Zimmerman got a jury in Sanford but can he get a verdict?
An all female jury begins its work today on the State v. George Zimmerman. The choice of a jury of only women was somewhat of a surprise to those of us in the legal community. Most analysis indicated the Defense would be seeking white, male jurors. The idea being you wanted that “protector” personality. You wanted people who were not turned off by firearms. You wanted people who would think to themselves, “yes, I too would think that behavior was suspicious and I would have confronted the person too.” Females do not have this personality nearly as often. Women are smart, logical and open-minded. However, as a woman, I can tell you that there is an entirely different dynamic among women that I can promise you no man in that courtroom understands. Unfortunately, there is too often an undercurrent of jealousy and conflict among women. I sense it often although I refuse to participate in it. Additionally, the mother instinct is strong. If you get one woman strongly held on one side and another woman strongly held on the other, I can promise you it will take World War 3 to get a verdict in that jury room. Watch for a hung jury. One saving grace is that the jury is sequestered. They will be ready to go home and one side may eventually cave just to get out.
So, how did this happen? While the jury pool seemed to be uninformed and unaware of pretrial publicity, it is also clear it wasn’t overflowing with the Defense’s ideal juror. Can you imagine taking off 8 weeks of your life to sit in a courtroom and a hotel room to serve on a jury? I couldn’t do it. I have young kids and a career. What happens, then, is our high profile jurors tend to be housewives, unemployed people, and retirees. The Defense did the best they could with this jury pool. It seems they have selected women who are married to logical men i.e. engineers, attorneys etc. Perhaps, they think such women will be more receptive to the logical arguments about evidence that seem to favor the Defense. They also selected women who have older children. It would seem they are betting the mother instinct subsides over time, as children age. There has been some talk that the Defense is betting these white women will share their client’s concern and suspicion of Trayvon Martin. I don’t believe this was in the Defense’s strategy.
Does the exclusion of the 911 expert analysis kill the State’s case?
No! The State is going to need their credibility in this case. Their experts contradicted the original FBI (i.e. credible) analysis. It was truly junk science. The “experts” they were attempting to present to the jury sounded like quacks. Their testimony defied logic. I realize the State wanted to prove the person screaming for help was Trayvon so that they’d have that evidence to contradict the self-defense claim once the Defense makes their initial showing. However, this was no way to do it. The State would’ve lost credibility presenting those “experts”. This would’ve hurt their whole case. The Judge did the State a favor.
BOND OR NO BOND
July 2, 2012
There is much speculation as to whether or not George Zimmerman will be granted a second bond after having his initial bond revoked for failing to disclose the substantial funds donated to him through his website. After review of the bond motion filed by Mark O’Mara, observing the hearing and reviewing case law, I am convinced no one is discussing the real issues of the case and the potential for precedent setting law in Florida.
First, a bit of history regarding bonds. The constitution generally guarantees that every person is entitled a bond unless that person is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. State vs. Arthur tells us that on a first degree or life felony the State must prove the case against the Defendant is strong (the standard is “proof evident presumption great) if the Court is going to deny a bond. To do so, the Court must conduct an “Arthur hearing” and make a ruling as to the strength of the State’s case. Historically, there was a disagreement in Florida as to whether a person was entitled to a bond after being released and then violating the conditions of bond. The Florida legislature and Supreme Court clarified the issue with Florida Statutes 907.041(c) which gives the bases upon which a bond can be denied, including when a person violates the first bond, commits a new crime while out on bond, etc.
Now, most of Mr. O’Mara’s bond motion and hearing addressed issues relating to 90.041. He discussed, at length, that Zimmerman was not a flight risk, was not a danger to the community, abided by the GPS monitoring conditions, remanded himself, didn’t spend the money received through the website extravagantly, etc. You may have also heard the Judge say I know what you’re doing here, you’re trying to “back door an Arthur hearing”. The Judge was commenting on the evidence presented as to the weakness of the State’s case. To some extent, Mr. O’Mara was trying to show that Zimmerman was entitled to a bond because the State couldn’t meet the standad “proof evident, presumption great.” The entire presentation, however, was an intelligent and well thought out distraction from the real issue. It was reminiscent of the skits of Johnny Cochran and the “Chewbacca defense.” It was impressive but, nevertheless, mute as to the real issue.
