George Zimmerman Returns to Jail, Will Seek New Hearing

George Zimmerman returned to the Seminole County Jail last night. His attorney, Mark O'Mara, said today he will request a new bond hearing.

Mr. Zimmerman's lawyers will request a new bond hearing where they can address the court's concerns regarding the representation of funds available at the time of the original hearing on April 20. The defense team hopes that Mr. Zimmerman's voluntary surrender to Sanford police will help demonstrate to the court that he is not a flight risk. Furthermore, the vast majority of the funds in question are in an independently managed trust, and neither Mr. Zimmerman or his attorneys have direct access to the money.


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.]

< How Obama Could (But Won't) Boost His Chances in Colorado | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think passport may be bigger problem (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by lawstudent on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:52:29 PM EST
    My understanding on the passport issue is that while the fact GZ had a second passport can be chalked up to an innocent mistake (he thought he lost the first one many years ago), he did have a conversation with his wife about holding on to his passport for him.  Not for the state.  Not for his attorneys.  For GZ.  That's what the transcript states.  

    If this conversation took place after the first passport was turned in, this is a problem, because that establishes that (1) the conversation related to the 2nd passport that he would still have access to once released on bond, and (2) GZ knew the passport was supposed to be turned in as a condition to his release.  It shows that he at least considered flight.  

    Granted, with the second passport in his attorney's or the state's possession now, he cannot leave the country, but if there is proof he was thinking about it, it is more difficult for O'Mara to argue GZ is not a flight risk.  

    Passport is Not an Issue (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:40:56 PM EST
    How about doing some research before you speculate and mislead readers? The Judge said at the end of the hearing he accepted O'Mara's explanation for the passport issue and it was not the reason bond was revoked and Zimmerman had turned it over to O'Mara to give to the court on April 26. He produced the fedex receipt and his Notice of notice of filing the passport. He thought he had filed it. The judge and even the state's attorney were satisifed with his explanation of the second passport.

    Please listen to the audio of the hearing. The link is in this thread. hearing. There is absolutely zero evidence he was thinking of leaving. Future such comments based on less than thin air will be deleted.


    not trying to mislead (none / 0) (#53)
    by lawstudent on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:05:48 PM EST
    Actually, I was trying to do the opposite.  You posted a link to the state's motion, and I found it persuasive (while recognizing it is only one side's story).  I also perceived a lot of commenters on your earlier thread to be ignoring the motion and instead trying to find a way to spin this such that GZ was getting railroaded by overzealous prosecutors.  So I commented pointing out my views, based on what I read in this and other threads and the comments.  

    I did not have a chance to listen to the audio, and for that reason, I thought my post fully acknowledged what I knew to be facts and what were my inferences based on those facts.  I'm happy to be corrected, but I must say, seems that anytime someone goes against your view, you call it misleading and speculation, forgetting that much of what you've written on this case can be fairly seen as speculative and designed to lead readers to a particular conclusion.


    you stated your opinion without (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:06:43 PM EST
    checking the facts (so you say), and you speculated based on  what you assumed the facts were. They were readily available to you but you didn't take the time to review them. Yet you  posted your uninformed opinion, using the name "law student", which many readers would take to impart extra credibility.  Your response, even though couched as your opinion, misrepresented the known facts. It was sloppy, and when you use a name like "law student" you should know that.

    Acceptable speculation is that based on the offically released information, not what a person reads in comments on a blog, be it this one or elsewhere.  There is speculation on both sides all over these threads. I may disagree with the commenters who speculate differently that I do, but their comments remain, if they are informed and based on the available facts.

    Comparing your comment to my posts where I lay out the facts and add my speculation based on those facts is not only silly,  it is an insult, considering  the time I have spent familiarizing myself with the case facts.

    The portion of hearing on bond is about the last 25 minutes. Why not listen, now that you have the link, and then give us your opinion based on what you heard, not based on what others who may be equally uninformed say in blog comments.


    you must be joking (none / 0) (#112)
    by lawstudent on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:42:43 AM EST
    Without a transcript, I don't know if O'Mara objected to the court ruling on the motion without Zimmerman being present.

    Looks like I'm not the only one who posted without first listening to the audio.  

    I suspect O'Mara and Zimmerman will present evidence at the new bond hearing that shows Zimmerman was mistaken, not lying.

    Also unclear as to how this statement is anything short of rank speculation based entirely on personal opinion or hopes.  

    And for the record, I find it amusing that you think my name (which I selected when I signed up here 6 years ago as a student) adds credibility to my posts.  People are going to defer to the opinion of the law student?    


    here's the difference (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    I wrote that before someone posted the audio link. I stated my opinion as such, saying "I suspect" and it's based on my experience and knowledge of the case. Please re-read my comment as to acceptable speculation.

    Yes, I think non-lawyers give weight to opinions by law students.


    Yes, I for one do give some (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:03:50 PM EST
    weight to law students since I presume they know more about law than I do. The effect can wear off however if they are corrected on the law enough times....

    the audio... (none / 0) (#177)
    by lawstudent on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:20:37 PM EST
    As far as I can tell, the audio was posted at 01:42pm on Sunday.  My comment came 10 minutes later.  Again, not trying to mislead.  I am in the same boat as you.  I posted before having heard the audio, and frankly did not realize it was available at that time.  

    Audio Link (none / 0) (#225)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:06:15 AM EST
    The audio was linked on an earlier thread, early on Saturday morning.

    I just googled it. It wasn't hard to find.


    yikes (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:39:06 PM EST
    I have no idea why Jeralyn continues to put up with your constant petulant responses.

    overzealous prosecutors (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by friendofinnocence on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:20:25 AM EST
    Anyone familiar with the Corey's probable cause affidavit could easily conclude Zimmerman is being railroaded by "overzealous" prosecutors.  As a result, they aren't trusted by many of us, and everything they do is subject to extra scrutiny.

    However, I think the judge is generally trusted, and almost all of the comments I have seen on several forums involve trying to figure out how the law works.  Expecting a defendant to correct testimony by others on the fly is something many of us had no idea was part of any American law.


    Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by friendofinnocence on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:34:22 AM EST
    My recollection is O'Mara asked for a delay to respond to the state's financial allegations, and the judge said no very emphatically.

    you are correct (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:47:56 PM EST
    I listened to the full audio on the drive home from Aspen. I was very surprised the Judge said O'Mara could defend against the motion "on the fly" when he had only been handed the jail tapes that morning, and they may not have been all the calls but selected ones;  even more surprised that the judge ruled when he said he listened to some of the wife's tapes and none of Zimmerman's, and even more surprised the judge said he thought it was important for Zimmerman to testify at a future bond hearing and "explain" what transpired.

    Even if the judge was determined to hold the hearing, I think he should have waited on ruling on the motion.


    All the articles I read indicate (4.50 / 2) (#6)
    by Redbrow on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:05:24 PM EST
    the judge does not consider the passport issue to be a big deal.

    Even biased reporters like Matt Gutman from abc reports:

    But after his bond he did turn the second passport into his attorney who quickly notified the court. The judge agreed with his attorney, that the second passport, which was never used, was not being hid maliciously.

    Uh, no (4.50 / 2) (#7)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:08:38 PM EST
    Zimmerman gave it to O'Mara immediately upon discovering it. O'Mara avowed to the court he had had possession of it and that avowal and the evidence he presented of Zimmerman having Fed-Exed it to him and O'Mara having prepared a motion to submit that he prepared upon receipt from Zimmerman was accepted by the court. The judge explicitly said the passport was not his concern. Yet you now insist that is the more problematic of concerns. And, as even you note, it is certainly not going to be an issue in the future.

    Moonshine (4.50 / 2) (#12)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    he did have a conversation with his wife about holding on to his passport for him.  Not for the state.  Not for his attorneys.  For GZ.  That's what the transcript states.

    It states no such thing. Zimmerman said 'OK, you hold on to that.' Period. He didn't say 'for' himself or anyone.

    'You hold on to that' can be a colloquialism for 'don't lose it'.


    I would really (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    love to see the entire transcripts of the jail house conversations.   Not just these snippets that are quoted by the SAO.  I want to know the entire context of those because, taken as a few of lines of dialog, any inference can be made as to the complete conversations.  The Zimmerman's knew that they were being taped.  There are even notificatons by the phone banks that tell you that you are being recorded.

    I would think that his jail-purchased calling card would automatically trigger some kind of listening device.  I suspect he was very closely monitored in terms of visitors, calls, etc.  The leaks of what he purchased at the commissary proves that, IMO.

    There are a thousand way to interept "OK, you hold on to that" but mine is that they both knew that they would have to surrender the passport at the time bail was made.  It was one of the conditions to making bail.  

    To me, he is making sure that the passport is available to be turned in when the cash bond is complete.  After he made bail, the descepancy was noticed and he fed-ex'd the valid passport to MOM.

    There is just no reason for him to run.  Before the warrant for his arrest was issued, he had ample time to skip the country. Between the other two accounts he had access to about $2700.00  He was getting demonized in the press then as much he was after, especially in the last couple of weeks.

    He believes he is innocent.  He has certain facts in evidence that support his claim. Facts, once derided as bogus in the hue-and-cry, that came out with the first Discovery release.  As noted by NoMatter, the biggest mouth was remarkably quiet after things were being released that favored George Zimmerman.

    Methinks this is the reason for the current Blind-side.  That and the SAO probably felt blind-sided when MOM called Gilbreath to the stand.  

    You know what they say about "pay-backs."

    Just my opinion.


    not persuaded that he knew calls were taped (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lawstudent on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:32:19 PM EST
    All calls in and out of prisons are taped, but that doesn't stop inmates from incriminating themselves in such calls.  Either they forget, don't care, or think that nobody is going to take the time to listen to all the calls.  I do not agree with your view that because GZ knew the call would be taped, he couldn't have possibly said anything incriminating.  

    I agree, however, that I would like to hear the full calls, or the pieces of the transcript attached to the motion in full context.  


    Most jails have a sign by the phone (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:47:13 PM EST
    saying all calls are taped.

    It would also be nice to have all their calls in the entirety. What they said in one call may refer back to an earlier call -- jproviding just the full transcripts of the cherry-picked calls is not really enough.

    O'Mara should be able to get them.


    read the motion (none / 0) (#23)
    by lawstudent on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:54:13 PM EST
    Zimmerman said 'OK, you hold on to that.' Period. He didn't say 'for' himself or anyone.

    He didn't, but that's exactly what his wife said.  From the transcript of the jail phone call (at pp. 2-3 of the motion):

    GZ: Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag.

    SZ: I have one for you in safety deposit box.

    GZ: Ok, you hold onto that.

    SZ: For you...

    He got out of jail (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:44:48 PM EST
    on April 22 or 23rd and fedexed it to O'Mara on the 26. The judge was satisfied with the explanation.

    read the motion (none / 0) (#211)
    by Stobberdobber on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:27:17 PM EST
    notice how the full sentence is not stated. Also that For you could have been in partial answer to another question or statement. I>E> for you to get out on bond we need to... SEE how important it is to have the full text or recording. The prosecutors, as we already know have taken only partial evidence and presented that as proof of something.

    The conversation (none / 0) (#11)
    by DizzyMissL on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    took place three day prior to the bond hearing.

    passport may be bigger problem (none / 0) (#14)
    by jharp on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:39:10 PM EST
    I agree with you but no one here seems to care.

    Clearly GZ told his wife to keep the 2nd passport.

    Why would he possibly do that?


    Not Clear To De La Rionda (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:07:24 PM EST
    Clearly GZ told his wife to keep the 2nd passport.

    Audio of June 1 hearing.

    27:00 -

    De la Rionda: On April 17, 2012, this defendant while in custody in the jail, talked to his wife, and I've noted it in my motion, regarding a passport - didn't say which one it was.

    'OK, you hold on to that' can as easily mean 'don't lose it' as 'don't turn it in'.

    Nothing in that exchange between Zimmerman and his wife shows that they knew there was a second passport at that time. Neither is there any other evidence for that.


    This is what I don't get. (none / 0) (#22)
    by MarvinM on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:47:14 PM EST
    Before I start, I'm going on the assumption that what you said means that you think there is no evidence that the Z's knew about a second passport as of 4/17/12.  If I'm wrong, correct me and ignore the rest.

    But the passport they turned in on 4/20/12 was the one that GZ had reported as lost/stolen in 2004.  It was completely invalid.  GZ got a new passport in 2004 and at some time must have found that old invalid passport.

    From that moment on, he knew he had two passports.  He may well have 'lost' the new, valid one, as in, not known where it was, but he knew the passport he was submitting was invalid, and that he had gotten a replacement.

