Posted on 04/26/2012 5:03:21 PM PDT by ironman
(CNN) -- The lawyer for the neighborhood watch leader who fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, said Thursday that his client has received about $200,000 from supporters. Orlando lawyer Mark O'Mara told CNN's "AC360" that George Zimmerman told him Wednesday of the donations as they were trying to shut down his Internet presence to avoid concerns about possible impersonators.
"He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told Anderson Cooper. "And he said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about 200, $204,000 that had come in to date."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Your sigline is right on!
I take it tomorrow’s hearing won’t have witnesses? Will it likely just be perfunctory and without fireworks like last week’s?
So will Judge Lester have read by tomorrow whatever evidence the state purports to have proving 2nd degree? If Empress Angela has no clothes, the dismissal hearing can’t come soon enough for me.
Geragos made a point the judge might not be too pleased if he learns about all this money via tv vs. a filing. Might GZ have to put up more money? BTW thanks for leading me to JOM. Good discussion over there.
Sharpton still hasn’t paid what he lost in the last suit against him. I wouldn’t count on getting a dime out of that deadbeat.
If you were accused of stealing something that you had taken that was legally yours, you’d be cleared of stealing but you’d still have ‘taken’ it. In the same way, Zimmerman may be cleared of murdering Martin, but he would still have killed him. That fact will never change. Killing and murder are not the same thing.
The headline took full advantage of that confusion in many minds. While the headline is accurate, it certainly could have been written differently.
“Some CNN editor ought to be shot for that incredibly inflammatory headline.”
Er.... Don’t you mean promoted? We’re talking CNN, here.
yeah, my bad, what was I thinking????
They don’t have to say alleged when the suspect freely admits to doing the killing.
Why doesn’t the headline say “alleged”? Did Zimmerman plead guilty when I wasn’t paying attention? Looks like yet another easy target for GZ to sue, after NBC and ABC.
Actually I think his Attorney revealing this is wise.....so far Zimmermans not hidden anything but been straight forward. 200 thousand isn’t going to go far for a family and attorney fees, not to mention where ever he’s staying and security of.
So I think revealing this was a good idea.
I don’t need to be a lawyer to understand definitions of English words or even to use a legal dictionary.
al·leged (-ljd, -ljd)
adj.
Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.
al·leged·ly (-ljd-l) adv.
Usage Note: An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but against whom no charges have been proved. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified. In their zeal to protect the rights of the accused, newspapers and law enforcement officials sometimes misuse alleged. Someone arrested for murder may be only an alleged murderer, for example, but is a real, not an alleged, suspect in that his or her status as a suspect is not in doubt. Similarly, if the money from a safe is known to have been stolen and not merely mislaid, then we may safely speak of a theft without having to qualify our description with alleged.
The purpose of this hearing is only to hear/resolve the motions of the press. O'Mara and Corey are parties of interest in that, but they aren't the parties who have requested action from the Court.
I expect we may hear from them, but only to make the point for the record that they are concerned about the safety of witnesses.
This case is upside down on that count too, because it is witnesses FOR the defendant who are risk. Usually it's the revers, mob or gang member on trial, and people who are going to testify against the defendant are at risk.
Yes. But I don't think he has a motion and argument from O'Mara as to why the contents of the state's filing don;t sow the charge. O'Mara moved to obtain what is referred to as a "Statement of Particulars" which the judge MUST order the state to provide. A Statement of Particulars is supposed to tie the evidence to the elements of the crime.
I expect O'Mara will file a Motion to Dismiss for failing to have evidence to support the charge, and to also make a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of 776.032 immunity.
-- If Empress Angela has no clothes, the dismissal hearing can't come soon enough for me. --
Motions, rebuttals (from the state) and court rulings will all be public. I'm guessing on timing, but won;t be surprised if this case is wrapped up by the middle of June. One detail that I've been pondering is whether or not Zimmerman has to appear at the Immunity hearing. As far as we know, the state has zero evidence to rebut Zimmerman's self-defense narrative. De la Rionda testified that there was some form of inconsistency in Zimmerman's narrative, but I think that inconsistency depends on a conjecture by the state.
This is true. But I think the judge will believe O'Mara's excuse or reason - he just was unaware of it. O'Mara will be making the judge aware of it this morning, and deferring to the court for action.
Assuming the judge has read the state's case (a slam dunk assumption), he is not concerned about defendant being a flight risk - defendant is going to beat the state. He might order the funds be sequestered until the case is resolved, but I don;t think he can order defendant to abstain from fund raising.
-- BTW thanks for leading me to JOM. Good discussion over there. --
I participated alot over there during the Libby case, and now, during this case. Maguire is a good writer, the number of participants is small enough that one gets familiar quickly with "who's who." Tons of inside jokes.
At some point, this case will be "done enough" that I'll have nothing more to say, and so it goes.
Meg needs to look at case history of Richard Jewell etc.
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.