is not counting expensive defense "experts".  The Zimmermans can't even leave their HOUSE and are forced to go into hiding because what can only be described as a domestic terrorist organization put a 10K bounty on a private citizen's head and put up "wanted dead or alive" posters around Sanford with GZ's picture on it.

    A lot of people seem to have forgotten about that.

    As was well pointed out in Prof. Jacobson's article in legalinsurrection, Shellie Zimmerman is not charged with speaking in code, she is charged with perjury.

    But looking at the transcript, the Affidavit of PC and the Criminal Information provided, where is the actual perjury??

    Being vague or misleading does NOT rise to the standard of perjury.

    This was a ploy IMO by Angela Corey to be used as a "gotcha" moment for the benefit of the public.

    Her case against GZ is a miracle of flimsiness as has been well pointed out by many over the preceding two months.

    I do not believe that the Zimmermans thought that money should be used for bail, and I believe Judge Lester is being spiteful and childish in his actions.

    I think Corey is angry (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:54:50 AM EST
    Judge Lester might be too.  In Lester's case, it might be a passing reaction, where reflection on the cash flow and legal framework of bail will cause him to change his perspective.

    Corey is angry, I think, because the public is putting it's money against her.  She wants to be popular in the sense of being seen as "doing the right thing for the right reasons," and might be upset, disappointed, or otherwise miffed that more of the public wants her to LOSE, than wants her to win.  Comparing the two fund-raising websites, the advantage is close to 10:1, Zimmerman.

    Lester will eventually have to confront the legal framework of bail, to induce an otherwise "safe" defendant to appear at trial.  Not in this case (it would be illegal), but in many cases, defendants are released on recognizance.  Their word to appear is enough.  In Zimmerman's case, but for the public support, Zimmerman would be indigent.  Bail would have the be set low.

    Assume, for the sake of argument, that public support increases in proportion to the prosecutor and court making rulings adverse to Zimmerman.  Does that entitle the Court to increase bond?  Is there a time-certain cutoff for establishing the financial risk to defendant, or is bond increased with each "paycheck"?  How can public favor be limited, so that Zimmerman in fact has ANY financial risk as to bail?

    This is an unusual case, and it'll take Judge Lester some time to think through those points.  His basis, that Zimmerman's financial situation on April 20 is determinative or very importance doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.  Zimmerman isn't like 99.99% of defendants, where there is a sum-certain limit to resources.  Zimmerman's source of funds was then, and is now nationwide.

    I don't mean for that to address arguments that Zimmerman did or didn't mislead the court.  My point is that being mislead or not as to funds at that instant doesn't resolve the question of the amount bail should be, in order to act as a financial deterrent to flee.

    Parent

    The more I think about it ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:50:57 AM EST
    Is there anything to prevent the public from making bail for Zimmerman?  Say 100,000 donors of $10 each, cash bail only, money to be refunded if Zimmerman appears as ordered.

    If such an activity is illegal, then how could the court assert that being misled as to those funds impacts its setting of bail?

    If such an activity is legal, how does the setting of bond induce the defendant to not risk his own resources?

    I think the argument that the website donations is not useful or even legally available as bond is the better argument.  Bail is a surety, not a cost.  Bail bond is a convenience, but not required.

    Parent

    When bail bond is a necessity... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:53:20 AM EST
    ...it becomes a racket. If you can come up with only $15000 cash then a $150000 bail is a choice between staying in jail or a $15000 fine, assuming you can find someone to advance the $150k. Make bail bonding illegal and bails would drop, I suppose. Anyway, making just website donations legally unvailable for bail doesn't address much of the problem.

    By revoking bail instead of demanding GZ's appearance for a reconsiderationof the amount Lester fined GZ without any in-process aknowledgement that it took place. That's problematic too.

    Not saying that I have any proposals.

    Parent

    I think when you donate money to a cause (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:38:36 AM EST
    like this - or really even any cause -  you have to do it knowing that you will have no control over how it gets spent, and you have to have some level of trust that someone will be making wise decisions about the application of the funds.

    I simply cannot imagine that there wasn't a conversation between O'Mara and the Zimmermans about getting him out on bond, and what that would entail financially.  I cannot imagine that he would not have explained the process, what the various outcomes might be, and so on.  If O'Mara was going to claim that George Zimmerman was indigent, he could not have just pulled that claim out of thin air - it had to have come with the cooperation of and information provided by his client.  

    The website was set up on the 8th or 9th of April; the bond hearing was the 20th.  Granted, O'Mara had only been George's lawyer for a short time, but given how much media coverage there was of the website, it's hard for me to imagine that this was not one of the topics of discussion between lawyer and client.

    As to what the money could be used for, it strikes me that while a bond premium isn't a legal fee that is charged by a lawyer or law firm, it is an expense that flows directly from the charge against him, and directly affects his ability to defend himself.  

    All I can tell you is that the transcripts of the phone calls from jail do not seem to show a confused George Zimmerman, at least not to me.  

    As for the Shellie Zimmerman perjury charge and whether it is or isn't legitimate, I think if you are going to hang that on Corey, you also have to hang it on the judge - he was the one who, at the bond revocation hearing, raised the issue of charges.   It may well be that once this whole bond thing is resolved, the charge will be dropped.

    Judges don't like to feel they've been lied to - and who can blame them?  The problem that I have with the tactic of filing charges is that I'm not sure that Shellie and George Zimmerman are people who learn the lesson to be more forthcoming; I think they are people who will become even more protective of things they don't feel the court or the lawyers need to know.  I've worked with clients like this, and you simply cannot make them tell you things they don't want to share.  If that happens, or continues to happen, I don't know what O'Mara does about it - it's hard to adequately represent someone when you don't have all the information.

    George Zimmerman will get his bond; it remains to be seen how much all of this will affect the perception of him or the eventual outcome of any trial.


    Parent

    The purpose of criminal law (none / 0) (#109)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:01:09 AM EST
    -- The problem that I have with the tactic of filing charges is that I'm not sure that Shellie and George Zimmerman are people who learn the lesson to be more forthcoming --

    So what?  The public at large will get the message, lying is a risky behavior.

    The problem I have with the charge is that it is based on a mighty weak set of cherry-picked evidence.  I compare this with the Libby case (where I think the prosecution was well brought, and the conviction was the right result), where the totality of the evidence made it clear that Libby had no intention of ever admitting he know Plame worked at the CIA.  Here, Shellie sends a mixed bag of signals, but offers to get what we think is an up-to-this-day the total amount of donations, etc.

    Parent

    I agree. (3.50 / 4) (#110)
    by deanno on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    I think a lot of judges really think they're GODS--sitting up there on their raised platforms.  How dare anyone try to deceive THEM!!

    Andrew Napolitano was on Fox News on 1 June when the bond was revoked and I can't remember precisely what he said but he did say he thought the state and the judge were "grandstanding" in this matter and that in his opinion he did not think bond should have been revoked.

    Parent

    So do you think people should be (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:34:06 AM EST
    given greater latitude to deceive judges?  People who have taken an oath to tell the truth?  Because your "how dare they" comment seems to suggest you think it's okay.

