Posted on 07/13/2012 1:21:19 PM PDT by abb
SANFORD --
George Zimmerman's attorneys want to disqualify the judge who is presiding over his second-degree murder trial.
The motion filed Friday says Zimmerman "has a reasonable fear that he cannot get a fair trial or a fair stand your ground hearing by this court."
The motion specifically mentions the new bail Judge Kenneth Lester set for George Zimmerman earlier this month. The motion says Lester made disparaging remarks about Zimmerman's character, says he should be "prosecuted for additional crimes," and is holding the threat of future contempt proceedings over Zimmerman's head.
The judge revoked Zimmerman's first $150,000 bond, and had him rearrested after he allegedly misled the court as to how much money he had available in a fund for his defense.
The motion also says the court is not weighing any evidence of Zimmerman's innocence in the case when determining bond, other than to say "the only issue is the viability of the defendant's self-defense/Stand Your Ground claim" but they also accuse the judge of not discussing that issue either.
The motion also says:
"The court departed from its role as an impartial, objective minister of justice when it stated on two occasions in its order that in the court's personal opinion there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a violation of Florida Statute 903.035(3), a third degree felony punishable by five years in prison. This is tantamount to instructing the state that Mr. Zimmerman should be prosecuted for this offense."
George Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin last February.
O’mara needs to make a phone call to Barry Cohen. He needs a team, not a one man team. O’mara is qualified, but he needs another brain or two. This case is predudicial against the defendant.
Zimmerman judge orders release of jail calls, ‘Witness 9′ statement 4:16 p.m. EST, July 13, 2012| By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
Despite objections by George Zimmerman’s attorneys, the public will get to hear 145 additional phone calls Zimmerman made from the Seminole County jail, as well as the statement of a witness who says he doesn’t like black people.
The witness, identified as “Witness 9″ in prosecution documents, has not been publicly identified. One of her two statements has been withheld from the public so far, and attorney Mark O’Mara argued it should stay that way. In her other statement, Witness 9 says that she knows Zimmerman, as well as his family.
“I know George, and I know that he does not like black people,” she said, speaking to a Sanford police investigator. “He would start something. He’s a very confrontational person. It’s in his blood. Let’s just say that.”
She went on to describe Zimmerman and his family as “just mean and open about it, and I don’t know what he’s capable of, but I do know things that he’s done to me that I would never, I would never talk to him about ever again.”
O’Mara wrote in a motion that the not-yet-released second statement “is not relevant” to the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and would “serve to reignite and potentially enhance the widespread public hostility toward Mr. Zimmerman.”
However, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester wrote in an order filed Friday that public records law requires the release of evidence, unless it would present a “serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.”
The statement, Lester writes, does not reach that high bar.
O’Mara also asked the judge to seal 145 of 151 jail phone calls made by Zimmerman, arguing they’re irrelevant to the case and the people Zimmerman talked to have a right to privacy.
The judge rejected that argument. People called by an inmate, he wrote, “are specifically advised that their calls will be recorded.”
It was not immediately clear when the statement and calls would be released. The order comes as Zimmerman has requested a new judge in the case.
THIS IS LESTER'S "SCREW YOU" TO ZIMMERMAN and O'MARA.
That biased 8 page abomination that Lester wrote on July 5th was his resignation letter. Those things are usually 2 pages long and he took 8 pages to excoriate a defendant whose crime was keeping his mouth shut in his courtroom.
O’Mara was probably waiting for the new discovery releases yesterday [which further decimated the prosecution’s case] before filing this Motion. So then when he gets this Motion today, look at what Lester does. He throws another temper tantrum:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2906260/posts?page=62#62
He’s a real piece of work.
I realize that a lot of people believe that, but that doesn’t need to be his defense criminally in order to shield him civilly does it? I am asking out of ignorance of the law.
Common sense would dictate that he can assert both things (that he shouldn’t be held civilly liable specifically because of the allowances in the SYG law, but can primarily claim the inherent right to self defense in regards to the criminal suit against him).
IDK, perhaps the only way to do it in our screwed up justice system is to claim SYG, even though that doesn’t really pertain. There are cons to it too - if you assume the stalking part of it as alleged by the state, then it wouldn’t shield him at all.
Seems like a double-edged sword.
BTW... I don’t believe Zimmerman was stalking Martin at all - I am just following the mind-set of the states’ attorney and all the race pimps.
Thanks to you and Trailerpark Badass for your informative replies. As an old fat guy, I now understand why I was not familiar with the term.
Otherwise, if he wins, he loses because he's sued into pauperhood forever.
No. He could stand his place. Just once he was attacked he was really defending himself after that.
IMHO
Addressed this in another thread. It doesn't work that way. Bernard Goetz has yet to pay a dime on the $43m judgement against him. George doesn't have the assets to sue and actually collect anything from. When this is over, win or lose, his legal team will walk away with all the donations he's received and he'll just be another working class guy with no assets to touch.
It is my understanding that “Stand Your Ground” is a part of FL’s larger self-defense law. If GZ can convince a judge in a hearing that it is more likely than not that he acted in self-defense, then he is immune from prosecution and from civil suits. SYG has become a shorthand for the FL self-defense statute, even though, in this case, GZ had no means to retreat.
If he can’t convince the judge, then he goes to trial and can still assert self-defense. To be found guilty, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. In that case, whether he is found guilty or not, he can still be sued civilly.
Interesting. I guess I figured most of what you said already, I just didn’t realize that merely going to trial was the threshold to being sued in civil court under the FL law.
To me, none of this makes any sense (the laws on self defense). That we allow people who were legitimately defending themselves to be sued and have massive judgements against them; well, it just boggles the mind.
I appreciate the response. I didn’t realize it was that messed up (the law). So if he is acquitted and it goes to trial, then the civil liability comes into play, whereas if he is not acquitted, then the SYG civil liability protection provision covers him... Is that about right?
When a court tries to act as prosecutor the judge should be disbarred! That is nothing but a kangaroo court trying to railroad the defendant.
The problem is that in a trial, the prosecution has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone is guilty. In a civil suit, the threshold is the "preponderance of the evidence," a much lower standard. That's what got OJ. He was declared not guilty in the trial, but got sued big time in civil court.
I think you are still confused. The self-defense hearing is called a Dennis Hearing (often referred to as a Stand Your Ground Hearing).
GZ would not be acquitted in a Dennis Hearing. If the judge believes that it is more likely than not that GZ acted in self-defense, he would dismiss the charges; and no trial would be held; and GZ would not be subject to civil liability.
If, on the other hand, GZ does not prevail in the Dennis hearing, he would go to trial, but could still assert self-defense at trial. Unfortunately, if the jury does believe him and acquits, he would still be liable to be sued in civil court.
MOM may or may not decide to go for the Dennis Hearing. There are pros and cons to that decision.
Exactly! The mini-trial at the second bond hearing in retrospect appears to be a brilliant move on MOM's part to give Lester a chance to redeem himself; or if that failed, to give MOM ample grounds for an appeal.
Baloney. Read the law. It does work that way.
If Zimmerman is acquitted at an SYG hearing it is all over -- at minimal cost to himself and everybody else.
Furthermore there is no fear of future litigation for himself, his family, the SPD, the city, the retreat complex, the insurance companies, and whoever else Crump and company wants to drag into this.
It's a win for everybody except for the ambulance chasing race hustlers throwing propaganda out there.
It would appear that the Motion to Disqualify is an indication that MoM wants to proceed to an SYG hearing which would have been a lost cause with Lester in place due to his obvious disdain for and bias against GZ.
There are pros and cons to that decision.
What are the cons???
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.