Very simply. By reading the sign over the phone, knowing that the KopKorps and Prosecutor were listening in.
If the question was "Do you know what time it is?" and Shellie's answer was "No." that is not a lie. If the question, substantively, was: "Do you know how much money has been given you?" and the answer is "No" that is not a lie.
If the direct question, procedurally and substantively was: "Are you attempting to hide from this court the amount of donations you have received as of (give a particular date and time)?" and the answer is "No" -- neither need that be a lie.
What's the problem here? What am I missing?
If someone asks me:"Do you know what time it is?" and I say "Yes." and say on no more, have I failed to give up any key information that was requested?
You would think that the prosecution or the judge would be smart enough to ask a direct response that their lawyer(s) could respond to directly, or else say, "My clients choose not to participate in their own conviction of an offense."
Your discussion is quite similar to what I offered in explaining that I doubt they could get a perjury conviction. But that doesn’t mean they did not deceive the court.
Back when Clinton was parsing the meaning of “is” in order to show he had not technically lied, most people understood that he had done exactly that. Yet Clinton wasn’t charged with perjury, either.
And yes, it is quite obvious they knew they were being recorded - that’s why they spoke in their clumsy and obvious code about the various transfers of funds about which they later claimed ignorance.
Did the prosecutor over-react by charging perjury? I think so. Is part of that gamesmanship for the “real” trial? I’m sure it is.
But this is a case where George Zimmerman’s freedom depends to a large degree on his own credibility, which he has now, inexplicably, chosen to damage. It’s really mind-boggling.