    Furthermore, if you believe he really thought he had only one passport, the one they turned in, the invalid one, must have been the one they were talking about in the phone call as being in the safety deposit box.


    it may be (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by labrat on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 06:41:07 PM EST
    that George knew where one passport was and Shelly knew where the second one was and they didn't realize they had found the "lost" passport and he now had two until after he got out of jail.

    I agree they knew there were two (none / 0) (#126)
    by amateur on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    based on Shelly's choice of words: I have one in a safe deposit box for you.  Not, your passport is in a safe deposit box, but "one" is.  

    While I agree that the passport is a non-issue with respect to bond, I still think it makes GZ seem less than honest.


    more like mistrustful (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by lily on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:18:46 PM EST
    GZ has behaved in a honest and open manner up until this error. If anything he has been too trusting of the system. He is lucky to have O'Mara, whose demeanor seems well suited to the hysteria this case has attracted thanks to Crump and the venal media.

    Those intent on dehumanizing GZ will never accept any explanation as truthful or reasonable. Nor will they give a moment of consideration as to how incredibly stressful and horrific his life has become.

    I seriously doubt those describing him as a liar or not too bright could manage to keep their senses under circumstances in which powerful forces are driving a politically motivated indictment and some are calling for vigilante justice.


    2 passports (none / 0) (#136)
    by Stobberdobber on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    According to O'Mara the second passport was found while moving to another location after the release from jail after the bond hearing and immediately turned in to O'Mara along with the money from the paypal account. It was reported to the court at the same time as the money, the paperwork was filled out by MOM but not filed.  The Judge knew and could verify from paperwork and notices filed by MOM and therefore it became a non issue. The conversation between GZ and SZ could have been about the first PP. meaning that when they found it after filing for a new one they put that one in the safety deposit box. WE don't know. I will not speculate any more than that, but the judge did say it was not an issue anymore.

    Blindsided (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    I don't see anyone discussing how the state blindsided the defense with this motion.

    By the time I found the audio and listened to it, the thread for the topic was full. I posted a comment on the preceding thread.

    I'll quote it here.

    My first point of interest didn't get a mention on the thread devoted to the topic. It seems O'Mara got short notice (23:35 on the audio).

    Lester was dismissive when O'Mara asked for a delay. I think he had his mind made up to revoke bond, and hear 'explanations' when Zimmerman was in custody.

    Things may look different after O'Mara has had time to dig into the facts.

    Upon what... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:30:28 PM EST
    ...previous affirmative sworn statement do you suggest Zimmerman could be charged with perjury for, much less convicted on?

    Presumably the same one ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:11:37 PM EST
    ... that Jeralyn is thinking of when she stated;

    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.

    ... although I too would be interested to learn what forms Zimmerman was required to sign/attest to when he submitted his application for bond and his motion for indigent status.


    Right... (none / 0) (#19)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:23:28 PM EST
    I have no clue in Florida, but here the detainee will fill out a release questionnaire prior to the I/A or, if was a GJ or direct complaint arrest warrant, then before the arraignment. He signs that. After that point, the defendant may, or may not - depending on circumstances and his atty, actually sign anything after that. Myself, I have usually just submitted information on their behalf from family, friends, employers or whatever.

    So, for Zimmerman, for instance it could be possible he may have given accurate info on an early document, but didn't update. Or he may have actually signed something new for the bond hearing. I have no idea. Either way, clearly the judge has credibility issues, and rightfully so to some extent. That may affect how the judge views him later; time will tell. But what he signed and when is absolutely critical for whether there is "perjury" and, for that matter, to what extent it is usable later as veracity impeachment material.

    I tried Googling but couldn't find squat other than pages of links to the fact his bond has been revoked. Google is not as useful as it once was in my opinion.


    bond application does not (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:53:11 PM EST
    mean written application. It's the term used for asking the Court for bail -- one "applies" to the court.

    Section 903.035: Applications for bail; information provided; hearing on application for modification; penalty for providing false or misleading information or omitting material information.--

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

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

    (2) An application for modification of bail on any felony charge must be heard by a court in person, at a hearing with the defendant present, and with at least 3 hours' notice to the state attorney.

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

    and that is consistent (none / 0) (#56)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:30:21 PM EST
    with what I know here. Heck, you can just ask to have it put on the calendar (and if def in custody have him transported with the chain on the morning to be set).

    I can sure see there being intervening changed circumstances and confusion that led to the problems the court has indicated it perceives.  Maybe not completely, but I be at least a lot of it gets sandpapered and cleaned up.

    My question at this point is what implied duty - if any - can be sussed out 903.035 to update information in original documents, especially if the defendant is sitting there listening to the presentation (i.e. in the original bond hearing)?  There is nothing explicit I see, and you have to wonder if that does not also run head into right to silence concerns?


    Bmazz, good point (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:26:30 PM EST
    The judge didn't find Zimmerman personally made misstatements. What he found to be a material misrepresentation was his wife's statements, and that GZ stood by (like a potted plant, he said) allowing his wife to testify falsely and his attorney to make representations to the court he knew weren't ocmplete and accurate.

    Interesting that he told O'Mara he could have a hearing on bond after George surrendered, and added that he thought it would be necessary for GZ to testify as to what happened.

    GZ has a right to remain silent. And the judge's  decision on whether to grant GZ a new bond has to be based on the same criteria as the first bond, whether the proof is evident and presumption of guilt. He can't permanently deny GZ bond solely as punishment for misrepresenting his finances. I doubt he's going to say standing by like a potted plant about the money affects whether bond should be set.

    I suspect the judge will rethink saying GZ must testify. Clearly, he invited the state's attorney to file an additional criminal charge against GZ's wife. GZ has potential criminal exposure  and clearly would not have to testify. The judge can't make him forego one constitutional right (right to remain silent) to exercise another (right to bail.)


    That is exactly what I am saying (none / 0) (#71)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:44:54 PM EST
    And, absent an explicit duty to update earlier declarations for changed circumstances, and assuming what Zimmerman originally stated was pretty much accurate at the time (may be a big assumption at this point; may not be), then I am not even sure GZ has very much, if any, criminal exposure.

    The wife may be in a far different boat though. That is why I am so curious about what was submitted and when.


    As to the suggestion that GZ must testify (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:09:33 PM EST
    I pointed out the Fifth Amendment problem in a comment on an earlier thread. However, to the extent that a person exercises that right, s/he may fail to meet a burden of proof, if that burden falls on him/her.  Here, as to denial of pretrial bail, it seems the state has the burden of proof, so I agree with Jeralyn.

    Here is what sticks in my craw... (none / 0) (#82)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:38:10 PM EST
    I cannot see how the court could possibly find basis for reversal of its original finding that there was not "proof evident and presumption great" such as would be required to hold no bond. There is simply nothing that has changed which exists, much less is materially sufficient, to disturb that finding. Zimmerman should (I would argue, based on what I see, must) get bail.

    That leaves the nature of terms and conditions. That is the question: Will Lester change those - namely the amount?  But, I would argue, Lester is a heck of a lot more fenced in here, too, than people think. Bail conditions are NOT punishment, they are by law supposed to only be what is sufficient to guarantee appearance of the defendant. Zimmerman has been nothing, if not stand up in his submission to authority to both the police and jurisdiction of the court - from the instant of the shooting where he stood right there, admitted he did it, properly handed over his weapon and submitted to multiple interviews at the repeated request of the state. Then he self surrendered appropriately upon the direct complaint being filed. Now he has, once again, properly appeared and surrendered.

    There is not one shred of evidence imaginable at this point that he will not appear; in fact, exactly the opposite, all indicia is that he will do so. Zimmerman himself does not appear to have committed any new crime even if his wife could arguably have done so (still yet to be established in its own right I might add).  On what possible basis does the court substantially increase the severity of release conditions, much less permanently revoke bond?



    Sorry but it's bugging me (none / 0) (#96)
    by labrat on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:20:58 AM EST
    The judge called him a "potted palm" not plant.

    Carry on .......


    labrat, you are right (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:55:33 PM EST
    he said potted palm not potted plant. I can't edit comments (only delete) so it will have to stay that way.

    I understand the use ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:04:48 PM EST
    ... of the term "application".  I'm just wondering what types of forms/documents would be part of any application for bail under Florida law.  I would assume that a FL court would require some type of documentation regarding the defendant's assets, income, etc. (among other factors), and that these would be sworn/attested to by the defendant.

    Maybe not.


    There clearly is... (none / 0) (#65)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:14:34 PM EST
    ...under the indigent status statute you linked to earlier. What seems less clear, at least to me, is whether there is a separate document for bail (what I have colloquially referred to as a "release questionnaire").  Still though, it would seem those were likely done fairly early in Zimmerman's processing.

    BTW - While no documents ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:26:00 PM EST
    ... have been released re: Zimmerman's application for bail and indigent status, Florida law does include an attestation requirement and provides penalties for submitting false/misleading information on an indigent application and application for bail.

    Oh, I am sure they do (none / 0) (#21)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:45:09 PM EST
    I guess what I am getting at is timing. How early in the process did he execute those, did he execute any subsequent documents after the originals and what is the duty to update?

    That is a pretty detailed and wild statute they have there re: the indigent app. Wow. Looks like the penalty for fraud on it is still a misdemeanor though.

    As to the bail statute, depending on case law I could see how paragraphs (1) and (3) could be held to demand a duty to update if Zimmerman knew bad information was being proffered (i.e. his potted plant status).  My guess is there will be narrative put together by O'Mara sufficient to head this off, but who knows; will be fascinating to see how this plays out.


    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:11:26 PM EST
    there is no "perjury" as it pertains to Zimmerman. His wife could be charged with perjury. He did not testify at the bond hearing about money.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    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.

    I couldn't agree more.

    He was present at the original hearing (none / 0) (#36)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 05:53:32 PM EST
    The one where the lies were told.

    That has nothing (none / 0) (#39)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 06:50:24 PM EST
    to do with the fact that he was not in a position to defend himself against these allegations by he SAO at the last hearing on June ist.

    If they are including a Motion to Revoke Bond and did inform MOM at 8:30 in the same morning as the hearing on June 1st, by email and by phone, then I believe that he had every right to be there at that time.  IIRC, MOM asked the court to wait a couple of days so that he could file the finished motion and until GZ could actually be there before addressing this issue to Judge Lester.

    Judge Lester told MOM to do this "on the fly." Judge Lester's words, not mine.   As a result Mr. O'Mara had to speak on behalf of his client rather than to have the client speak for himself and that is not right.  I think that pesky little 6th Amendment might come into play since a person has a right to face their accuser.  Being called a blatant liar in a court of law is an accusation and the court reacted to it as such.

    All of this has been ongoing since approx the 26th of April.  One week after the orginal bond hearing.  Why sandwich it in now? And on Media Day at that? They have had knowledge of this for a month or so.  

    I was not really surprised that the bond was revoked.  But I do believe that GZ had every right to be there and that right was denied to him.

    Remembering, too, that MOM took this case shortly before the arrest warrant was issued.  A matter of few days to a week, I think. Before that it was those lawyers/media consultants that were out and about doing more harm than good.  (my opinion of them, BTW)  

    MOM has been going full tilt since he agreed to take the case Pro Bono.  That he is handling the multitasking this well is a credit to him.  

    All IMO since IAsoNAL.


    Apples and Oranges (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:29:37 PM EST
    I think he had a due process right to be present and be heard before the entry of order revoking bond.

    I get that now (none / 0) (#80)
    by CommonSenseForChange on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:29:23 PM EST
    Thank you for clearing that up.  But, as someone above noted, this issue was one O'Mara knew about since 4/26/12 and he could have chosen to bring Zimmerman in on 6/1/12 and didn't.  Better safe than sorry.

    I'm sorry, but you are making no sense (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Peter G on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:49:17 PM EST
    One of the key attributes of "due process" is notice in advance of the subject matter of any proceeding.  O'Mara had no notice that the prosecutor's just-filed bail motion would be addressed on its merits on 6/1 -- and therefore no basis to choose to bring Zimmerman in to help answer it.  The motions that were on the judge's announced agenda that day did not require the defendant's presence. That is why, as TL, has repeatedly pointed out, the judge has promised from the first to reconsider his decision immediately, after a proper hearing on notice to the parties.  I do believe, however, that the judge had discretion to revoke the bail temporarily, pending a full hearing, on the basis of the allegations in the prosecutor's motion alone.

