Tweet
Cross posted from Frederick Leatherman Law Blog.
Image: Donkey Hotey / Flickr
The you-know-what hit the proverbial fan today in the George Zimmerman case.
The prosecution released W9′s damning account of being raped and molested by George Zimmerman over a 10 year period that began when she was 6 years old. W9 is his cousin. She is two years younger than him. The rapes she endured involved digital penetration of her vagina and the molestations involved fondling.
She submitted out of fear. She feared him physically and she feared her family would not believe her because he was so good at charming everyone. She finally mustered up the courage to terminate the abuse by running away from him and leaving the house. She told her parents, who told his parents, but nothing happened except he stopped attending joint family get-togethers. Her parents discouraged her from reporting the crimes to the police and she did not do so until he was in custody after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. When asked by police investigators why she waited until then to report the crimes, she said she finally felt safe to do so.
I listened to her account and I thought it was very credible. Don’t kid yourselves, child victims of sex abuse rarely report the abuse because they are afraid they will not be believed and afraid of reprisals. This lady has a lot of guts and courage to come forward with these allegations knowing as she must have known that the information might become public.
Question: What impact will this have on selecting a jury in the murder case?
Answer: It will definitely complicate seating a fair and impartial jury, but the State of Florida was able to do that in the Casey Anthony case and I have no doubt they will be able to do so in the Zimmerman case.
We are immersed in this case, but many people are barely following it, if at all. The court will deal with the pretrial publicity issue by moving the trial to another county or importing a jury from another county, which is what happened in the Casey Anthony case. By questioning prospective jurors individually (i.e., out of the presence of other prospective jurors), the judge and the lawyers will be able to find out how much each juror knows about the case and whether a juror has formed an opinion about GZ’s guilt or innocence.
This precaution has worked in the past and it will work again.
Question: Is the evidence admissible at trial?
Answer: Not unless the defense opens the door by introducing evidence that GZ is a person of good character. If the defense opens the door, you will be able to hear a garbage truck backing up to the courtroom door with a load of bad character evidence to be provided in damning detail by W9 and anyone else they can find between now and the trial. According to W9, btw, there is another victim, but she is reluctant to come forward. Who knows, she might change her mind. For example, think of the recently concluded Sandusky case.
The rule in question is Rule 404(b) which prohibits the admissibility of uncharged misconduct unless it is probative of the defendant’s intent, knowledge, motive or opportunity, common scheme or plan, consciousness of guilt or absence of mistake or accident.
The evidence is inadmissible since it does not fall into any of these exceptions, unless the defense opens the door by introducing evidence of good character.
Like I said, Katie bar the door, if that happens.
While we are on the subject of uncharged misconduct evidence, let us not forget Shellie Zimmerman’s perjury and GZ’s role in putting her up to it and assisting her to conceal the Peter Pan account and lie about it in court (i.e., the internet donation account).
As Judge Lester said in his recent order setting bail, it would not have been unreasonable for the Court to have concluded that, but for the GPS bracelet, the defendant would have used his second passport to flee the country with $130,000 of other people’s money after he bailed out the first time.
If that was his intent, evidence of his role would be admissible under rule 404(b) as consciousness of guilt, for the same reason that evidence of flight to avoid prosecution is admissible to show consciousness of guilt.
I have written about this possibility before and, as I stated then, the prosecution probably will need Shellie Zimmerman’s cooperation and testimony against GZ to make that case.
Will W9′s statement be the straw that breaks Shellie Zimmerman’s back and sends her knock knock knockin’ on the door to the prosecutor’s office?
Who knows, she might even throw in an admission that GZ did not kill TM in self-defense.
Stay tuned.
Question: What about W9′s statements about racism in the Zimmerman family. Are they admissible?
Answer: No. W9′s testimony about family racism is not admissible because it’s not specific to GZ. She did not mention any specific instances where he expressed racist beliefs or epithets. and even if he had done so, it still would likely be inadmissible. Otherwise, it might be admissible under rule 404(b) to show evidence of motive.