    The reality is that while judges are human, they are not "the same" as everyone else in their courtrooms; they are not "equal."  Some are better at their jobs than others, some exhibit an abundance of ego, and some seem to have egos in check.  There are judges who favor the defense bar and others who favor the state - no one ever said they were perfect.  Or that the system itself is perfect - it's not.

    I'm not impressed by judges who rule with more concern for their egos than for the law; is that Lester?  I don't know.  But I don't think any judge looks kindly on being deceived, and I can't say that I think they should.

    Parent

    In addition (none / 0) (#127)
    by amateur on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:16:57 AM EST
    to what Anne said, the fact is that GZ was given pretty extraordinary freedom for someone charged with 2nd degree murder, no matter what you might think about the strength of the evidence.  He was given a pretty light bond and allowed to leave the state and not disclose his location to anyone but law enforcement.  Given the high profile nature of the case I agree with that decision.  However, the passport and the money, taken together would make me nervous as a judge.  Yes he has turned himself in twice, but if he's concealed two important means to abscond from the court, that's kind of a big deal.  I would view it as someone who is willing to submit to the court up until the day that he isn't, and want's to be sure he has a way out if necessary.  That's just my opinion.  The idea that the judge is just picking on him for no reason is a bit far into persecution fantasy territory for me.

    None of it may matter now that the money is in the open and the other passport has been turned in, and IMO it's likely he will get bond again and it may not be much higher.  

    Parent

    Wait a second (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by ks on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    I do not believe that the Zimmermans thought that money should be used for bail, and I believe Judge Lester is being spiteful and childish in his actions.

    Putting aside your rant against the judge, how can you believe that?  Didn't they explicitly talk about how much to use for bail/bond with GZ giving detailed instructions and SZ saying at one point "that's what it's for"?  It seems cut and dried.  

    Parent

    The way I read it... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    I thought he was being hestiant to use those funds for that purpose.  His "he!!, no" seemed to be a firm way do not use that high of an amount.  Perhaps because of the confusion as to exactly what he could use the funds for. If he is thinking that they would have to repay the account if it was proven that is not what it could be used for.

    In the end they only used 5k which I think they could reasonably repay, if necessary.

    On top of that the family was still trying to put together enough money via mortgages to come up with bond.  

    IMO, if he thought it was a given on what he could do, he would have waltzed out of jail the first day the bond was approved.  Not sit in there for nearly three full days before being released.

    Parent

    Possibly but... (none / 0) (#123)
    by ks on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:58:16 AM EST
    I think that's really a big reach.  Also, wasn't his "H!ll No" was in response to SZ's suggestion to use 100K for bail?  Meaning most of the money in the accounts.  There's no indication that they thought they would have to repay the funds if they later found out it couldn't be used for bail/bond.  

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:05:23 AM EST
    He was calculating that if it cost him $100K to get out of jail, he would sit in jail longer untl other funds could be raised.

    Parent
    Could be (none / 0) (#129)
    by ks on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    But that level of planning would put the "they were confused" aspect to bed.  I guess we'll find out but I suspect it is what it appears to be.

    Parent
    I don't see it as a stretch (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:25:17 PM EST
    If he was under the impression that the PayPal account had $150K, and she asked about $100(k)?, I wouldn't be surprised if his gut reaction was "H3ll no!" because, in his mind, that would deplete the account way down, and he knows what kinds of legal bill are ahead of him.

    Parent
    Specifics (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by friendofinnocence on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:20:35 AM EST
    Is there a reason the specific answer(s) that are considered perjury aren't presented?  I thought the "Information" would provide that, but it doesn't.

    Does Shellie have to wait for trial to find out what answer they consider to be a lie?  How would a defense attorney prepare for that?

    Parent

    paying GZ's credit card debts (none / 0) (#145)
    by Asha on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    How does it feel to have bought Zimmerman's year-long supply of Cheetos from Sam's Club?

    You do realize he used some of the donations to pay off his American Express and Sam's club credit card debts- which clearly have nothing to do with his legal expenses or his living expenses for that matter since this was payback for past debts.

    Parent

    Money is fungible. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:25:54 PM EST
    Credit card debt is expensive. Paying it off is just good sense.

    Parent
    Especially if (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    You're going to be having huge legal bills coming in and very little income to match.

    Parent
    Question about the court (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by prosecutorabuser on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    I'm not a lawyer, so I'm a little baffled as to why prosecutors and judge took such a lackadaisical attitude to the Web site during the April bond hearing. Since neither the existence of the site nor the fact that it was in the business of raising money was a secret, one would surely have expected a more vigorous inquiry into how much money was in that account. That the Zimmermans were not seriously pressed on the matter makes me suspect that the prosecutors were deliberately setting a trap. They knew that there was a substantial amount of money in there and were readying to confront the Zimmermans about it at a later date. We then get the drama of the bail revocation, the imprisonment, the media stories about the deceitfulness of the Zimmermans and reinforcement of the public perception that George is a liar and a very bad sort. The jury pool becomes even more tainted than it was before. It seems that O'Mara may well have been outmaneuvered by the prosecutors.

    ....evidence against zimmerman 'strong' ? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by IrishGerard on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:52:09 PM EST
    I think charging SZ with perjury is more about retaliation for the Prosecution's lead investigator being humiliated by O'Mara during the Bond hearing.

    I doubt they will be able to convict SZ of perjury based on said transcript. Perjury? I'm thinking Barry Bonds.

    To all legal professionals (i'm a layperson): could she plea to misdemeanor perjury ?

     **What caught my attention, however, was Judge Lester's statement in the Bond revocation document that said: ....The evidence against zimmermam was 'strong'.
    I wonder what he meant by that? will that statement give O'mara pause in regards to SYG motion to dismiss?

    also think that outing SZ was malicious considering that GZ was effectively housebound and she was running all errands(i suppose).

    Zimmerman admits shooting Martin (3.50 / 2) (#166)
    by expy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 05:29:25 PM EST
    and Martin is dead from a bullet that came from Zimmerman's gun.

    That's a "stronger" case than the prosecution has in most murder cases.  They've got the body; they have the shooter; they have physical evidence and an admission.

    If that was all they had -- if Zimmerman had said nothing to them but "I shot him" and then stood on the 5th amendment -- that would be a very strong case.  Everything else can be shown by circumstantial evidence. (And they have plenty of that as well, though of course by definition circumstantial evidence is generally susceptible of more than one interpretation).

    The fact that Zimmerman claimed self-defense complicates things -- because that puts the prosecution to the burden of negating the self-defense claim -- but the assessment of whether or not the case is "strong" or "weak" may then come down to speculation as to whether Zimmerman is credible.

    And that brings us back to the fact that the Judge setting bail now has a diminished view of Zimmerman's credibility, based on the games that were played over the money.  

    Parent

    you should go back to sleep! (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by IrishGerard on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:27:55 PM EST
    'The fact that Zimmerman claimed self-defense complicates things'

    Duh! and I thought I had only a basic understanding of the Law.

    The physical evidence and the one eyewitness, that actually saw the fight, corroborate zimmerman's version of events.
    Zimmerman was not charged as a result of the initial investigation by a DA who believed he was acting in self-defense.

    so you either know very little about this case, are obtuse or blinded by ideology? maybe a combination of all three.

