Zimmerman is neither a flight risk nor a danger. He did not violate the terms of his bond. The state alleged, and the court found, at a hearing at which he was not even present to defend himself that he lied about matters that related to the original grant of bond.
I don't see anyone discussing how the state blindsided the defense with this motion. The court order setting Friday's hearing stated it was about the parties' request to seal parts of the discovery, and the media's opposition. Bond wasn't on the agenda. Zimmerman wasn't present.
While material misrepresentations and lies on the bond application can result in bond revocation, I think it was unfair to make the final ruling without Zimmerman being present. Waiving his right to a hearing on discovery is not the same as waiving the right to a hearing on bond revocation. Bond revocation hearings are a critical stage of the proceedings and I think he had a right to be present.
At most, the judge should have reserved ruling and ordered him back to Court Monday to present his defense to the state's allegations. Instead, the judge let O'Mara speak on his behalf and then revoked bond.
Without a transcript, I don't know if O'Mara objected to the court ruling on the motion without Zimmerman being present. But the Judge did say he'd hold another hearing after Zimmerman was in custody.
As I said yesterday, I believe the judge will set a new bond. With both passports surrendered and O'Mara in charge of the donated money, he's not a flight risk. He's not a danger to the community.
I suspect O'Mara and Zimmerman will present evidence at the new bond hearing that shows Zimmerman was mistaken, not lying.
With any Stand Your Ground hearing and/or trial months away, if not more, this won't be as big a factor as many seem to think. If the physical evidence and witness statements support Zimmerman's version of events, and the photos and medical report of his injuries go a long way in that regard, he should still prevail unless the state has a lot more than has currently been disclosed.
I think Zimmerman will get bail at his new hearing, with a stern lecture from the judge. The final outcome of the case does not hinge on the alleged statements for which bail was just revoked.
One other thing to keep in mind when reviewing the discovery: The discovery produced so far is the material in the state's possession. The defense has evidence it will be presenting, and the time limit by which it must turn it over to the state has not yet occurred. So everything you are viewing is what the state has assembled, and does not reflect what evidence Zimmerman might have to counter it.
Everyone should keep an open mind, and remember that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence, the state must prove his guilt. If he moves for a Stand Your Ground hearing, which O'Mara has not yet determined will happen, then the burden is on him by a preponderance of the evidence. And even if he loses the Stand Your Ground hearing, he can still raise both Stand Your Ground (immunity) and self-defense to the jury. The jury will never hear that a judge previously rejected his SYG motion. See our prior posts on Zimmerman, self-defense and Stand Your Ground, and the Wyche case. (A summary of the applicable quotes from the case is here.)
If, at a pretrial hearing, a defendant meets his burden and establishes his claim of immunity by a preponderance of the evidence, any charge as to which the immunity applies would of course be dismissed. If, however, the court finds that the defendant has not met his burden, the court's ruling has no preclusive effect....
Such a defendant would still be free at trial to plead his claim of immunity to the jury. At trial the burden of proof is exclusively on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.
To earn an acquittal, the defendant need do no more than show reasonable doubt - a quantum of evidence considerably less than a preponderance. And any attempt to bar a defendant from asserting a lawful defense based on the trial court's ruling that the defendant had not sufficientlv established that defense at a pretrial hearing would no doubt run afoul of the defendant's constitutional entitlement to a fair jury trial, see U.S. Const. amend VI; Art. I Sec16, Fla. Const.
Zimmerman's misrepresentations at the bond hearing are unlikely, in my view, to make a difference on the ultimate issues. If the other evidence is consistent with his version, he will win.
The judge should reset bond. Zimmerman's misrepresentations at the hearing did not affect whether "the proof of evidence was evident or the presumption of guilt was great," which is the test for bond in life-felony cases.
Zimmerman can be charged with a new offense for lying on his bond application. That should be the consequence for lying -- not revocation of bond. Bond can be set on that charge as well.
So I expect the Judge will set a new bond, albeit a higher one, even if the state charges him with lying on his bond application, he will post it and the case will get back on track to the only critical issue: Whether the state can prove its charges against Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt.
[Keep in mind that comments that violate the rules stated in our earlier Zimmerman posts will be deleted when I return to Denver late this afternoon, as will comments in reply to them. Save your work on your own computer if you have any concerns that it may be deleted. I will also be cleaning the other Zimmerman and open threads from this weekend when I return.]