Question: Are there any other foreseeable consequences?
Answer: Yes. The most immediate and probable consequence of this revelation today, other than a dramatic world-wide increase in disgust for George Zimmerman, should be a dramatic collapse of financial support via internet contributions to his defense fund.
Should be interesting to see what his supporters come up with to defend him. Are they vile enough to mount a full-fledged attack against W9 the way Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke?
Will Fox News reach a new low in entertainment reportage?
Question: What’s up with his lawyers?
Answer: The not-ready-for-prime-time defense team still isn’t ready. They should have filed an appeal on Friday or first thing this morning in the Court of Appeals along with a request for an emergency stay ordering the prosecution to not release the information pending the outcome of the appeal.
This inexplicable failure coming on the heels of the reckless and legally groundless motion to disqualify Judge Lester looks really bad.
Apparently, O’Mara has asked for reciprocal discovery on W9 and that is not a good move at this time because it looks so thuggish.
Why posture like that when she is unlikely to testify?
Question: Did Judge Lester really have to release W9′s statement to the media under the Sunshine Law?
Answer: I do not know, but if so, this is a perfect case to get before the State Supreme Court to carve out a privacy exception to protect victims of uncharged crimes, especially sexual crimes, from having their stories published for all the world to see when it is not likely that they will ever testify.
I am appalled by their failure to file a timely appeal.
87 Comments
What possible excuse or “reason” might O’Mara have for not filing the appeal in timely fashion?
I simply cannot imagine that it is part of the defense’s “strategy”.
As to Judge Lester’s release of the file, on your last diary, ks, @49, in response to a comment of my includes this comment from your “Miami Herald” link:
“The judge said in his ruling that nothing in Florida’s public-records law allows for such information to be kept secret. By law, evidence which the prosecution turns over to the defense – called “discovery” – is public record. There are exceptions for such things as telecommunications records and confessions.”
Frankly, this seems a poorly considered law, with significant ramifications … as we see in a case such as this one.
I hope that you, and ks, are correct about a fair trial being possible, yet, I consider that it is now made more difficult, and needlessly so.
Mason, your posts are simply invaluable as education and as necessary perspective.
Thank you, again, for providing them to us.
DW
You know I have nothing but respect for you Mason but
Question: What does “napalm” have to do with anything? I know that “smell of napalm” thing is a classic movie line from “Apocalypse Now”, but that line was written to illustrate what a sociopath the guy who uttered it, (Colonel Kilgore), was. I’m sorry, I just don’t think napalm should make one think of a good development. There’s nothing nice about napalm and I just think it’s, (all too common), use in this context is inappropriate.
Anybody or everybody may feel free to flame me, (another unfortunate metaphor), as they wish, I am just expressing an opinion, not scolding.
For a 28 y/o GZ has a hell of a lot of skeletons.
I’ll neither flame nor bescold you, Margaret, as the same question did happen cross me wee brain.
I am not certain as to the “good development” you mention, and wonder, likewise, a wee, about that, as well.
DW
Hmmm…. I struggled a bit with that phrase. Rather than “good development”, I should have said “positive development from some peoples’ perspectives” but as you can see, that isn’t right either and far to cumbrous. I simply mean it’s often used as a synonym for “blood in the water”. At least that’s how I took it. Again, not to scold, maybe my interpretation is mistaken.
Sure seems to but I’ll bet that’s common with people born to privilege.
Ah, now I’ve your “drift”, Margaret and thank you for the clarification.
I think the “saving grace” of recent “developments” in this case, is the relative inattention most people are paying to the case, as a whole, from a fair trial perspective and, as a wee bit of a “twist”, the likely crimp those “developments” might put upon the on-line “appeal” …
DW
And, perhaps, even among too many of those “raised” to it.
DW
i took the title to mean something like the release of gz’s cousin’s statement adds fuel to the fire of this already intense case. i assume mason saying “he loves …” is sarcasm.
