Zimmerman: No Imminent Filing of Motion for Bond

George Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara announced today he is delaying the filing a motion to release George Zimmerman on bond. In a cryptic statement he writes:

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.

Zimmerman will remain in jail. One reason may be that the Judge is out of town this week, so there's no reason to file it now. Why give the state any more advance notice of his arguments than necessary? Another may be that he is obtaining all of George Zimmerman's jail calls, not just those the state's attorney's office presented to the judge.

Or maybe he wants the time to retain and pay for experts, and increase the amount of earned legal fees, having the fund pay for both before filing the motion. If the fund is depleted by the time he files the motion, there's no reason to increase the amount of the bond. Any other thoughts?

Here's Mark O'Mara's 911 call on May 14 reporting a threat.

< Nine Jurors Picked for Jerry Sandusky Trial | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How far in advance is Judge Lester's (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Redbrow on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    schedule and vacation time known to the players? Is it public knowledge?

    Might the prosecution have known of the Judges time off in advance and deliberately chose to go after Zimmerman at a time where he would not get a chance for a hearing right away due to Judge Lester being unavailable?

    It seems O'Mara may not have known of the Judge's time off when he made the initial press release stating he would file the motion right away. Then he learned the judge would not be available anyway, so he would be wise to use the extra time to prepare.

    might not be a vacation (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    he could be at a conference. The article I read just said he won't be in the office next week.

    But the dockets are available online and for June it shows that there are hearings in his court this week but not for the next two weeks, so maybe the article got it wrong?


    The 11th-21st (none / 0) (#9)
    by DebFrmHell on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:46:45 PM EST
    looks more like a two week vacation, IMO.

    Taking off a week early?  Not so much.


    Or maybe (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by expy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:21:38 PM EST
    O'Mara has an issue with his client and is going to hold off until that is resolved.

    It is very possible that the client has been less than honest with his lawyer, putting his lawyer in the very embarrassing position of making representations to the court that turn out later to be untrue. This has happened with the money, and it has happened with the passport.

    I do not find it plausible that a competent lawyer in a high profile case would have forgotten to ask for a copy of the PayPal account ledger ahead of the first bail hearing, or have forgotten to notify the court about a 2nd passport lying around in his case file. So either O'Mara's been sloppy on two occasions, or else there are some things going on behind the scenes between client & attorney that are putting him in a very uncomfortable position as counsel.

    I agree that O'Mara probably wants to review all transcripts and recordings of jail conversations that are available to him before proceeding; there may be some other evidence or investigation he needs to do as well. I think he will probably want to get copies of jail phone logs, client phone records, and relevant bank statements from the time period reflected in the phone calls. He's now been put into the position of chasing after money instead of focusing his attention on defending the murder case.

    But I honestly don't see how he can take the risk of going into court with a client who who claims to be lacking in funds without being absolutely sure he is not going to run into other land mines along the way.

    And if his client has now decided to come clean to his own lawyer and lay out everything -- then maybe there are some other issues that need to be dealt with before returning to a public forum.

    I think similarly. I have felt since the time we (none / 0) (#29)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:33:46 PM EST
    learned of the PayPal and passport issues that perhaps GZ had not been forthright with his attorney.   It did not seem likely that O'Mara was incompetent enough to make two huge mistakes.  I believe the client has been his own worst enemy if what we believe to be true is in fact true.

    Letting the Judge cool off ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Doug1111 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:22:17 PM EST
    would be my guess.

    And yeah his having had to sit in jail for three weeks or so will serve as a sort of punishment so that the judge may not be as inclined to up the bail a whole lot more.

    I'd think that O'Mara will also argue that all of the funds in the fund will be needed to pay for experts, Zimmerman's out of work living expenses, and make at least some dent in his attorneys otherwise pro bono work.


    Delay to File (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Tamta on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:49:10 PM EST
    I think it could be a combination of taking time to review the tapes, solidify approach, show the public and the Court that GZ willingly  paid his dues for this transgression, and allowing for the public decompression of this event is not a bad idea.

    Your comment will likely be deleted (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Redbrow on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:34:31 PM EST
    but I will respond anyway.