The Judge didn’t revoke Zimmerman’s bond under 90.041, the Judge revoke Zimmerman’s bond under Statute 903.035 which says that any information the Defendant knew or should’ve known would be used in the application of bond must be accurate, truthful, and complete, without omissions. The failure to do so may result in the revocation or modification of the Defendant’s bond and is, in this case, a 3rd degree felony. This statute makes no reference to the factors of 907.041. The State’s position, therefore, is that the bulk of the information provided in the bond hearing was irrelevant. By the plain language of the Statute, the only thing that matter is: did the Defendant misrepresent or omit facts at the bond hearing? By O’Mara’s own admission, the answer is yes. Zimmerman did allow the misrepresentation and attempted to “protect” the money from the Judge. He was scared and would need the money to live because he could no longer work and his Wife had to quit nursing school when their safety was threatened.
So, what happens now? There are some very interesting questions to answer. Most commentary focuses on the flight risk and threat to the community factors which weigh in Zimmerman’s favor. However, when the Judge revoked Zimmerman’s bond, he indicated he wanted to hear how this happened and, in my opinion, he wanted a defense presented to the 903.035 violation. None was presented by Mr. O’Mara. At the bond hearing, the Judge seemed to want to shift the focus back to 903.035 and away from the “backdoor” Arthur hearing. I think the Judge may ultimately say that Mr. O’Mara presented very little evidence as to the issues relevant to 903.035, the plain language of the statute allow for a revocation of bond, no evidence was presented indicating 903.035 was not violated and, in fact, Mr. O’Mara admitted that Zimmerman knew of the money and didn’t disclose it until 4 days after the hearing. Therefore, with there being no defense to the violation of 903.035, the Judge may say that Zimmerman isn’t getting another bond.
The interesting question that has never been answered in Florida is whether or not 903.035 is constitutional. If the statute allows for the revocation of bond without consideration of the factors of flight risk and danger to the community and the constitution says a person is generally entitled to a bond, then is 903.035 constitutional? My research indicates there are only 4 cases which address 903.035 and none deal with the issue of constitutionality. If the Judge denies Zimmerman’s bond, Mr. O’Mara will file an immediate appeal challenging the statute and we will get an answer. It is a question that has yet to be answered in the law. Yet again, the Zimmerman case could make law.
BOND OR NO BOND
July 2, 2012
There is much speculation as to whether or not George Zimmerman will be granted a second bond after having his initial bond revoked for failing to disclose the substantial funds donated to him through his website. After review of the bond motion filed by Mark O’Mara, observing the hearing and reviewing case law, I am convinced no one is discussing the real issues of the case and the potential for precedent setting law in Florida.
First, a bit of history regarding bonds. The constitution generally guarantees that every person is entitled a bond unless that person is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. State vs. Arthur tells us that on a first degree or life felony the State must prove the case against the Defendant is strong (the standard is “proof evident presumption great) if the Court is going to deny a bond. To do so, the Court must conduct an “Arthur hearing” and make a ruling as to the strength of the State’s case. Historically, there was a disagreement in Florida as to whether a person was entitled to a bond after being released and then violating the conditions of bond. The Florida legislature and Supreme Court clarified the issue with Florida Statutes 907.041(c) which gives the bases upon which a bond can be denied, including when a person violates the first bond, commits a new crime while out on bond, etc.
Now, most of Mr. O’Mara’s bond motion and hearing addressed issues relating to 90.041. He discussed, at length, that Zimmerman was not a flight risk, was not a danger to the community, abided by the GPS monitoring conditions, remanded himself, didn’t spend the money received through the website extravagantly, etc. You may have also heard the Judge say I know what you’re doing here, you’re trying to “back door an Arthur hearing”. The Judge was commenting on the evidence presented as to the weakness of the State’s case. To some extent, Mr. O’Mara was trying to show that Zimmerman was entitled to a bond because the State couldn’t meet the standad “proof evident, presumption great.” The entire presentation, however, was an intelligent and well thought out distraction from the real issue. It was reminiscent of the skits of Johnny Cochran and the “Chewbacca defense.” It was impressive but, nevertheless, mute as to the real issue.