I was thinking of this development as a devastating blow to GZ’s defense.
In other words a real bad thing for him.
No offense taken and you should always feel free to disagree with me. I like and respect you and will always listen to what you say.
Thanks.
Yes, I meant to be sarcastic.
Thanks, Mason…I guess this is a tad early, but looking at your comment about defense failure to file an appeal…does this open wide the door for ineffective counsel argument on appeal if Z is found guilty? Looks like that is an implication. And looks like W9 got a chance she had been looking for.
I don’t get the impression he was born to privilege; he’s not smug enough. Me thinks he has little dick syndrome.
Gotcha. I knew that you meant it was bad for Zimmerman, though I phrased it poorly. And I certainly appreciate you covering the story. As DW points out, it’s not getting enough. I’ve just never much liked that metaphor used in this way. NOBODY sane actually “loves” the smell of napalm, especially in it’s end use state.
Whether it will be a good argument depends on whether he has a legitimate argument that his client’s constitutional rights were violated and passed up an opportunity to press the issue on appeal.
His constitutional right is his right to a fair trial, which is affected adversely by the negative pretrial publicity. The issue will wash out, if not raised now, assuming they can seat a jury later on. They probably will as happened in the Casey Anthony case. Therefore, there will be no basis to appeal the issue or argue ineffective assistance of counsel.
This is a unique and extreme fact situation that may warrant a new look at the Sunshine Law.
That’s why it should be raised now.
W also has a right to privacy that is affected, but he doesn’t have legal standing to argue her case. Various rape relief groups might want to get involved as friends of the court to advocate for people in her situation.
Well, hi guys, I’m just popping in to mention that I took the title not only to be sarcastic, that’s a very simple way of looking at it, but showing the complicated emotions involved in this case.
Only a crazy person loves the smell of napalm in the morning.
I am not a licensed or otherwise psychiatrist, so this is just my personal take on what I’ve read.
Thank you Mason for your continued coverage.
Question – Statute of limitations on child sex abuse in Florida? GZ is 28. W9 is two years younger than GZ, or 26. Abuse lasted until W9 was 16, so 10 years ago. What’s the SoL on this type of crime? Could GZ face separate charges for this abuse?
Great post Mason. I am stunned that O’Mara is asking for reciprocal discovery on W9. She is GZ’s cousin! There’s nothing good that can come from that for his client.
I think your earlier suggestion about him being blinded by the “bright lights” of a big case may be on the mark.
I’ve been wondering if GZ would be charged with sexual molestation as well. Even though the cousin never pressed charges, now that the state knows about it, I’d gather they can (?). Considering the Sandusky and Catholic priests are/were charged decades later, I’m guessing there is no SOL.
Tonight on the news (I’m in Orlando), it was mentioned that O’Mara claimed he’d vigorously defend GZ against these new allegations/charges (don’t recall the exact phrasing). However, they didn’t elaborate.
Regardless of what really went down between GZ and TM, and the outcome of that, GZ is a sexual predator and needs to be off the streets. The fact he started at such a young age is also disturbing on multiple levels. He’s just one sick puppy, gettin’ sicker by the day.
I don’t know what the statute of limitations is in Florida, but in most states, the statute does not begin to run in child sex cases until the victim turns 18 or 21 and then it may run for as long as 10 years.
She’s 26 now, so probably the statute has run, but that does not mean that GZ’s prior misconduct might not come up in the trial, although that is doubtful for the reasons that I have expressed.
I’ve taken to using the expression to describe a situation where everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
You know, I’ve decided you are right. There isn’t anything funny about napalm and I’m not going to use it anymore.
Thanks for enlightening me about that.
I’m serious. I mean it.
To the best of my knowledge and belief one unsubstantiated accusation does not yet equal a conviction in a court of law even in the degraded state of current American jurisprudence. He’s not yet even an accused sexual predator let alone a convicted one. This remark applies equally to the offence he is charged with. So far he’s an accused murderer not a convicted one. I am very very glad indeed that you’ve never been a juror on any jury that I’ve encountered either as the barrister defending or as the barrister prosecuting.
mfi
Sorry to display my ignorance, but what is meant by reciprocal discovery? Surely MOM is not intending to interview W9?