    Parent

    Now now (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:30:26 PM EST
    He's using a version of "strong" evidence that measures it in legal terms, totally disregarding the what seems to be vast evidence of self-defense. He's also overlooking -probably deliberately - the initial investigation and the intent of the SYG law itself -which was to prevent this kind of bulldokey.

    But he's not lying. And he does know quite a bit about the case. It's my opinion however, that he made up his mind about it long ago, based either on the initial reporting or , possibly, ideology.

    That's how many of the chatterers on here are. They look askew at the slightest twitch that seems to indicate the slightest dishonesty by George and Shellie Zimmerman, but ignore the opinions of big name lawyers and any evidence that seems to show vast and much more serious misbehavior from the Prosecution. It's rather disgusting - and I wish I was a bigger man, but I can't honestly say that I would be sad if some of them ended up having to go through the same kind of crap they are enabling Corey & Co to put Zimmerman through.

    Parent

    I am trying to explain (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by expy on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 12:32:49 AM EST
    how the Judge likely sees the case, and how the prosecutor sees it.

    I.e., why the Judge described the evidence as "strong" in his initial order.

    If all you can do is engage in ad hominem in response, so be it.  You are the ones who are blinded by your own biases.  

    A good criminal defense attorney needs to have an understanding and awareness of the perspective that a Judge or jury is likely to take. Without that perspective it is not possible to adequately prepare for trial, because the defense won't be able to anticipate and counter evidence and testimony that might resonate strongly with the trier of fact.

    It doesn't matter what George Zimmerman says happened -- the judge and jury are both free to reject his testimony in whole or in part if they do not deem him to be credible.  

    Parent

    Angela Corey? (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by IrishGerard on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 11:11:10 AM EST
    maybe your response was over my head? A strict definition of 'strong'. something like it depends what your definition of 'is' is.

    How can you prosecute someone for murder and ignore evidence that supports the defendant's claim of self-defense? I think this is what set Dershowitz off?

    My initial question was not rhetorical.
    Judge Lester made the statement ... the evidence against him (zimmerman) is strong. [last paragraph]

    http://www.scribd.com/jeweiner/d/96861433-Order-Revoking-Bond

    Of course the State will claim that their case is 'strong'.
    But i'm still perplexed as to why the judge would say the evidence is 'strong'. I assume that the judge has reviewed all the evidence that has been released through discovery?

    If you look at all the evidence, objectively, it seems the only element of this case that is 'strong' is zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

    all this nonsense that GZ profiled, pursued, provoked trayvon is just that , nonsense. And the SYG language specifically defines 'provocation' as 'physical contact'.

    Maybe I misconstrued your initial response but it appeared to be biased.
    Or maybe you're a Prosecutor?

    I was looking for a reasoned explanation.
    If Judge Lester really thinks the case against GZ is 'strong', then maybe O'mara should waive his option for a SYG hearing. I mean what's the point. Right?

    If the Judge cant separate GZ's shenanigans in relation to the Bond, from that of his credibility in regards to his self-defense claim, then he probably shouldn't be a Judge.

    Parent

    Strong is a relative term anyway (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 11:25:55 AM EST
    For all we know, if Lester was to make a complete statement of his current impression, it would be that the state's case is strong, but the defendant's case is stronger.

    I take Lester's remark that the state's case is strong as a complete throwaway.  Others have pointed out the risk of reading too much into what Lester says about "exculpatory," and IMO, the same caution applies here.

    Parent

    Not analogous (none / 0) (#198)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:20:38 PM EST
    I take Lester's remark that the state's case is strong as a complete throwaway.  Others have pointed out the risk of reading too much into what Lester says about "exculpatory," and IMO, the same caution applies here.

    In the case of Lester's "strong" comment, he's offering his own opinion of the state's evidence.  In the case of his "exculpatory" comment (re: Zimmerman's statements), he was pointing out that the prosecution was arguing Zimmerman's statements were inculpatory and the defense would argue they were exculpatory, as opposed to his own opinion of whether they were exculpatory or inculpatory.

    Parent

    Agreed, not analogous (none / 0) (#201)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 05:19:33 AM EST
    I apologize for making a remark that could be reasonably taken as drawing the two statements into analogous position, beyond the admonition to not read much into it.  I meant to convey that the reason the "strong" statement dos not merit much in the way of inference is that it is an indefinite statement, unsupported by reference to particular facts in evidence, and not comparing the strength of the prosecution's case to the strength of the defense case.

    I was not intending to convey that the reason the "strong" statement dos not merit much in the way of inference was that both statements were an objective truth (exculpatory evidence can be weak; or said another way, defense can put an exculpatory spin even on inculpatory evidence).

    Again, I only meant to suggest the application of the same caution about reading to much into the statement.  I did not mean that this caution derived from the statements being analogous, beyond that neither statement is supported with explanation on the record, connecting the statement to particular facts in evidence.

    Parent

    Lester isn't the last word (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    -- If Judge Lester really thinks the case against GZ is 'strong', then maybe O'mara should waive his option for a SYG hearing. I mean what's the point. Right? --

    If Lester finds that the evidence for self defense isn't strong enough to find a presumption in its favor, and O'Mara disagrees with the conclusion, then O'Mara can appeal the decision.

    One thing he'll have to do to prepare for appeal is to preserve objections to conjecture that is unsupported by evidence.  I think the following blockquote summarizes the standards of review on appeal, but don't have a case cite from the same circuit that Lester operates in.

    Our review of the circuit court's ruling is governed by the same standard which applies in an appeal from an order denying a motion to suppress. That is, the court's findings of fact must be supported by competent substantial evidence. Conclusions of law, however, are subject to de novo review.

    Hair v. State, 17 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)

    Worth reading for how the appeals court handled equivocal evidence as to whether or not the dead person was in retreat when shot.

    Parent

    That wasn't so hard.... (none / 0) (#185)
    by IrishGerard on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 01:35:24 PM EST
     I guess I can live with 'not reading to much into' Lester's statement in regards to 'strong' evidence against zimmerman.

    maybe he included it to beef-up his decision to revoke bond?
    As some could argue that he should have instead reset it.

    your second post is more intriguing. and the first I've heard of SYG immunity decision being overturned on appeal.

    I was under the impression that the Judge was given wide latitude, to find any technically, to deny the motion to dismiss and proceed to trial.

    But if you are correct, then this 'easy out' for the judge may have consequences. So, if Judge Lester follows the letter of the law and the evidence is unequivocal, then he is obligated to dismiss the charges.
    Maybe Lester is going hard on zimmerman now because he already knows he is obligated to dismiss the charges?

    However, I wonder, given the high profile nature of this case, would O'mara attempt to appeal Lester's decision even if he disagrees with it?

    thanks for the 411

    Parent

    There's error, and there's reversible error (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by cboldt on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    -- if Judge Lester follows the letter of the law and the evidence is unequivocal, then he is obligated to dismiss the charges. --

    The legal process has what engineers refer to as "dead bands," zones of decision that stand, even if they are in fact incorrect.

    I a judge follows the letter of the law, and the evidence is equivocal (can be read either way), but it is more likely than not that proposition "A" is true, then his ruling has to follow as though proposition "A" is true.