    I agree Lester had that authority (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:57:55 PM EST
    What I would have expected though is something to the effect of "Mr. O'Mara, you tell your client to have his butt here in this court to address this serious question on Monday morning at 10:00 am (or whatever date the court would want) and, if he is not, that he is revoked and a warrant will be issued on the spot". To me, that would have been the better judicial discretion, but so long as a fair hearing and determination is given ultimately, so be it.

    common sense you are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:59:32 PM EST
    O'Mara didn't receive the motion until the morning of June 1. There was no order from the court saying it would be addressed June 1.   His client is not in Seminole County, and perhaps not in the state of Florida. The only motion scheduled for hearing was the motion to protect discovery and the media's reponses. The bond issue was taken up spontaneously at the end of the hearing. As others pointed out and you can hear on the hearing tape, O'Mara objected.

    Are you deliberately dense? (3.00 / 2) (#92)
    by labrat on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:10:55 AM EST
    Or just generally misinformed? O'mara was in court for a scheduled hearing regarding public release of discovery. The prosecutor filed the bond motion early that same morning. Where do you find plenty of time to prepare a response or bring in GZ?

    I think the point is that (none / 0) (#109)
    by expy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:29:16 AM EST
    a smart and capable defense lawyer ought to be able to anticipate likely moves by the prosecution.

    O'Mara knew two things well in advance of the hearing: (a) that materially misleading statements had been made by Mrs. Zimmerman concerning finances at the April bail hearing, an (b) that Zimmerman had a 2nd passport, with a later expiration date, that had not been disclosed to the court.

    I would think a competent lawyer would know that these were two, significant looming problems and be well prepared to address those issues if and when they were brought up in court. A capable lawyer would have discussed those issues in depth with the client, at the time of the initial disclosure, and know exactly what his response would be if and when the trial judge wanted answers.

    Given O'Mara's reputation, I have a hard time seeing him as being unprepared. So either he was quite ready but asked for more time simply because it was the logical way to try to keep his client out of jail; or else he hasn't been giving the case the time and attention it warrants.  Personally I think the lawyer is being hung out to dry by his own client.  

    You can blame the prosecution for shady tactics if you like, but I think it would be naive of any criminal defense lawyer to assume that the prosecutor is always going to play nicely.


    is there a legal requirement for the (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:30:43 AM EST
    defense lawyer to have ESP?

    Only if they want to win their cases (none / 0) (#181)
    by expy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:03:45 PM EST
    A good, experienced trial lawyer can generally anticipate and plan in advance for at least 90% of what the other side is likely to do.

    Someone without that capability shouldn't be involved in trying serious felonies.

    I'm no genius, but I figured when the news came out at the end of April about the money in the PayPal account that the prosecution would likely bring a motion to revoke or raise the bail amount. I think others posted similar comments on a thread here at the time. My only question was wondering why the motion wasn't brought right away. Now it's obvious that the prosecution decided to bolster its case by reviewing the jail tapes first; smart move on their part.  


    expy, the prosecutor moved to raise (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:10:33 PM EST
    bond at an earlier hearing over the paypal money issue and the Judge put it on hold, saying  he wanted time to examine the details about the funding. His order for Friday's hearing said the media issues would be addressed. Had he wanted to address the bond issue again, he would have put it in his scheduling order. The DA filed the motion that morning. There's no way O'Mara had sufficient time to listen to all the tapes, consult his client and prepare a defense by 1:30 pm.

    It wasn't a smart move on their part, it was sneaky. No defense lawyer would have reason to know that his client and wife had made incriminating statements on the jail phone until being advised by the prosecution. At that time, they would demand access to all conversations between the client and wife. There was no time to do that, and O'Mara was forced to respond without knowing the full context of the comments. This wasn't about what Zimmerman had told O'Mara about the funds, but what Zimmerman and his wife had discussed, which O'Mara had no way of knowing before Friday morning.

    Since the judge spent the morning listening to some of the tapes and intended to rule, he could have at least had his clerk or secretary call both sides and inform them it would be addressed that day.

    It was a blindside in my view.


    In that case (none / 0) (#200)
    by expy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    If the Judge put the bail issue on "hold" then it was an open issue, subject to being raised at any time.  

    The "sneaky" thing was when Zimmerman and his wife collaborate over the telephone about the disposition and moving around of funds, and then feigned ignorance of the funds in court a few days later.

    No defense lawyer would have reason to know that his client and wife had made incriminating statements on the jail phone ...

    But the judge didn't throw O'Mara in jail; he jailed the client. Zimmerman is responsible for his own statements. He'll have a chance to explain himself, with plenty of notice and the assistance of counsel, at the hearing this week.  

    It was a blindside in my view

    I think that the "blindside" was when the client lied to the lawyer. The rest is simply the predictable consequences off the client's own choices.  

    Zimmerman knew that he had discussed the funds with his wife on the jail phone. So he was in possession of all relevant facts before the initial bail hearing. This was a boomerang, not a "blind side".


    You're missing (none / 0) (#187)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    A small point callef "due process".

    O'Mara coulda woulda and shoulda known, but the prosecution still should have given more notice.


    He was present at the initial hearing (none / 0) (#70)
    by lousy1 on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:39:56 PM EST
    where you posit that lies where told.

    I listened to that hearing. A number of lies- gross disinformation were presented by the prosecution side.

    Are you asserting any member of  either party was required to interrupt the proceedings to interject their observations?


    See above.

    yes (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:35:19 AM EST
    in the future lawyers should always be prepared with their magic 8 balls and/or Ouija boards.

    Maybe O'Mara will be lucky and ... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    ... the judge will grant his client and his client's spouse a mulligan. Or maybe not.

    I'm perfectly willing to be fair in considering all asepcts of this case, but I'm also an independent thinker. Personally, I think George Zimmerman would be better off owning up to what happened (the bond issue, not the shooting) by admitting that he and his wife made serious mistakes in judgment, and apologizing to the court.

    I'm not a gambling man by nature, and so I shy away from compounding damage once it occurs. Were I the defense counsel, I would not want to risk insulting the judge's intelligence by offering a rationale for my client's behavior that, to be honest, sounds like a stretch at best.

    Zimmerman's behavior has been not unlike that of a scared rabbit since events began to spin out of control a few weeks after the shooting, and let's face it, those two self-promoters who represented him prior to O'Mara coming on board did not help his cause any.

    I understand perfectly why he and his wife did what they did, and would offer them the benefit of the doubt that they probably didn't realize that they were potentially committing perjury here. Now that custody of the passports and legal defense fund have apparently been resolved to the court's satisfaction, mulligan granted, were I the judge.

    Whether the prosecution "blindsided" the defense counsel with this motion to revoke bail is immaterial to me. This is all part of "the game," so to speak, and personally, I believe O'Mara would do the same to the state's attorney, given an opportunity. If he believes prosecutors were unfair, the burden is upon him as defense counsel to prove it. Otherwise, it sounds like a baseball manager arguing with an umpire over a called third strike against his batter to end the inning with runners in scoring position.

    While I'm not an attorney, as a consultant I also have to deal with clients, and when I'm retained by one, I tell them up front that (a) I have a professional obligation to them to maintain confidentiality at all times; and (b) a high degree of trust between us needs to be established between us, if I am to be effective in assisting their efforts, i.e., full disclosure and no secrets.

    Professionally speaking, I tend to not really appreciate surprises, particularly those which occur because a client failed to be truthful and / or disclose relevant information in a timely manner to me -- and I'm sure you don't either, Jeralyn.

    The primary difference here is that I can terminate my relationship with a client for due cause, whereas a similar move on your part is often much more problematic in your line of work, for obvious reasons.

    As a matter of course, we should not be "blindsided" by matters which are nominally under our purview and control. If he hasn't already, O'Mara needs to remind Zimmerman about the inherent risks of not being on the level with his own defense counsel, especially given what's potentially at stake here. There will be no more mulligans.


    Scared rabbits..... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:31:31 PM EST
    Just had one relationship with legal representation blow up....
    These are not people familliar with the system. I don't believe we can expect a cool and detached rationality as they work through the maze.

    I think there was already one Come to Jesus (none / 0) (#26)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    meeting, and that's how the second passport ended up being FedEx'd to O'Mara the week after the bond hearing.  As I said last night in my other post - this is purely speculation on my part.  

    Don't Want to Get Into... (none / 0) (#127)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    ...a discussion about GZ guilt or innocence.

    But seriously, scared rabbit ?  Really... this is like all R's claiming Bush protected us against terrorists because they magically don't start their timeline until after 911.  

    Ditto for your scared rabbit non-sense, he become a scarred rabbit right after he followed a what he thought was a armed suspicious person at night.  Where something happened and the handgun holding scared rabbit shot someone.

    I am not really taking a side on this one, but to me this is just another misstep by GZ.  One of a long list of many pretty bad decisions on his part.  There is a pattern here, when an important decision needs to be made, GZ doesn't have the ability to make the right one.

    That being said, the jury will have to figure out if he actually committed a crime that night.  Clearly he made some bad decisions, but that doesn't mean he actually committed a crime.

    One this issue, I don't know why she would lie, they had a large sum of money at their disposal so they would have had the ability to post a larger bond.  The lie has now put her in a bad spot and hasn't helped with potential jurors for him.  The benefit of consciously lying was to small it's hard for me to believe it was done purposely.


    Without delving (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Dilbert By Day on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:13:51 PM EST
    too deeply into the "root of all evil" aphorism, bear in mind that a couple who is indigent on paper - suddenly won a six figure mini-lotto. Shelly Zs failure to provide the court with an estimated accounting of the PayPal funds may represent an ill-conceived attempt to preserve the donation money for discretionary/non-discretionary personal expenses. On the other hand, there may be a explanation for this apparent misrepresentation which will appease both the court, and the prosecution (less likely).

    Speculation aside, the family has relinquished control of the PayPal account, judge Lester has accepted defense council's explanation for the passport flap, and yesterday day marked the second time that GZ has surrendered himself into custody as ordered. In light of these events, this layperson would assume that a motion to deny bond on flight risk would gain little traction at a subsequent bond hearing.  


    Zimmerman's Still Unreleased Statements (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Michael Masinter on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    I agree that the evidence publicly released to date supports a claim of self defense, and I agree with a slight modification that
    he should still prevail unless the state has a lot more than has currently been disclosed.
    I'd precede the word "disclosed" with the word "publicly." The state has to disclose to defense counsel Zimmerman's statements per Rule 3.220 (b)(1)(C) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, but is not required under the public records act, section 119.0714, Florida Statutes, to make those statements available to the public. We don't know what else Zimmerman may have said before or, especially, after his arrest. Perhaps that is why Mr. O'Mara is quoted as saying: "We have begun to process and analyze a number of the statements he has given to the police." Thanks for the outstanding and tireless analysis of this still unfolding story.

    not publicly disclosed evidence (none / 0) (#32)
    by jharp on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    Good post.

    And since GZ has displayed a real knack for making the wrong choice and clearly thinks he knows more than the police it would surprise me if he didn't say something stupid and incriminating.

    It is rather obvious we aren't talking about a very bright guy here. So far as I can tell he has made the wrong decision every step of the way. And that would include the first decision to patrol the neighborhood with a gun.


    Not incriminating (none / 0) (#103)
    by friendofinnocence on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:02:20 AM EST
    O'Mara said Z's statements are exculpatory.  In the interest of full disclosure, de la Rionda said they were inculpatory.  I believe it was the judge who pointed this out, and O'Mara did acknowledge his position that the statements were exculpatory.

    I suppose those positions could just be routine.


    Since "state of mind" will play (none / 0) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:56:46 PM EST
    a critical role in this case, there was one exchange that I found incredible.

    Seconds (minutes) after Z killed TM it's reported that he's engaged in a conversation with a witness (#13 I believe) who claims Zimmerman said, "I shot this guy in self-defense." Followed by saying "Ah, man this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him."

    And then (incredibly to me) the witness asked what kind of gun Zimmerman shot.
    "Did you use a 9 (mm) or a .40?" he asked, with
    Zimmerman answering,  "I used a 9."

    Zimmerman's tone, the witness said, was "not like 'I can't believe I just shot someone!' it was more like, 'just tell my wife I shot somebody...' like it was nothing."

    I'm sure O'Mara will have experts who will testify as to how some people react after having been through a trauma, but until then, I'm left scratching my head.


    Such a reaction is common (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 05:36:35 PM EST
    A person is in a state of shock. Who knows what the jury will think, but there's no need to scratch your head over this.  

    I Hate that Kind of Jibberish (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:49:38 AM EST
    It's old school non-sense.  Not acting the way people think you should has probably landed a countless number of innocent people is some pretty hot water.

    If the same thing happened to 100 people, like any other event, their state of minds could be mapped into a bell shaped curve.  Where most would have the same reaction, but there would be a few outliers.  To assume guilt because he didn't fall into a certain percentile is not proof of guilt.  it's just mean they are different and don't react the way most would.

