Posted on 07/05/2012 9:01:28 AM PDT by jakerobins
SANFORD, Fla. - George Zimmerman, the man accused in the death of Trayvon Martin, was granted $1 million bond Thursday morning.
A second bond hearing in the George Zimmerman case was held Friday morning. More
In his ruling, Judge Kenneth Lester scoffed at the notion Zimmerman was confused at the time of his first bond hearing.
Lester said Zimmerman was "manipulating the system to his own benefit."
Zimmerman spent the 4th of July holiday behind bars after the judge could not come to a decision on whether to grand him bond at a hearing Friday.
Lester said he considered everything he heard at Zimmerman's bond hearing last Friday, and would make a decision Thursday. He decided $1 million was a fair amount.
(Excerpt) Read more at wesh.com ...
So — to get out of jail he has to use $100,000 of his $211,000 defense fund which he will never see back. Thanks, Judge Lester.
He needs to be out to best work on his defense, so I would consider bail an appropriate use of defense funds. It's not like he's using them to buy a fancy car or something.
My first thoughts are completely unprintable here. But now that I’ve cooled down, I think that Mr. Zimmerman’s legal defense fund is going to see some needed funds come pouring in.
Perhaps a deep pocket donor like the Koch’s can do a major donation.
I would not put money on that, times are getting bad and the corruption is getting too widely exposed. There might be a “Loose Cannon” go off in the near future. It’s not Clair Wolf time yet, but it gets closer everyday. November is going to be an interesting month.
Actually if he shows up for trial, the $1M will be returned if it’s s cash bond, but if he goes to a bail bondsman he’ll lose the cost of the bond.
Exactly. Then how will he pay his attorney and his living expenses since everyone made sure he can’t work. Hell a damn community college he was going to even told him not to come back.
The judge along with the special pros were just pissed Zimmerman had money; they want his life ruined. Period.
The defense would like to call Dr. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University as a witness...
Dr.. Dershowitz, am I correct in believing that you are generally known as one of America's foremost legal experts and scholars?
That is correct...
Your honor, for the record, Dr. Dershowitz's prsonal website has a bio section which notes:
Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is Brooklyn native who has been called “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer” and one of its “most distinguished defenders of individual rights,” “the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,” “the top lawyer of last resort,” “America’s most public Jewish defender” and “Israel’s single most visible defender – the Jewish state’s lead attorney in the court of public opinion.” He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg.
He has also published more than 100 articles in magazines and journals such as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Nation, Commentary, Saturday Review, The Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, and more than 300 of his articles have appeared in syndication in 50 national daily newspapers. Professor Dershowitz is the author of 27 fiction and non-fiction works with a worldwide audience. His most recent titles include Rights From Wrong, The Case For Israel, The Case For Peace, Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence, Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways, Finding Jefferson – A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and The First Amendment In An Age of Terrorism, and The Case For Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.
I know who Professor Derwhowitz is, Mr. V...
Professor Dershowitz, have you expressed an opinion regarding this case in national media?
I have...
And what was tht opinion...
The opinion of this case which I've expressed in several syndicated journal articles is that the prosecutor has no case against Mr. Zimmerman, and is behaving in an unprofessional if not criminal and illegal manner...
And what was this stupid bitch's reaction to that?
She threatened to sue Harvard University.
That will be all, Professor Dershowitz, no further questions...
>>>Can Zimmerman sue the judge, too, when this is all over?<<<
I have been a big Zimmerman supporter from the beginning, but I think the judge is just about the only individual in the Florida justice system who has been fair towards George Zimmerman.
The original $150,000 bail was very reasonable, given the seriousness of the charge against GZ (as bogus as it is).
GZ and his wife screwed up badly, by not revealing the PayPal cash at the first bond hearing, and by making transactions that appeared suspicious. Despite this, the judge was convinced by the evidence that O’Mara presented that it wasn’t as bad as it originally looked and that GZ is still not a flight risk.
The fact that the judge looked past the public and media hysteria, and the fact that he was deceived in the first bond hearing and is once again granting bail to GZ impresses me.
I don’t think Judge Lester is going to allow GZ to be railroaded and he will do his best to see he gets a fair trial. In fact, I think there is a decent chance he will dismiss the case after a Stand Your Ground hearing.
Does anyone know if there is currently a way to provide more funds to George’s defense fund? This is a total travesty. I agree that it appears the judge set the bail at a level that is designed to deplete the resources for Zimmerman’s defense. Some lawyer is going to make a name by taking this case and seeing that TRUE justice is done.
Main article: Excessive Bail Clause
In England, sheriffs originally determined whether to grant bail to criminal suspects. Since they tended to abuse their power, Parliament passed a statute in 1275 whereby bailable and non-bailable offenses were defined. The King’s judges often subverted the provisions of the law. It was held that an individual may be held without bail upon the Sovereign’s command. Eventually, the Petition of Right of 1628 argued that the King did not have such authority. Later, technicalities in the law were exploited to keep the accused imprisoned without bail even where the offenses were bailable; such loopholes were for the most part closed by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. Thereafter, judges were compelled to set bail, but they often required impracticable amounts. Finally, the English Bill of Rights (1689) held that “excessive bail ought not to be required.” Nevertheless, the Bill did not determine the distinction between bailable and non-bailable offenses. Thus, the Eighth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that bail may be denied if the charges are sufficiently serious. The Supreme Court has also permitted “preventive” detention without bail.
In United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the only limitation imposed by the bail clause is that “the government’s proposed conditions of release or detention not be ‘excessive’ in light of the perceived evil.”
maybe Dershowitz will take a more active interest.
“Can Zimmerman sue the judge, too, when this is all over?”
Nope. Judges have absolute immunity for all judicial acts over which they have jurisdiction
In theory, bail is supposed to serve one and only one purpose: To ensure that the defendant shows up in court. Bail is not supposed to be punative. If the court wants to punish Zimmerman for “lying” about his assets at he first bail hearing, then the remedy is not to set excessive bail at a second bail hearing, but to cite him for contempt or ask the prosecutor to indict him for perjury.
Zimmerman is an extremely low risk as evidenced by the fact that he didn’t jump bail when he previously had the oppurtunity and the forfeiture was relatively low, and there was no evidence whatsoever at the last bail hearing to suggest he is a greater risk of jumping bail today than he was two months ago.
Hey, that’s a great idea and a time and money saver, too. All jury rooms will henceforth forgo the expense of pens, pencils and notepads and instead be provided with one official ‘court coin’. One ‘flip’ and we’re outta here!
The judge is setting him up for another bond revocation with all this ticky tack stuff. No evidence was ever presented by the prosecution that he was a flight risk or a danger to the community.
Did he attend the same hearing on the 29th that all of the rest of us did????
When a white man breaks the law, the cops take him to jail.
When a black man breaks the law, the cops are taken to jail.
Welcome to Obama’s America. :)
Now go pay your taxes - liberals that hate you need raises. :)
Everyone should grasp the concept-ZIMMERMAN WILL BE CONVICTED! IT IS DECREED! THE FACTS AND THE LAW DO NOT MATTER! ZIMMERMAN WILL BE SMASHED!
No...for what???? The judge is well within the law in asking for high bond. Any and all judges would do the same considering the circumstances.
I read all the way from the beginning comment down to yours before I could find a comment that was informational and impartial. Thanks for posting.
I get so sick of the “tar and feather”-style, emotion-based comments on every subject.
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.