The Judge didn’t revoke Zimmerman’s bond under 90.041, the Judge revoke Zimmerman’s bond under Statute 903.035 which says that any information the Defendant knew or should’ve known would be used in the application of bond must be accurate, truthful, and complete, without omissions. The failure to do so may result in the revocation or modification of the Defendant’s bond and is, in this case, a 3rd degree felony. This statute makes no reference to the factors of 907.041. The State’s position, therefore, is that the bulk of the information provided in the bond hearing was irrelevant. By the plain language of the Statute, the only thing that matter is: did the Defendant misrepresent or omit facts at the bond hearing? By O’Mara’s own admission, the answer is yes. Zimmerman did allow the misrepresentation and attempted to “protect” the money from the Judge. He was scared and would need the money to live because he could no longer work and his Wife had to quit nursing school when their safety was threatened.
So, what happens now? There are some very interesting questions to answer. Most commentary focuses on the flight risk and threat to the community factors which weigh in Zimmerman’s favor. However, when the Judge revoked Zimmerman’s bond, he indicated he wanted to hear how this happened and, in my opinion, he wanted a defense presented to the 903.035 violation. None was presented by Mr. O’Mara. At the bond hearing, the Judge seemed to want to shift the focus back to 903.035 and away from the “backdoor” Arthur hearing. I think the Judge may ultimately say that Mr. O’Mara presented very little evidence as to the issues relevant to 903.035, the plain language of the statute allow for a revocation of bond, no evidence was presented indicating 903.035 was not violated and, in fact, Mr. O’Mara admitted that Zimmerman knew of the money and didn’t disclose it until 4 days after the hearing. Therefore, with there being no defense to the violation of 903.035, the Judge may say that Zimmerman isn’t getting another bond.
The interesting question that has never been answered in Florida is whether or not 903.035 is constitutional. If the statute allows for the revocation of bond without consideration of the factors of flight risk and danger to the community and the constitution says a person is generally entitled to a bond, then is 903.035 constitutional? My research indicates there are only 4 cases which address 903.035 and none deal with the issue of constitutionality. If the Judge denies Zimmerman’s bond, Mr. O’Mara will file an immediate appeal challenging the statute and we will get an answer. It is a question that has yet to be answered in the law. Yet again, the Zimmerman case could make law.
BOND OR NO BOND
July 2, 2012
There is much speculation as to whether or not George Zimmerman will be granted a second bond after having his initial bond revoked for failing to disclose the substantial funds donated to him through his website. After review of the bond motion filed by Mark O’Mara, observing the hearing and reviewing case law, I am convinced no one is discussing the real issues of the case and the potential for precedent setting law in Florida.
First, a bit of history regarding bonds. The constitution generally guarantees that every person is entitled a bond unless that person is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. State vs. Arthur tells us that on a first degree or life felony the State must prove the case against the Defendant is strong (the standard is “proof evident presumption great) if the Court is going to deny a bond. To do so, the Court must conduct an “Arthur hearing” and make a ruling as to the strength of the State’s case. Historically, there was a disagreement in Florida as to whether a person was entitled to a bond after being released and then violating the conditions of bond. The Florida legislature and Supreme Court clarified the issue with Florida Statutes 907.041(c) which gives the bases upon which a bond can be denied, including when a person violates the first bond, commits a new crime while out on bond, etc.
Now, most of Mr. O’Mara’s bond motion and hearing addressed issues relating to 90.041. He discussed, at length, that Zimmerman was not a flight risk, was not a danger to the community, abided by the GPS monitoring conditions, remanded himself, didn’t spend the money received through the website extravagantly, etc. You may have also heard the Judge say I know what you’re doing here, you’re trying to “back door an Arthur hearing”. The Judge was commenting on the evidence presented as to the weakness of the State’s case. To some extent, Mr. O’Mara was trying to show that Zimmerman was entitled to a bond because the State couldn’t meet the standad “proof evident, presumption great.” The entire presentation, however, was an intelligent and well thought out distraction from the real issue. It was reminiscent of the skits of Johnny Cochran and the “Chewbacca defense.” It was impressive but, nevertheless, mute as to the real issue.