    1. Zimmerman was not on neighborhood watch, he was on his way to the store.

    2. Zimmerman did not lie to the judge, his wife is the one being called liar by the prosecution. Zimmerman is being accused of being a potted palm for not jumping up and shouting liar at his wife.

    3. Zimmerman did not ignore the dispatchers advice to no longer follow. He said 'ok' and stopped. The prosecution stated they have no evidence he followed or confronted Martin.

    How wrong is it (none / 0) (#38)
    by DebFrmHell on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:50:29 PM EST
    that the visual for Number 2 made me laugh out loud?  Even the dog jumped!

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:13:25 PM EST
    was deleted for containing falsehoods. Thanks for correcting them.

    Latest release does not specify 'bond' hearing. (2.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Redbrow on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:25:28 PM EST
    It just mentions a non-specific hearing twice, while the previous release always specified 'bond' hearing every time the word hearing was used.

    Maybe this will be much more than the bond hearing he originally had in mind.

    Maybe he and West are going on the offensive.

    Maybe he has uncovered some major new evidence. Maybe he has proof that ties the prosecution directly to "factions acting with their own agendas".

    Some of that comment is a bit speculative (none / 0) (#43)
    by MJW on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:11:18 PM EST
    (though I hope it's true), but that's a good catch on the specific language.  The update says:

    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.

    Very curious that it seems "a" was meant to be changed to "the" or vice versa.  I speculate that most likely "the" was changed to "a" so it would not refer back to "motion for bond" in the title.  (Alternately, "a" was changed to "the" so it would refer back to the title.)


    Well... (none / 0) (#1)
    by bmaz on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:25:08 PM EST
    Maybe could use the time to get an attorney for Shellie Zimmerman and get them up to speed, because she has some issues in relation to how she is used to clean up the mess at the next bond hearing (assuming she is used at all).  I see some pretty touch issues surrounding that.

    what about.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by lawstudent on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    Any reason to think he is delaying the motion to get all his ducks in a row, and those ducks might not be lining up so nicely?  

    To be clear, I am speculating, just as the other possibilities suggested in this post are speculation.  Without more information from the GZ legal team, there is no reason to think any one explanation is better than the next, but it seems to me this is at least a possibility.  

    My personal opinion is that he recognizes he may very well have a problem depending on the contents of the jail calls, and he needs the time first to review the tapes, and then to determine if he has a good faith basis to claim GZ was mistaken.  

    Or maybe so Mr. O'Mara (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    has more sympathy on his side because Mr. Zimmerman will have been in custody longer by the time of the delayed hearing.  

    delay to File (none / 0) (#48)
    by Tamta on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 09:52:23 AM EST
    Although I think a delay to file may be appropriate and could work out as strategically advantageous, I am not completely convinced that MOM immediately intended to wait on a request for a new hearing. I am still going through video links to substantiate this, so pardon me for speaking without backing this up with an official link, but I got the impression that initially MOM was wanting to expedite this and resolve it as soon as possible.  

    MOM is very good defense attorney and strategist,  but I also see many good MA atty (Mergers/Aquisitions) qualities in his style:
    " let's just make this go away".


    When my Doctor goes on vacation (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:34:09 PM EST
    she names a replacement that her patients can be treated by.

    When an airline pilot goes on vacation the pilot has a replacement.

    When a teacher takes time off a substitute is used.

    Shame a judge can't be held to the same standard as a Doctor or an airline pilot or teacher....or....

    Judges DO do that (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    But it depends on the judge, the lawyers, the case, etc.

    Right... (none / 0) (#8)
    by bmaz on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    and, for whatever reason, O'Mara does not seem too distressed about it. I don't think it hurts him one bit to have a couple of weeks to prepare, build up a little in custody time for GZ to placate the judge with, all kinds of stuff. And notice O'Mara does not appear to be clamoring to have it immediately first thing after Lester's return. May be a relief in a way.

    With the Sandusky trial getting (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:49:37 PM EST
    cranked up in PA , the Zimmerman matter is going to be something of a media afterthought two weeks from now - I can almost hear the little feet scrabbling up the east coast...

    Anything that takes the spotlight off of Sanford, Florida - - or at least dims it - would, I think, be a good thing for the defense.

