Judge revokes George Zimmerman's bond, orders him to surrender

A Florida judge revoked the bail bond of George Zimmerman on Friday and ordered the man charged in the death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin to surrender within 48 hours.

The money, according to the Motion that state filed on 4/27 was in a trust account controlled by O'Mara.

Zimmerman had his bond revoked not because the media or the courts or the prosecutors were "out to get him" but because on April 20th he and his wife made material misrepresentations to the court of their financial status.

This action IN ITSELF is a crime, and Zimmerman and/or his wife may suffer a penalty beyond having the bail revoked for having done so. To quote Florida statute: "Any person who intentionally provides false or misleading material information or intentionally omits material information in connection with an application for bail or for modification of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor or felony which is one degree less than that of the crime charged for which bail is sought, but which in no event is greater than a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

George's case largely depends on the judge's (and later possibly a jury's) assessment of George's credibility when he relays events no other person witnessed. The LAST thing George or his wife should be doing is giving his judge and potential jurors reason to doubt his truthfulness. George is his own worst enemy.

So then if Zimmerman’s parents and grandmother posted their houses to cover the $150,000 Bond to the court, then who did Zimmerman pay his $15,000 Bail to????

The relatives posted their houses as a guarantee against the bond. (I.E. the bondsman has a 'lien' against the property). The BONDSMAN still gets the 10% for putting up the bond. Should the defendant skip bond, then the bondsman has COLLATERAL to recoop his bond money, by putting the houses up for sale and collecting any proceeds from those sales.

Am I explaining this clearly?

When you have to have someone 'bail' you out, the bondsman want family who OWN a home to COSIGN. Just giving them the 10% will usually not be enough. They aren't in the business of losing the FULL AMOUNT of the bond every time come criminal decides to flee. They ask for GUARANTEES.

Have you ever had to go to a bondsman to bail someone out?

So then in order for a defendant to get out on Bond/Bail, he has to post collateral equal to the Bond, as well as an additional 10% of the Bond as Bail which he never sees back.

What a racket. Where is the risk for the bail bondsman. He can't lose in that deal. Why would he need Dog the Bounty Hunter when it has cost him nothing??

It seems to me that there are a lot of people around here that are out on bail that have nothing to collateralize a bond. I wonder how they do it? Thanks for the info.

Why would he need Dog the Bounty Hunter when it has cost him nothing??

First, Thank you for the response, and you are very welcome.

Second, The main reason that bondsman want some type of collateral is that it makes it very 'important' to the 'cosigners' to ENSURE that the defendant SHOWS UP.

The time and trouble it takes to actually get any money (houses don't sell instantly) far outweighs the small amount it takes to have a bounty hunter return the defendant.

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.