The Judge didn’t revoke Zimmerman’s bond under 90.041, the Judge revoke Zimmerman’s bond under Statute 903.035 which says that any information the Defendant knew or should’ve known would be used in the application of bond must be accurate, truthful, and complete, without omissions. The failure to do so may result in the revocation or modification of the Defendant’s bond and is, in this case, a 3rd degree felony. This statute makes no reference to the factors of 907.041. The State’s position, therefore, is that the bulk of the information provided in the bond hearing was irrelevant. By the plain language of the Statute, the only thing that matter is: did the Defendant misrepresent or omit facts at the bond hearing? By O’Mara’s own admission, the answer is yes. Zimmerman did allow the misrepresentation and attempted to “protect” the money from the Judge. He was scared and would need the money to live because he could no longer work and his Wife had to quit nursing school when their safety was threatened.
So, what happens now? There are some very interesting questions to answer. Most commentary focuses on the flight risk and threat to the community factors which weigh in Zimmerman’s favor. However, when the Judge revoked Zimmerman’s bond, he indicated he wanted to hear how this happened and, in my opinion, he wanted a defense presented to the 903.035 violation. None was presented by Mr. O’Mara. At the bond hearing, the Judge seemed to want to shift the focus back to 903.035 and away from the “backdoor” Arthur hearing. I think the Judge may ultimately say that Mr. O’Mara presented very little evidence as to the issues relevant to 903.035, the plain language of the statute allow for a revocation of bond, no evidence was presented indicating 903.035 was not violated and, in fact, Mr. O’Mara admitted that Zimmerman knew of the money and didn’t disclose it until 4 days after the hearing. Therefore, with there being no defense to the violation of 903.035, the Judge may say that Zimmerman isn’t getting another bond.
The interesting question that has never been answered in Florida is whether or not 903.035 is constitutional. If the statute allows for the revocation of bond without consideration of the factors of flight risk and danger to the community and the constitution says a person is generally entitled to a bond, then is 903.035 constitutional? My research indicates there are only 4 cases which address 903.035 and none deal with the issue of constitutionality. If the Judge denies Zimmerman’s bond, Mr. O’Mara will file an immediate appeal challenging the statute and we will get an answer. It is a question that has yet to be answered in the law. Yet again, the Zimmerman case could make law.
BOND OR NO BOND
July 2, 2012
There is much speculation as to whether or not George Zimmerman will be granted a second bond after having his initial bond revoked for failing to disclose the substantial funds donated to him through his website. After review of the bond motion filed by Mark O’Mara, observing the hearing and reviewing case law, I am convinced no one is discussing the real issues of the case and the potential for precedent setting law in Florida.
First, a bit of history regarding bonds. The constitution generally guarantees that every person is entitled a bond unless that person is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. State vs. Arthur tells us that on a first degree or life felony the State must prove the case against the Defendant is strong (the standard is “proof evident presumption great) if the Court is going to deny a bond. To do so, the Court must conduct an “Arthur hearing” and make a ruling as to the strength of the State’s case. Historically, there was a disagreement in Florida as to whether a person was entitled to a bond after being released and then violating the conditions of bond. The Florida legislature and Supreme Court clarified the issue with Florida Statutes 907.041(c) which gives the bases upon which a bond can be denied, including when a person violates the first bond, commits a new crime while out on bond, etc.
Now, most of Mr. O’Mara’s bond motion and hearing addressed issues relating to 90.041. He discussed, at length, that Zimmerman was not a flight risk, was not a danger to the community, abided by the GPS monitoring conditions, remanded himself, didn’t spend the money received through the website extravagantly, etc. You may have also heard the Judge say I know what you’re doing here, you’re trying to “back door an Arthur hearing”. The Judge was commenting on the evidence presented as to the weakness of the State’s case. To some extent, Mr. O’Mara was trying to show that Zimmerman was entitled to a bond because the State couldn’t meet the standad “proof evident, presumption great.” The entire presentation, however, was an intelligent and well thought out distraction from the real issue. It was reminiscent of the skits of Johnny Cochran and the “Chewbacca defense.” It was impressive but, nevertheless, mute as to the real issue.