I gathered it was the exchange of evidence between the prosecution and the defense. So prosecution turns over their discovered materials, defense does the same?
That is what it generally means, but I think O’Mara meant that he wants to interview her if they are going to put her on their witness list. He has a right to do that, but I think this is the wrong card to play at this time because he looks so thuggish.
He could have spoken privately to the prosecutors about this, but instead he’s playing to the media and offending lots of people unnecessarily by trying his case in the press.
His client is not a besieged American hero and he is only succeeding in opening the door, as Sandusky’s counsel did, to a potential deluge of bad character information that cannot help his client.
Speaking of O’Mara, it looks like he might be in some trouble himself if the below call is true and he knew about the 37K transfer well before the 1st bail hearing:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2898502_p2/jail-call-says-defense-attorney.html#disqus_thread
Mason, Sorry for the long link.
Potentially explosive story is being reported today at Think Progress about Mark O’Mara telling the Miami Herald that W9 contacted People Magazine and offered to sell her story.
The Miami Herald contacted People Magazine and they denied that the woman had ever contacted them or offered to sell her story.
O’Mara appears to be flailing about desperately making shit up and losing all credibility.
Plus, he’s damaging my former profession and I resent that.
And the pretrial demonization here of George Zimmerman continues. Other experienced observers have found the witness not credible.
As a former prosecutor, I have prosecuted child sexual abuse cases, the youngest being 2 years old. I have prosecuted sexual assault cases. As an attorney in private practice who occasionally defends people accused, I have defended a man who was accused of sexual assault.
I completely understand the pain, the difficulties and the institutions that prevent victims from coming forward with the abuse allegation. It is not indicative of their credibility that they delay the reporting of the incident.
However, an accusation, an allegation, an information (the charging document here in Florida) is not proof of guilt as many here leap to that conclusion. It is my understanding that her actually statement and the recounting of the facts were what led some to believe she lacked credibility. If some of the facts are as reported that while watching TV with other family members in plain view Zimmerman was able to commit an assault I find that hard to believe.
Zimmerman is in enough trouble and has been tried and convicted here and elsewhere before all the evidence is in and presented in a court destroying the presumption of innocence that someone will have to grant him if a trial is conducted and which our constitution guarantees.
Why pile it on with a lone allegation, that is not being prosecuted, that is not relevant whatsoever and that is so clearly damning by its mere publication without anything further to prove it?
Elsewhere on this blog, members and writers stand up for the constitutional protections of the accused and those not accused. Why is that not happening here?
It is happening. If you had bothered to read my article, you would have seen that I said the evidence was inadmissible and would not be an issue at trial.
In the future, please read before commenting.
How perfectly condescending to believe that I had not read your post before commenting. If it is inadmissible at trial than why devote a whole post to something that is inadmisible, irrelevant and does not prove one element of the crime which appears in all your posts to be what you are trying to do? This appears to be a gratuitous smear of a person accused of a crime who is facing the full might of the State of Florida. It is beneath our host site’s good intentions.
Gratuitous smear?
I’ll remember to get someone to invoke that phrase if I ever kill a kid and allegedly molest my little cousin.
Nice speech and great use of rhectorical prophylatic (As a former…other “experienced observers”…) to deflect potential criticsm.
Now if you want to actually read the post and comment….
Btw, thanks for linking to the “other experienced obervers”. I was wondering how J/TalkLeft would rationalize this latest turn.
You have expressed your opinion that W9 did not tell the truth and based your opinion on your experience as a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney.
Yet you would deny me my right to express my opinion.
I said I listened to her taped recorded statement, which was under oath by the way, and I found her credible.