    To me if his state of mind was so odd it seems that maybe the experts, the police, would have taken note and possibly decided that they should perform a more extensive investigation.  But they didn't.  And that much like his attitude, it isn't proof of anything.

    I am not on either side, but it's getting pretty old that people who have nothing to do with the criminal justice system or human behavior are all of a sudden touting his frame of mind as proof of anything.


    Well said (none / 0) (#37)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 06:08:42 PM EST
    and exactly right.  If he gave multiple different statements to multiple interrogators, there will be at least minot inconsistencies. That is just human nature and how it always is. So long as they are consistent in the major framing O'Mara will be okay (I think).  But he IS going to see all of that and have a chance to gauge and analyze it.

    O'Mara was speaking about death threats (none / 0) (#108)
    by willisnewton on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:26:42 AM EST
    The quote from the NYT article is not in context.  O'Mara is not speaking about GZ's accounts he gave investigators about the events surrounding the shooting of the unarmed teen.  O'Mara was speaking about GZ's physical safety in jail, and "statements he has given to the police" are likely referring to reports of threats he has received while out on bond and prior to his first time in custody while awaiting bond.  Read it in context:

    "We are very concerned about safety still, and we will maintain that concern," Mr. O'Mara said after learning his client would be forced to return to jail. "There are ongoing threats and concerns and complaints. I don't know where along the spectrum they become true threats. We have begun to process and analyze a number of the statements he has given to the police."

    I do not think Mark O'Mara is in possession of the transcripts and videotape where GZ tells Sanford PD investigators what he says happened the night of the shooting.  GZ may have told O'Mara what he recalls he said, but GZ doesn't know exactly what he said and to whom he said it - GZ admitted as much at the bond hearing when he was questioned about expressing regret to the family in the first 48 hours after the shooting, during what the prosecution classified as "five statements."  GZ said something to the effect of "it all blended together for him."  

    Prosecution wants these statements sealed from the press, but I have a suspicion that this is partially because by raising this argument they have had an excuse to hold back this portion of discovery from the defense.  Obviously they will have to share this material before a trial can take place, but it's unsure at present how long they might keep the materials from the defense.  30 more days at least seems to be the answer at present if I understand what's going on here.  IANAL however.

    The prosecution wants to make an issue of inconsistencies etc and they know more than the defense whether there is a case there or not.  They could be bluffing, even.  We just don't know and neither does Mark O'Mara.  Not yet.  


    of course they gave the statements (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:57:39 PM EST
    to the defense. They were under a deadline of 15 days to do so and they did. O'Mara said he's been reviewing them. That's the point of discovery.

    Among what they turned over by Florida rules:

    (C) any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant, including a copy of any statements contained in police reports or report summaries, together with the name and address of each witness to the statements;

    (D) any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by a codefendant;

    (E) those portions of recorded grand jury minutes that contain testimony of the defendant

    (F) any tangible papers or objects that were obtained from or belonged to the defendant;


    (3) The court may prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause.

    (4) As soon as practicable after the filing of the charging document the prosecutor shall disclose to the defendant any material information within the state`s possession or control that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any offense charged, regardless of whether the defendant has incurred reciprocal discovery obligations.

    Statement of Particulars (none / 0) (#213)
    by Raoul on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:33:06 PM EST
    Is it correct to assume O'Mara has received one as he requested 16 April?

    Who is HERBY? (none / 0) (#215)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:56:00 PM EST
    I noticed on the last page of the motion to revoke bond it states:

    I HERBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing...

    Typical sloppy work by Corey and her buffoons.

    Gosh, it almost seems like you might be (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:27:54 AM EST
    fly-specking everything just to be able to hurl more insults at the prosecution.

    And "buffoons?"  Really?  I sure hope you've never make a spelling or typographical error while posting here...


    I wondered about that, too. (none / 0) (#224)
    by MJW on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:59:11 AM EST
    I assume a statement of particulars would be filed with the court, and it hasn't yet shown up on the court's website.  So if a statement of particulars was prepared, it was probably done only recently, or filed under seal.  As I understand the rules in Florida, a demand for a statement of particulars must be approved by the judge, and as far as I know, it's never been mentioned in a hearing or in any court order.

    Under Florida law, the case should be dismissed if the statement of particulars doesn't establish a prima facie case of guilt, when given most favorable construction to the state.  That means the state has to lay out the evidence it will rely on to prove the depraved state of mind necessary for second degree murder.


    Yeah, they were "blindsided" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ks on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    Sure, let GZ and SZ "explain" to the judge why they were discussing what they were discussing on the jailhouse tapes and then what they said (SZ'z case) in court.  That ought to be interesting...good luck.

    the judge specifically said (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 09:47:54 PM EST
    after he surrenders, he can  ask for a bond hearing and explain. He also said it would probably be necessary for him to testify as to what happened.

    There are no allegations he violated the terms of his bond after release and he has not been charged with a new crime.

    You may wish it were otherwise, but with the Judge saying the passport issue has been resolved to his satisfaction, he's likely to have bond set again soon.


    Say what? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ks on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:25:12 PM EST
    I haven't really said anything about the passport issue. In fact, I've said I don't think it was a big issue. Also, I've never said anything about Zimmerman violating the terms of his bond after release.  

    It's pretty clear what you are doing here.  


    I didn't say you referred to the passport issue (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:05:07 PM EST
    You said "good luck" with getting a new bond. I was pointing out that since the passport issue has been resolved to the judge's satisfaction and there are no new charges against him, he is likely to get a new bond, even though you wish he wouldn't.

    Sorry if I wasn't clear (and I'll agree I wasn't very clear.)


    KS, thanks (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:11:03 PM EST
    for reminding me you have become a chatterer.

    You are limited to four comments a day on Zimmerman. Additonal comments over four per day will be deleted.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:46:23 PM EST
    O'Mara knew about a hearing on discovery release and potential redaction needs. He has NO NOTICE whatsoever that the state was going to sandbag him with a motion to revoke bond, with new facts and transcripts, that O'Mara did not previously have, a mere couple of hours before the hearing and that the court would entertain it on its merits.

    Getting effective notice is one of the pillars of due process. That was not honored here. When you say "he knew since 4/26" that is a gross misreading and misstatement of what occurred.

    I am sorry... (none / 0) (#100)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:48:41 AM EST
    I should have been clearer.

    All of this has been ongoing since approx the 26th of April.  One week after the orginal bond hearing.

    This is dealing with the financial issues only.  MOM had been in contact with Judge Lester in regards to the PP accounts since then.  He said so in court during the June 1st hearing and the judge did not disagree with him.  It is on the audio.

    Hence, it should have come as no surprise to Bernie de la Rionda, either.  MOM has been remarkably transparent when it comes to that fund, not only immediately addressing issues within the courts but even doing the FAQ regarding it on the GZLegal site.

    The Motion to Revoke Bond is totally separate entity from that.  

    In the audio, de la Riondo flat out stated that he sent an email and called MOM at 8:30am the morning of the hearing, June 1st, 2012 in regards to the Motion to Revoke.

    I am not a lawyer, just a lowly food server happily surrounded by a bunch of smarty pants that teach me something new every day. I have deep respect and appreciation for everything they do to educate persons like myself by putting things in layman's terms that I can easily understand.  And they are teaching me to look at things from both sides, not just one.

     ((I tried "plausible deniability" on my boss yesterday.  It didn't work.))


    In my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Stobberdobber on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:42:18 PM EST
    There may have been some misleading but I am not sure it was intentional as Mr' O' Mara states. The Zimmermans may not have understood entirely what the money, or at least how much of it , could be used for the bail. Many peopele who sent donations specifically stated on their donation that it be used for a certain thing and I don't know if that is legally binding and the Zimmemans may not have either. JMO but backed up by someone on another thread who is a lawyer also. What is your opinion on that Jeralyn? If I make a donation and I specify it is a gift to be used to help with living expenses can it be used for bail?

    Guilty with an explanation? (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Dilbert By Day on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    Subsequent to my previous post, I came across the following interview conducted by Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning.

    Zimmerman could be in jail until trial: Lawyer

    George Zimmerman could stay in jail until he goes to trial if the judge refuses a new bail request, his attorney, Mark O'Mara, told "CBS This Morning" co-host Charlie Rose. He spoke to Rose about the latest details in the case. - Link

    In essence, MOM admits that G&S Zimmerman intentionally misrepresented their financial position at the bond hearing. He looks forward to judge Lester hearing testimony from both the defendant and his spouse, and he hopes the court will consider the circumstances which prompted their "mistake." No mention of being "bushwhacked" by the prosecution.

    Bond Hearing (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by jimrtex on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:58:36 AM EST
    The application for a restraining order was released after the bond hearing.  It included a written narrative by Zuazo.  It then talks about another incident two years earlier, where she had popped a bubble in his face, and he slapped her (ironically it was after some counseling session.  Since he would have been 18 at that time, and he was very Catholic, I suspect it was premarital counseling).  If you watch BDLR, it is obvious that he realized at that instant that he was combining two events.

    DE LA RIONDA: OK. He then -- I'm sorry. I'm referencing (INAUDIBLE) since the court has, I'm going just to refer to parts of it.

    What relevance is the landlord's name?  BDLR could have asked for it.

    You misunderstood what she said about the unemployment benefits.  She had worked the first year of their marriage.  She has been going to school the last 4 years, presumably she drew unemployment at the beginning of that period.  George Zimmerman may have drawn unemployment when he wasn't working.  It was the unemployment that was intermittent, not the employment.

    BDLR asked how much money was in that web site *right now**.  Shelly Zimmerman responded, "Currently I do not know", / BDLR: "Who would know that".   SZ: "My brother-in-law."  BDLR: "...is he available so that we can speak to him too, or the court can inquire through the state or defense. SZ: I'm sure that we can probably get him on the phone.  BDLR: Okay.  So he's not there now.  SZ: No he is not sir. / BDLR: Do you have any estimate about how much money has already been obtained or collected.

    The part bracketed by / and / was omitted in the motion by BDLR.

    It is likely that there is a different training.  A nurse would be expected to listen carefully to the question an answer.  A lawyer in court only asks questions that he thinks he knows the answer to.  He was thrown off by the mention of the brother-in-law.  He blobs on about whether the b-i-l can be reached.  SZ says that it would probably be possible to call the b-i-l.  Then look at BDLR's body language.  He appears to be indicating some sort of guess.  But SZ is connected by telephone.  She can't see his gestures.  Since he got some answers that he didn't expect, he does not see any problem from omitting them from his representation of the exchange - especially since he included a reference to the transcript for anyone who really wanted to see what happened.

    Opinion (4.00 / 4) (#189)
    by whitecap333 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:44:55 PM EST
    As I follow this little saga, the Zimmermans bought themselves enough time to remove their fund from the grasp of the court.  Are we quite done with the little fiction that the Sanford PD was attempting to cover up Zimmerman's crime?  They did everything they could to thrust his head into the noose.  Unable to conjure up probable cause, they still did their best to injure him by conjecturing that the incident was "avoidable," and that Zimmerman should have been more diplomatic.  You do not use language like that if you have managed to turn up evidence to support a finding of an unlawful assault.  No, here we have the birth of the theory that Zimmerman is, in some vague, intuitive way, guilty of something or other for failing to foresee that Martin would assault him.  What is such claptrap doing in an official report of a criminal investigation?  This is a political prosecution, pure and simple, initiated on the demand of a certain US congressperson, with a howling mob at her back.

    So what, under such circumstances, were Zimmerman's ethical duties?  Legal codes of ethics do not bind him.  Having applied my understanding of Plato's "absolute justice" and the "Kantian imperative," to the situation, I see nothing to serve as a bar to Zimmerman's attempt at self-preservation.  Need to send him a few bucks.

    someone has his/her smartypants on today (none / 0) (#232)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:38:34 AM EST
    and I mean that as a compliment.  After reading your comment I had to go and see who rated you.  That was easy to predict also.  
    Well good for you.  It's not like whitecap 333 is your real name and we are all looking at each other face to face, but still, it was a gutsy comment.  I have some friends and relatives stuck in guilty white liberal mode who would be sputtering in indignation at what you wrote here.  That is probably why I am getting such a kick out of it.
    You have suggested several ideas I had not been aware of.  Now I have some reading to do.