    I can't speak for George Zimmerman's state of mind, but maybe this will be a kind of "time-out" for him as he contemplates the wisdom of not being completely open with his attorneys, and using jailhouse telephones.


    wives and partners sometimes both (none / 0) (#63)
    by LeaNder on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 09:20:51 AM EST
    Anne, interesting among other things you stay focused on matters. Concerning your last passage, that is actually what I wondered about most.

    Just as I was slightly amused, admittedly, that Shellie is considered the main culprit by some above. I know couples were the wife always takes the heat, usually with impressive nonchalance, while the husband keeps his image. ...

    I do not have the impression that Shellie is the type of wife that decides matters. Besides if they had a solid partnership, like trust that the other will do the right thing, would it have been necessary to talk about it on the phone?

    That's what I really wondered about most, how anybody can be so stupid as handling these matters over the phone. Had I been him, I would have assumed that I am under surveillance.

    How good a student was he in associate criminal law, and what courses did he take exactly?


    On the bond (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:03:26 PM EST
    I just saw on the docket that the bond was discharged and "turned in by bondsman" so that bond is history. It looks like he will have to pay another 10% premium if bond is reset and he uses a bondsman again.  So this "mistake" just cost the Zimmerman  fund $15,000. O'Mara said at the hearing (audio here, around 40 minutes in) that only $5,000 from the fund was used for the bondsman, and they haven't yet paid the bondsman's remaining $10k yet, but expected to from the fund.

    I wonder if now GZ's parents and grandparents might not take out those second mortgages on their homes to post the full amount of a new bond with the court. Doesn't it usually take a few weeks to get a second mortgage (appraisals needed, etc)?  

    O'Mara's fees are and defense expenses are in that defense fund. I wonder if he's still pushing the use of a bondsman instead of the family coming up with cash.

    In drug cases, judges tend to believe that a defendant is less likely to flee when their loved one's property is securing a bond, rather than cash, since their cash may just be drug proceeds and no big deal if lost, but most defendants would think long and hard before causing their mother to lose her home (so the argument goes.)

    When O'Mara moves for a new bond, he will probably make a proposal for what it should be, and he may not have all those details yet.


    This is exactly (none / 0) (#15)
    by bmaz on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    Why I thought it so bogus of Lester to revoke bond instead of just ordering Zimmerman to report forthwith.  Telling Lester that he screwed the pooch procedurally and due process wise is going to be a delicate undertaking. But that is effectively what he did.

    BIG IF (none / 0) (#17)
    by DebFrmHell on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:11:59 PM EST
    MOM does this, even delicately, is there a chance that the judge will have to recuse himself from the SYG hearing or even the main trial, if deemed to go forward?

    Could the violation of due process be shown that Lester has shown some kind of bias towards GZ even though the target presently seems to be more toward Shellie Zimmerman?  (GZ would not be excluded in this at a later date, either.)

    If the SYG is successful, would this become a failsafe for Judge Lester's future career as it will show he was tough on Zimmerman?  His is an elected position, IIRC.

    Sorry, but I have a lot of questions...


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#20)
    by friendofinnocence on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:43:47 PM EST
    Does the next bond hearing start from scratch?  Is he in a "revoked" status or back at square one?

    That is something to work out with the bondsman (none / 0) (#26)
    by expy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 07:04:37 PM EST
    The bondsman may be willing to reinstate when there is a new bond, giving the family credit for the money already put up. It really is up to the bondsman -- and if there is a higher bond amount set that will provide some motivation.  For example, if the bond is set at $350K, requiring a $35K posting, the bondsman would stand to gain +$20K over the initial $15K if he reinstates.

    I had this happen more than once in my practice, typically with clients who accidentally missed a court appearance, sometimes with a reasonably good excuse, or showed up late to court.

    (That's one reason I didn't see the Judge's move as particularly egregious. I've seen it happen plenty of times. I've known a few hard-ass judges who are sticklers about showing up on time, and will issue bench warrants and revoke bail if the client isn't there and ready when the case is called. So 10 minutes late to court can easily result in a defendant spending several days in jail until a bail hearing can be re-scheduled.)


    You must have... (none / 0) (#33)
    by bmaz on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:21:36 PM EST
    ...a heck of a lot better quality of human beings functioning as bail bondsmen in your jurisdiction than I run across. It is actually kind of refreshing to hear a report like that.