I was a victim of sex abuse when I was a child. I am a former felony criminal defense attorney with 30 years experience who specialized in death penalty defense and forensics. I have represented many clients charged with sex offenses. I was also a law professor teaching criminal law, criminal procedure, trial advocacy, and wrongful convictions.
I’ll say it again.
I BELIEVE HER.
And yes, I do not believe you read my blog and I am calling you out on your insulting tone.
“Why is that not happening here?”
As Mason said, this character evidence will not be introduced at trial:
The concern, at this point, will be seating an impartial jury pool, as stated:
Mason has written extensively about constitutional protections of the accused. I know, because I am married to him, was accused and wrongfully convicted, and spent two years on eight incarcerated for crimes I did not commit, and I am still on parole today, thank you very much. My case currently sits with the US Supreme court as a petition for certiorari; this is after six years of constant nonstop battle for constitutional rights. Mason spent thirty years defending people and doing death penalty cases. If you scroll back through time, you can see some of his writings.
That, my friends, is what we call ‘PWNed’.
Thanks Mason and CS for all you do.
Thanks, KrisAinTX and thanks to ks as well.
“Gratuitous smear?”
Yeah, Im trying to figure that one out too. W9 is a family member who had contact with GZ over several years. W9 first came forward two days after TM’s killing which was well before the protests and publicity. Both the prosecution and defense wanted the info. witheld but the judge was compelled to release it. But yet this a “gratuitous smear”…by whom..against GZ. Right…
Meanwhile back in reality, as Mason just indicated O’Mara has apparently been caught red handed lying about W9 trying to sell her story to People Magazine. Now that’s what I would call a gratuitous smear.
Then you know the nightmare that occurs when you are wrongfully accused and the utter injustice of a wrongful conviction.
Allegations of sexual abuse and pretrial publicity of the same are far more damaging than most any other charge. That genie cannot be put back into the bottle. I don’t care how many times you ask a juror if they would be able to be fair and impartial even in light of knowing an allegation is just an allegation, with sexual abuse allegations people believe there must be something there.
Convictions are decided in a courtroom. Until then, most everything is blather, although some of it can be informative. I did not find this post informative.
My thoughts are with you in your pursuit of justice. I look forward to a future post on the outcome.
And P.S. jurors are not alwasys forthcoming on jury selection.
The post is a gratuitous smear, not the woman’s allegations. George Zimmerman is likely facing a conviction and a jail sentence which is I assume the author’s hope. Why pile on with an uncharged allegation? If the woman’s allegations are credible to law enforcement and the acts occurred when she was under 12, then if my memory serves me, there is no statute of limitations, meaning a prosecution could occur. I assume if she is credible it will.
Nonsense. This post is not a gratuitous smear. That’s either a deliberate misleading of it or simply a ruse to throw a stinkbomb.
How is commenting on the major aspect of latest public data dump “piling on with an uncharged allegation”. Imo, Mason commented on it fairly. I guess he was supposed to either ignore it or do as your “other experienced observer” did and try and refute it in order for it not to be “piling on with an uncharged allegation”, huh? Utter nonsense.
“And P.S. jurors are not alwasys forthcoming on jury selection.”
I already know. And thank you for your comment. My case is quite interesting. Here is the Petition for Certiorari. All lab results, motions and documents, including Mason’s analysis of the opinion are also at this site:
http://froggravy.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari-to-the-united-states-supreme-court-frog-gravy-legal-case/
So GZ was 8 when he started molesting his cousin thats before puberty so chances are GZ was molested too.
I wonder if GZ admitted he was molested if this would help with an insanity defense?
Was she ever asked specific about GZ?
This is a murder case the Prosecution will try and make GZ look bad and with the perjury about his being able to afford bail and as you say convincing his wife to perjure herself the defense normally would try and pooh pooh this with what a great guy GZ is.
So how does the Defense respond to attacks on GZ’s character when as you say theu can’t defend GZ’s character without letting the Prosecution bring up the molesting charge.
Also will GZ be tried for child molesting?