    Let Talk About REAL Lies And Distortions--coming (3.50 / 2) (#122)
    by deanno on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:12:38 AM EST
    from Team Martin and their pals especially in the media:

    1. Zimmerman's dad was a judge in Florida-LIE
    2. Zimmerman has a relative on the SPD-LIE
    3. Norman Wilfinger met secretly with Chief Lee on 2/26
    4. TM had NO cuts nor abrasions to his knuckles (said by Kurtz the mortician on Nancy Grace's show)-LIE-or gross incompetency
    5. TM bought Arizona Ice Tea-LIE
    6. TM was suspended for only a week-LIE
    7. TM was an outstanding student who loved school-LIE
    8. GZ weighed 250lbs (the Today Show).-LIE
    9. GZ outwighed TM by 100lbs (Juan Williams on Fox)-LIE
    10. The SPD wanted to arrest GZ but were thwarted by higherups-LIE
    11. GZ's gun was not confiscated-LIE
    12. GZ was on patrol that night-LIE
    13. GZ called 911-LIE
    14. GZ was told to stay in his car-LIE
    15. GZ was told to "go home"stated by Tonya Acker on HLN-LIE
    16. Sunny Hostin on CNN said she "found" six witnesses who say that GZ was on top of TM--Really-who had the grass on his back, Sunny?
    17. TM was shot in the back of the head (Jesse Jackson)-LIE
    18. TM was sitting on the porch and this man killed him (Brandy Green)-LIE
    19. the clothes were not forensically examined (Fox "legal anaylst" Faith Jenkins-LIE.
    20. the investigation was only 5 1/2 hours (Tamron Hall 4/12/12)-LIE
    21. GZ called TM a "f...ing coon"-LIE
    22. TM's body was in the morgue an unusually long time-LIE
    23. GZ "chased" TM to the point of the gunshot-LIE
    24. GZ's not going to the hostipal proves he wasn't really injured-LIE
    25. GZ inflicted his own injuries-LIE
    26. GZ's nose wasn't broken-LIE
    27. TM was the one crying out for help-LIE
    28. GZ knew TM was black from the start and profiled him-LIE
    29. TM was "gunned down" (Piers Morgan, Diane Sawyer)-LIE
    30. TM went out during halftime of the NBA All Star game-LIE
    31. TM was shot b/c he was wearing a hoodie-LIE
    32. The dispatcher said "okay" (Piers Morgan)-LIE
    33. TM was gunned down like a dog in the street-LIE

    Wait, what? (none / 0) (#143)
    by pfish on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    Regarding #5, TM didn't buy Arizona Ice Tea?

    nope (none / 0) (#145)
    by labrat on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:26:16 PM EST
    he bought Watermelon juice

    but what difference does it make? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    He bought a beverage by Arizona Beverages which makes iced tea and fruit juices.

    If your answer is speculation about what he or others might do with watermelon juice, don't respond. It would just be an unsubstantiated character attack on TM.


    Coca cola company (none / 0) (#166)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    makes several varieties  of iced tea. If they found a can of Gold Peak Green Iced Tea or Nestea would that make it all 'coke'?

    The point is all evidence details in a murder case are extremely important. You never know if a seemingly small detail is insignificant or not. It could possibly tie in with other evidence in unexpected ways. Investigations are all about details and facts.

    Continually misrepresenting factual evidence can be interpreted as sloppy reporting, intentional distortion or bias.


    The difference is that all (none / 0) (#168)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    Arizona beverages have "Arizona" prominently displayed on the can - if you pick up a can of Nestea, or Gold Peak, do the labels say "Coke" across the top, in large type?  I don't think so.

    While it is a detail, and details can be important, I would liken this one to being about the same as if it had been reported that Martin had a Coke can on his person, and later it turned out to be a Diet Coke, or a Coke Zero or a Caffeine-Free Coke.  

    Distinction without a difference, I think.


    Tea is nowhere on the can (none / 0) (#170)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    The company name does not include 'tea'.

    It is called AriZona Beverage Co.


    You need to read more carefully, and (none / 0) (#172)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:46:57 PM EST
    address the questions asked; I didn't mention "Iced Tea," just that "AriZona" is prominently displayed on the label of all of its products.  

    Again, if it had been reported as "Coke" would it matter that it was actually "Diet Coke," "Coke Zero," "Caffeine-Free Coke," "Caffeine-Free Diet Coke," or "Cherry Coke?"


    I had no intention of going there (none / 0) (#169)
    by labrat on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    I just like facts to be as accurate as possible, even when immaterial. Just like everyone changing the judge's "potted palm" comment to "potted plant" - it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things - but I'm picky about details. Sorry.

    No need to apologize (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:22:58 PM EST
    I like accuracy too. I probably should have stopped calling GZ's call a "911 call" long before I did but "call to the non-emergency number" was bulky and the media kept calling it a 911 call so at first I did too. Same for the AZ iced tea. I've known since seeing the photos in discovery it was not iced tea, but everyone was referring to it as iced tea so I have as well, since I didn't see what difference it made. I agree with Anne (for once!) that it has Arizona in big letters on the can, so whether it's iced tea or juice doesn't make a big difference (other than to those who want to use it to create a character attack.)

    The potted plant was my mistake -- although I don't see much difference between a potted palm and and a potted plant. I've never even heard the phrase "potted palm" used before. But I'm going to use "potted palm" from now on.

    So feel free to correct such things. It's better we all use the correct terminology once we learn it.


    They're in Florida - thus potted palm instead of (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:47:16 PM EST
    potted plant.  :)

    It is not about "character attacks" (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:08:15 PM EST

    Dee Dee wants us to believe that Martin relayed such minutia as his location 'by the mail thing' or when Martin put his hood up but she stated he bought iced tea. Maybe she was told that by crump or the whole 'skittles and iced tea' media storm influenced her. Why would Martin not have mentioned what drink he actually bought during their lengthy conversation.  I know my close friend's favorite beverages. It frequently becomes an extension of one's persona. This is just one of the small details that makes Dee Dee's testimony questionable in my eyes.

    Facts are facts. Iced tea and skittles became a ubiquitous symbol for this case. Thousand of people engaging in hero worship posed with the wrong beverage. It has became so deeply ingrained into pop culture by Crump and his publicity team that anybody who dares point out the truth is attacked and marginalized as someone with malicious intent.


    So Dee Dee should know Chad's favorite drink? (none / 0) (#212)
    by Mary2012 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:32:55 PM EST
    Why would Martin not have mentioned what drink he actually bought during their lengthy conversation.  I know my close friend's favorite beverages. It frequently becomes an extension of one's persona.

    Is that what you are saying?  Has she ever met Chad?  Maybe iced tea was Trayvon's favorite drink but he wasn't buying for himself.  He was buying for Chad or do I have that backwards?

    Re the rain: I really wouldn't think it out of the ordinary for a person to show concern/ interest for anyone they cared about who might be stuck out "in the elements".  Seems pretty natural to me.


    Most references to the tea (none / 0) (#214)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:44:34 PM EST
    indicated it was for Martin. In the Geraldo interview with Chad Green, he said Trayvon was getting him skittles only.

    First time I'm hearing this (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by Mary2012 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:29:30 PM EST
    Okay, great.  Thank you.  

    Maybe the store was out of iced tea or maybe Trayvon picked up the watermelon drink by accident while talking to Dee Dee & didn't notice or maybe he just decided to try or felt like trying something new once he saw the can and neglected to mention it to Dee Dee.  So what? It's not really a crime nor the sign of a dishonest person to select & pay for something different once at a store.

    Hopefully we still have those options anyway but in the scheme of things, I would think his being able to seek shelter from a downpour might rank a little higher in importance in terms of conversing with Dee Dee than what he bought to drink.



    While on the subject of (none / 0) (#216)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:13:26 PM EST
    the Geraldo interview of Chad Green, I just re-watched it and noticed something. Chad states "he was bored, he wanted to go to  the store, he wanted to get his snack on"

    If Trayvon wanted to get his snack on then why didn't he buy any snacks for himself?

    I have always suspected that the skittles and tea were for Trayvon himself and the whole "getting skittles for his little 'brother' meme" was a narrative constructed by Crump and his publicist Julison.


    Primary Sources (none / 0) (#230)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:29:30 AM EST
    Chad states "he was bored, he wanted to go to  the store, he wanted to get his snack on"

    I think it's 'He wanted something to snack on.'

    In the Geraldo interview with Chad Green, he said Trayvon was getting him skittles only.

    He only said Trayvon was getting him skittles. Putting 'only' at the end is misleading. Chad didn't say that he didn't ask for a beverage or some other item. He just didn't say.

    That's another reason I think Chad should have been interviewed. He might provide a check on Dee Dee's credibility.

    As far as I know, Chad and Dee Dee are the only primary sources on this. Dee Dee said the beverage was for Chad, and Chad didn't say.


    that's not a character attack (none / 0) (#220)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:30:49 AM EST
    and is fair -- it's not what I was referring to. What I was referring to is a clear, unsubstantiated character attack that is floating around on the internet which is unrelated to the criminal charges since neither party will raise it.

    Dee Dee Said Tea? (none / 0) (#227)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:27:50 AM EST
    Dee Dee wants us to believe that Martin relayed such minutia as his location 'by the mail thing' or when Martin put his hood up but she stated he bought iced tea.

    Do you have a cite for Dee Dee saying that?

    Dee Dee to de la Rionda (4:30) -

    De la Rionda: Did he say why he was going to the store?

    Dee Dee: Yes.

    De la Rionda: What did he say he was going to the store for?

    Dee Dee: To get his little brother some food and some drink.

    Crump's March 20 presser was paraphrasing, but for what it's worth -

    His little step-brother asked for him to bring some Skittles back and something to drink.

    Oh, come on, J - we agree on more (none / 0) (#193)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:27:38 PM EST
    than we don't, most of the time!


    But there is something about language and rhetoric that bears paying attention to, whether it's for reasons of accuracy or message; I make a conscious effort to not say "entitlement programs" and instead refer to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as "social safety net" programs because using the former makes them easier to attack and the latter describes what I believe their purpose to be.


    Avoiding The Issue (none / 0) (#226)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:54:04 AM EST

    Since I found out I've been using 'beverage' and 'beverage can'.

    Watermelon Juice Cocktail (none / 0) (#149)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:35:30 PM EST
    Earlier discussion.

    It seems to be a convention that beverages made by this company are called 'Arizona Iced Tea' regardless of flavor. That name appears consistently in the police reports.


    A mistake (none / 0) (#204)
    by friendofinnocence on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    The can was entered into evidence mistakenly as Arizona Iced Tea. (I say mistakenly because the crime scene photograph shows clearly it isn't iced tea.)  The probable sequence of subsequent events would be the police told the parents it was iced tea, they told Crump, he told the media over and over and over, and eventually people around the world thought it was iced tea.  No conspiracy, just a simple, understandable mistake by police who didn't take a close enough look at the can.

    Vernacular (none / 0) (#231)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:15:21 AM EST
    In the reports it is an 'Arizona Ice [sic] Tea' (Sgt. Leon Ciesla, p. 20) or an 'Arizona tea can' (Crime Scene Technician Diana Smith, p. 80).

    Yman, you have also (3.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:11:47 PM EST
    become a chatterer, per our comment rules, and are limited to four comments a day on Zimmerman.

    I Call BS (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    This new silly code word, 'chatterer' seems to actually mean anyone that disagrees with you consistently.

    In reality we are all chatterers, we renew our opinions again and again in different discussions and if I can be so bold, the head 'chatterer' here is you and never ending 'chatterer' for defendants.

    Nothing wrong with it, that's the purpose of the site, but you shouldn't disparage others with silly name calling for the same behavior just because it their opinions are different.

    Yman has been here a long time, yet now because he doesn't agree with you about GZ, he has earned the 'chatterer' moniker.  Surely there are just as many pro-GZ 'chatterers' here that deserve to be called out.  

    And what about Deanno, he clearly violated just about every rule at this site, but that's seems to be cool so long as he's on your side.

    So I am calling BS on your nonsensical calling out of 'chatterers' and blatant application of site rules to only the people who disagree with you.


    deanno has made all of three (none / 0) (#198)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:05:54 PM EST
    cooments. What rule did he violate?

    "chatterers" (none / 0) (#206)
    by lawstudent on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:00:44 PM EST
    This new silly code word, 'chatterer' seems to actually mean anyone that disagrees with you consistently.

    I share in some of your frustrations, but in taking the time to re-read the comment policy, a "chatterer" is in fact, by definition, someone who disagrees with Jeralyn.  There are other criteria, but that is a prerequisite according to the comment policy.


    I understand this is your approach (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    and I respect it, but you might consider that is makes the defense look weak. In practice sparring one wants the absolute best fighter who can challenge you, improve your game, show you where your weaknesses are and give you practice on the best blocks and attacks. You filter out challenges so it looks like that is the only way you can meet them.

    That is NONSENSE! (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by deanno on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    GZ's "credibility" is being questioned by a press who have very little "credibility" of their own.

    I believe GZ was arrested BECAUSE of the media's acting as an arm for the prosecution.

