Tweet
Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog.
Shellie Zimmerman was arrested today and jailed for perjury, based on her false claim of indigency under oath at the bond hearing at her husband’s bond hearing. She posted a $1,000 bond and was released about an hour later.
The Orlando Sentinel is reporting:
In an affidavit, prosecutors revealed new details about Shellie Zimmerman’s alleged efforts to hide money from the court.
Four days before she testified to having no knowledge of the funds, the affidavit says, Shellie Zimmerman began a series of transfers into her account — totaling $74,000 between April 16 and April 19.
The affidavit says about $47,000 more was transferred from George Zimmerman’s account to his sister’s [account]. Shellie Zimmerman withdrew about $18,000 more cash, prosecutors say.
Prosecutors say the Zimmermans used a rudimentary “code” to discuss the money in recorded jailhouse phone calls — referring to $100,000, for example, as “$100.” At least two of the calls, the state alleges, were made while Shellie Zimmerman and her husband’s sister were at a local credit union making the transactions.
“In my account do I have at least $100?” Zimmerman asked. “No… there’s like $8. $8.60,” she replied.
Zimmerman told his wife to “pay off all the bills” with the money, prosecutors said, including an American Express card and a Sam’s Club card. He also instructed her on how to pay for his bail.
According to the affidavit, after her husband was released on bond days after the bond hearing, she transferred more than $85,000 back into his account. A branch manager at their credit union told prosecutors he knew the couple, and saw Shellie Zimmerman talking to her husband on the phone on April 16.
The manager said he’d helped Shellie Zimmerman transfer control of George Zimmerman’s account, at one point speaking directly to George Zimmerman by phone.
In addition, USA Today is reporting that Judge Lester, who presided over the bond hearing and to whom the case is preassigned filed an order earlier today stating in part,
Lester concluded that Zimmerman’s wife had “testified untruthfully” about her husband’s finances at his initial bond hearing and that Zimmerman had failed to tell the court about one of his two passports.
Lester also noted that the evidence against George Zimmerman “is strong.”
“Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process.”
Devastating news for George Zimmerman.
At this point, I do not believe Mark O’Mara can represent Shellie Zimmerman because, to do so, would create a conflict of interest. His primary duty is to represent and protect George Zimmerman, his client. Needless to say, if George put her up to this, her best interest would be to rat him out and her own lawyer likely would advise her to do so.
Meanwhile, O’Mara may have some potential legal issues to deal with also. How could he not have known about the money in the Paypal account? And what about the second passport that he apparently had in his possession. Did he knowingly participate in the fraud perpetrated by the Zimmermans?
I have a feeling the bond hearing will be stricken due to these recent developments. It is an incredibly dangerous minefield for George and Shellie Zimmerman, for George’s sister, and potentially for Mark O’Mara and even George’s father.
If the hearing goes off as scheduled, expect the prosecution to be beating a drum repeatedly with the following question,
What did you know and when did you know it?
161 Comments
How much do you suppose a ‘sense of entitlement’ has permeated the Zimmerman’s consciousness from George’s father, the retired judge?
If I recall correctly, it was O’Mara himself who brought the issue of the PayPal account to the judge’s attention, which is why the state went and looked at the video. And in reviewing the video they discovered there was a second passport, as it was mentioned.
Yes, he told the judge about the account. My question is did he know how much money was in it?
Seems like he would have wanted to know, right?
Maybe he didn’t. George was under no obligation to tell him the truth and maybe he didn’t. If he didn’t, he certainly placed him in a bad situation.
Meanwhile, what about his fee? How is he getting paid, if his client is indigent?
Meanwhile, I think he told Judge Lester that he had the second passport, but forgot to post it with the court.
Potentially problematic, especially if he knew nothing about the money and innocently forgot about the passport and George decides to cut and run and lie, giving up his lawyer hoping to help himself out.
Landmines galore potentially.
Depending on what happens, he may move to withdraw.
Hard to say.
I’d like to know who is paying O’Mara’s fees myself. I swear, in an interview, he, himself, said the bill could hit 1 mil. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were the NRA.
Out of curiosity Mason, considering how badly the state handled Casey Anthony’s case, would you expect them to make sure every T is crossed and I dotted, before they take George to trial? Do you think the CA case will impact how this one is handled? It would seem to me the state wouldn’t even have taken on this case if they didn’t think they’d win; however, politically, I’m not sure they had a choice. Your thoughts?
I’ve thought all along that the prosecution’s case likely is pretty strong or they would not have charged him with murder.
They could have charged him with negligent homicide, but went for the more difficult charge to prove.
Yes, I’m certain they will work very hard to win this case.
First he kills a kid for no real reason, the he tries to rip off all the donations.
I’ll be he’s a republican.
Considering this is Florida, I’ll bet that Shellie will go to jail and George will go home.
Heh!
Heh X 2
Who pays there bills if they are fleeing the country? What wife needs a reminder to pay bills and then again why only those two bills? Is this more code is American Express American Airlines? Sam’s Club would be what then?
Do we know what bills were paid from the account? Lets suppose George’s wife bought 2 plane tickets from the account would that be considered proof he was going to flee is that why she was arrested?
Is Perjury about bail something people get arrested for? When Congress does perjury I never see any convictions thats why I’m asking murder is not my area of expertise.
Does Sam’s Club sell guns?
How much racism did George learn from his Dad?
Mark O’Mara is a lawyer do Lawyers ask for some cash upfront in a murder case all the time and if so who paid? Tuezday upthread said Mark O’Mara said the case could end up costing a Mil how much up front would a lawyer ask for a million dollar case?
Since there is no mention of Mark O’Mara doing the case for free who reassured him that he would get paid when George said he was to broke to afford bail?
Yes George’s dad is a judge probably has a nice home and stocks but this is a crappy economy and an even worse real estate market.
Assuming George’s Dad offered to pay the bills that is. I assume that a lawyer would have something in writing about how he was going to get paid for a million dollar case.
Whatever else, none of this is doing George Z’s reputation for truth and veracity any good.
Since his entire defense depends on his truthfulness in his account of the killing of Trayvon Martin, this is not good for his defense, either.
I am feeling more confident that he will go down for this, after all.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/12/193621/590
So Zimmerman witnessed a crime in the courtroom during his bond hearing in April, that he could have prevented and/or stopped and did nothing, back in February, he saw a kid walking down the street and tried to “arrest” him. The irony of the facts can sometimes reveal their deeper truth.
“Talkleft” has been releasing quite a few stories that appear biased in favor of the Zimmerman side of the case. It would seem that, at this juncture, all they can do is ignore the timely and pertinent facts and restate any obvious ones that loosely maintain their
delusionnarrative.I wonder how the racists and teabaggers feel about their generosity being used to pay off Sam’s Club and American Express? What about “bootstraps” and “personal responsibility”? I guess those rules don’t apply to people who stalk and kill black kids.
How’d you get in here? /s
This thing must be like Christmas for the prosecutors.
Of course, as expected, the entire Martin-Zimmerman affair has turned into the stuff from which a dark comedy is made.