The Right wants to defend Stand Your Ground laws because Jeb Bush passed it. The Right wants to defend GZ because he is the poster boy for Stand Your Ground laws in other states.
Rush, Fox News and which ever Deep Pocket GOPers have been backing GZ should cut their losses and force GZ to quietly plead guilty or even better plead insanity.
The future of Jeb bush running for President depends on Florida and Jeb will be tarred with this issue in Florida if he runs.
Jeb Cannot win Florida if he gave a Child Molester a gun to shoot Black people a not guilty verdict for GZ will only hurt Jeb more so he should cut his losses.
The Gun Nuts who like Stand Your Ground do not want a Child Molester as a poster boy.
Logic says they should both want GZ to go away quietly. Mitt I am sure wants GZ to go away quietly Mitt does not want to defend Stand Your Ground with GZ a child molester as a poster boy.
Mitt also does not want to piss off flying monkey GOPers who love guns.
Logically Mitt wants GZ gone. But the GOP does not often act logical.
So I will make no predictions.
They waste time trying to disqualify a judge when they should have been trying to stop the judge from releasing the news GZ is a child molester now they want to go after the victim?
This does look very incompetent I thought GZ had a top notch lawyer has he ever tried a murder case before?
Also if the Defense goes after the victim if Fox News and Rush are still backing GZ then thats when they will attack the victim.
Which leaves Mitt a problem with Moderate voters attacking a victim of Child Abuse makes the Right and Mitt look evil, mean, crazy.
Mitt as a GOPer gets tarred as evil, mean, crazy just by being a GOPer too and the GOP war on Women gets new life right before the election which is also bad for Mitt.
Congratulations. And btw, that last sentence was unnecessary. I would never think you would just shine me on. :)
Ooh! Ouch!
x2
Yes, she could not recall anything specific.
Not insanity because that requires proof of a mental disease or defect.
Rule 404(b) prohibits introducing evidence about the sexual molestations, so the issue isn’t likely to come up unless the defense introduces evidence of good character. If it does that, Katie bar the door.
If it doesn’t, there won’t be a problem.
Don’t know about whether the state will charge GZ with sexual molestations. Statute of Limitations may have expired. Won’t be any need to convict him if he is convicted of murder 2.
They would consult with W9 before making any decision, unless the Statute of Limitations has expired.
Hi Mason, et al
State’s Response to Defendant’s Verified Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge – 7 17 12
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100330527/State-s-Response-to-Defendant-s-Verified-Motion-to-Disqualify-Trial-Judge-7-17-12
Well, here’s a link to the State’s Response to the Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Lester.
Ouch to the nth degree!
Yikes, you beat me Elliott. By 2 minutes.
Good work and thanks.
Have you read it?
Owie, Owie, Owie
That’s gotta smart … unless Zimmerman AND O’Mara haven’t reached the, “I think I get the point”, point yet …
At some “point” this is gonna get really embarrassing.
We passed “simply embarrassing” t’other day, I’d say, Mason, and Zimmerman and O’Mara never even slowed down when they went over the “bump”.
Were I an attorney, I’d confess to being more than a little embarrassed with my profession, and that would have been so long before this case.
Frankly, I’m kind of appalled with a profession which seems oblivious to the destruction of the Rule of Law, anyhoo … so I’d best head off as gracefully as I can, thinking as little disgust about the current state of the psychology … “profession” … as I may manage.
DW
Dang, dude…
That has gotta sting.
that is scathing in the extreme. as you predicted, it didn’t fly and MOM did himself and his client no favors with this motion. i’m glad that part’s over (unless he can appeal it and is moronic enough to do it).
I can’t help it:
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini, the next words out of your mouth better be “guilty” or “not guilty.” I don’t want to hear commentary, argument, or opinion. I don’t want to hear any facts or evidence. If I hear anything other than “guilty” or “not guilty”, you’ll be in contempt. I don’t even want to hear you clear your throat to speak. Now, how do your clients plead?