    But for talking purposes, he doesn't follow the evidence that way, and he concludes that proposition "B" is true.  The appeals court will apply "the court's findings of fact must be  supported by competent substantial evidence."  There's a "dead band" between "more likely than not" and "supported by competent substantial evidence."

    Either standard can be applied to equivocal evidence, and if proposition "B" lacks the support of competent substantial evidence, then the trial judge will be reversed on that finding.  But he would not be reversed by a conclusion that proposition "B" was more likely than proposition "A" - the appeals court doesn't have a "preponderance of the evidence standard," because having two courts use the same standard on the same set of evidence would throw the legal system into "hunting for the set point," effectively making the lower court meaningless.

    In the hypothetical of an utter absence of evidence for proposition "B", and the evidence for proposition "A" is unequivocal, there is an even stronger argument for reversal.  But the fact error by the trial court need not be that egregious in order to obtain a reversal.

    -- would O'mara attempt to appeal Lester's decision even if he disagrees with it? --

    That will of course depend on how the Dennis hearing unfolds, and the contents of Lester's opinion and order following the hearing.  Corey will appeal, if she loses, no matter how weak her argument is.  My current impression of O'Mara is that he's milquetoast, based on a small body of evidence.  But even milquetoast counsel will appeal if they believe their chances are good.

    Parent

    deadband & appeal process (none / 0) (#206)
    by lore hahn on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:04:19 AM EST
    But he would not be reversed by a conclusion that proposition "B" was more likely than proposition "A" - the appeals court doesn't have a "preponderance of the evidence standard," because having two courts use the same standard on the same set of evidence would throw the legal system into "hunting for the set point," effectively making the lower court meaningless.

    I had to read this twice. In the process I translated your deadband into zone of uncertainty for me, is that completely off?

    But if "preponderance of evidence" isn't the standard in the appeal process, what then is the standard? Just a revision of the decision, without any consideration of whatever weighing process happened there? But a concentration that ultimately there is this "deadband"?

    I would also appreciate a precision for "hunting for set points", do you mean keeping competition out and simply concentrate on the deadband or as I suggested "zone of uncertainty" in our context?

    Parent

    You have it about right (none / 0) (#208)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    -- I translated your deadband into zone of uncertainty for me --

    That's probably the sort of understanding I'm trying to convey, but I'll go a bit more.  It's also the difference or gap between error, and reversible error.

    -- f "preponderance of evidence" isn't the standard in the appeal process, what then is the standard? --

    For an appeal on a Dennis hearing, the standard of appellate review for factual findings is "must be supported by competent substantial evidence."

    There is a gap between "more likely than not" and "supported by competent substantial evidence."  The lower court can err on more likely than not, where the error is not for want of competent substantial evidence.

    -- I would also appreciate a precision for "hunting for set points" --

    That's an engineering notion for a control system that never settles on a result, but continuously cycles between "more" and "less" commands, without obtaining a steady result.  Applied to the legal process, I'm looking at the trial court and appeals court as two separate and independent controllers (say, thermostats, to pick a type of controller most people are familiar with).  If both controllers are dealing with a situation that is close to the "set point" (in this case, the evidence is close, but not in equipoise), one court would choose "A", the other would choose "B", and this difference is never finally settled, except for the fact that the appeals court has the last word.

    A general principle is that trial courts are the superior authority in findings of fact (but never the last word, they can be reversed on "clear error" where it is impossible for the facts in evidence to produce the finding; and in a Dennis hearing, reversal can happen on absence of competent substantial evidence); and appellate courts are the superior authority in matters of law (was the right legal standard applied, in the correct way).

    Parent

    Whoops... (none / 0) (#186)
    by IrishGerard on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 01:49:11 PM EST
    I meant "technicality"

    Parent
    eyewitness #6 (none / 0) (#204)
    by lore hahn on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 09:54:39 AM EST
    The physical evidence and the one eyewitness, that actually saw the fight

    John saw according to his longest testimony about 10 seconds of the fight, if that is the one you are alluding to.

    If I have the time correctly stored in my grey cells the first call started at 19:16:11, and we have to assume that there had been a verbal altercation before causing the call. The shot is recorded on that call at: 19:16:56, if I remember correctly. So he can testify to 10 seconds of close to a minute probably more of the actual encounter.

    Neither witness #6 and none of the other witnesses can tell us anything about how the fight started. But it will surely be interesting to see the official crime scene diagrams witnesses were asked to draw. But see above, they obviously only looked out of their windows once noises could be heard.

    The shot happened shortly after he locked (?) his door, told his girlfriend or finance to get of the phone and runs upstairs to call 911. Why do you think he keeps repeating "cut it off, I am calling 911?". I know it is dangerous to interfere in a struggle, but strictly he could have prevented Martin's death.

    What I appreciate about his testimony is that he doesn't even try to pretend from which direction he hears the voices approaching. Sound spreads in a ball shape, ever tried to attribute a direction or source? Good luck.

    Whom did the flash-lights, the bigger and the tiny one on the key chain, belong to? Did they take fingerprints?

    Parent

    '10 seconds' critical.... (none / 0) (#213)
    by IrishGerard on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 01:23:20 PM EST
    John saw according to his longest testimony about 10 seconds of the fight, if that is the one you are alluding to.

    Yes, eyewitness #6 is the one I am alluding to. His original testimony (paraphrasing); Martin was on top of zimmerman, beating him MMA style, and zimmerman was the one that was screaming.

    In a subsequent interview with FDLE (i believe) he backed off of MMA and he wasnt positive, as to who was screaming, but only assumed, logically, that zimmerman was the one screaming.

    He is still unequivocal that Martin was on top and zimmerman was "pinned down" prior to the shot going off.

    That's why john's '10 seconds' are critical. and what happened prior, irrelevant.

    I'm not a lawyer and I may be oversimplifying, but you put Zimmermann's injuries together with Martin's lack of injuries [defensive wounds] and John's '10 seconds' and it's case closed. Justifiable Homicide.

    I'm willing to bet that john's '10 seconds' was integral to the original DAs decision not to file criminal charges against zimmerman.


    Parent

    Not enough to say Zimmerman confessed to shooting (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by citizenjeff on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:13:53 PM EST
    Using deadly force when one reasonably fears great bodily harm is not only a potential defense; it's also a right. A person who fatally shoots someone doesn't automatically face a criminal prosecution. The question here is whether or not this particular shooting was lawful. There's no probable cause to prosecute Zimmerman for murder, because the probable cause affidavit doesn't include any allegations that he did any specific thing which, if he did it, would constitute murder. Also, it doesn't include any evidence the shooting was unlawful. To say Zimmerman profiled, followed and confronted Martin is so vague as to be meaningless. It's like saying probable cause to prosecute someone for bank robbery is established by saying the defendant went into a bank and expressed an undue sense of entitlement. Or like saying probable cause to prosecute someone for rape is established by saying the defendant had rough sex with the alleged victim. Rough sex isn't inherently unlawful. Neither is an undue sense of entitlement. Neither is profiling, following or confronting a suspect. Specifics matter, as do the lack of specifics.

    Parent
    [4/27GZFundshttp://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27] (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Tamta on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    BBM

    -Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda on Friday asked Lester to increase the bond in light of the donations. But the judge said he would delay ruling on the request, in part because he does not know if he has authority to say how the money can be used.