The Judge didn’t revoke Zimmerman’s bond under 90.041, the Judge revoke Zimmerman’s bond under Statute 903.035 which says that any information the Defendant knew or should’ve known would be used in the application of bond must be accurate, truthful, and complete, without omissions. The failure to do so may result in the revocation or modification of the Defendant’s bond and is, in this case, a 3rd degree felony. This statute makes no reference to the factors of 907.041. The State’s position, therefore, is that the bulk of the information provided in the bond hearing was irrelevant. By the plain language of the Statute, the only thing that matter is: did the Defendant misrepresent or omit facts at the bond hearing? By O’Mara’s own admission, the answer is yes. Zimmerman did allow the misrepresentation and attempted to “protect” the money from the Judge. He was scared and would need the money to live because he could no longer work and his Wife had to quit nursing school when their safety was threatened.
So, what happens now? There are some very interesting questions to answer. Most commentary focuses on the flight risk and threat to the community factors which weigh in Zimmerman’s favor. However, when the Judge revoked Zimmerman’s bond, he indicated he wanted to hear how this happened and, in my opinion, he wanted a defense presented to the 903.035 violation. None was presented by Mr. O’Mara. At the bond hearing, the Judge seemed to want to shift the focus back to 903.035 and away from the “backdoor” Arthur hearing. I think the Judge may ultimately say that Mr. O’Mara presented very little evidence as to the issues relevant to 903.035, the plain language of the statute allow for a revocation of bond, no evidence was presented indicating 903.035 was not violated and, in fact, Mr. O’Mara admitted that Zimmerman knew of the money and didn’t disclose it until 4 days after the hearing. Therefore, with there being no defense to the violation of 903.035, the Judge may say that Zimmerman isn’t getting another bond.
The interesting question that has never been answered in Florida is whether or not 903.035 is constitutional. If the statute allows for the revocation of bond without consideration of the factors of flight risk and danger to the community and the constitution says a person is generally entitled to a bond, then is 903.035 constitutional? My research indicates there are only 4 cases which address 903.035 and none deal with the issue of constitutionality. If the Judge denies Zimmerman’s bond, Mr. O’Mara will file an immediate appeal challenging the statute and we will get an answer. It is a question that has yet to be answered in the law. Yet again, the Zimmerman case could make law.
BOND OR NO BOND?
July 2, 2012
There is much speculation as to whether or not George Zimmerman will be granted a second bond after having his initial bond revoked for failing to disclose the substantial funds donated to him through his website. After review of the bond motion filed by Mark O’Mara, observing the hearing and reviewing case law, I am convinced no one is discussing the real issues of the case and the potential for precedent setting law in Florida.
First, a bit of history regarding bonds. The constitution generally guarantees that every person is entitled a bond unless that person is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. State vs. Arthur tells us that on a first degree or life felony the State must prove the case against the Defendant is strong (the standard is “proof evident presumption great) if the Court is going to deny a bond. To do so, the Court must conduct an “Arthur hearing” and make a ruling as to the strength of the State’s case. Historically, there was a disagreement in Florida as to whether a person was entitled to a bond after being released and then violating the conditions of bond. The Florida legislature and Supreme Court clarified the issue with Florida Statutes 907.041(c) which gives the bases upon which a bond can be denied, including when a person violates the first bond, commits a new crime while out on bond, etc.
Now, most of Mr. O’Mara’s bond motion and hearing addressed issues relating to 90.041. He discussed, at length, that Zimmerman was not a flight risk, was not a danger to the community, abided by the GPS monitoring conditions, remanded himself, didn’t spend the money received through the website extravagantly, etc. You may have also heard the Judge say I know what you’re doing here, you’re trying to “back door an Arthur hearing”. The Judge was commenting on the evidence presented as to the weakness of the State’s case. To some extent, Mr. O’Mara was trying to show that Zimmerman was entitled to a bond because the State couldn’t meet the standad “proof evident, presumption great.” The entire presentation, however, was an intelligent and well thought out distraction from the real issue. It was reminiscent of the skits of Johnny Cochran and the “Chewbacca defense.” It was impressive but, nevertheless, mute as to the real issue.