Too bad Trayvon can’t watch the circus.
Too bad his short life was snuffed out by a criminal.
Too bad.
I believe you’re overthinking this situation.
I see two people who, despite knowing their conversations were being recorded, attempted to conceal from the court that they had a lot of money by using an extremely simple, primitive and easy-to-spot code.
They are not very smart.
I don’t know if Sam’s Club sells guns and I don’t know where George Zimmerman purchased his gun.
The unwritten rule is to get as much money up front as you can because you are unlikely to get any more.
Lawyers usually use written fee agreements. I always did.
I don’t know who is paying the fee or how it’s being paid. I presume someone must have paid him a lot of money or he would not be representing Zimmerman.
Some portion of the money paid to O’Mara would have to cover his costs, such as paying an investigator and any forensic experts he might retain.
We are not ever going to know the details of the fee agreement in any event.
I agree and that is why I believe this latest stunt is so incredibly self-destructive.
I know Jeralyn personally and professionally. She is very smart, a great lawyer and I generally agree with what she said.
Zimmerman gave 5 statements to the police that have not been released yet and we still do not know where all of the evidence at the crime scene was located. When that information is released, along with the locations of the various witnesses to the incident, we will have a much better idea of the case.
As I have said many times before, the extent to which Zimmerman’s statements materially conflict with each other, with the evidence at the crime scene, with what the witnesses testify to, and with the forensic evidence, will ultimately determine whether he wins or loses.
Put another way, he loses if the jury does not believe him and this latest stunt damages his credibility badly.
We need to know the rest of the evidence to get an idea of how badly, but I certainly would not be surprised if this turns out to be a death blow.
Will George’s bank record be looked at to see what he did buy with his donation money to see if he was preparing to flee?
Your probably right still I hope the prosecutor does double check.
I wonder if any rules govern online charity legal defense funds?
http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-defense-fund/
I assume George broke this legal definition by using the money to pay Sam’s Club and American Express assuming that is what he did.
I assume George now has to declare all the money he raised on his taxes now.
I wonder if he will be treated like Jon Edwards was when he misused his campaign contributions for personal reasons?
Yes, a tragicomedy indeed with this latest stunt providing decent competition for the stupid criminal award.
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot, yikes!
Based on the information regarding bank account transfers, I think the prosecution has all of the pertinent account information, including copies of any checks drawn on those accounts.
Those checks will, of course, identify the payees and vendors.
Good:)
What is the penalty for perjury in Florida?
Decapitation, followed by drawing and quartering, and the body parts scattered through the furthest points of the State.
FYI: The standard English execution procedure was half-hanging, draw and quarter, then decapitation and severing of limbs.
The Florida punishment is a bit more drawn out (intended):
One must continue to live in that hell hole of Republican/Democratic fascism, whereas in the English system one was relieved of the burden of one’s life rather quickly.
Now aren’t those benefits well worth living in Florida to enjoy?
LOL I must be getting rusty. (Ever wonder why Florida has the shape it does? One of my favorite chicken vs. egg conundrums.) ;-)
Up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Regarding the chicken vs. egg dilemma perhaps a circuitous approach will best resolve that social/evolutionary quandary.
First came desire, then permission, then an egg and ultimately a frickin’ chicken.
But wait a minute, if you ain’t got a chicken, then where the hell are you going to get a chicken egg?
You sure aren’t going to get it from a horse or T-Rex: you are just going to have to trust me on this one.
Of course, the simple cut to the chase answer to this entire issue is that in the evening before October 23rd 4004 B.C. the lord and master of the universe waved his (girls not allowed) digits and a chicken appeared.
Of course for those not ascribing to imbecility there is still the question of from whence came that pesky frickin’ first chicken.
But have no fear, for even if you don’t pull the answer from a body orifice, your life will be rather complete
P.S. Lose the rusty blade: Wouldn’t want to give the poor son-of-a-bitch tetanus on his/her way out! :>)
Ya know what, Things…I love it when you Over Think Things.
It’s who you are and you do it very well.
Kinda sensitive around here sometimes, depending on who’s here I guess.
I keep hearing people say how important it is to listen to a lot of views, but then, I hear all kind of interesting and sometimes controversial things said. I also hear a lot of comments that contradict other comments the very same person made.
For all of the people Underthinking Things, your overthinking soul works for me.
If it turns out George was planning to flee then the prosecutor has leverage on the wife. Cool:)
Thanks Demi and you compassion illustrates things I never would have thought to compare George using his paypal legal defense fund account to Jon Edwards being prosecuted for misusing campaign funds if it were not for your diary.
I think Jon was getting a raw deal since pols never go to jail for misusing campaign contributions.
But I do think some punishment was needed like a fine. Hopefully George gets a fine.
I think that going over every little fact and then exploring every possibility and matching the possibilities against what a person desires is a good way to predict actions.
But of course you need empathy for that compassion for others to put yourself in their place.
I may not like George at all but I can kinda think what I would do in his shoes.
Stlll Mason has a point I doubt George is as smart as me so George’s actions might be different than mine.
But in Jail all one has to do is think George might have taken a week to come up with what I thought up of off the top of my head.
It will be interesting to see just how George thinks. From his thoughts and actions we can get a view of a racist nut job.
Granted not legally insane nut job but still a nut job.
How is the Right Wing Media treating this case are they still defending George or have they gone silent and wishes it go away?
The GOP has to know that this case will effect minority turnout in Florida and if they make a big deal about the case it will boost minority turnout everywhere.
But if Mitt is desperate to win his base he will use this issue right before the election. If the GOP is desperate they will make this case an issue right before the election.
Just a reminder-Zimmerman had two wounds on the back of his head that were clearly the result of someone banging his head repeatedly against the edge of a concrete strip with bad intent. Not to be the skunk at the party, but each commenter and the diarist should take a moment to visualize what that looked like, and honestly deal with what their own personal state of mind would have been while they were on their back awaiting the next head smash. Because that is what this case is really about.
Thanks for the dramatic imaginings and reminder but no, this case is really about Shellie Zimmerman being arrested and charged with perjury.
Just a reminder that George Zimmerman is the only person who claims that is how he sustained those two small lacerations.
Given the present state of his credibility in light of this recent event, I believe your statement necessarily does not rise to the level of an established fact.
” clearly the result of someone banging his head repeatedly against the edge of a concrete strip with bad intent…”
…according to whom?
The only thing that is clear at this point, as I see it, is George Zimmerman’s credibility: That he currently resides in jail due to credibility issues is no small matter.
The statement that “the evidence against George Zimmerman is strong” comes not from a commenter at this diary. It comes from the judge in the case.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-12/martin-zimmerman-wife/55553380/1
“credibility” should read “lack of credibility.”
Demi,
I like and respect Things and meant no disrespect when I said he overthought that one issue.
If anyone is guilty of overthinking an issue, it is usually me and I think it is a good thing rather than a bad thing.
I also don’t believe he took offense.
Oh, you’re cool. I didn’t think you were being offensive to Things. I was just adding my 2 cents.