    -Asked whether knowledge of the money might have made a difference to Lester, who presided at Zimmerman's bond hearing, O'Mara said, "It might have."

    O'Mara could not explain why Zimmerman didn't disclose the funds, but said he didn't think his client had meant to deceive anyone.

    "I consider it an oversight because I don't see anything else that suggests that Mr. Zimmerman has been insincere or dishonest," he told CNN's Erin Burnett on Friday. "The moment I asked him about it, he acknowledged it and forwarded the money."

    Funds before the Court on 4/27 (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Tamta on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 01:04:59 PM EST
    link

    He (O'Mara) said some of the money had already been used, including about $5,000 toward Mr. Zimmerman's bond.

    The prosecutor, Bernardo de la Rionda, had sought to have Mr. Zimmerman's bail raised, maintaining that the Web site's donations should have been used to calculate the amount of the bond.

    But Judge Lester said he lacked sufficient information about the site's operation and ownership to immediately revisit Mr. Zimmerman's bail. He directed Mr. O'Mara to submit documents regarding who would ultimately control the Web site and its funds.

    "I may have authority. I may not have authority," the judge said about reconsidering bail. "I don't know."

    Parent

    Zimmerman bond (4.75 / 4) (#77)
    by sdharms on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 04:23:58 AM EST
    Does it occur to any of you that worrying about this poor guy getting bond and what he thought that money in the account was or wasnt isnt the point here? Our judicial system is crumbling due to judges like this using bond as punishment (it has happened to clients of mine) . When the people lose faith in the judicial system our civilization will crumble. We already know the legislative and executive are corrupt. You should be looking at the big picture, Zimmerman is a political prosecution, the judge is a hack -- all contributing to the decline.

    ... our civilization will crumble (none / 0) (#207)
    by lore hahn on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    strictly this is an interesting comment for me an outsider looking into the great US civilization ...

    So far I have the impression that all that support George Zimmerman's legitimate right to self-defense against--put in your own description here--Trayvon Martin consider the US civilization well and triving, if it weren't for these evil liberal (?) folks, or race baiters out there? In a nutshell it feels it is ultimately about winners or losers, with Trayvon being simply another loser, so what? Only the above suspicious crew can worry about it?

    But if you are honestly a winner how comes you have problems with the courts?

    (it has happened to clients of mine)

    I honestly wonder who your clients were or what the cases were about. Do you feel too many democrats are elected into positions of power? And they never understand you they way you should be understood?

    Parent

    Faith and respect for the system (none / 0) (#210)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    I take the commenter as expressing a concern about the risk of loss of public trust in prosecutors and courts.  The basis for the concern arises on comparing the facts in evidence with the actions of the prosecutor and the courts.  

    The law admits that some killings are justified, nominally, self defense.  A woman who is facing a gang of men who demonstrate a clear intention of rape may use deadly force to stave off the rape.  Now, there are always questions of fact, but if the evidence is overwhelmingly the situation I describe, would you find it appropriate for the prosecutor to arrest the woman and subject her to a criminal trial?  And then, the family of the man or men she shot, should they be able to sue the woman for money damages?

    Those are yes or no questions.  I'll wait for your answer before adding more.

    Parent

    Argument fail (4.00 / 3) (#35)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:48:24 PM EST
    "Bail is not intended to be punishment. It's intended to assure the person's appearance at trial. Zimmerman, having ceded control of the raised funds to a trustee, is in no better financial condition today than when he was arrested on April 11."

    "Today" is not when the lies, deceit and concealment of the funds transpired.

    The ISSUE is what Zimmerman's financial status was on the day he allowed O'Mara to mislead the court/Judge Lester as he potted palmded Judge Lester.

    During the bond hearing, Zimmerman possessed both the financial means and the passport means to flee and he allowed O'Mara to present false evidence AS HIS SPOKESMAN to the court.  Shellie Zimmerman's issue is a separate matter.

    If the bondsman appears and says Zimmerman claimed he couldn't pay up 15K, the prosecution will use this as further evidence that Zimmerman lies to any and everybody, including creditors.

    Allocation (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Dilbert By Day on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:09:56 PM EST
    Bolding mine.

    Yes, there's a call in which Shellie tells George that's what the money is for, and he says he'll think about it, but there's no indication from that transcript whether he agreed that's what the money was for. He could have been agreeing to think about whether it could be used for that purpose, and since he ultimately only used $5,000.00 of it, it's more likely he didn't agree that is what the money was for. - Jeralyn

    At first blush, it would appear to me that GZ agreed to 'think about' how much donation $ should be allocated to bail.  

    GZ: If the bond is $50, pay the 15. If it's more than 15, just pay 15% to the bondsman.

    SZ: You want me to pay $100?

    GZ: Hell no.

    SZ: All right just think about it.

    GZ: I will.

    SZ: That's what it's for. - Source

    Great website with superior analysis from you, and your worthy contributors, Jeralyn.

    Thank you.


    Is bond not considered to be a legal expense? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:04:08 PM EST


    not necessarily (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:44:53 PM EST
    Most people think of legal expenses as legal fees for their lawyer and costs -- meaning expenses the lawyer incurs as part of the defense, such as for expert witnesses, forensic testing, private investigators, and the like.

    Lawyers don't post bond for clients. It's unethical to do so in many places. The client and family pay the bondsman and its separate from money that goes to the lawyer.

    A lawyer can keep a client's money in his or her trust account, and use that to post the bond, but not the lawyer's own money. And client funds must be kept in a separate account from the lawyer's funds.

    Several states have explicitly barred lawyers from bailing out their clients, including Wisconsin (Opinion E-96-1, 1996); North Carolina (State Bar Opinion 173, 1994); and Michigan (Opinion RI-65, 1990).

    Parent

    I understand your explanation. However, I would (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Angel on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:00:38 PM EST
    probably consider the bond cost a legal expense since I would need to pay that to get out of jail.  If it isn't a legal expense then what is it?  I would also consider my attorney's fees to be a legal expense.  So it seems to me that any cost incurred in the defense of oneself would be considered 'legal expenses.'

    Parent
    Bond as Legal Expense? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Tamta on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    I do not think that GZ understood the potential impact on a criminal case such as this, when the defendant is incarcerated.

    He may have been seeing his being out on bond as a circumstance that did not have direct influence on his legal recourse.

    In that way, I am wondering if that could be why someone would see their bond as distinct from court fees and attorney fees.

    Parent

    How do you reconcile the (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by expy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:36:17 PM EST
    theory that money reserved for "legal expenses" could not be used for bail with the attorney's statement/question at the initial bail hearing referring to the "pending motion" to have GZ declared "indigent for cost" and whether there was financial means to assist in those costs?

    If the $135K (or whatever) can't be used for bail; and it can't be used for "costs"..... then what's left, other than the fees charged by an attorney who initially said he would be working pro bono?

    Parent

    Expy (none / 0) (#20)
    by Tamta on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:50:31 PM EST
     I believe that there still is not any action taken by MOM in the way of GZs indigence status, but correct me if I'm wrong please. MOM did use it as a descriptive term when questioning Shellie about their financial status.