The Judge didn’t revoke Zimmerman’s bond under 90.041, the Judge revoke Zimmerman’s bond under Statute 903.035 which says that any information the Defendant knew or should’ve known would be used in the application of bond must be accurate, truthful, and complete, without omissions. The failure to do so may result in the revocation or modification of the Defendant’s bond and is, in this case, a 3rd degree felony. This statute makes no reference to the factors of 907.041. The State’s position, therefore, is that the bulk of the information provided in the bond hearing was irrelevant. By the plain language of the Statute, the only thing that matter is: did the Defendant misrepresent or omit facts at the bond hearing? By O’Mara’s own admission, the answer is yes. Zimmerman did allow the misrepresentation and attempted to “protect” the money from the Judge. He was scared and would need the money to live because he could no longer work and his Wife had to quit nursing school when their safety was threatened.
So, what happens now? There are some very interesting questions to answer. Most commentary focuses on the flight risk and threat to the community factors which weigh in Zimmerman’s favor. However, when the Judge revoked Zimmerman’s bond, he indicated he wanted to hear how this happened and, in my opinion, he wanted a defense presented to the 903.035 violation. None was presented by Mr. O’Mara. At the bond hearing, the Judge seemed to want to shift the focus back to 903.035 and away from the “backdoor” Arthur hearing. I think the Judge may ultimately say that Mr. O’Mara presented very little evidence as to the issues relevant to 903.035, the plain language of the statute allow for a revocation of bond, no evidence was presented indicating 903.035 was not violated and, in fact, Mr. O’Mara admitted that Zimmerman knew of the money and didn’t disclose it until 4 days after the hearing. Therefore, with there being no defense to the violation of 903.035, the Judge may say that Zimmerman isn’t getting another bond.
The interesting question that has never been answered in Florida is whether or not 903.035 is constitutional. If the statute allows for the revocation of bond without consideration of the factors of flight risk and danger to the community and the constitution says a person is generally entitled to a bond, then is 903.035 constitutional? My research indicates there are only 4 cases which address 903.035 and none deal with the issue of constitutionality. If the Judge denies Zimmerman’s bond, Mr. O’Mara will file an immediate appeal challenging the statute and we will get an answer. It is a question that has yet to be answered in the law. Yet again, the Zimmerman case could make law.
BOND OR NO BOND?
July 2, 2012
There is much speculation as to whether or not George Zimmerman will be granted a second bond after having his initial bond revoked for failing to disclose the substantial funds donated to him through his website. After review of the bond motion filed by Mark O’Mara, observing the hearing and reviewing case law, I am convinced no one is discussing the real issues of the case and the potential for precedent setting law in Florida.
First, a bit of history regarding bonds. The constitution generally guarantees that every person is entitled a bond unless that person is either a flight risk or a danger to the community. State vs. Arthur tells us that on a first degree or life felony the State must prove the case against the Defendant is strong (the standard is “proof evident presumption great) if the Court is going to deny a bond. To do so, the Court must conduct an “Arthur hearing” and make a ruling as to the strength of the State’s case. Historically, there was a disagreement in Florida as to whether a person was entitled to a bond after being released and then violating the conditions of bond. The Florida legislature and Supreme Court clarified the issue with Florida Statutes 907.041(c) which gives the bases upon which a bond can be denied, including when a person violates the first bond, commits a new crime while out on bond, etc.
Now, most of Mr. O’Mara’s bond motion and hearing addressed issues relating to 90.041. He discussed, at length, that Zimmerman was not a flight risk, was not a danger to the community, abided by the GPS monitoring conditions, remanded himself, didn’t spend the money received through the website extravagantly, etc. You may have also heard the Judge say I know what you’re doing here, you’re trying to “back door an Arthur hearing”. The Judge was commenting on the evidence presented as to the weakness of the State’s case. To some extent, Mr. O’Mara was trying to show that Zimmerman was entitled to a bond because the State couldn’t meet the standad “proof evident, presumption great.” The entire presentation, however, was an intelligent and well thought out distraction from the real issue. It was reminiscent of the skits of Johnny Cochran and the “Chewbacca defense.” It was impressive but, nevertheless, mute as to the real issue.
