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!
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.