There’s worse things to do than to over-think something. As in Under Think. :)
I’ve enjoyed reading all of your diaries that follow this case and I think you’ve down a commendable job.
Stuff in this case at this point is not up to the diarist. It is up to the judge in the case, who added this:
“”Does your client get to sit there like a potted plant and lead the court down the primrose path? That’s the issue,” Lester said in revoking Zimmerman’s bond. “He can’t sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0612/Trayvon-Martin-case-George-Zimmerman-s-wife-accused-of-perjury-video
Those are strong statements, coming from not just anybody but from the judge. Mr. Zimmerman is not in an easy-acquittal situation at all.
Hey, C-S!
The only thing worse than a potted plant is a lieing ass potted plant, I always say.
LOL! And on @ThingsComeUndone. We love Things! I especially love the various angles and perspectives…makes me think every time:)
The man has an infinitely interesting mind. Who doesn’t love Things?
Thought of you the other morning when I was talking to My Favorite Homeless man who lives at the bus stop. I’ve been taking him stuff, food, blankets, whatever for about a year now. It’s about 1.5 miles from my house, so if I make a large pot of something, I take a container down to him.
He was showing me where he cut his leg on the dumpster, when he climbed in to get bottles for recycling. I tried to get him to wear sun screen, but he refuses. His says yes to dinner though. :)
Or Barack Obama.
Since this is a blog about Shellie, I’ll say that her actions make her appear to be not any smarter than her husband.
The judge’s words appear clear to me.
Thank you for sharing this, demi. Our homeless friend does not like to dive dumpsters, so he asks us to dive for him and keep an eye out for stuff. We have been able to get him quite a bit of stuff. Recently, he lost his bike, though, and bikes are hard to come by. Still, we’ll keep eyes peeled.
Any of us could easily be in that position in this ecomony. @FeetToDaFire‘s (hope I got it right) post was heartbreaking. I was briefly homeless (that is how I dove my first dumpster) and I will never forget some of the anonymous charity at that time. We try to pay forward, even though we are poor.
On Shellie, the sad thing is, now she faces a serious charge. I have seen people sentenced to 5 years for perjury. She will have to retain her own counsel, and, awful but true, if he put her up to this she will have to say that.
Very unfortunate case for everyone.
I think you’re taking this whole ‘Devils Advocate’ thing a bit far RC.
I so agree Crane. Everyone who touches this case suffers some guilt. Of course, some very much more so than others.
But, there is a connection in our conversation here…the homeless, the choices, the depression, the grief, the Anxiety.
You’ve got my mind working, C-S.
Crap for a judge that is pissed George needs to stop acting guilty, like a flight risk. Realitychecker comments about George being bruised on the back of the head are now suspect because George is acting like a guilty man or a man who does not trust the justice system. The bruises very well might have been faked after the attack. Why you ask well anyone who lies about having bail money and might we don’t know yet have been preparing to flee very well could think to fake a few bruises.
Do we have any evidence the night of the shooting that George had bruises? Police call the ambulance for anyone who has head wounds to see if they have a concussion even if they say they are alright free of charge. Because concussion victims sometimes don’t feel pain I had a friend do a face plant into car full speed on a moped his face was covered in blood I think he lost some teeth but he said he was fine and walking around right after the accident.
If George said he was ok but claimed he was hit in the head no cop would let him leave without being checked out by the ambulance people.
Does George have any medical records from that day?
Here is a link to Judge Lester’s Order Revoking [George Zimmerman's] Bond. The order was filed yesterday, 6/12/2012.
As we all know, George Zimmerman did not testify regarding his finances at the bond hearing, but he was present when Shellie testified by telephone. Therefore, he heard her testify falsely.
Judge Lester made this comment in open court when he revoked the bond:
Source: Christian Science Monitor
Here is a link to Judge Lester’s Order on State’s Motion for Protective Order and the Media Intervener’s Motions to Intervene and Oppose the Closure of Judicial Records Heard on June 1, 2012. This order was filed yesterday, 6/12/2012.
The hearing on the motion to revoke bond took place at the same time as the hearing on the Media Intervener’s Motions to Intervene and Oppose the Closure of Judicial Records. The motion to revoke bond was a last minute add-on. George Zimmerman was not present at the hearing. Evidently, his absence was excused as the intervener motion did not directly concern him.
Things,
An EMT, who arrived by ambulance a few minutes after the shooting, examined and treated George Zimmerman’s wounds. His report is the last report in the document dump.
He declined an offer to be taken to a hospital ER for a check-up.
Zimmerman also provided the police with a copy of a medical report from a family physician type clinic that he went to the next day. I do not have a link to that report, sorry.
Touche.
Count me in as another in favor of over-thinking.
I have read some of the posts on talkleft, and I agree with you, Masoninblue, that Jeralyn is extremely smart and articulate. She runs a tight ship and does not tolerate character assassination or speculation. She makes it clear that she is biased toward the defense, and almost all the posts and comments on talkleft are in Zimmerman’s favor. I am baffled sometimes by what I read there. I also don’t understand how two brilliant lawyers, Jeralyn and Masoninblue, can interpret the same facts in such different ways. Jeralyn always finds that they support Zimmerman’s claims, and Masoninblue (and I) usually see Zimmerman as probably guilty of murder.
One thing that struck me about Shellie Zimmerman’s actions is the transfer of several amounts just under $10k. This level of craftiness seems to be at odds with O’Mara’s characterization of the couple as unsophisticated innocents caught in a nightmarish situation. If I had to transfer large amounts of money, it would never occur to me to limit them to under $10k, although I am aware that $10k triggers some sort of reporting to the government. I have actually had occasion to transfer sums over $10k and never thought about it. What were the intentions behind these clear attempts at subterfuge? Were they trying to hide the money from the IRS, from the court, from the public? I imagine that they would not want it to become public knowledge that they had amassed a small fortune in donations, because surely that would cause the donations to dry up.
I was thinking more along the lines of that if somebody had their head repeatedly and violently slammed into the edge of a concrete sidewalk (a curb), they would be in the Intensive Care Level One trauma unit on a ventilator with an intracranial pressure monitor in place and part of their skull removed- and not calmly walking around declining a visit to the ER.
Yes, there are several layers of attempted fraud going on, including an apparent effort to conceal the amount of the donations from O’Mara. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and assume he did not know how much money was in that account. I don’t think he would risk his license by assisting his client to conceal that information from the judge and prosecutor, although that is certainly a possibility, if he views that money as his fee.
Nevertheless, if it were given to Zimmerman by donors to help him pay attorney fees, why didn’t Zimmerman pay him the money?
That appears to add up to a fraud on his donors, his lawyer, the prosecution, and the court.
Add to that structuring the transactions to avoid the $10 K reporting requirement by the bank to the IRS sure looks like a fraud on the IRS. It’s also a federal felony offense.
To complicate matters, he involves his wife and his sister in the criminal conspiracy.
Someone or some organization is paying O’Mara’s fee, which must be substantial and I imagine that person, group, or organization would have wanted him to assist paying the fee with that money, or if it has been paid, to have been reimbursed by that money. That would be at least one more person defrauded by the scheme.
