Whatever he feels like doing. It seems he doesn't feel obliged to adhere to binding precedent or statutory law. I don't recall him finding the state's case met the " guilt is evident or the presumption great" standard, and that's a pre-requisite for denial of bail.
I'm working my way through FL precedent on other conditions that support denial of bond, like danger to the community and flight risk. I'd like to find authority for the proposition that Zimmerman's disrespect is adequate justification for denial of bail. I mean, if he shows up out of fear of punishment (rather than out of respect), he still submitting to the court. I'd show up at court, myself, and as far as I'm concerned, the court is presumed full of self important dishonest pricks.
I think he'll grant bail. If he doesn't know he risks reversal of this opinion, he's quite a bit less intelligent than I credited him with. But then, seems he's indifferent about being reversed on appeal.
-- If he raises the bond, where will the money come from? --
It ends up being a new bond. He has to do the same "how much do you have" routine, again, and Zimmerman has $15,000 less now than he did the first time around. Maybe the bail bondsman is Lester's brother in law or something.
-- If he refuses to allow bond, that sounds like being punitive ... --
He's hemmed in by the FL constitution, FL statutes, and FL Supreme Court precedent. He has to make a certain finding in order to justify denial of bail. To the best of my recollection, he hasn't come close to making any finding that supports denial of bail.
It would appear that Zimmerman has a WHOLE lot less than he did before, since he is apparently on an allowance for living expenses. MOM wisely put the money out of his reach. I wonder if Lester can legally confiscate it now. I wouldn't put it past him, that's for sure.
as far as I'm concerned, the court is presumed full of self important dishonest pricks.
So, you've been to So. Cal., huh? :-)