    I believe GZ to be in essense a political prisoner.

    Oh, dear...you might want to take a (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    couple of deep breaths.

    I will grant you that the media probably aren't standing on very solid ground when they bring the credibility of others into question; their track record on almost every issue I can think of is not exactly stellar.

    This is why many of us here have stopped relying on media reports for facts and information, and try, as much as possible, to go to actual source documents: watching the media report on the motion for revocation is no substitute for reading the actual motion itself.  This is why there has been so much interest in reviewing the discovery materials as they are made available; the media is a filter, and often what gets filtered out, or the emphasis placed on what stays in, completely changes the story.

    At the moment, George Zimmerman is innocent of the charges filed; the media does a terrible job of keeping that concept front-and-center.

    At the same time, the relationship between the Sanford PD and the black community there is not good.  There have been other instances where the PD's treatment of cases involving black victims was questionable.  If the media helped bring that to light, and helped ensure that, rather than get swept under the rug, the investigation of the Trayvon Martin shooting received a greater level of scrutiny, that's not a bad thing.  

    For me, now that the case is working its way through the system, and with so much information being made available directly to the public, I don't spend much time checking the media coverage.  Not to cheapen it, but in some ways it's like turning off the sound of a sporting event because you can watch with your own two eyes and don't need a bunch of "experts" explaining the obvious.

    For the most part, this is a blog with some of the most thoughtful - as in they think before they write - analytical, intelligent, and not-prone-to-hysteria people you will encounter; that doesn't mean there isn't disagreement here - there's plenty of that - but it means we do so in a civil, measured way, with links to support our arguments.  I'm not telling you can't be as hysterical as you feel, but if you want people to take you seriously, and if you truly are seeking engagement and discussion on the issues that matter to you, you might want to dial it down a few notches.


    Revoking bail is an evil prosecutor trick (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Fascist Nation on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:08:25 PM EST
    Revoking bail ticks me off.  This seems to be standard practice in the "justice" system.

    2nd degree murder charges filed deliberately to prevent bail under the Florida Get Tough on Crime CONstitution.  Never mind that accused people have a Right to bail.  That bail cannot be excessive (or punitive).  That the purpose of bail is to ensure appearance at court---which really means, 'provides the costs of tracking your ass down' if you don't show. Or that a majority of voters have no legitimate power to strip people of their Rights.

    Instead bail is used to bankrupt the accused to prevent their defense.  Bail is used to ensure fines will be paid.  Bail is used to ensure money 'claimed owed' any government is garnished.

    Further, the state wants to know how much you are worth so they can set bail so high you cannot afford it and are compelled to use a bail bondsman.  They do this because the bail bondsman has bribed, er, generously donated campaign contributions to get this cozy arrangement set up and well established.  The government likes it because they don't have to monitor the accused 24/7, the bail bondsman does it for them.

    This is highly profitable for the bail bondsman with 2 million people incarcerated, 5 million annually coming onto the government radar.  Few skip bail.  And 10% of the set bail is pocketed by the bondsman.  But here is the beauty to the state; the prosecutor gets your bail revoked and you are out that 10%.  The terms of your bail are until acquitted, dismissed, convicted or revoked.

    So Zimmerman, in this case is out $15,000.  He will have to come up with -- you can bet -- one hell of a lot more for his next bail.  But that is alright, he can afford it.  Do you know how many poor people I have seen whose relatives have scraped together the bail only to have it revoked after paying their 10% to a bail bondsman a week or so later, for some pretext the prosecutor comes up with.  Back in the slammer with you Pedro.  Justice, Amerika.

    Standard operating practice.  And some of the profits made roll back into legislator's, councilmen, and judge's pockets.

    Tons of speculation there (none / 0) (#159)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    Did Zimmerman sign (none / 0) (#1)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    ...a release questionnaire or bond application personally? If so, is there a copy of it anywhere?

    O'Mara Objected (none / 0) (#2)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:42:23 PM EST
    O'Mara objected to not being given time to prepare. I don't think he said anything about wanting his client to be present.

    Audio of June 1 hearing.

    thanks, I'll try to listen (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:46:46 PM EST
    on the drive back to Denver.

    Awe come on! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    Pretty please....is there a bond app/release questionnaire Zimmerman himself executed or signed??

    If Zimmerman (none / 0) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:04:07 PM EST
    Tries to make a case that he was "mistaken," and not lying and the judge determines that he was, in fact,  lying wouldn't that be adding one perjury on top of another?

    What could be the ramifications of that?

    I think he'd be better off admitting to the lie, and stating how confused, fearful, and not thinking straight he was, together with a sincere show of contrition. I mean, the judge has already shown he believes Z was lying, trying to convince him he was wrong may not play too well.

    perjury definition (none / 0) (#87)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:57:12 PM EST
    Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding.[1] That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case. For example, it is not considered perjury to lie about one's age unless age is a factor in determining the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits.

    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

    Even if GZ knowingly lied about the money, it is not material to the outcome of the murder charges, so there is no perjury involved here.


    Credibility is always material to the (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:54:40 AM EST
    outcome of charges, whether or not alleged lies ever rise to the level of perjury, don't you think?

    The "material misrepresentations" the Court believes were made in the original bond hearing may well not, as Jeralyn and others have said, result in a denial of bail or even an increase in the bond, but I think the point many have tried to make here is that when one's crediblity is on the line, it doesn't help that credibility to be associated with having made - or one's spouse having made - "material misrepresentations" to the Court, or to be recorded in such a way that causes the judge to refer to one as a "potted palm."

    There were a lot of people who thought Judge Lester's interaction with the prosecution and defense in the original bond hearing showed, if not disdain, then at least something less than respectful, toward the prosecution and the state's case, and attempted to read all kinds of things into it that were favorable to Zimmerman and the defense.  Now that Judge Lester has focused his disdain and anger at the Zimmermans, there seems to be an awful lot of comments that opine that "it doesn't matter" and "it's irrelevant to the charges."  

    What I think is that there's a long way to go here before there is some/any resolution in this case, and that credibility - on both sides and as to all players - matters.  


    Anne, you proved yourself wrong (none / 0) (#116)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:33:27 AM EST
    in your very first sentence,  when you asked me what I thought and told me what you thought.  Neither what you think or what I think or what the general public thinks about GZ credibility matters when we are talking about perjury. I know that TM's parent's lawyer was all over TV talking about how this had to do with GZ's credibility, blah blah blah.  But that has zero, nada, zip to do with "perjury", which is a specific term and the word I was discussing. So I don't really get the point of the rest of your point past your first sentence.

    It's not rocket science, Teresa... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:23:24 AM EST
    My point was, and continues to be, that just because something may not rise to the level of perjury does not mean that whatever the misrepresentations are do not go to the issue of credibility.  

    While it's true that neither you nor I nor a whole lot of other people are ever going to sit on the jury that hears this case - assuming it gets that far - it's hard to deny that, right now, there are at least 6 members of the so-called general public who, if the case goes to trial, will be members of a jury.  And if you think this kind of thing isn't affecting how they feel about George Zimmerman's credibility - even though he, himself, did not testify in the original bond hearing - I think you might have a slight case of denial brewing.  Because everything that comes out, all the discovery, the rulings, what the prosecution does, what the defense does - it's all affecting how people think about this case, isn't it?

    George Zimmerman's problem is that there are multiple minutes where his statements, his testimony if he takes the stand, are going to be the only thing available to judge what really happened that night; and whether he was justified in shooting Martin.  The prosecution has the same problem, the same gap to deal with, and every time George Zimmerman does or says something that brings his credibility into question, the state's job gets just a little bit easier.

    The reverse will be true if the state is shown to be playing fast and loose with the truth and the facts, as well.  And if and when that happens, I expect you will abandon your focus on "perjury" and be quite insistent that the prosecution has a "credibility problem."  And you will be right about that; they will.  Just as, at the moment, in the circumstances before us, it appears George Zimmerman has.


    That doesn't make any sense (none / 0) (#90)
    by ks on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:01:45 AM EST
    Whether anybody will be charged with perjury is up in the air, but this matter is material to the bail hearing.  There is no murder trial yet.

    material to a bail hearing? (none / 0) (#115)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:21:56 AM EST
    really? We are talking about "material to the criminal case" which is ongoing, not a bail issue.

    Revocation of Bond (none / 0) (#27)
    by MJW on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 04:12:54 PM EST
    is limited by a provision in Florida constitution and statues that implement that provision.  I could not, though, find any appellate cases dealing with revocation based on misrepresenting assets in a bond hearing.  There are quite a few appeals where bond was revoked because of crimes committed by the defendant while out on bond.  Probably the most significant is State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (2001), where the state supreme court held in that a judge's discretion to revoke bail is constrained by section 907.041, a statute that implements a state constitutional provision:
    For the reasons explained in this opinion, including our conclusion that section 907.041 expressly addresses the circumstance of a defendant who breaches a bond condition or commits a new crime, we hold that a trial court's discretion to deny a subsequent application for bail is circumscribed by statute.
    * * *
    The Legislature by statute has constructed a comprehensive and specific framework setting forth the multiple circumstances under which trial courts may act to deny bail and order pretrial detention. This scheme as set forth in section 907.041, Florida Statutes (1997), fully comports with the Florida Constitution and has long been the standard by which trial courts have been guided in determining whether to deny bail. The statute and the rules enacted pursuant to the statute incorporate the considerations required to balance the court's need to enforce its orders, the need for society to be protected from those posing a danger to the community, and the defendant's constitutional rights to bail based on the time-honored presumption of innocence.

    The constitutional provision is:

    Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions. If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.

    I don't see how anything in the alleged misrepresentations would alter the court's previous finding that proof of guilt wasn't evident and the presumption of guilt wasn't great.  Nor do I see any reasonable argument that no conditions of release could reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons and assure Zimmerman's presence at trial.  Therefore, the state's argument for not allowing bond would have to be based on the theory that in order to assure the integrity of the judicial process, a defendant who misrepresented material facts at a bond hearing must be denied bail.  I think, though, that the activities that qualify as so violating the integrity of the judicial process that bond may be revoked are those listed in 907.041, such as threatening witnesses.

    It's true that 903.035(b) specifically allows bail revocation as a possible penalty for providing false or misleading information or omitting material information in a bail application:

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

    However, that doesn't necessarily mean that section goes beyond 907.041, since some of the misrepresentations could involve the conditions listed in 907.041.

    Contrast that with 903.0471:

    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.

    That section specifically indicates that the grounds for revocation are in  addition to those in 907.041.

    The issue is the amount of bond (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by expy on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 05:18:45 PM EST
    Bond is generally set in an amount seen to be sufficient to guarantee the defendant's presence in court. The idea is that the amount should be high enough to cause the defendant to be hesitant to abscond, for fear of losing all that money. Because assets of extended family often come into play, a high amount will also create family pressure to show up in court, for fear that a family home will be lost.  

    If a person has $200K of "found" money -- money that was raised by others & donate with no string attached, then a $150K bond doesn't mean much.  That person can pay the money and run.

    So a material misrepresentation of cash on hand is huge.    

    It doesn't mean that the person won't be given a new bond. But it is going to be substantially higher. And probably somewhat higher than it would have been if the Zimmermans had disclosed the funds in the first place, given that the jail recordings make it clear that both were fully aware of the amount of funds at the time the wife previously testified in court that she had no knowledge of the balance.

    As to the bit about being "blindsided" -- Zimmerman and his wife are the ones who made the choice to conceal assets. So they set themselves up for that "surprise".  


    You say (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MJW on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:13:01 PM EST
    As to the bit about being "blindsided" -- Zimmerman and his wife are the ones who made the choice to conceal assets. So they set themselves up for that "surprise".

    That's like saying "if the defendant wanted due process, he shouldn't have committed the crime."  There were no special circumstances that prevented the state from giving the defense reasonable notice so they could prepare to answer the motion.  It was an underhanded trick to file the motion just before a hearing on an entirely different issue, in a (successful) attempt to get an immediate ruling in their favor.

    Florida's rule of criminal procedure 3.060 provides that:

    A copy of any written motion which may not be heard ex parte and a copy of the notice of the hearing thereof, shall be served on the adverse party a reasonable time before the time specified for the hearing.

    In this case, there wasn't even a hearing scheduled to hear the motion to revoke bail.


    The "reasonable time" requirement (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:41:15 PM EST
    Apparently, this is the way it's done in Florida.  According to someone posting on another blog 9attorney with 25+ years in Florida), the Rule merely requires that the motion be sent to opposing counsel in a "reasonable time".  The moving party does not have to give opposing counsel time to oppose their motion, but it can be argued in open court that same day.