That person could be his father.
Does he have a friend left in the world at this point whom he has not screwed over?
Forgot to address your question about why Jeralyn and I look at this case differently.
Criminal defense lawyers train themselves to find the reasonable doubt in a case, no matter how strong the prosecution’s case might be and how vanishingly small the doubt might be.
I also used to do that, but I have been out of the business for seven years and I spent three of those years teaching in a law school. That has changed my focus.
We have different opinions today because our perspectives are different.
Unfortunately, we do not have all of the evidence yet, so our opinions are merely educated guesses, based on our experience and the evidence we have seen.
What I am seeing so far is a man who is doing a mighty fine job of convicting himself.
here is an interesting read on the fallibility of GZ’s reported and pictured injuries
“Do Medical Records Exonerate George Zimmerman? Not So Fast.”
Excellent points in that article. I’m pleased to report that I have made many of them myself in previous articles :)
I do not believe George Zimmerman was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering grievous bodily injury such that a reasonable person would have concluded that he necessarily had to use deadly force is self-defense.
“because George is acting like … a man who does not trust the justice system”
I thought Omara’s “confused, fearful and mistrust” statement was interesting because, assuming that this was what Zimmerman relayed to him and he decided to go on air with it, it may reveal to us a glance at the accused psychopathology.
The problem is that, his mistrust does not absolve him of obeying the law or sanction him to take it into his own hands; just like, even if “these assholes always get away”, it does not sanction him to go play undercover bounty hunter with unsuspecting law abiding citizens or people’s innocent children.
In light of the gall or shamelessness that he certainly would have to have to proffer this cacamayme reasoning as a legitimate and public announcement worthy excuse, is it any wonder that this guy stands charged with a crime tainted with with a strong component of vigilantism? He clearly feels that he should be able to decide when he can stand above the law and when he gets to hide behind it, regardless of the moral depravity or wrongfulness of his actions. And worse of all, his threshold for what passes as a deployable “excuse” is embarrassingly low.
This was my favorite part, gave me quite a chuckle…
“And then, the report contains this gem:
“[Zimmerman] had a weapon as he is authorized to carry a firearm, and he fired at the attacker, killing him.”"
You nailed it.
Excellent point.
He has been showing us that he is a law unto himself and that makes it more likely that he took the law into his own hands that fateful Sunday evening.
Nice work.
Yeah, I saw that.
Hardly qualifies as a statement made for purposes of a medical diagnosis, which is an exception to the hearsay rule.
More like a self-serving hearsay statement to a doctor for the purpose of preparing for litigation, which is inadmissible, unless offered by a party opponent.
And there ain’t no way the prosecution will offer it.
No, that’s what this post is about, not what this case is about.
Mason, there has not even been any alternate explanation offered for those wounds, just failed attempts to deny their existence, and there was only grass and a narrow concrete strip at the scene. Perfect for causing those parallel wounds. Use that forensic experience to focus on that, and what it means. If you can’t see what I see, I am mystified. The Zimmermans’ actions re bail were really stupid, and probably will hurt the case somewhat, but I would imagine they were scared to death as they watched their case become a national political football. Those actions don’t affect my willingness to fairly appraise the significance of his wounds, which were there when the cops arrived without delay, and will be dispositive of the matter unless new and different information surfaces. If you were on your back with a competitive football player that was almost old enough to be a Marine banging your head against concrete, wouldn’t you think he had bad intentions? Seriously?
With respect, the judge was referring to the bail hearing, which does not determine the murder charge. Or SHOULD NOT.
“but I would imagine they were scared to death”
I find it ironic that the man you are defending with your sublime imagination, only needs your defense by virtue of his lacking of such a sublime imagination.
I think you are a very smart guy, and we usually agree about things, so it pains me if we disagree on this, but this kind of case is right up my alley in terms of my professional training and experience, so I stand on what I have proffered, with a lot of confidence. It’s not my first rodeo in terms of having a different opinion than most, and then being proven right. My interest in self-defense issues and cases goes all the way back to the Goetz case in 1985, when everybody in the appeals court I worked for was equally certain as now that Goetz was guilty, but Goetz was acquitted at trial. I have gotten a murder conviction in a judge trial reversed, on a self-defense issue that was never even raised at the original trial. (Appeals judges hate to reverse judge verdicts, especially when the defendant has already been in jail for years.) Definitely not my first rodeo. But this is about more than whether I am right on the ultimate outcome of this case, my thrust is to object to the many ways in which the process has been polluted, and the many incorrect assumptions and assertions that the community here has made without any way to really know what they are talking about. It’s my community, I wish it were acting smarter. I have no dog in the fight as far as favoring either side. My interest is that the law gets applied properly, that’s it.
I understand that, but the problem that the couple has created here with this additional criminal charge for Shellie and bond revocation for Mr. Zimmerman, both behind the court’s verbalized belief that it was lied to is one of credibility.
Credibility is a huge issue, because Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Zimmerman alone, is claiming self-defense.
Also, I am here to tell you that what should happen does not always happen. This is not conjecture; it is fact, sad but true.
This latest sequence of events is not helpful, IMO, in promoting the what-should. Not at all, unfortunately.
Unless I am missing something huge, I still do not see an easy acquittal here, especially given that the defendant’s truthfulness is in question. I think Mr. Zimmerman has reason for grave concern at this point.
So, the wounds were there, front AND back of head. And yet, people are still denying them. What does bias look like?
“Mason, there has not even been any alternate explanation offered for those wounds, just failed attempts to deny their existence, and there was only grass and a narrow concrete strip at the scene”
The attorneys may correct me, but, as his wounds are part of his affirmative self-defense claim, he is the one that must present them in such a way that they pass our smell test. We are not the ones burdened to provide an explanation for them.
Furthermore, they don’t fit as evidence of self-defense, if Trayvon was the one in fear for his life, as I IMAGINE THAT HE WAS SCARED TO DEATH.
And I am a little bit proud, I must say, that he may have went down fighting. No lawful citizen should suffer such indignation as to have the police called on them, to be made afraid for no good reason, to be chased, hunted in the dusk of rainy night like some escaped convict, to have our private information (ie what am we doing in a public space) demanded from us, no citizen should have to undergo that and when they do, especially in the circumstances of that fateful night, I can understand why they are scared and in fight or flight mode…and there in lies the kicker, Zimmerman himself tells us that Mr. Martin chose to flee, and when he no longer had that option, I am a little choked up and misty eyed, at the thought that he may have finally STOOD HIS GROUND and stood up to the bully and gave him a little of the business.
You see RC, I am a reasonable man, so I am able to IMAGINE how Mr. Martin felt that night, his behavior sounds reasonable. But Zimmerman? action by action, moment by moment, I have reviewed the available details of that night and I simply can not put myself in his shoes and consider carrying out his actions; a simple example, I can’t imagine offering that there is a stoned and dangerous looking person in my vicinity yet subsequently leave my sanctuary to put myself in closer proximity to that person, with full knowledge that the police are within 3 minutes to the scene, much in the same way I can’t imagine that I, as a civilian, am going to capture or interrogate a stoned individual to any useful or peaceful end. I just can’t do it.
