Posted on 06/04/2012 11:07:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Trayvon Martin case's Judge Lester has made a judicial misstep about the George Zimmerman bond revocation. And it's a misstep which only serves to increase the racial tensions in the country, unnecessarily.
Judge Lester contends that the Trayvon Martin shooters bond had to be revoked because the suspect lied during his first bond hearing about the state of his finances, and that his wife, Shellie, did too, telling the court that the two were practically broke, which led to a $150,000 bail instead of the $1 million sought by the prosecution. But the judge isnt giving the public all the facts in this case.
The suspects attorney, Mark OMara, has pointed out that most of the donated money was in an independent trust that neither Zimmerman nor his lawyers could tap. So that means Shellie and George werent lying when they said they were broke, because they really didnt have access to all of the $135,000 monies raised on the accuseds behalf.
And thats the first misstep by Judge Lester: a rush to judgment in a case that, if no other, called for cooler heads to prevail.
It also shows that Judge Lester is not only insensitive to the racial issues that are boiling over in this case, but that he is for some reason fanning the flames by deviating from what would typically happen in such a case.
In typical situations like this, a judge would not immediately revoke a bond. Instead, he would confer with the counsel and the prosecutor first; taking the opportunity to learn why there appeared to be a miscommunication about assets. He might even have the accused present, in a fact-gathering hearing, before he made a decision over revocation. He definitely wouldnt make it a media affair, as this judge has done....
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Jdg. Lester did this for political appeasement reasons.
1. To appease the race-baiters by bringing Z back to FLA where the “bounty” has still not been withdrawn. Not to get Z wkacked but to intimidate him into copping a plea)>
2. To appease the Holder DOJ by damaging Z’s credibility. “If he lied about his finances, maybe he lied about the scuffle/shooting.”
There’s a photo of Jdg. Lester in the link to the Examiner article.
wkacked should be whacked
The judge is sending a signal to Zimmerman--don't expect a fair trial. The outcome is already determined.
The United States of America is no longer a just country.
In fact, it is just plain Evil.
In Z’s situation, I would be reluctant to claim that money as an asset. Wasn’t there some flap about the legality of the web site? If he claimed it as an asset, couldn’t there have been issues around that?
Seems he was in a no-win situation there. Maybe it would have been best to say something on this order: “I have an account from my web site with $X.XX. I have been advised that this money is not legally at my disposal, but must be placed into a trust for legal expenses.” Maybe that would have served him better. I don’t know.
My question - was his intent to hide the money, or was he legitimately concerned about legal issues regarding the use of the money?
The state's attorney blindsided O’Mara and Zimmerman with this motion to revoke bail by filing it at 8:30 on the morning of the hearing that was supposed to be about media access to the discovery. The judge should not have entertained the motion at this hearing because it did not give GZ time to even get to the hearing or his attorney to prepare for the state's motion. The state had an obligation to file the motion in a timely manner and they did not do that. GZ has a right to confront his accusers, and he was denied that right.
Revoking GZ’s bail was way out of line. He should have had a hearing specifically for that purpose.
As far as the new passport is concerned, the judge accepted O’Mara’s explanation that GZ had turned it over to him but O’Mara neglected to turn it over to the court immediately. I do believe that it had been turned over to the court before this hearing took place, but I'm not sure.
I agree that GZ’s credibility has been damaged by all of this, but the wife did offer at the bond hearing to contact the brother who was apparently administering the money. Neither the court nor the state took her up on the offer.
The state has a credibility problem too. They “conveniently” left out the part about her offer to contact the brother from their motion to revoke bail.
Bail is set to help guarantee that the defendant will show up in court. Unless there is a reason to believe that Zimmerman will not show up, bail is unnecessary. Increasing bail because of a larger bank account makes no sense.
Someone should send this judge back to law school.
I carry my firearm daily, both on and off duty, have extra ammunition, and exercise constant situational awareness.
I keep reading that GZ lied when he said that he had “limited funds”. Doesn’t everyone have limited funds? But if you live in a gated community, you’re probably not destitute (unless the “gated community” is prison).
I hope they address that in the next hearing.
O’mara just delayed everything, though.
IIRC, it’s really not that fancy of a gated community, more like townhomes.
Yes, townhomes with single car garages, and Zimmerman was a renter, not an owner.
This statement makes no sense.
Ask O’mara. It’s from him.
You posted it without a link so I am asking you.
That’s the way it works here on FR.
So you were blowing smoke.
I posted it with a link, actually.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.