    Sounds like a strange system to me, but I don't practice in Florida.

    OTOH - if that is not the case, O'Mara can certainly appeal.


    he doesn't have to appeal (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:59:39 PM EST
    the judge offered  him another bond hearing after Zimmerman surrenders.

    One issue is the short notice and whether he received or had time to listen to the jails calls, let his client hear them and explain so he could adequately respond.

    Another issue is whether he had a right to be present and heard personally before the judge revoked bond.


    If a defendant had a due process right (none / 0) (#79)
    by expy on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:27:00 PM EST
    to personally appear to contest a revocation of bond, then the court's hands would be tied in circumstances where information suggested that a defendant was absconding.  

    Whether the prosecutor presented enough justification for an immediate order in this case is a different question, but as to the procedural aspect, its important to keep in mind that bond is always a conditional release, subject to revocation when the defendant isn't complying with the conditions.  


    Expy, this isn't a case (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:00:54 PM EST
    of GZ not complying with conditions. Of course if a defendant is alleged to have violated a condition of bond such as committing a  new crime or  that he's preparing to abscond, the court can act to arrest him. There's an immediacy issue there, as you point out.

    But this wasn't about GZ violating his conditions of bond, it was about misrepresentations he made in getting bond. There is no allegation he violated bond. I think the due process considerations are different.


    I think (none / 0) (#208)
    by expy on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:08:06 PM EST
    the court initially granted bond on the basis of certain representations of the defendant and his wife.

    Subsequently the court learned that the statements were false. So essentially the court acted to restore status quo to the point of the initial bond hearing. The lawyer will have the opportunity to present the defendant's case for bail this week, at the renewed hearing, hopefully based on truthful facts & information.


    expy, there's no change (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:09:59 PM EST
    in the money available to him. O'Mara said at the  hearing  (as he did the last media hearing) that GZ relinquished control of the funds and GZ has no authority over them.

    Since the funds no longer belong to him, and he has not control over them, I don't think the judge will increase bond based on the funds. The funds have already been "spent" so to speak, and they are now under the control of O'Mara.  

    The blindsided refers to the state's attorney filing a motion at 8:30 am, with numerous tapes, and the judge insisting O'Mara could defend against the motion "on the fly". The judge said he only listened to some of the wife's calls and didn't review Zimmerman's past assertions, he was going by his recollection. It's not clear how many tapes O'Mara had time to listen to. A large part of his morning was spent assembling the documents on the passport issue, to the judge's satisfaction.

    Forcing a defense lawyer to defend against a motion to revoke bond before he's had an opportunity toe review the allegations and supporting evidence with his client is being blindsided. Ruling without affording the defendant to be present and heard is, in my  view, a due process violation.

    The State's attorney didn't even expect the judge to revoke bond Friday. He asked the judge to hold a further hearing, in camera if necessary, where GZ and his wife could explain. He said he wanted bond revoked or increased.

    And you haven't heard all the jail recordings. You heard the prosecutor refer to a few quotes. Until you have heard all the jail calls between them, not just portions of cherry-picked calls, it's not "clear" he and his wife knew the amount of the funds or believed the funds belonged to them.


    Pay Pal funds (none / 0) (#69)
    by Tov on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:37:37 PM EST
    To whom do the funds belong then... if not GZ... and who controls them then? I find this very odd that monies can be collected for the purposes of a legal fund and personal expenses and then sequestered and not be subjected to the court's consideration in posting bond. Just wondering...thanks

    Pay Pal funds (none / 0) (#75)
    by Tov on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 11:16:37 PM EST
    I just re-read your post and the Miami Herald story..."independent trust" ...still doesn't satisfy my original question. Looks like a sort of shell game going on.Is this legal?  

    perfectly legal (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:24:49 AM EST
    Every lawyer is required to maintain a trust account to keep separate the lawyer's money and funds advanced by the client or someone on his behalf  that are either fees not yet earned or expense money.

    O'Mara opened a trust account specifically for GZ's case (even separate from his ordinary law office trust account which is designed to hold nominal, short term funds)  to hold the money GZ had raised on his website. The money isn't O'Mara's but by agreement with Zimmerman, O'Mara has control over the funds, how they are spent and he disperses the money. Additional contributions to GZ go to this account. He

    Here's the Florida rule.

    (1) Trust Account Required; Commingling Prohibited. A lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the lawyer's own property, funds and property of clients or third persons that are in a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation. All funds, including advances for fees, costs, and expenses, shall be kept in a separate bank or savings and loan association account maintained in the state where the lawyer's office is situated or elsewhere with the consent of the client or third person and clearly labeled and designated as a trust account. A lawyer may maintain funds belonging to the lawyer in the trust account in an amount no more than is reasonably sufficient to pay bank charges relating to the trust account.

    (2) Compliance With Client Directives. Trust funds may be separately held and maintained other than in a bank or savings and loan association account if the lawyer receives written permission from the client to do so and provided that written permission is received before maintaining the funds other than in a separate account.

    Lawyers don't even get to keep the interest on the funds in the account. Interest goes to the state bar foundation. The Florida rule also states:

    h) Interest on Funds That Are Not Nominal or Short-Term. A lawyer who holds funds for a client or third person and who determines that the funds are not nominal or short-term as defined elsewhere in this subchapter shall not receive benefit from interest on funds held in trust.

    O'Mara explains more here. And on the contribution site, O'Mara says:

    The money donated here will be used for George Zimmerman's ongoing living expenses, legal costs, and fees for this matter. The funds are being administered by a third-party administrator, who has a background as a former IRS agent, a Certified Public Accountant, and great experience in dealing with Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee matters.

    We have chosen to use PayPal to collect donations because they offer secure transactions, they have a strong reputation for online monetary transactions, and they are a trusted third-party.

    still puzzled (none / 0) (#107)
    by Tov on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:21:51 AM EST
    Thank you for the reply... would I be correct in holding forth that you still believe that the judge will not consider these funds in a new bond hearing because they are now independently managed?...even though the bulk of the money was available to GZ at the first hearing? I know I am a nyophyte but this seems contra-intuitive and less than fair. Thanks for taking the time and good night.

    Tov (none / 0) (#113)
    by Darby on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:49:09 AM EST
    I think the idea is that the bond is suppose to make sure the individual appears in court. If Zimmerman has large sums of money at his ready disposal, than the bond could be thought of as meaningless because it is an amount that he wouldn't care about losing if he jumped bail. In this case that would not be true for Zimmerman if placed in a controlled trust. If he jumps bail he won't have access to that money while on the run. He pretty much would have access to no money, since he is otherwise indigent.

    I agree with his others that his wife may have lied, but without seeing the entire transcript we don't know. We don't know if later in the conversation or at some point after the conversation subsequent events led them to believe differently.

    I don't believe the funds should be considered assets for purpose of a bond. It would sort of be like saying money contributed to a scholarship fund should be used in determining eligibility for the same scholarship.


    The revocation of bond (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:32:19 PM EST
    doesn't mean bond shouldn't be reset after the revocation. Revoking bond doesn't mean bail should be denied for the rest of the case. They are separate determinations.

    While bond can be revoked for his misrepresentations in the application process, there has to be more for refusal to set a new bond after revocation.


    At the new bond hearing (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:54:42 PM EST
    I presume they will have to disclose how much is in the fund now? Could it still be used for bond since it is now locked up in a trust?  I wonder what the terms of the trust were.

    Tampa Bay Times package (none / 0) (#54)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:14:15 PM EST
    This doesn't relate to the bond, but Jeralyn, I thought you might be interested in this series that found the great majority of people who claim SYG in Florida go free, in cases involving fatalities.

    that should be "bond hearing" (none / 0) (#55)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:15:51 PM EST
    Zimmerman's Father.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by bmaz on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 09:58:35 PM EST
    ...was a magistrate/hearing officer, not even a real judge under Virginia law, in a pissant misdemeanor/petty offense level court.  He was never a lawyer.

    Pay Pal funds (none / 0) (#91)
    by Tov on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:03:03 AM EST
    Thanks, but not really...on O'Mara's website he claims in his June 3rd post- "...neither Mr. Zimmerman nor his attorneys have direct access to the money." I still do not understand why this money cannot be used in determining a new bond amount and who controls it...according to OM he(O'Mara) has no 'input' either... or is "direct access" some legal euphemism for something I don't quite grasp? My last post on this thread I promise...thanks  

    This is a boatload of bunk (none / 0) (#97)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:21:39 AM EST
    If you think an experienced and respected criminal law specialist would do such a thing, you are clearly seriously uninformed. Such a thought is generally absurd, and that is exactly what the court - and even de la Rionda - acted like. This is an issue only for haters that want to disingenuously maintain it as an issue.

    BMaz, I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:41:05 PM EST
    and am very close to banning CommonSenseforChange.

    Are you suggesting (none / 0) (#101)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:55:26 AM EST
    that GZ inflicted his own wounds? 'Cause that would be bizarre.

    that comment has been deleted (none / 0) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:39:16 PM EST
    it is totally unsupported

    Shouldn't there be... (none / 0) (#105)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:06:41 AM EST
    ...at least a scintilla of evidence to back up such a proposition?  I have not seen such a scintilla; instead only the rankest of speculation.

    HUH? (none / 0) (#123)
    by deanno on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:29:24 AM EST
    DeeDee was miles away on a cell phone, and had NO idea who pushed who.  She also stated that she "heard the grass"--making her the only person in recorded history who has heard grass.

    It's not the definition (none / 0) (#137)
    by ks on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    It's the selective application.  There are any number of posters who could fit that definition on this subject but only certain ones get disparaged as chatterers.  It's fairly obvious what's happening.  

    yes, ks, the ones (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    who do extensive research, provide links but assess the facts differently than me have not been limited, unless they keep repeating the same thing or write articles instead of comments.

    You have been limited because your comments contribute nothing to the understanding of the criminal case. They are mostly drive-by sarcastic comments. Any comment favoring Zimmerman gets a snippy reply from you.

    Your comments on this case detract from the quality of discourse I am aspiring to.


    I guess this is my last one for the day (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by ks on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:51:55 PM EST
    who do extensive research, provide links but assess the facts differently than me have not been limited, unless they keep repeating the same thing or write articles instead of comments.

    Huh. Most of the pro-Zimmerman posters here don't even do that.  Meaning "do extensive research, provide links", etc.  

    You have been limited because your comments contribute nothing to the understanding of the criminal case. They are mostly drive-by sarcastic comments. Any comment favoring Zimmerman gets a snippy reply from you.

    Since you're pretty much cleared the room, I suspect that contributing to the understanding of the criminal case = sgree with you.  Anyway, have most of your posts really been about the criminal case which is a recent development or about the media coverage of the incident?  You've spent at least as much time dissetting media errors, perceived bias or coverage as you have directly contributed to the understanding of the criminal case.  

    I'll cop to the sarcasm though I'll take issue with "mostly" but note, I have not engaged in the occasionally free-wheeling name calling nor have I made personally derogatory comments about GZ.  Your last statement is an exaggeration.  I have not given any, or even most, pro-Zimmerman comments a snippy reply. Give the sheer number of such comments that would be improbable.

    Your comments on this case detract from the quality of discourse I am aspiring to.

    See, this is what I mean by selective application. Upthread you dinged me even when I've agreed with you (e.g. passport issue).

    About the level of discourse, for weeks now some posters, mostly new, have made subtle and outright racist comments and have engaged in continual baseless speculation (the latest target being DeeDee) which, to be fair, you've mostly deleted the racist stuff when notified but, there's been no censure of them and they've been allowed to chat away AND have lowered the level of discourse you are aspiring to.  There seems to be a big discrepancy here.  


    25 comments from you alone on Friday. (3.50 / 2) (#142)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:09:39 PM EST
    And? (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by ks on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:45:51 PM EST
    Thanks for counting! I know I posted a lot but I was doubt I was the only one.  As I said, "chattering" could describe many posters on this passionate subject but, for some reason, that label is only applied to certain posters.  

    If possible, try to ignore the (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:47:06 PM EST
    perjorative label of "chatterer" and concentrate on Jeralyn's web site goal:  criminal defense.  

    We have evidence that Zimmerman broke his own nose (none / 0) (#139)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    You will need to have us believe that:

      the positions of the combatants shifted in the few seconds between John's observation and the shot being fired. Otherwise, as others had pointed out, the trajectory makes no sense. A man on his back does not hold a pistol near his face to shoot an assailant who is straddling him and 45 degrees above parallel to the ground. Lie down have someone straddle you MMA style and try this experiment with a gun or a crooked banana.

      marks on the back of the head were self inflicted.