They were terribly frightened, but not so scared that they let that Sam’s club bill slide.
Come on, man.
No one is denying he was injured, but his injuries were minor and consistent with Trayvon fighting for his life. Moreover, his claim about being sucker punched while walking back to his vehicle is inconsistent with where the evidence and Trayvon’s body were found at the crime scene.
Moreover, Judge Lester has reviewed Zimmerman’s five statements and concluded that the prosecution has a strong case.
Finally, Zimmerman just blew up his credibility at the bond hearing establishing that he views himself above the law, which is just what you would expect an armed vigilante to do (h/t to Tsar for making this point up-thread).
Now, I recognize that I am not going to change your mind and you certainly are not going to change mine, so why don’t we amicably agree to disagree and move on.
Well you have now distinguished yourself from most of the crowd by saying you don’t think aggression by Trayvon would affect the self-defense claim. You are just flat wrong now, so stop.
Absolutely not.
He was a skinny kid. If I outweighed him by 40 pounds, as Zimmerman did, I would not need a gun to defend myself.
TRAYVON fighting for his life? Mason, where are you getting that from, are you postulating that the gun was out when Trayvon started beating Zimmerman up? If so, wasn’t T CRAZY? AND, how could anyone evaluate the wounds on the back of their head while those wounds were still being inflicted? You are not even trying to be fair or objective in demanding that of Zimmerman. Have you ever actually been in a street fight, ever actually been hit in anger? I have, you don’t think very clearly after a nose punch and blows to the back of the head. Also, note the EMS thought Trayvon looked like a 20-year old (your cited document). I’m very comfortable with what I’ve said.
in their defense, bills can be pretty scary. lol
He was a competitive football player in top condition, and he looked like 20 years old to the EMS. In fact, he was almost old enough to be a Marine in Afghanistan, killing for a living. You have previously stated you would never kill even in self-defense. Very spiritual, but I think it makes your self-defense analysis questionable.
I don’t question your good faith, we can honestly disagree on this. We have agreed on many other things, and I know we will agree on many things in the future. It’s not personal, although many of your readers have tried to make it so.
“Also, note the EMS thought Trayvon looked like a 20-year old”
well…
-Note that Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was in his late teens on that same day…that until he was in court and needed him to be older or closer in age to himself. But Travon’s weight and height are ever so stable and consistent.
-Note that Trayvon was 17, in fact had just turned 17 a few weeks prior (we can get documentation)PS: would you consider him almost 16? he’s much closer to that than 20.
-Note that Trayvon is 2 inches taller than Zimmerman yet is outweighed by ~40lbs
Ahem. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Trayvon was a teenager.
BTW, he lied to Trayvon’s parents when he “apologized” for killing their son. He told them he said he thought Trayvon was a couple of years younger than he was that night.
BTW, I’ve gotten worse wounds in a pickup basketball game than Zimmerman got.
“He was a competitive football player in top condition, and he looked like 20 years old to the EMS. ”
Zimmerman thought he looked like a teenager
“In fact, he was almost old enough to be a Marine in Afghanistan, killing for a living. You have previously stated you would never kill even in self-defense. Very spiritual, but I think it makes your self-defense analysis questionable.”
you do know he just turned 17? how long is boot camp?
I like to think of him as almost 16 :)
”
He was a competitive football player in top condition, and he looked like 20 years old to the EMS.”
…but what’s also quite interesting is that Zimmerman had a loaded gun and he told 911 he thought Martin was a “kid” and a “teenager.”
So you’ve never been in a fight with a stranger? Everything changes when fear and adrenaline enter the picture. I won’t debate that, because I KNOW it is true, maybe you don’t. Anyway, enough for one day. A pleasant good night to all. ;-)
Yes, and for weeks and weeks we were only shown pictures of him being around 12. If that doesn’t raise alarm bells for you in terms of bias, then maybe you should learn more about bias.
Good night, RC.
Namaste.
“TRAYVON fighting for his life? Mason, where are you getting that from”
I’m gonna pretend you asked me since this is an open forum
“We” get it from being reasonable
It’s quite mathematical actually
let me add the parts for you
I am being lawful
+
Dusky cloudy night
+
Deserted Street
+
(unidentified truck x older individual x following me)
+
I run (indicating I have no desire to be followed and I am scared)
+
He gives chase (indicating he assumes a tactical advantage)
+
He approaches me with a scorn filled unauthorized demand
=
I am scared for my life (is he here to kidnap/molest/kill me? I have no idea)
Given your sublime imagination I find it hard to imagine that you can’t intuit this much.
what was that you were saying about bias?
“Yes, and for weeks and weeks we were only shown pictures of him being around 12. If that doesn’t raise alarm bells for you in terms of bias, then maybe you should learn more about bias.”
Ha
I love this piece of casuistry from his GZ’s defenders
His pictures do not change the circumstances.
and it is deplorable to think that the implication is that if he was older then we are to somehow be more accepting of GZ’s behavior and treatment of Mr. Martin. No we would not. I don’t want to.
I must admit, that I am glad they showed him in those pictures, because we got to see him how his parents see him. Ask any mother and they will tell you about their 20 yo BABY. We got the perspective of the victim.
“Well you have now distinguished yourself from most of the crowd by saying you don’t think aggression by Trayvon would affect the self-defense claim. You are just flat wrong now, so stop.”
not quite
I am saying that Trayvon is the only one who can claim it, but unfortunately he is dead; so we will claim it for him.
I am extremely impressed by your arguments.
Very well done.
Namaste.
I just peeked back one last time before turning my computer off, and must say I am extremely unimpressed with those arguments by tzar, so we disagree again. All emotion. ALL emotion. If Zimmerman did not shoot or show a gun, then under tzar’s scenario Trayvon would be guilty of assault, and you know it, Mason. You can’t attack someone for following, or for asking a question. You can shoot someeone who is beating your head on concrete. Don’t encourage him in his error. Now I’m really gone. Namaste.
At a time when we are having murder by police on an all too regular basis not to mention the severe injuries suffered by veterans at occupy Oakland and elsewhere I would like to say the team Trayvon people here are IMO are spending too much energy bashing Zimmerman.
I have been there, and I have turned the other cheek, when I confronted a burglar in my home, I did not call the cops, and I unlocked the double dead bolt and let him out the front door.
Just saying there a lot more blatantly obvious cases of injustice and/or racism going on around here.
“I just peeked back one last time before turning my computer off, and must say I am extremely unimpressed with those arguments by tzar, so we disagree again. All emotion. ALL emotion. If Zimmerman did not shoot or show a gun, then under tzar’s scenario Trayvon would be guilty of assault, and you know it, Mason. You can’t attack someone for following, or for asking a question. You can shoot someeone who is beating your head on concrete. Don’t encourage him in his error. Now I’m really gone. Namaste.”
