Posted on 06/18/2012 5:47:29 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
ORLANDO, Fla. – The former neighborhood watch volunteer who killed Trayvon Martin told his wife to buy bulletproof vests for them and for his attorney, according to jailhouse calls released Monday.
"As uncomfortable as it is, I want you wearing one," George Zimmerman told his wife. Zimmerman was wearing a bulletproof vest when he left jail after posting bond. His attorney, Mark O'Mara, has reported receiving threats.
The calls, released by prosecutors, also detail how Zimmerman instructed his wife to transfer money from bank accounts and could play a crucial role in his second bond hearing next week.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
This is beyond shameful and I can’t believe that Bork Obunga has not caught a world of shit over that “if I had a son” statement. That has to be one of the vilest things I’ve ever seen come out of washington DC.
Agreed. This is bizarro world.
If trayvon had been a polite person he’d be alive.
Yes, it is. My word for for the tango of the trial lawyers is "surreal."
Few of us, the civilians, can begin to appreciate the system by which jurists selectively organize, classify, and present their information according to the Court's code duello so as to achieve a victory at the bar, not in the minds of the public, and have a jovial lunch together afterward when the posing is over. It's just a job, to them.
I recognize that your points are valid and telling in that arena, and that the ordinary person's sense of what is "just" or "fair" rarely prevails in a case such as this one.
All that one of the principal opponents have to achieve before the jury is that his/her presentation is perceived as demonstrating just a weeny bit more credible argument than the other. It's never black/white as in the FR forum. Who knows what kind of jury will sit in this matter?
I think you have this one backwards. Pretending the Zimmermans did not intend to deceive is the Clintonesque interpretation of events. That is quite clearly what they intended to do, and it was really dumb.
I’m not sure I follow you. Are you saying that because the state knew they were trying to deceive, it isn’t really deception?
Jail phones are different, you make a collect call instead of getting a dime to make the call and at least in one case from Louisiana the money collected doesn’t always go to the city/county but to a private individual.
If you have to read someone their rights before you lock them up, as a juror I’d extend that to having to make a declarative remark to BOTH parties in a taped jailhouse call.
Don’t extend powers to police that don’t exist. Recall when Opie in Andy Griffith taped a conversation between a prisoner and his lawyer.
If there is a sign, that may suffice, as I say in Texas, at least one party in a call must know the call is being taped.
If the kid had just decked Zimmerman and then walked away nobody would have died. What actually happened was the equivalent of a pit bull attack.
This is done by at least some jails.
Don't know if it was the case for Zimmerman. It appears they tried to do some amatuerish talking in code, so they seem to have at least been aware they might be taped.
Not being criminals, they weren't very good at it.
If she had given them a dollar amount that was inaccurate, even a few dollars off, they could have and would have charged her with perjury for that. No matter what answer she gave, the perjury charge was coming. It was their intent --
Yet they put Zimmerman in jail.
Again, I don’t think they can get a perjury conviction, but that’s not the problem the Zimmermans have brought upon themselves. They clearly intended to try to hide from the court the amount of money they had available to them, and they clearly carried out every step of that plan, up to and including her answers in court, even if they were not perjurious. That’s why it affect George, too - not because of specific answers he gave in court, but because he was part of the plan to try to hide the information from the court.
Eric Holder has rebranded it the Injustice Department and made it clear he will selectively prosecute civil rights and human rights offenses.
The man is a bigot and a disgrace.
One of the most important things for a defendant to do while testifying in court is to *NOT* piss off the judge…
George Zimmerman is *NOT* very likely to be convicted of the outrageous overcharge of second degree murder based on the evidence made public so far. He even *HAD* a good chance that the judge might dismiss this case outright during a pretrial hearing based on the lack of evidence of a murder, weighed against his claim of self defense. But he and his wife *Screwed Up, Big Time*.
They made very stupid and damaging mistakes while testifying during the bond hearing by not voluntarily revealing that they had received over $130,000 in cash donations. A Florida statute (Fla. R. Crim. P. 1.131) compels the defendant during the gathering of any information to be used for a bail hearing that their testimony “shall be accurate, truthful, and complete, without omissions, to best knowledge of the defendant.” So, it doesn’t really matter that the state asked malformed or sloppy incoherent questions like “How much money is in that website right now?... ”, the donation money amount had to be truthfully disclosed anyway. The violation of this statute is cited by Judge Lester as a reason for his Order Revoking Bond, issued 11JUN2012, which resulted in GZ being ordered to surrender to be jailed again. For anyone interested in this case, you should *carefully* read this three page order. It is very clear that Judge Lester is *VERY* pissed off.
Some damning quotes:
… “It is apparent that Shelly Zimmerman testified untruthfully at the bond hearing. The Defendant [George Zimmerman] also testified, but did not alert the Court to the misinformation.” …
… “Most importantly, though, is the fact that he [George Zimmerman] has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of judicial process.” …
Totally unnecessary and self inflicted mistakes by GZ and SZ that may well result in:
A) No chance now that this ridiculous case will be dismissed by this pissed off judge during the self defense pretrial hearing.
B) That this pissed off judge will not release GZ again on bail. GZ will likely remain in jail until his second degree murder trial begins.
But, this is not even the end of this stupid mess. Now SZ has been charged with perjury for her apparently untruthful testimony during the bond hearing, as cited by Judge Lester’s bond revocation of GZ, and the prosecution’s affidavit of probable cause of perjury against her (which also should be *carefully* read by those interested in this case). SZ answered her own husband’s defense attorney’s question during the bond hearing:
… Q. I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband George declared indigent for cost, have I not?
A. Yes, you have.
Q. And is – - are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?
A. Uhrn, not- – not that I’m aware of. …
That answer is an obvious lie. To declare to be indigent (legally poor) while she *knew* that GZ had already received over $130,000 in cash donations is probable cause for a perjury charge.
But, even under later testimony during cross examination by the prosecution, SZ had another chance to come clean about the donated cash, but failed to do so:
… Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?
A. To my knowledge, that is correct. …
Again, that is another obvious lie. And GZ was present at the hearing and did not bother to offer a correction to the court (as would be required by the FL bail hearing statute cited above) that might have saved his wife of a perjury charge…
So, is this another case where a defendant will not be convicted of the original charge, but instead be convicted of other charges stemming from the investigation? I fear that this will be true.
Q. And is – - are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?
A. Uhrn, not- – not that I’m aware of. …
Assuming Mark O'Malley was her questioner here, was this the answer he expected her to give? Was it one he rehearsed with her? Had she kept their financing from him?
Gaaaah! One needs a regular filled-out Daytimer to follow the irregularities and their occurrences in this affair. Good account here. Thanks!
I have already read that thread, but unfortunately, most of the analysis in the original link posted there [Legal Insurrection] is flawed, because it fails to recognize the FL statute Fla. R. Crim. P. 1.131, which does not allow *any* false testimony or omissions of resources of declared assets during a bail hearing.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. That is what these young people faced and are still facing.
That may very well be what happens.
I wonder why bail hearing testimony is different from other testimony??? Does this statute just apply to the defendant who testifies or to anyone who testifies in a bailbond hearing??? Since it is different, I wonder if the oath administered by the notary in a bail hearing is different from a normal one, which in so many places nowadays leaves off the words: "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
Excellent summary. I totally agree.
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.