    I hate to reference this case and will only do it once, but Baez didn't file indigence for C. Anthony until after he has spent the $200,000 earned from photo sales.

    I actually have not reconciled this intellectually or ethically yet because it seems that this donation fund will be in flux that is in the way of increasing and I think that poses a different ethical question in comparison to having a limited body of funds that would be depleted rather rapidly, which I haven't resolved yet.
    When I do, I'll post it.
    Hopefully soon.

    Sorry!

    Parent

    money bomb (none / 0) (#209)
    by lore hahn on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    his donation fund will be in flux that is in the way of increasing

    Yes indeed, the conservative tree house is preparing another money bomb.
     

    Parent

    legal and bond expenses (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Stobberdobber on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:33:54 PM EST
    always came up separate as I tried to search to qualify my reasoning. So I have to agree with Jeralyn here. You may be able to stretch the bond to living expenses but that would mean his liberty was a living expense and that is also a bit of a stretch if going by technical uses of the money. So confusion IS the only reasonable response here concerning the money. If we, as reasonable people , and several that come here are lawyers and we would think are more experienced in such matters are this confused then think how confused the Zimmermans must have been.

    Parent
    Unethical why? (none / 0) (#12)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:57:14 PM EST
    "Lawyers don't post bond for clients. It's unethical to do so in many places."

    Are you talking about the lawyer going into his (or her) own pocket or just handling the process?

    Isn't that why you hire a lawyer, to deal with the legal stuff and the legal system for you?

    Parent

    Jeralyn is referring to the lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:59:25 PM EST
    going into his pocket for the bail money, even as a loan.  Of course, the lawyer can and does handle the mechanics of posting the bail.

    Parent
    sorry i can't fathom the logic of this analysis (none / 0) (#53)
    by Tov on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:02:31 PM EST
    my opinion only but this is really a stretch ...but I admire your tenacity. I think in the final analysis this will all be mute.

    Parent
    Perhaps you meant "moot"... (none / 0) (#200)
    by unitron on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 12:13:14 AM EST
    ...rather than "mute"?

    Parent
    Sounds like a guild rule... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:41:09 AM EST
    ...rather than a bona fide ethics rule. Helps the lawyer to say he "can't" do what he doesn't want to do anyway.

    In the case of Wisconsin there's a state law saying it's illegal, so the cite basically says it's unethical to break the law.

    Nort Carolina has the following explanation:


    A lawyer who lends a client the funds to post a bond has a vested interest in seeing that the client is apprehended if he or she flees the jurisdiction. This creates a conflict of interest for the lawyer between his professional responsibilities to his client and his
    personal interests.

    ...which assumes that it is a lawyer's professional responsibility not to be an obstacle to his client fleeing, which isn't as obvious as some might think.

    Parent
    I would have thought... (none / 0) (#80)
    by unitron on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 05:51:39 AM EST
    I would have thought that of all of whatever rights the accused has, not showing up for trial, or otherwise failing to respect the jurisdiction and orders of the court, wouldn't be among them.

    Parent
    What does that mean (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:15:09 AM EST
    a "guild rule" vs. a "bona fide ethics rule"?

    Parent
    Guild rules protect guild members, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:41:15 AM EST
    Not outsiders. True ethics don't have that focus.

    Parent
    I understand the definitions (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    But are you downplaying this that because it is an ethics rule put forth by various state bar associations and not necessarily written into the criminal code, then it really isn't as important?  Lawyers can get suspended or even lose their licenses for what you are referring to as mere "guild rules".

    Parent
    I never said or implied... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    ...that guild rules weren't successfully coercive. But calling them "ethics" deserves a horselaugh.

    Parent
    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:53:52 AM EST
    Are you a lawyer?  If not, did you have to take ethics as part of your curriculum for your job?

    Did you have to take an exam on professional responsibility?

    Did you have to undergo a "Character and Fitness" background report before you were allowed (in most states) even sit for your licensing exam?

    I think you have a warped view of what most lawyers do and what they can and cannot do.


    Parent

    I think you have a problem in reading... (2.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    ...comprehension and/or logical thought. The issue under discussion isn't the existance of codes of ethics or their many details. The question is whether this particular "ethical" rule is for the benefit of clients, and therefor an actual ethical consequence of lawyers' duty to clients, or for the benefit of lawyers. If you think no "ethical" rules are solely or mostly for the benefit of the rule making class then you are so absurdly out of touch with reality that it is unlikely that you will contribute anything worthwhile to a discussion of the subject at hand.

    Have I run across you before? You're starting to piss me off in a way that is vaguely familiar.

    Parent

    Evidence Dump too (none / 0) (#2)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:10:21 PM EST
    The public will see Zimmerman's account and other evidence, a full day before the hearing.  That may make it more difficult for Lester to credibly sustain his "state's evidence is strong" position.

    O'Mara can't very well put Shellie on the stand, or Zimmerman.  So, at this point, he has to resort to the law.  IOW, rather than argue that Lester has the facts wrong, he has to argue that Lester has the law wrong.

    O'Mara doesn't need the bail bond folks to argue or present Zimmerman's finances, and I'm not sure their opinion helps the "flight risk" analysis as much as Zimmerman's cooperation does.

    "Shellie"? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:04:47 PM EST
    As if there were not confusion enough. . . .

    Parent
    that is her name (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:14:22 PM EST
    Shellie Zimmerman. The judge spelled it wrong in his order.

    Parent
    Did a bunch of comments just disappear? (none / 0) (#10)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 07:51:50 PM EST
    ?!?

    Not a bug (none / 0) (#14)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:02:43 PM EST
    That's not a bug, it a feature.  Jeralyn keeps the site clean and tidy (and that is not an easy chore).  Trust me, you didn't miss anything.

    Parent
    Except the chance to reply (none / 0) (#41)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    "Trust me, you didn't miss anything."

    But I had such a marvelous reply to one of them all ready to post.

    Parent

    sorry., but a few times a day (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:44:18 PM EST
    I review comments and delete ones that violate our comment rules, including those that contain false information; ones with insults and name-calling as to anyone; those in which the commenter states his/her view of disputed facts as undisputed truths, and occasionally repetitive chatter.

    Parent
    Wait a second (none / 0) (#21)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 08:54:20 PM EST
    They thought the money was for legal fees yet they were speaking in codes, shifting the cash around in ways that they believed wouldn't be detected and using is to pay off credit cards.

    And the wife is up for perjury.

    I get that the bond process is about flight risk and ability to post bond, but come on.  

    If you think the man should get off for the killing you don't have to defend every obviously shady action he's done.

    AngryBlackGuy, you're ignoring Jeralyn's... (3.50 / 2) (#30)
    by citizenjeff on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:22:40 PM EST
    ...great analysis. She previously pointed out that Mr. and Mrs. Z might have been "speaking in codes" not for the reason you assume, but for some other reason. They might have been concealing the money from O'Mara, or from people at the prison, or from anyone who might hear the recording. They might have been worried about making Mrs. Z vulnerable to a robbery.

    In a conversation about whether or not the wife committed perjury,  you don't really offer anything when you state the obvious, that "the wife is up for perjury."