Vinny Gambini: [intimidated, but the words go right past him] I think I get the point.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: No, I don’t think you do. Now you’re officially in contempt of court! Would you like to say something else and go for two counts of contempt of court?
My Cousin Vinny
Thank you, Elliot, it was your link which I read.
DW
Well, it’s not over yet because the judge has not ruled, but I don’t think there’s any mystery about what he’s going to do.
I am angry at O’Mara for his self-defeating and somewhat thuggish behavior because he isn’t doing his client any good and his actions reflect unfavorably on the criminal defense community.
I think he’s losing it and should move to withdraw.
I confess, you and Mason got me to watch that favorite movie again, CS.
Not at all an unpleasant way to “do” some time, I reckon.
The “hostile” witness scene is always a real hoot.
;~DW
Whatever O’Mara lacks in legal capacity, he has ego sufficient to overcome any embarrassment he might possibly feel, apparently.
He should move to withdraw … himself.
O’Mara’s Big Fail, yesterday, ought to be an equally big “heads-up”, for him, if he is possessed of any vestige of useful wit.
DW
Commenter KA over at my site put together the following timeline from the recorded jailhouse conversations:
MOM made a plea for indigency claiming GW and his family did not have any spare money. He did not disclose the $37,000.
MOM has some splainin’ to do.
This is getting ugly.
re the family being indigent, how could his parents’ house not enter into the picture for the first bond hearing, but all of a sudden be worth a million and be used as collateral in the second bond hearing?
The bail bondsman accepted it as collateral knowing he was under securitized and accepted the risk that he would lose a lot of money, if GZ rabbited on the bond.
Bail bondsmen can do that and, of course, they are insured.
Basically, he didn’t want to turn down $100 K.
So he got the $100 K MOM thought was his to bill against.
Probably explains why he is so pissed off and acting crazy.
BTW, the bail bonds business is dirty.
My guess or sense is that Judge Lester was speaking, indirectly to O’Mara as well as VERY directly to Zimmerman at the last bond hearing … about NOT mucking about with fast and loose money …
O’Mara, apparently, did not “get” the “point”.
Were I of a gambling nature, Mason, I’d wager that Judge Lester is quite unhappy with someone associated, “professionally” with GZ … and ole MOM had better, especially after today’s “developments”, soon figure a number of things out.
I’m not inclined to holder my breath while he does so, however.
DW
thanks. i had been wondering about that.
This situation would be amusing, if someone had not died and GZ were not accused of murder 2.
My blog tomorrow will be about Mark O’Mara and why I think he should withdraw from the case.
The gloves appear to be finally off.
there’s evidence on the released calls that Omara knew of the money at the first bond hearing. I think he will withdraw…something about not affecting his client’s chances blah blah blah
lol, I should avoid reading the responses in revers order
The have already started: I will spare you the salacious details but noteworthy snippets include:
-fox referred to the molestation as two kids playing doctor *barfs*
-one pro-Zimmerman (“pro-Zimmerman”…sounds ridiculous just saying it) site, posted her picture and that of her child. Unfortunately, she, her husband and baby are fabulously good looking-all that was missing from the photo was a dog and a picket fence-and they should have their hands full trying to attack her image.
I personally think that the cross-discovery? of W-9 by Omara is just a tactic to suppress the other victim(s). I don’t believe in heaven but I sure wish there was a special hell for the types of people who would attempt to shut or suppress the outcry of a molestation victim.
talkleft=no credibility=not clicking
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/17/2898502/jail-call-says-defense-attorney.html
Thank you, BlueFloridian. I agree with you.
I hope there will be no members of the jury who have been following these threads. The right to a fair trial is being seriously jeopardized here, in my opinion.
You know, juliania, there have been several times, when looking at this series of diaries, that I really came to wonder at Mason’s purpose in writing them.