    Maybe just a lot of competition (none / 0) (#44)
    by expy on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 11:26:49 PM EST
    and a local constituency that is good for repeat business. Many local bondsmen rely on ongoing relationships/referrals from criminal defense lawyers. The lawyers will know which will end up being the most reasonable.

    Someone reported up thread that Zimmerman was bailed at a time when the family had only deposited  $5K of the $15K premium -- suggesting that particular bondsman was somewhat flexible.


    I do hope Mr. Zimmerman's relatives (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 08:50:13 PM EST
    don't put their homes at risk.  Not that he is especially a flight risk.  But I have this haunted memory of mom coming out from Nebraska for the pre lim of her adult son, accused on lots of residential burglaries.  He showed up for the morning session but didn't make it back after lunch.  The stricken look on this elderly woman's face.  

    Do we know (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:55:04 PM EST
     what Z's situation is in jail? I mean, is he separated from the general population, or does he mingle with the others?

    I would assume that O'Mara  prepped him as to "loose talk" with other inmates.

    yes he's in his own cell (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    the sheriff's gave a press conference. More here:

    The Seminole County Sheriff's Office said Zimmerman would be in a cell by himself, separated from the general population, because the case is so high-profile. The 67-square-foot cell is equipped with a toilet, two beds, a mattress, pillow, blanket and bed sheets. Zimmerman will not have access to a TV.

    Thank you, (none / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:23:38 PM EST
    I'm not a fan of Zimmerman's, but not allowing him a TV seems unduly punitive. In all fairness, he's isolated enough and just for the simple reason of him being kept informed of public opinion (which is unquestionably a big part of this case) I think a TV is the least he should be allowed.

    Z shouldn't talk to other inmates (none / 0) (#19)
    by friendofinnocence on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:35:33 PM EST
    I think O'Mara should advise him to keep to himself, stay off the phone, and only talk to his lawyers, at least until the bail hearing.  I think O'Mara should assume law enforcement has a C.I. trying to talk to Zimmerman, and there might exist a wannabe C.I. who would like to talk to Zimmerman.  I would say in the cases I've read about over the years, the weaker the case, the more likely the prosecutors will be willing to go for a "jailhouse confession", or accept one if the opportunity comes knocking on their door.

    My thinking is that (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:34:33 PM EST
    there is less here than meets the eye.  The happenstance of time owing to the judge's absence will be used by the defense to prepare for the hearing, to take advantage of the opportunity given for quieting the case down, and to organize and arrange Zimmerman's funding so as to anticipate the judge's questions.

    If there is anything Machiavellian, it would, in my view, relate to allowing Zimmerman to remain in custody for the short-term so as to avoid the possibility of denial of bail--after all, the possible steps in this process (e.g., SYG, appeal, trial) could take up to two years.

    I always thought bail was to insure that (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    the defendant shows up for trial.

    Is there any reasonable person in the world who thinks Zimmerman won't show??

    Me thinks this is just the judge showing how tough he is for the PC crowd.

    Shame. Jail is jail and should only be imposed for a fair and righteous reason.

    The "PC crowd"? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ks on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:24:48 PM EST
    GZ actually had a reasonable bail.  Later, the judge revoked it because he found that the Zimmermans (GZ passively and SZ actively) made material misrepresentations about their finances which he relied upon to grant the bail.  At some point his lawyer will file for bail again and we'll take it from there.  I'm not sure what the "PC crowd" had to do with any of that.

    That's what bail used to be about... (none / 0) (#18)
    by redwolf on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:31:38 PM EST
    now it's just a way to punish people.

    I agree!! (none / 0) (#22)
    by deanno on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    with that!

    It's getting hard for me to (none / 0) (#21)
    by deanno on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    figure this O'Mara fellow out.  When he's on TV he comes across as such a good boy butt kisser--BUT he was a tiger at that bond hearing on 4/20.