The Judge didn’t revoke Zimmerman’s bond under 90.041, the Judge revoke Zimmerman’s bond under Statute 903.035 which says that any information the Defendant knew or should’ve known would be used in the application of bond must be accurate, truthful, and complete, without omissions. The failure to do so may result in the revocation or modification of the Defendant’s bond and is, in this case, a 3rd degree felony. This statute makes no reference to the factors of 907.041. The State’s position, therefore, is that the bulk of the information provided in the bond hearing was irrelevant. By the plain language of the Statute, the only thing that matter is: did the Defendant misrepresent or omit facts at the bond hearing? By O’Mara’s own admission, the answer is yes. Zimmerman did allow the misrepresentation and attempted to “protect” the money from the Judge. He was scared and would need the money to live because he could no longer work and his Wife had to quit nursing school when their safety was threatened.
So, what happens now? There are some very interesting questions to answer. Most commentary focuses on the flight risk and threat to the community factors which weigh in Zimmerman’s favor. However, when the Judge revoked Zimmerman’s bond, he indicated he wanted to hear how this happened and, in my opinion, he wanted a defense presented to the 903.035 violation. None was presented by Mr. O’Mara. At the bond hearing, the Judge seemed to want to shift the focus back to 903.035 and away from the “backdoor” Arthur hearing. I think the Judge may ultimately say that Mr. O’Mara presented very little evidence as to the issues relevant to 903.035, the plain language of the statute allow for a revocation of bond, no evidence was presented indicating 903.035 was not violated and, in fact, Mr. O’Mara admitted that Zimmerman knew of the money and didn’t disclose it until 4 days after the hearing. Therefore, with there being no defense to the violation of 903.035, the Judge may say that Zimmerman isn’t getting another bond.
The interesting question that has never been answered in Florida is whether or not 903.035 is constitutional. If the statute allows for the revocation of bond without consideration of the factors of flight risk and danger to the community and the constitution says a person is generally entitled to a bond, then is 903.035 constitutional? My research indicates there are only 4 cases which address 903.035 and none deal with the issue of constitutionality. If the Judge denies Zimmerman’s bond, Mr. O’Mara will file an immediate appeal challenging the statute and we will get an answer. It is a question that has yet to be answered in the law. Yet again, the Zimmerman case could make law.
After a review of every single page of the discovery on State v. George Zimmerman, it is clear there is much to discuss in the coming weeks. As the case progresses, I will go through each piece of evidence and discuss the implications of the evidence for the State and for the Defense. The discussion for today is: the best argument not yet heard on the Zimmerman case. Much of the commentary on the case highlights the State’s lack of evidence on who started the fight, what words transpired between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, who threw the first punch, etc. There will be much discussion on these issues and, suffice it to say, the evidence is still a little murky. If this were the focus, Zimmerman’s Stand Your Ground Motion may be successful.
What if the State shifted the focus to what we know for sure? We know for sure that Trayvon Martin was going home from purchasing a bag of skittles and an iced tea. We know for sure that Zimmerman thought him suspicious, not based on any specific act, but because he was a black kid that Zimmerman did not know in a neighborhood that began a Neighborhood Watch with the specific concern of burglaries in the area. It appears most of these previous burglaries were committed by black males. We know for sure that Zimmerman was told not to get out of the car. We know for sure that he did get out of the car. We know for sure that Trayvon was running. There are statements in the discovery which indicate that two men were running. It appears, therefore, that Zimmerman was chasing Trayvon Martin. The discovery blocked out all of Zimmerman’s statements so we still don’t know exactly his version of the night’s events. However, we can make reasonable inferences from the Sanford Police Department’s Warrant Request which says, “The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman if Zimmerman had waited in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement or, conversely, if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party’s concern.” Therefore, it appears that whatever Zimmerman’s version of events, it doesn’t include identifying himself as a neighborhood watch person or initiating dialog to calm the situation. It appears you have a 28 year old armed man chasing a 17 year old in the dark between apartment buildings. Zimmerman is not telling Trayvon Martin that he means him no harm, that he simply is with the neighborhood watch and wants to know what is going on. There are also statements in the discovery which indicate Zimmerman was yelling at Martin in a deep, authoritative voice.