As I reflected, not being willing to write much until I had considered, I realized that the most outrageous things were not being offered by Mason, who always makes clear as to what are his personal opinions about actions engaged in by the defendant, or the attorneys, or the judge, or various witnesses … and what are his interpretations of the law and the meaning of various legal actions taken, or not taken, by by the judge, by the defense, and by the prosecution … that the most outrageous things were being postulated by those whose understanding of the law … leaves, shall we say, a wee bit to be desired?
There is a profound and widespread ignorance about how the law functions, in this country, which is exacerbated by the current assault upon the Rule of Law at the very highest levels of government, as well as the clear evidence that many attorneys, reflecting the larger pathology of brutish “entitlement”, beyond the expectation of any reasonable or rational accountability, now extant in the land, dare to behave in such fashion as to be destructive of the essential respect for the law … which a civil society MUST have.
I have come to view Mason’s efforts, which I regard as conscientious and considered, to be in the nature of an ongoing “course” of educational opportunity for those willing to listen and engage their minds … before leaping to conclusions, and displaying a too-emotional or limited grasp of “what” is admissible, germane, or appropriate … as “evidence” or as regards the standards of proof required for conviction.
Frankly, I consider the efforts of all the attorneys who have spoken to these issues and concerns, on these and other threads even when and, perhaps especially, when those shared opinions, for that is what they are, have differed … to be very important and useful, and I thank each and every one of them for so doing.
Perspective or, in fact its lack, is at the root of many of the confusions about the law, about the meaning of what is revealed, as the recent, I consider very unfortunate, use of a “sunshine law”, to divulge information which is very prejudicial to the defendant’s case, such as it may be … and the immediate assumptions of many that it is “proof” and “evidence” which has direct bearing on this case, very clearly demonstrates. As Mason has been at some pains to point out, such assertions are of, and have, no bearing unless “character” is introduced by the defense.
Better it were, in my opinion, and that is all it is, had the assertion(s) shared by witness #9, not been introduced unless “character” became an issue … or until AFTER the trial, now in such haphazard (as I view the “behaviors” of Zimmerman’s attorney) disarray.
Other than forums such as Mason provides, I cannot imagine HOW a broader and deeper understanding of the law may be gained by most people who live in the USA.
Had we a better, and far more honest, educational system, a less deliberately mystified legal system, and a less prejudiced, not merely racially or economically, society … then things might be very different.
I agree with your concern about “what” potential jurors may or might be exposed to … knowing that another issue is the very means by which a jury is “seated” … for too often, it has been my very limited experience, that both prosecution and defense, prefer those who are less considered and nuanced in their “understanding” of the law.
A topic which I hope that Mason might be willing to further pursue.
As you know, juliania, I regard your perspectives very highly indeed, and request of you, that should you have time, and the interest in further sharing those perspectives, which I think are very important to our shared concerns, that you might be willing to comment on these threads more often. I would, very much, appreciate the company and others, I am certain, would readily come to value your input, your well-considered sensibilities and views, quite as much as I do.
DW
well said and kudos for your patience
I will be posting my next article in this series later today explaining why I believe Mark O’Mara should move to withdraw as counsel for George Zimmerman.
Thanks, DW.
Ok, I’ll play along with the “concern” tactic and ask you how “the right to a fair trial is being seriously jeopardized here…”? I hear that sort of blithe assertion occasionally but I rarely, if ever, hear EXACTLY how that’s the case.
It’s extremely unlikely that either anybody here or the diaries here will have even the slightest effect on GZ’s right to a fair trial. I’m certainly not arrogant or deluded enough to think that my opinions will have any effect on GZ’s right to a fair trial. So what really gives? Should we not talk about the case or just talk about certain things or just talk about it in a manner that you approve of? Or is it just a tactic to try and tsk, tsk a discussion you don’t like?
Wed afternoon: You all may have heard this….I was in the car and heard promo that Z is going to be on Hannity tonight; they have already done the interview iirc. So, if you can stomach Sean….to quote from another thread…;)
My new post is up.
Should Mark O’Mara Withdraw as Counsel for George Zimmerman?
Thanks, Rev.
I referenced the show but did not state when it was (I didn’t know).