Suddenly you’ve lost all your imagination. What you consider “emotion” or “emotional” is the disposition one acquires when examining the full set of events surrounding this case. What you consider objective are a series of disconnected or decontextualized vignettes that only serve to blur our vision or blunt our sense of justice:
EG: two men drop out of the skies, one of them starts banging the other one’s head on the concrete, Can the other one shoot the first to save his life?
Really? sure you are not leaving anything out?
EG: one man follows another, is anything wrong with that?
Really? sure you are not leaving anything out?
this is the only way to defend GZ, without openly conceding mental defect. I find the whole thing queer.
Namaste
Valid theory
So then he either is acting guilty because he is guilty? Or he is a psychopath who may or may not be guilty but yes psychos don’t trust anyone.
If he is psych his very psycho tendencies might have started the fight and at best he lost the fight and shot in self defense.
Cripes I think your theory is valid but this reminds me of the right wing nut who shot Harvey Milk and his twinkee defense.
Has anyone ever used that defense since then and won?
If George gets out of a perjury charge with this defense I assume he has or will be charged then nobody will go to jail on perjury again.
I wonder if George is now going to blame the Demon Twinkees for why he shot Travon?
George is following a kid around at night the George was acting like a mugger. If anything Trayvon had the right to stand his ground.
Stand your ground only protects if the other guy starts the trouble and you defend yourself.
George beat up an under cover cop once undercover cops try and avoid conflict since it can wreck a bust so its not like he has a presumption of innocence. If it turns out George was planning on fleeing the country thats another strike still I admit nothing is proven yet thats for a court to decide.
No perjury undermines his Cred before the jury.
And George beat up a cop and worked as a bouncer at illegal rave parties where yes some people I am sure were hopped up on drugs so we know that George certainly knew his way in a fight.
How many fights has Trayvon been in are you really going to claim that some kid has more experience than a bouncer at illegal raves where yes many of the ravers take drugs?
I volunteer with the homeless and have broken up a few fights some of the guys may have been on drugs, crazy or just acting crazy so nobody messes with them.
Its not a fun experience.
Nice takedown:)
Been in several fights and have ran away on occasion too. If I stay and fight I think I can take the guy or I don’t have the option to run.
If I follow a guy I think is dangerous that means I think I can take him. George was told by the police to back off but still he followed because he thought he could take him.
Just how many fights have you been in I never brag oh the other guy was so tough I always blame myself for losing or for doing something stupid that resulted in me getting my ass beat.
But yes when I pick a fight it does mean I’m not scared or I have to fight to protect someone or have no choice.
George had nobody to protect plenty of time to leave thus he made a choice. A choice that made him look like a mugger.
Some strange guy follows me around at night I assume he is a mugger. I take a few turns he keeps following me I know he is a mugger.
Trayvon therefore had a reason to pick a fight assuming he did stand your ground baby, stand your ground.
Seconded Tzar is doing a great job so is Crane and Mason.
You presume Trayvon threw the first punch prove it. We do know he got a few punches in, we do know George was acting like a mugger.
In the end by following Trayvon George losses stand your ground protection it stand your ground not stalkers get a pass because someone decides to confront them.
Since we don’t know who threw the first punch assault by either party is out that leaves only the murder charge and without stand your ground George is toast.
Thank you for the clear explanation of why you and Jeralyn interpret this case so differently.
Back to the $10k threshold – since I posted about it above I have learned that it applies only to CASH deposits. Surely Shellie Z was not making cash transfers between the PayPal account and the credit union accounts. So why was she keeping her transactions under $10k? Perhaps, like me, she didn’t realize that only cash transactions were scrutinized. But what kind of person would even think about the $10k thing, or worry about transactions being reported to the government?
About O’Mara, I think that initially he said that he was taking the case pro bono. After he realized that a substantial amount of money was available in the defense fund, he stated that he would be paid. Looking at things from his point of view, I can’t blame him for not finding out about the PayPal account. Who would have imagined that Zimmerman could raise more than pocket change through his website? And I can’t blame him for forgetting about the passport filing. He is a solo practitioner, and I have the sense that he has been behind the 8-ball since he took the case. He’s probably been scrambling to get up to speed and manage the immediate needs of Zimmerman’s case, and I imagine that he has other cases, as well.
realitychecker, let me tell you about boys, mothers, and pictures. First, Trayvon was not 12 in the photo that was initially distributed. He was 14 or 15. And he can’t be described as a hulking football player. He was very slim and slight. There is a very recent photo of him sitting on a horse, and it is clear that he has narrow shoulders (when not wearing football pads). I think that he only played in a neighborhood league. I don’t believe that he was even on his HS football team.
I have two boys, one younger than Trayvon was and one a bit older. The younger one just graduated from 8th grade. I had to select around a dozen photos of him from infancy until the present, for the yearbook and a graduation slide show. If he were the one choosing the photos, he would have come up with a very different set. The other parents loved my photos; his friends laughed. I used a couple of beautiful pictures in which he looks like a little doll. This son uses a deeper voice and a different intonation when he is with his friends.
I hope that when Zimmerman’s interviews are released we learn why he thought Trayvon was “up to no good.” Trayvon was walking home at 7 p.m., talking to his girlfriend and trying to avoid the rain. Zimmerman watched him from his parked SUV, on streets where apparently no one parks (I’m sure that they are supposed to be kept inside those closed garage doors), perhaps followed him in his car, certainly left his car to keep him in sight or look for him. Who looked more like he was “up to no good”?
“You have previously stated you would never kill even in self-defense. Very spiritual, but I think it makes your self-defense analysis questionable.”
Interesting statement, although not sure I agree with the logic.
Whether or not one is willing to kill in self-defense is separate from whether or not one can analyze a self-defense case.
It takes a leap right into the box that says only people who would kill in self-defense are qualified to speak about the issues in the case, and when they do, only one conclusion is possible, that Mr. Zimmerman was the unfortunate victim of a vicious attack, thank goodness he stood his ground or else he would be dead.
Can only those surgeons who have themselves had brain cancer treat patients who suffer from brain cancer? Must a marriage counselor be married. Can only a lawyer who would be willing to murder or commit a crime defend clients facing criminal charges.
See what I am saying.
Also, as an aside, I do not believe that debate is ever personal. At least this has been my personal experience in the past, with debate. Things simply never got personal.
PS I would kill in self defense. Sure would.
a very good point
There are so many levels of failure with this guy, all of which are deepened by this mantle of volunteer neighborhood watchman that he seems to be hiding behind. there is nothing neighborhood watch-y about him
-he’s carrying a gun
-he’s following and confronting people
-the neighborhood is 20% AA, ergo 2/10 chance this is one of your neighbor’s kids you have just place in a frightening scenario with a gun in play.
-does not know the FOUR street names in his neighborhood
-you are a neighborhood watch…so technically this kid should be SAFER walking home on your watch, not more likely to end up dead
(last one I swear)
-how about if you’ve adrenalized someone, “cornered” them and presented yourself as the sole reason why their heart is trying to evacuate their body, 1) IMMEDIATELY STOP APPROACHING AND TAKE 3 STEPS BACK! PUT YOUR HANDS UP IN A GESTURE OF PROSTRATION! KINDLY VOCALIZE : “hey buddy, I’m with neighborhood watch, I wanted to make sure you are not lost, is everything ok? Do you need a ride home?”
ok, I’ll see myself out :)
Excellent point, Things.