      GZ crafted a statement that  (as far as we know) totally conforms to the physical evidence even at the risk of being contradicted by witnesses
    whom to his knowledge could have been observing the entire fight

    That the marks on TVs knuckles were surreptitiously added by GZ  after the shot was fired

    I suppose it is also equally possible that a swarm of yard geese flew  by during a moment when no witness was watching ( perhaps sounding like a cell phone over grass) and inflicted GZ's injuries

    But it doesn't matter - all that matters is can the state prove - beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ's accounting is untrue

    "That the marks on TVs knuckles (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:23:44 PM EST
     were surreptitiously added by GZ  after the shot was fired"

    From the autopsy report:"There is a small 1/4 x 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger"

    not mark(s)...not "knuckles"

    one small abrasion on a finger

    pretty good for a kid who was supposedly pummeling GZ mma style


    the supposed lack of TM's and GZ's injuries have never been in an actual fist fight.

    MMA style (none / 0) (#180)
    by Stobberdobber on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    I believe the MMA style actually referred to the fact that a lot of MMA style fighters try to straddle their opponent for the best advantage.

    That is correct (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:22:17 PM EST
    Mixed martial arts permits its fighters to engage in a form of Jujitsu. There is a considerable body of work on the style which is a variant of the various Olympic Jujitsu competitions.

    FYI the Full Mount is probably what the witness John described in his testimony. The bottom combatant , having lost his "guard" is at an extremely disadvantage.

    A skilled practitioner has some options in the bottom position. I don't believe GZ was trained in this style.


    The Tampa Tribune had a story (none / 0) (#207)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    Sunday about the rising popularity of MMA.

    Really? (none / 0) (#141)
    by pfish on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    Are you sure about that?  Can you flesh it out some more, because that seems pretty farfetched.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:03:46 PM EST
    There is evidence TM struck GZ and broke his nose -- his own statements. His statements are evidence.

    There is no evidence -- no witness statement, report or anything else that says GZ did something to break his own nose.

    So to say there is as much evidence to show one as the other is false. A defendant's testimony is treated the same as everyone elses. A defendant's testimony is sufficient, by itself, to get a self-defense instruction.


    passport (none / 0) (#144)
    by Stobberdobber on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    So you discount the fact that he may have forgotten? When he and his team have been so busy with the discovery, monitoring the website, runing down fake twitter, facebook and fund sites, I think it entirely palusible that the forgot to file the paperwork. It WAS sent to the judge in messages acknowledging that one existed and was in O'Mara's possession by the 26th. The judge acknowledged this in the hearing.

    the coment you are replying to (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    was deleted. The court already ruled and accepted O'Mara's explanation. There's no reason to post a contrary opinion with no basis in fact that casts aspersion on O'Mara when  the judge said he has always acted with candor.

    Here is what perplexes me (none / 0) (#153)
    by Darby on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:47:42 PM EST
    Shortly after the initial bond hearing George both turned in the extra passport and came clean as to the money in the defense fund. I am not sure why exactly the judge revoked bail on Friday since he was made aware many weeks ago that there were significant funds in the defense fund. He was obviously unhappy that Shelly Zimmerman appeared to not be forthright based upon the telephone transcript. That said, they still had already informed the court of the differing financial situation than what had been presented in court, so I am not sure why bail was revoked. Perhaps a contempt siting on Shelly Zimmerman I could understand, but the logistics of revoking bond when the judge knew for weeks they had already 'amended their prior claim of indigent'.

    It wasn't just about the amount. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Karl Baden on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:50:24 PM EST
    What was new was that the Zimmermans knew about it at the time of the original hearing and there was concrete evidence of that.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#167)
    by Darby on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    But hadn't he made amends already by admitting to the court 5 weeks ago that what he said in court was different from what was true. Even if he had been lying, he had already come clean so to speak by advising the court.

    Maybe can be reinstated (none / 0) (#162)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:29:03 PM EST
    as opposed to "new bond". But, if not, and it is a totally new bond, what about the fee paid to the bondsman on the original bond?  Why should the Zimmermans have to lose that because of a petulant charade by Lester?  The court should have simply ordered GZ to appear for a further hearing before yanking the bond in knee jerk fashion.  It is bogus.

    Silver lining (none / 0) (#174)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:31:44 PM EST
    Donations to Zimmerman's defense fund have spiked since friday according to O'Mara.

    I think this whole debacle was a good opportunity for Judge Lester to demonstrate his willingness to throw the book at Zimmerman when he deems it necessary. If the judge dismisses the case or Zimmerman is found not guilty, he can point to this incident as proof he did not show any leniency.

    Will that pacify the rabid Zimmerman demonizers? Probably not, but it will satisfy most reasonable people that justice was served.

    NO! (none / 0) (#178)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:33:22 PM EST
    There is a huge difference between the bond posted to the court, in this case by a bail bond company, and the fee the bond company charges to do that.  The fee is almost always non-recoverable. The fee is generally 10% of the total bond amount, which in this case on a $150,000.00 bond would be $15,000.00.  I am talking about the $15,000.00 fee.  And, trust me, no bail bond companies do not easily "carry over" to a new different bond nor "credit" nor anything else of the like.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#179)
    by Darby on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 05:46:02 PM EST
    Obviously I am not a lawyer but didn't realize this is how it works. Assuming a person is innocent, the have to spend tens of thousands in bail bondsmen fees to avoid sitting in jail awaiting trial. Or be wealthy enough to come up with the bond amount. Innocent until proven guilty is quite expensive

    Many courts (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:12:35 PM EST
    (especially federal) have moved to a system where the court can act as the surety. Bond is often set for example at "10,000, 10%" -- which means the defendant puts up $1,000 and agrees to pay $9,000 if the bond is revoked, but at the end of the case when bond is discharged, if he complied with the conditions, he gets the $1,000 back. There's no need for a bondsman any more. (Also, in federal court, once the court decides the defendant is entitled to bond, and pre-trial detention isn't warranted, it must set a bond within his means. " The judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person." Statute here.) It's a much fairer system.

    Also, bondsman often require collateral for the amount of the bond in case of forfeiture. No collateral is required when the court acts as surety.


    BMazz, I deleted the comments (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:04:32 PM EST
    by Oculus you are replying to. The bondsman's 10% is not refundable. Perhaps she meant the full amount of the bond wouldn't be forfeited -- which just would let the bondsman off the hook from having to pay $150k to the court.

    But the 10% is a fee -- it's like the juice the bookie charges -- doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's the cost of placing the bet. For bail, it's the amount the bondsman charges for agreeing to be surety on the bond. If the defendant absconds, the bondsman is the one on the hook for the full amount of the bond. At the end of the case when bond is discharged, if the defendant has made all his appearances, the bondsman doesn't return the 10%.

    It's an important distinction to get correct, because it explains why the Zimmermans would have preferred to use their own property/funds for the full amount of the bond and not use a bondsman. Had they used their own funds (through taking out second mortgages or however they intended to do it), and posted the bond with the court themselves, they would have gotten all the money back at the end of the case. Using a bondsman, they get zip back.


    Yep, (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 07:42:02 PM EST
    That is exactly how it is here. Worse, as you noted is possible, even with the bond company, you STILL nearly always (they can waive if they want; but they don't) have to post with them the same full collateral, whether personal property, cash or deed of trust to real property, to cover the whole freaking bond.  

    The unfamiliar with this process may ask "why use a bond company at all then". Well, because they are faster and easier at accepting the collateral.  The court will only take cash or intricately deeded trust of real property, and it is a major hassle. Even attorney offices have a hard time with the real property compliance. If you want your client/family member out, you do it through a bond company to be done with it.

    In short, it is a total criminal racket in its own right. It is indeed exactly like "juice to a bookie".  That is why the federal process that is coming into standardization is so much more superior. Too many old pressures on state systems to have that happen in state courts universally anytime soon though.

    I also think, as I think Jeralyn was getting at, it is a very probable partial explanation of why Shellie Zimmerman, and the Z parents, were thinking in terms of personal collateral for the bond.


    management of funds (none / 0) (#194)
    by pngai on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:42:38 PM EST
    It seems that people who wish to support Zimmerman face a dilemma in that under the wrong circumstances, money donated to Zimmerman could end up increasing his bail without helping him at all.

    Is there a way to donate that would avoid this problem such as if Zimmerman or O'Mara set up a fund controlled solely by O'Mara and earmarked for paying for the legal fees of Zimmerman's defense?

    O'Mara is a nice guy but it doesn't seem fair to expect him to work pro-bono.

    he's not working pro bono (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:34:40 PM EST
    he just hasn't been paid yet from the fund. He's expecting to be paid from the fund. See his press release:

    None of the funds have yet been allocated for legal fees or defense costs; however it is expected for some of the funds to be used for this purpose in the near future.

    and here

    The donations made will be used for reasonable living expenses and his legal defense.

    my concern is (none / 0) (#222)
    by pngai on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:36:07 AM EST
    how can someone who wishes to support Zimmerman's legal expenses be sure the money is available to O'Mara and isn't seen by the judge as a reason to raise Zimmerman's bail?

    Zimmerman needs money (none / 0) (#217)
    by friendofinnocence on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:20:00 PM EST
    Zimmerman is going to need every dollar donors can send him.  He needs a boatload of money in order to pay for his defense team, living expenses, investigators, expert witnesses, and the endless list of extraneous expenses that emerge in any sizable project.

    Anyone who is concerned about their donation increasing his bail could just wait until after the hearing to donate.  Even if his bond turns out to be permanently revoked, the amount of financial support he will need will stay pretty much the same.  


    blindsided and set up? (none / 0) (#218)
    by lily on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 11:25:27 PM EST
    is it possible that the SP reviewed the taped jail phone calls prior to bond hearing and chose to omit this evidence from the bond hearing in order to later suggest SZ committed perjury?

    By putting GZ back in jail the SP wins one in the court of public opinion.

    Yet more conspiracy theories (none / 0) (#228)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:25:01 AM EST
    Anything is possible, but there is zero evidence of this.  Moreover, if the SP had knowledge of these conversations and the amounts in the Paypal accounts, why wait until after the bond hearing?  Why wait until after Zimmerman revealed the accounts - and how would the SP know Zimmerman was going to do that?  He could just as easily confronted SZ with the transcripts of the conversations immediately after she claimed she had no estimate as to the account balance and they had no other assets to pay bond or legal expenses.

    It is interesting to see how many theories people will come up with to avoid placing responsibility for this squarely where it belongs - with the Zimmermans.


    Defense Team Press Release (none / 0) (#221)
    by Cylinder on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:28:05 AM EST
    Details Regarding the Request for a Second Bond Hearing for George Zimmerman

    Zimmerman's defense team will file a motion today for a second bond hearing. While Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that he allowed his financial situation to be misstated in court, the defense will emphasize that in all other regards, Mr. Zimmerman has been forthright and cooperative. He gave several voluntary statements to the police, re-enacted the events for them, gave voice exemplars for comparison and stayed in ongoing contact with the Department of Law Enforcement during his initial stage of being in hiding. He has twice surrendered himself to law enforcement when asked to do so, and this should demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman is not a flight risk. He has also complied with all conditions of his release, including curfew, keeping in touch with his supervising officers, and maintaining his GPS monitoring, without violation.

    The voice exemplars was new information to me at least. Later in the same release, the defense team talks about the elephant:

    At the point of the bond hearing, Mr. Zimmerman had been driven from his home and neighborhood, could not go to work, his wife could not go back to a finish her nursing degree, his mother and father had been driven from their home, and he had been thrust into the national spotlight as a racist murderer by factions acting with their own agendas. None of those allegations have been supported by the discovery released to date, yet the hatred continues.

    OK then (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Lora on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:51:18 AM EST
    A misstatement was made and GZ let it stand.

    All right then, GZ is human, not perfect.  I hope it does not hurt him and I tend to think it will not significantly in the long run, even though the media is running with it now.

    Re the second paragraph: he and his family has been hurt substantially by this entire situation.

    I am sickened by the way "justice" has been taken out of the hands of the justice system (not that the justice system works that well either).  It happens too many times and too many people suffer for crimes real and imagined in ways they should not.


    Bond Hearing Delayed (none / 0) (#234)
    by Cylinder on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    Update on Motion for Bond

    Mr. Zimmerman's legal defense team has decided to delay filing a motion for bond. A hearing will not be scheduled for a couple of weeks, and we will file a the motion well in advance of the hearing.

    O'Mara acknowledges Zimmerman ... (none / 0) (#235)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    ... "allowed his financial situation to be misstated in court":

    The audio recordings of Mr. Zimmerman's phone conversations while in jail make it clear that Mr. Zimmerman knew a significant sum had been raised...

    "We feel the failure to disclose these funds was caused by fear, mistrust, and confusion."