    Parent

    Who cares why they spoke in codes? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    The argument fails unless you admit Zimmerman was so paranoid that he believed the guards and the bank personnel were out to get his money and enlisted crooks on "the outside" to do so.  Of course this would have to be supercrooks that enlisted PIs that would first uncover the Zimmerman's hiding spots in order to rob them.  Ridiculous!

    Parent
    It is not ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Stobberdobber on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:40:29 PM EST
    when you probably have knowledge that there are people out there trying to find a way to take the paypal money from you. It was all over-I saw about 50-where people were trying to take or make the donations disappear just while the website was opened in the first week. When George was in jail.

    Parent
    common sense for change (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 10:57:03 PM EST
    I've been wanting to ban you for a while. They are filled with inaccurate facts and a complete misunderstanding of the legal system. Your tone is rude. This is a site for polite and civil discourse.

    While I delete many of your more uninformed and rude comments, I'm tired of policing you. You are hereby limited to four comments a thread. Comments in excess will be deleted. If you disregard this warning, you will be banned and I will zap your account which will result in the deletion of all comments you have posted here.

    JHarp is also limited to four comments per Zimmerman thread and warned to watch the tone and skip the sarcasm and to state his/her opinion as such, not fact. The limit only pertains to Zimmerman threads.


    Parent

    De la Rionda whinneys... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:12:13 AM EST
    ...at the bail revocation hearing about Z thinking the prosecution too stupid to break his code. But when he says something like
    GZ: If the bond is $50, pay the 15. If it's more than 15, just pay 15% to the bondsman.
    ...it's difficult to understand how he could be thought to have been attempting to fool the prosecution. Did he think the prosecution would think that GZ thought his bond would be fifty dollars?

    (And does the "$50" in the transcript mean that Z said "fifty dollars"? I should think a proper transcript would mean he'd said "dollarsign five zero", at least.)

    And as to his paranoia, it's not unreasonable to think that hearing the phrase "thousand dollars" might cause someone to try harder to hear the conversation. And you have less imagination than the perps if you can't imagine ways to get $135,000 from his wife, once you know she has access to that kind of cash, without hiring PIs. Finding her and asking suggests itself.

    Parent

    Good points (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:59:00 AM EST
    While at the credit union, Shellie states that
    she knows their calls are being taped. It is why she won't say the new PIN number aloud.

    Parent
    just a note that (none / 0) (#37)
    by scooterdoo on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:51:04 PM EST
    Mrs. Z might have been "speaking in codes"...

    It seems impossible to determine from the phone transcript as provided what George and Shellie actually said. I elaborated on this in the thread, "Shellie Zimmerman Arrested, Charged With Perjury."

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:02:29 PM EST
    I completely disagree with the "more likely" business Jeralyn.  That is complete speculation, right?

    Parent
    When J says something is "more likely" (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:27:18 PM EST
    she is speaking from 30+ years of experience and a deep fund of knowledge that give rise to a well-informed opinion that is not fairly dismissed as "complete speculation," in my view.  (Even when we disagree, as we sometimes do.) So, to your particular question, ABG (and I do not speak for Jeralyn), I would say, No, not right.

    Parent
    not complete speculation (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 11:00:01 PM EST
    it's an educated guess. You are welcome to state a different opinion. Politely.

    Parent
    I anticipate Judge Lester will (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 09:12:57 PM EST
    set bail, but higher than he initially set it.  

    $150 worked. Why wouldn't it work again? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Gandydancer on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:48:11 AM EST


    Parent
    It did work the first time and might this (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    time also.  But, unfortunately for Mr. Zimmerman, Judge Lester gets to decide and that's not what I am predicting he'll do.  

    Parent
    Financial documents (none / 0) (#87)
    by Kelwood on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:10:18 AM EST
    I have a question about bond hearings. It may have been addressed before, but if it is I can't find it. Does the defendant have to provide any kind of financial reports to prove how much money he has, such as a bank statement? Or does the court provide some kind of form specifically asking about this?

    There is no duty to report on a form (none / 0) (#89)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:31:03 AM EST
    There might be a court form, but it seems clear none was used here, as no question in the April 20 hearing referred to a financial disclosure form.

    Defendant and others have a duty to respond truthfully to questions, unless the answers are incriminatory.  It's up to the court to ask all the questions (or hear all the answers) it deems necessary to set bail - assuming, of course, that the court has found the defendant is entitled to bail, and is not disqualified for any of the reasons provided for in the law.

    Parent

    Bond hearing (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kelwood on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:16:16 AM EST
    Is  the prosecutor allowed to look into his financial situation in anticipation of the bond hearing? If the prosecution believes in their case then they must think he is a liar.

    Parent
    The prosecutor can certainly ask (none / 0) (#102)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:36:42 AM EST
    I don't know if the state has a right to look at bank records without probable cause (which is probably how it was able to justify review of Zimmerman's banks statements in light of the jailhouse calls - turned into probable cause to investigate for a charge of perjury after April 20 testimony, but not before); but it can challenge defendant assertions made at the bail hearing.

    Some financial means are a matter of public record, e.g., home ownership.

    Absolutely agree that the prosecution thinks Zimmerman is a liar.  They assert the evidence shows him chasing Martin down, holding him (somehow, gunpoint maybe) while Martin screams for help for over half a minute, then shooting Martin in cold blood.

    Parent

    The Prosecution Says (none / 0) (#150)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:30:07 PM EST

    They assert the evidence shows him chasing Martin down, holding him (somehow, gunpoint maybe) while Martin screams for help for over half a minute, then shooting Martin in cold blood.

    Where has the prosecution alleged any of these things, other than the screaming and the shooting?

    The probable cause affidavit says Zimmerman 'followed' and 'confronted' Martin.

    In the bond hearing, Gilbreath defined 'confronted' as 'got in physical confrontation with'. This doesn't seem to rule out the possibility that Martin turned and approached Zimmerman. I don't see how 'followed' and 'confronted' equals 'chasing Martin down'.

    I don't see anything about 'holding', or the temperature of Zimmerman's blood.
     

    Parent

    Some by inference, other by charge (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    "in cold blood" is another way to say "depraved mind."  He's charged with having a depraved mind.

    I converted followed and confronted into chasing down.  I'm fine if the action is slowed from a run to a trot or walk, the point being that the state's case has Zimmerman closing distance when he has an opportunity to, insinuating an intention to close distance to closer than an arm's reach, or close enough to intimidate Martin with a brandished firearm, or something of that nature.  IOW, most or every escalating step of the incident is at Zimmerman's initiative.

    I used "holding" to account for Martin screaming for over half a minute.  The state doesn't provide details that explain having Martin and Zimmerman close enough for the length of time that Martin was screaming for help, but something was "holding" him there.  Gunpoint would work, although it's not alleged.

    The state doesn't provide any sort of narrative.  It just gives disjointed snippets of evidence starting with evidence that might suggest Zimmerman was angry (cussing as he gets out of the truck), and concluding with Zimmerman killing Martin in cold blood.

    Parent

    probable cause (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by citizenjeff on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    Since when is probable cause established by such vagueness? It's like saying there's probable cause to prosecute someone for bank robbery because the alleged perpetrator expressed an undue sense of entitlement while speaking to a teller. Or like saying there's probable cause to prosecute someone for rape because he had rough sex with the alleged victim. Doesn't the alleged criminal act have to be specifically described rather than merely labeled? If only labeling were required, probable cause could be automatically established every time.