Another excellent point.
Tzar, you continue to deliver hammer blows.
Excellent argument that had not occurred to me.
Well done, m’ dear.
why can’t we have both
I think he is guilty and a sociopath, I make my case for the latter ascription by simple virtue of the outcome of the scenario he created, of the little game he tried to play. Innocent children should not wind up dead from serial voluntary planned actions of adults, any society where that is a allowable is pathologic, as are the individuals who sanction it.
Well, I see a whole bunch got said to and about me after I went to bed last night. Life is too short to correct every factual or analytical error that comes my way, but I could spend hours just dealing with these. There are an infinite number of ways to mis-portray reality, many fewer ways to honor it. I am only trying to honor it, the subtlety gets lost way too easily for many, and yes, debate does get personal around here, although I do not understand why it should unless someone is perceived to be acting in bad faith, which I don’t think any sane person could conclude that I am. But, because you are such a lovely lady and always stay classy, C-S, let me respond briefly to your point. It DOES make a difference whether people making judgments have any experience in the kind of matter they are judging. It’s not all-or-nothing, but it is a factor. Self-defense always comes down to what a reasonable man would believe and do. Mason has said he would rather accept death from an unprovoked attacker than to use deadly force in his own self-defense. There is a certain magnificence to that from a spiritual viewpoint (and I am nowhere near being that spiritual, if someone invades my space with seriously bad intent then he bears the risk that it may turn out badly for him), but there is no denying that it is a very rare way for a person to approach the issue. To the extent that the “reasonable person” concept logically and necessarily involves a heavily normative element, i.e., how most would feel or act in the situation, the rarity of Mason’s position operates to put him at some distance from that reasonable man, and he must fill in the gaps with his own subjective imagination. I would further point out that Mason has honestly acknowledged on this thread that defense attorneys adopt a bias, and I will point out that so do prosecutors. Neither bias serves truth, both serve only winning. Mason has clearly made the decision to play the prosecutor role with respect to this case. That’s his choice. I am not trying to play either role here (in life, I mostly worked for appellate judges and getting the truth was my job, not winning), but rather only to insist that known facts not be ignored even if inconvenient, and that supposition, imagination, and lack of knowledge do not, absent facts and evidence, replace careful legal analysis, and that bias be recognized and adjusted for rather than going unchallenged. I hope that illuminates my point sufficiently, dear one. ;-)
Zimmerman’s five statements should be released within the next two weeks.
Well, thank you, good morning, BTW, for this explanation. I cannot speak for Mason, other than to say I do not believe his personal stance drives his analysis here.
I know how it is to get fucked over, wrongfully convicted, senteced and labeled, so if there is any way that trials can be completely transparent, with all evidence brought in and with careful thought from all angels…well, I would like to see that. I am wary of any prosecution, as I am wary of any written order. At this point in the Zimmerman case, I believe he has reason for concern.
Many years ago I was called for jury duty, but I could not serve, because my 16-year-old nephew (and his girlfriend) were shot and killed by an unknown assailant. At that time I believed in the death penalty (I no longer do). I explained on the form that I was unable to be the most objective juror.
In summary: Do not underestimate the power of a jury to convict. Mr. Zimmerman will need to search his soul as to whether he proceeds to trial (assuming there is even the possibility of an offer). If I were in his shoes, and I truly did nothing wrong, I would take the risk and fight, no longer what it took. That’s just me. Unfortunately, he has the added complications of these latest developments…being scared because of the media spotlight is not a valid legal argument or a pass to mislead the cout- this situation will likely now, unfortunately, be part of what the jury considers when it determines Mr. Zimmerman’s truthfulness, and by extension, his guilt.
Boy howdee!
That is not true. I am looking at this case analytically from the perspective of a juror and I do not assume, as you do, that George Zimmerman is telling the truth.
That’s a possible explanation for why we differ, but I think you are consistently winding up looking like a prosecutor. I am not looking as a juror, but as a legal analyst. I have very little regard for jurors. I am certainly not assuming anyone is teling the truth who has an interest in the outcome of the case. I just want someone to honestly deal with the wounds we know Zimmerman had.
That is an incredibly overbroad, arrogant and insulting thing to say about all of the people in this country from all walks of life, including many people here at the Lake, who have served on juries and did their best to follow the law as set out in the jury instructions and do justice.
Only two people know what happened in this case and one of them is dead.
That leaves George Zimmerman as the only witness who can tell us what happened and we already know that he lied in court while under oath about Trayvon’s age when he made his “apology” to Trayvon’s parents. Even worse, we know he conspired with his wife to perpetrate a fraud on the court regarding his financial ability to post a bond. Therefore, he has zero credibility.
Now let’s look at his wounds. They are minor and they could have been inflicted in any number of ways with Trayvon as the aggressor or Trayvon as the defender standing his ground resisting an attempt by Zimmerman to physically restrain him. That would have been an unlawful assault by Zimmerman, btw.
Now look at the location of the crime scene and the other scattered evidence lying on the ground, including Trayvon’s body, two flashlights, some keys and a plastic sack. They are not where they would have been, if Zimmerman was telling the truth about Trayvon coming up on him from behind as Zimmerman was walking back toward his truck. Therefore, he is lying about that too.
Why would he be lying unless he wanted to cover up what really happened?
Why would Trayvon run away from him and get away successfully, only to turn around and retrace his steps to find and confront Zimmerman, all while he is talking to his girlfriend on the phone? That makes absolutely no sense.
Have you not heard of circumstantial evidence?
I do not believe a jury will have any difficulty convicting Zimmerman of murder in the second degree because it will look at the whole picture and the whole picture is damning.
Absolutely damning.
Jurors are frequently morons, and high profile cases bring out the worst of them. And circumstantial evidence only constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt when it effectively excludes all other plausible theories of the events. Here, nothing excludes Zimmerman’s injuries and version of events except your preferred imaginary scenario(s).
Hallelujah the spirit of the process is intact, GZ will be judged by his peers.
The irony…it burns
That is an incorrect statement of law.
LOL Finally, something we can agree on.
You know, you are taking the fun of playing with the word “” a bit far, and without justification. I said I can imagine what I would think in Zimmerman’s situation re the bail hearing, as a function of being a human being, but you and everyone else here are playing “imagine” games with the basic facts of the murder case itself. I would fervently hope you can appreciate that there is a world of difference there.
No, that is a good general statement of the law nationally, but the exact details of Florida law and case law may vary. Neither of us is particularly expert on the details of Florida law, are we? That is why I have stuck to fact analysis almost exclusively. But I have a much more fundamental bone to pick with you, Mason. For three months, we’ve discussed this case with you constantly reminding us of your legal background, so I THOUGHT we were trying to do a careful and objective legal-quality analysis. NOW you say you are only trying to think like a “juror.” So, I guess I should thank you for wasting my time?