    He seems like a very shrewd guy

    That's why it's hard to know (none / 0) (#23)
    by MJW on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:06:34 PM EST
    what the delay in seeking a new bond means.  Perhaps the facts are more problematical for Zimmerman than they appeared at first, or perhaps O'Mara has decided to pursue a more aggressive strategy than merely throwing Zimmerman on the mercy of the court.  When O'Mara first came on board, he said he'd wait a while before applying for the original bond, in order to allow the situation to cool down.  I'm convinced, though, that his real purpose was to prepare the bold attack he launched at the hearing.   I hope the delay is due to a more aggressive strategy rather than more problematical facts, but it's likely that only time will tell.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 04:03:52 PM EST
     the funds issue was a major "come to Jesus" moment for MOM. Now, he can't take anything for granted and is probably verifying everything GZ told him independently. That's just smart lawyering.

    We've talked about the dangers of "jailhouse snitches," but beyond them, there's GZ's friends and relatives. Who knows what he's discussed with them, and again, MOM is probably researching all that also.

    I don't think there's anything mysterious about his slow down in seeking another hearing. He's just got a ton of work to do, and it looks like he's doing it.

    Just my opinion.


    Or Maybe, (none / 0) (#24)
    by CherokeeNative on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 06:22:57 PM EST
    MOM has decided to appeal Judge Lester's ruling which essentially calls for GZ's testimony to explain himself.  Since GZ has the right to remain silent, he is in a Catch 22 situation that MOM is having to think through strategically.

    A comment suggesting (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:54:38 AM EST
    GZ and his family would want him to remain in jail has been deleted. There is zero evidence to support that or the speculation it was based on.

    Zimmerman will ask for a new bond. His attorney has said so in a press release. It's absurd to suggest that a client who is contesting his guilt would agree to spend a year in jail awaiting trial if he didn't have to.

    Also, related to but not directly pertinent to the deleted comment,  O'Mara didn't say GZ's family was contemplating putting up their houses, but taking second mortgages on them to raise the full $150k bail. There's been no suggestion by the prosecution or court Zimmerman is a flight risk. There is no support for speculation that his family would be or need be concerned they might lose their homes if they used second mortgage money for bail. If bail was revoked again and Zimmerman was in custody, they would get the bond money back. Bail isn't forfeited when the defendant is in custody, only if he absconds. Bond revocations are not the same thing as bond forfeitures.

    The reason not to use the equity in the homes for bond is that the case is going to take more than a year to resolve and if the second mortgage has used up most or all of the equity, and the family has some other urgent need in that time for money, it won't be able to use the homes, since the equity will be gone.  

    Corey threatens to sue Dershowitz and Harvard! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:57:10 AM EST
    But Dershowitz is unrelenting in his criticism and makes a point that I tried to make in a previous thread.

    Ironically, Corey has now succeeded in putting Zimmerman back in prison for a comparably misleading omission in his testimony. His failure to disclose money received from a PayPal account requesting donations for his legal defense made his testimony misleadingly incomplete.

    In her motion to revoke his bail, Corey argued that Zimmerman "intentionally deceived the court" by making "false representations." The same can be said about prosecutor Corey. She too misled and deceived the court by submitting an affidavit that relied on a review of photographs and other reports that showed injuries to Zimmerman, without disclosing the existence of these highly relevant injuries.

    I'm going to write a new post on that (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 01:04:42 AM EST
    Let's keep this one to bond, thanks.

    Can the State of Florida (none / 0) (#49)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 10:35:53 AM EST
    "leverage" the possible future charges against Shellie Z in an effort to pursuade George Z to plea down? To say a manslaughter charge?

    This was suggested elsewhere and I responded that I thought it would be unethical for the prosecution to do such a maneuver.  

    Sorry, if this is deemed off topic.

    After a bit more looking (none / 0) (#57)
    by MJW on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 10:21:55 PM EST
    I discovered some related case law.

    In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 US 357 (1978), the supreme court expresses concern that plea agreements affecting someone other that the defendant may pose constitutional problems, but makes no decision on the matter:

    This case does not involve the constitutional implications of a prosecutor's offer during plea bargaining of adverse or lenient treatment for some person other than the accused, see ALI Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, Commentary to § 350.3, pp. 614-615 (1975), which might pose a greater danger of inducing a false guilty plea by skewing the assessment of the risks a defendant must consider. Cf. Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 758.