    Not to mention that there must be evidence indicating that the specifically described criminal act actually occurred. Okay, I mentioned it. So two of the required elements are missing.

    Why no uproar, my fellow Americans?

    Parent

    Cold And Depraved (none / 0) (#154)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:08:59 PM EST
    "in cold blood" is another way to say "depraved mind."

    You could have saved us both time by saying what you meant.

    Parent
    How to save time (none / 0) (#155)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    -- You could have saved us both time by saying what you meant. --

    No doubt, that is perfectly true.  But unfortunately, it's all too common for me to use vernacular, sometime be terse in style, and otherwise make remarks that aren't up to your standard.  So, you should consider just blowing by or mentally dismissing my musings here, it'll save you time - and me too.

    Parent

    the prosecutor can ask for a (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 09:59:05 AM EST
    "nebbia hearing" to inquire into the source of the funds being used for bond. In drug and white collar cases, they usually have that information well before charging the defendant, so they know when to ask for one.

    Parent
    Question about bond hearings (none / 0) (#164)
    by expy on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 05:17:06 PM EST
    Does the defendant have to provide any kind of financial reports to prove how much money he has, such as a bank statement?

    In general, no -- at least not unless the court asks. (I don't know whether there are specific requirements in Florida that would require disclosure).

    The defense attorney chose to present evidence about lack of financial resources in the hopes of persuading the judge to set a relatively low bail.

    On a homicide charge, a bail could easily be set at $500K or $1 million and still be considered "reasonable" -- after all, the offense carries a potential life sentence.  

    When Dominique Strauss-Kahn was charged with rape, his bail was initially set at $1 million. He probably didn't present evidence of how much money he had, everyone knew he was rich and it would have been pointless for him to claim that he could't come up with the money.  (I think his bail was reduced later on as the prosecution's case started to fall apart, but that's another issue).

    In most jurisdictions, there is some sort of standard or expectation as to how much a typical bail is for offenses charged. It is possible that O'Mara knew or expected that without presenting evidence as to financial resources, bail would typically be set at a level too high for his clients (such as $500K).

    It's unfortunate because if O'Mara had known the full circumstances he could have made a different tactical decision at the outset.  Perhaps the bail amount would have been higher, but maybe not -- or maybe the difference would not have been all that significant given that the Zimmermans opted to work with a bail bondsman who was willing to accept partial payment on the premium. (I mean, if the bail had been set at $200K rather than $150K that would have been only $5K more to the bondsman, not that hard to come up with in the context of the overall amount of donations)

    Parent

    The law according to expy (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by citizenjeff on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:32:24 PM EST
    On one hand, you concede Zimmerman isn't required to disclose financial information "unless the court asks." On the other hand, you insist he was required to "correct" his wife's testimony, even though the court asked him nolthing.

    Which is it?

    Parent

    A question (none / 0) (#91)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:50:03 AM EST
    While, for whatever reason, the Zs seemed rather
    concerned with hoarding the donation money(I believe someone had counseled GZ to stockpile as much cash as possible)is the perjury charge likely to hold up? Shellie was fairly vague in her answers and offered to call Robert Jr. to find out how much money was in the account.

    Hoarding (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Kelwood on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:12:27 AM EST
    If I was in their position I would be hoarding money too. It is probably expensive to live in hiding. He has no job and would probably be afraid to look for work for fear of being discovered. The trial could be months, or even years from now. He will need money to live on.

    Parent
    That's true!! (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by deanno on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:38:59 AM EST
    What are the Zimmermans supposed to live on when they can't work or even are afaid (especially him) to be seen walking down any street in this country?

    A guy who unfortunately got GZ's old cell phone # had been receiving death threats from folks believing it was actually GZ.

    A SPD cruiser was riddled with bullets in March while parked across the street from Twin Lakes.

    I think the Zimmermans are justifiably paranoid and terrified about having to pay bills and survive awaiting a trial which could take a year to occur.

    I still think this case can easily be dismissed at the SYG hearing.

    Parent

    The perjury case is a loser (3.50 / 2) (#96)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:02:26 AM EST
    I think it's possible to isolate any set of Q&A to come to the conclusion that Shellie intended to mislead the court as to funds available that instant.  But when you look at the totality of her testimony, in light of what both the Court and the state knew, a jury will not find her to have "lied."

    She can easily sow "reasonable doubt," plus her testimony includes an offer to get a precise answer right then and there, from a person who would know better than she does.  If that wasn't going to be enough, the court could have ordered a call to the bank or banks.

    Not sure what she'll do, tactically.  I'd fight it, personally, rather than plead out.  But it'll be much more expensive and slightly more risky to take it to trial.  She doesn't have the same sort of slam-dunk evidence in her favor that her husband has in his case.

    Parent

    Bail Bond testimony (none / 0) (#124)
    by becca70 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:00:01 AM EST
    "I assume they will testify of the difficulty the family had in coming up with the $15,000. bond premium, as evidence that George and Shellie Zimmerman didn't think of the money raised by the website as their money,"

    Considering they were talking about paying the bond money out of the money he collected ("that's what it's for" - Shellie) and the only amount they did pay was $5K out of that money how exactly would that work?  Plus, is bond money not a legal expense?

    Thanks.

    The problem is (none / 0) (#135)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:07:08 PM EST
    they apparently used  some of the money to pay off bills. The appearance is to many people that GZ only wanted to use the money for legal fees and living expenses, not for the bond. It is all the money he has.
     

    Parent
    Question about Robert Zimmerman Jr (none / 0) (#126)
    by becca70 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:15:16 AM EST
    Jeralyn, seeing as people keep bringing it up, in order for RZJ to testify wouldn't they have to have someone go over to his house to swear him in which would've held up the proceeding for the day?  

    Oh and who gets to pick the statement givers at the bond hearing?  Just defence or both?

    Last thing, if O'Mara didn't ask a statement giver a question does that mean the State can't then ask them something O'Mara never asked?

    Thanks.

    trying to follow the law (none / 0) (#189)
    by pngai on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 03:46:45 PM EST
    It would not surprise me if Shellie Zimmerman somehow heard there was a law against transferring more than $10,000 at a time and decided to follow the law. She didn't know it was also against the law to come close to the boundaries of the first law without actually violating the boundaries of the first law.

    Could you imagine if traffic laws were like this. You have to stop before the stop sign but if you're "too close", you are still in trouble. And the definition is never defined or written down anywhere.

    Yes, she should have talked to O'Mara or other experts to get all the details but she did have a lot on her mind at that time (and even more now).

    Mark O'Mara on Bond Revocation (none / 0) (#202)
    by Tamta on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 09:35:59 AM EST
    O'Mara

    The link in the title to post #211... (none / 0) (#214)
    by Gandydancer on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    ...may be to this CNN article.

    Is it possible or even desirable for (none / 0) (#215)
    by Tamta on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    O'Mara to motion for a reconsideration of the bond revocation and request an evidentiary hearing to review and reconsider the basis for the bond revocation?

    Not a lawyer!

    Zimmerman's Bail Bond Agents to Testify at Bond Hearing | 203 comments (203 topical)