Therefore, did Zimmerman commit an assault upon Trayvon Martin before any altercation happened? I think there is an argument that he did. Assault is defined as “an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent”. The question then becomes, “Is chasing someone unprovoked at night an act which indicates a threat to do violence?” I can tell you that if I am walking to my home at night and someone starts chasing me, I am going to assume the person intends to hurt me. The bulk of Florida cases where an act is deemed to be a threat are where a person is driving a vehicle towards someone (usually law enforcement). The caselaw says that, whether or not an verbal threat is made, if a person drives a vehicle toward another and that person reasonably fears imminent danger, the driver has committed an assault. The caselaw supports this as an assault even if the vehicle only moved a few feet. Isn’t chasing someone down unprovoked the same thing? Especially if the person giving chase is physically bigger and, most especially, armed? There is some very recent caselaw from the 2nd District Court of Appeals which says that in an assault “the State must prove that the defendant did an act that was substantially certain to put the victim in fear of imminent violence, not that the defendant had the intent to do violence to the victim.” In that case, the threat was driving a vehicle toward the victim. Under this scenario, it wouldn’t matter whether or not Zimmerman intended to harm Martin when he chased him down, only that Martin reasonably feared imminent violence. I think the State argues the threat was chasing Trayvon down. Zimmerman had no lawful authority to do so as a Neighborhood Watch captain. In fact, in interviews of the Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch supervisor who worked closely with Zimmerman, it is clear the police department informs Neighborhood Watch members to be the eyes and ears of the police only. They are trained to call the police and are specifically told not to be the “vigilante police”.
What does all this mean for the case? If the Judge believes that Zimmerman committed an assault by the act of running Trayvon Martin down causing Martin to reasonably fear imminent harm, Stand Your Ground would not apply. It wouldn’t matter if Trayvon Martin subsequently hit Zimmerman, banged his head on the ground, etc because Zimmerman initiated the confrontation with an unlawful act, i.e. the assault. Under this scenario, Zimmerman would lose the Stand Your Ground Motion and the case would proceed to jury trial.
George Zimmerman — a liar?
April 29, 2012
On Friday, Mark O’Mara disclosed that his client, George Zimmerman, collected over $200,000 from his website. Some of the money Zimmerman used for living expenses and, apparently, some of the money went to post the bond. While it is unclear how much existed at the time of the bond hearing, there was apparently a significant sum. It is also clear that Zimmerman didn’t tell his attorney about this money. Mr. O’Mara is a very experienced attorney. I have no doubt he asked his client about his money and sources of income. A defendant’s access to money is one of the major factors in determining the amount of a bond. And, we, as attorneys, have a duty of candor to the Court. We cannot affirmatively misrepresent a statement of fact. So, when Mr. O’Mara stood before the Court and proclaimed his client’s indigence, it was because his client told him so. That leaves us with only one conclusion; Zimmerman lied (Either affirmatively or by omission) to his attorney for his own benefit. I suspect he feared that if he told the Court about the money he may get scolded for endeavoring in such a practice or, at least, have to pay more of the money in a bond. Therefore, he thought it best to either: a. leave the fact out of the discussion or b. affirmatively lie to his attorney about it.
Either scenario is not good for his case. Eventually, Zimmerman’s entire defense will rest upon his account of the events surrounding Trayvon’s shooting. Therefore, his future freedom lies in his credibility. And, the Judge will be deciding whether to dismiss the case at a Stand Your Ground hearing. Zimmerman certainly doesn’t want the Judge to decide him a liar or someone uncooperative with his attorney. No member of the defense Bar is proud of the fiasco Zimmerman’s previous attorneys displayed in their press conference where they totally and completely threw their client under the bus. But, it makes you wonder, were they right? Was Zimmerman lying to them too and they were fed up with him? I suspect his previous attorneys were talking to him about turning himself in. I, now, also suspect that Zimmerman, rather than handling the prospect maturely, fled and lied to his attorneys about where he was, refusing to answer their calls. It is sheer conjecture but the dots are there to connect. George Zimmerman is looking like a loose cannon. Mr. O’Mara is doing all the damage control that he can but this behavior can sink Zimmerman and fast. He needs to be perceived as level headed, honest and kind. He is exhibiting behavior that is erratic and dishonest with questionable judgment. If he continues on this path, Mr. Zimmerman will write his own one-way ticket to prison.
The Ragan Law Firm PA 