    I found one Florida appeals case on the issue, Stinson v. State, 839 So. 2d 906 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2003.  While noting that "[w]here the state threatens prosecution of one with whom the defendant has familial ties or other close bonds, the threat of coercion is much greater," the court nevertheless approves of plea agreements "involving leniency toward a third party, or a promise not to prosecute a third party" as long as "the government [has] probable cause to charge the third party at the time the defendant is offered leniency for the third party, or at the time the defendant is threatened that the third party will be charged."   (Significantly, Zimmernman's court, the 18th circuit, is within the 5th district, so Stinson in binding law.)

    The Florida court decision and the federal decisions I read all involve "wired pleas," where the defendant and the third party were offered a package deal to pleading guilty to the same criminal endeavor.   Using the threat of prosecuting a third party for separate crime to force a plea agreement seems to me to be somewhat less justifiable.


    Thank you. (none / 0) (#60)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:14:51 AM EST

    In any case, it doesn't feel right that they could possibly do something like this and it would be accepted.

    Using the threat of prosecuting a third party for separate crime to force a plea agreement seems to me to be somewhat less justifiable.

    It is a separate set of circumstances that are being directed at his wife.  He never really said anything about it one way or another in court for those charges to be applied in his direction.

    I guess then it all boils down to what he had included in the forms he filled out before declaring indigent status.

    Thank you again for taking the time to explain this to me in a way I can understand. I appreciate it more than you know.  Sometimes all of these statutes overwhelm me.  I am pretty much lost on the AD thread so I have been muddling all afternoon.  (blushes)


    please don't take (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:16:17 AM EST
    the thread off topic to speculation about plea bargains. There is nothing to suggest he has been offered one, that charges are being contemplated against his wife or anything along those lines.

    It's a distraction and premature. If O'Mara or the state signals something like that is happening, we can discuss it then in it's own thread. Thanks.


    Can the State of Florida (none / 0) (#51)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    "leverage" the possible future charges against Shellie Z in an effort to pursuade George Z to plea down? To say a manslaughter charge?

    This was suggested elsewhere and I responded that I thought it would be unethical for the prosecution to do such a maneuver.  

    Sorry, if this is deemed off topic.

    they do it all the time (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:13:20 AM EST
    plead guilty and we won't charge your wife, your mother, your kid, or whoever.

    But I highly doubt that is what is happening here, and please don't spread unsubstantiated rumors here about plea talk gossip you read elsewhere. Thanks.

    This thread is about bond, not speculation on the ultimate resolution of the case.

    A bond hearing has been set for June 29.


    Just saw this (none / 0) (#52)
    by amateur on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 02:17:13 PM EST
    Donations are higher when Zimmerman is in jail.  That may be one factor in the decision to delay a hearing.  Seems like a good decision over all -- the judge is out anyway, let's the public cool off, increases his defense fund donations.

    Question! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kyreth on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 03:45:00 PM EST
    After seeing here that perjury wouldn't apply to George, someone is claiming it does because when filling out the finance forms when applying for bail, it says "Under the penalty of perjury you swear..." etc.

    So I'm researching to find the forms with little luck to see if he is making that up or not.  Does anyone know?

    there are no lies on his pre-trial services intake (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 12:08:18 AM EST
    form. The court has posted the interview form, signed by him here. The only financial question was whether he was then employed (he was not) and whether he was seeking a public defender (he was not.)  The form doesn't list his prior diversion, but it states O'Mara is his attorney and O'Mara's Motion for bond was drafted April 12 and filed April 16, well before the hearing,  and the motion disclosed the arrest and diversion.

    The prior record section has a big line through it rather than answers. In my experience, many pretrial release officers don't ask defendants those questions since they have to run a records check no matter what the defendant answers. The intake form is not George Zimmerman filling out a form, but being interviewed by a pre-trial release officer who interviews the defendant, writes down his oral answers to his/her questions, and then has the defendant sign it.

    It's also not clear where the weight came from, the officer may have taken it from a driver's license or jail booking sheet before the interview began. I don't recall any client ever being asked their height and weight during  such an interview. (But I'm not in Florida.)

    O'Mara's motion was drafted April 12. The website was set up April 9 and GZ was arrested April 11. So it's unlikely O'Mara's statement about him not having funds for bond was inaccurate or based on false info from Zimmerman as the website was only up for 2 days when he was arrested.


    please do not make up (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    scenarios here under which Zimmerman or his family might be guilty based on facts not known or disclosed. One such comment was just deleted.