Should be “playing with the word “imagine” ” in the top line.
I was being sarcastic. While there is still a chance that the selected jurors may not be “most jurors”, there is no chance that GZ will stop being being GZ.
Everything is recorded, I welcome you to show where we unduly imagine things.
Most jurisdictions today do not assign greater value to direct evidence, as opposed to circumstantial evidence. The standard jury instruction given is that one is not necessarily better than the other and it is up to a jury to decide how much weight to assign to evidence of either type.
The definition to which you referred has been abandoned in most jurisdictions because, in effect, it is a comment on the evidence. You should know that.
To make a point, you have created a straw man argument by misconstruing what I said about looking at the case as a juror would look at it and I am not going to allow you to get away with it.
I have been analyzing this case from a legal perspective since day one citing statutes, evidence rules and court rules in Florida discussing among other things the SYG law.
I also have been looking at this case from the perspective of a juror because that is what all good trial lawyers do when preparing for trial. I have been doing that as part of my effort to explain what is going on in the case to non-lawyers.
As I said, I do not think jurors are going to believe that George Zimmerman had to use deadly force that night to save his own life or to prevent grievous bodily injury.
People have a right to know my background and experience in law so that they know that I am not some quack spewing bad information.
You need to get control of your arrogant ego and insulting tone because you are not scoring any points with anyone.
Well said sir!
Namaste!
Mason, your input on this interesting article would be appreciated
In this context, the term “legally sufficient evidence” probably means evidence which, if assumed to be true, would contradict Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.
I say “probably” because I have not researched this specific issue. However, everywhere else I am aware of defines “legally sufficient evidence” that way.
For example, in a civil case, let’s say the defendant files a pretrial motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. Translated into normal language that means the defendant claims that even if the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true, including all of the favorable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, nevertheless, the plaintiff would fail to prove its case and, for that reason, the complaint should be dismissed and a judgment should be entered on behalf of the defendant.
In the context of the Zimmerman case, the same test would be, assuming all of the evidence upon which the prosecution intends to rely to disprove self-defense is true, including all of the favorable inferences
to be drawn from that evidence, would Zimmerman still be entitled to an acquittal.
Notice that the test does not require the judge to determine credibility. Merely requires the judge to make assumptions and then rule regarding whether the case should proceed or be dismissed.
Or in this case, whether Zimmerman should be released on bail.
Judge Lester set conditions of release at the April 20 hearing because of the strong presumption under Florida law to release accused murderers on bail in self-defense cases.
He was new to the case then and had not had an opportunity to review much, if any evidence, and the parties relied on the affidavit which was weak and did not pass the test.
But that changed on June 1st when Judge Lester revoked bond. By then, he had reviewed much of the discovery because he had to rule on the media’s motion to release discovery. Based on that review and Zimmerman’s shenanigans with his wife attempting to conceal the money in the Paypal account, he said the prosecution’s case is “strong.”
I take that to at least mean that the evidence is legally sufficient to overcome Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense, given the assumptions. is saying that based on the prosecution’s evidence that he has reviewed, and assuming its truth, the evidence is legally sufficient to defeat Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense
On 6/12/2012 he ordered that evidence released within 15 days and it includes Zimmerman’s 5 statements to the police and the location of all of the evidence at the crime scene.
Reading between the lines, I think he was saying that the statements are inconsistent and conflict with the location of the evidence at the crime scene.
Put another way, I pretty much agree with what the writer at your link said, except for slightly different reasons related to his misunderstanding of the term, “legally sufficient evidence.”
I think he has signaled that he intends to deny bail.
Thank you good sir
I have tried to be very restrained and respectful in my comments on the dozens of biased anti-Zimmerman diaries you have posted, Mason, because I respect you for the other work you’ve done. I reiterate you have played the prosecutor role thoughout this library of diaries, never the defense role. You have openly titled some posts with a declaration that there is no self-defense claim possible, but you cannot possibly know that, since you were not there. I have found your treatment of this case to be very hard to stomach, yet I have tried very hard to maintain a respectful tone. Now I must ask, what could be funnier than one lawyer calling another lawyer “arrogant”? Mason, if that question does not make you smile, then I am really worried about you. Namaste. ;-)
I think I see what is going on…Mason’s issue is that he is a reasonable man and has chosen to honor reality.
I once read somewhere, and I quote, “There are an infinite number of ways to mis-portray reality, many fewer ways to honor it.”
It’s really, really tough to be mocked by the openly ignorant. Couldn’t you at least show some imagination?
Blah, blah, blah. You’re amusing. You can’t intelligently talk about “Shellie Zimmerman Arrested and Jailed for Perjury” and your posts about George Zimmerman’s case are mostly repetitive spin and taunts so you’re down to classic “let’s talk about you/me” misdirection bs.
Wake me up when somebody is ready to talk honestly about the two parallel wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head, and the bloody nose he had. Everything else is pure bullshit, speculation, and bias. The existence of those wounds proves there was a fight, and that Trayvon was trying to do damage to Zimmerman in the course of that fight, and nobody here can honestly say they know who started that fight, or how it played out. And the increasing number of morons who show up to take cheap, non-substantive shots at me doesn’t change that truth, and never will. So, choke on it. And, speaking of choking on it, ks and tzar, feel free to blow each other until you actually have a cogent point to make. (h/t TBogg) ;-)
More blah, blah, blah from you. Thanks for proving my point. Your repetitive spin has been answered several times in several threads on this subject, including I believe once in this thread but, on you go with the silliness, diversions and taunts. Stop clowning. Anything to say about “Shellie Zimmerman Arrested and Jailed for Perjury”?……..
Yeah, I thought so.
It’ hard to take the delusional seriously, and I believe my last few posts have reflected that.
I believe I have…reasonably.
well I said this (below) quite a while back.
I rest my case
you sound frustrated bud…a bit of “release” may be much more advisable to you than me or anyone else here trying to carry out a civilized conversation.
This is too rich and I believe necessitates a proper notation and memorialization.
I would like to propose a corollary to the Ad Hominem fallacy, we shall call it the “Ad Zimmermanum” fallacy; to wit, an Ad Zimmermanum fallacy is when a debater victimizes opponents while crying victim within the same paragraph of argument. as a subset an “Ad Zimmemanium Primum” is when a debater victimizes his opponents and cries victim in the same or adjacent sentences.
All IN FAVOR!!!???
I am pretty confident that they were dealt with, directly and indirectly, more than once in this thread. lol
True but we both know the real purpose of his/her antics. To distract from the credibility hit the Zimmermans have taken by having us chase after his/her diversions.
Agreed, I was bolstering your original point by the way.
I know. : )
That’s enough!
This is not a middle school playground and you are supposed to be an adult.
well, i seem to have glossed over quite a bit of the sophisticated and unsophisticated differences of opinion and perspective here.
i will say that i’m grateful for the diaries about this as the more attention to this “last man standing” law the better. the sooner it’s repealed the better.
i love you all.