Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The legal system is more complicated than any one person can reasonably deal with, which is why defendants often have teams of lawyers. If Zimmerman's attorney was not aware of the funds during the bond hearing, it's not that unremarkable that this mistake slipped through.
My understanding was that George himself brought it up to his attorney who then notified the judge after the hearing. That doesn't exactly fit with this "conspiracy by silence" angle.
Perhaps you could give a legalized interpretation of this. His attorneys discuss George's wrongdoing in Court about a fund that was being managed by his attorneys.
Quote:
SANFORD, Fla. — George Zimmerman, the man charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, knew his finances had been misrepresented to the court when he sought to be freed on bond in April, his attorney said Monday.
In a statement posted to the official website for the Zimmerman legal case, Mark O'Mara said he would file a motion for a second bond hearing later Monday. (He had not done so by 5 p.m. ET, clerks told NBC News.)
In the statement, O'Mara said Zimmerman acknowledges that he "allowed his financial situation to be misstated in court."
Zimmerman, 28, returned to jail in Seminole County on Sunday, two days after a judge revoked his bail. The judge set bail at $150,000 on April 20; Zimmerman posted $15,000 in cash several days later to be released.
Prosecutors argued that Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, misled the court about the couple's financial picture, failing to disclose money Zimmerman had raised in a PayPal account.
The hyper-critical nitpicking about inconsistencies among George's statements are misplaced. Most if the inconsistencies are over innocuous details and the supposed "lies" wouldn't even benefit George.
The overwhelming weight of the evidence is in George's favor. Calling the non-emergency dispatch and calmly relaying info is not evidence of guilty mind. He has never once fled from the authorities. He willingly spoke to cops without an attorney (very stupid, but very non-guilty behavior).
We now know from eyewitnesses and the injuries that George was indeed getting the crap beat out of him. Getting beat for a minute and unable to escape is prima facie proof of a fear of imminent bodily injury.
The only ground for a manslaughter conviction (forget murder 2 - that just isn't there even under the most favorable interpretation to prosecution) is that George provoked the fight. Dee's testimony is too ambiguous on this point to overcome reasonable doubt. No reasonable juror could say they believe beyond a reasonable doubt he provoked it by physically assaulting Martin or by brandishing his firearm.
As a licensed attorney, you should know that is not a true statement. Eyewitnesses can be impeached.
As a licensed practicing attorney, I can tell you this is absolutely false, at least in my state. Prosecution didn't charge George with perjury because.....they couldn't. At least not without more evidence of a conspiracy. Silence doesn't cut it, and perjury usually requires the knowing uttering of a material falsehood while under oath. George was neither under oath or saying anything.
I'm not saying there couldn't be liability under another theory, but I doubt the prosecution has evidence for it or they would have charged him to pressure him into manslaughter deal.
At any rate, his culpability is mitigated by the fact that George was under extreme duress at the time this happened, owing to the fact there was a bounty on his head and he had received hundreds of threats against his life.
When I said that silence gives consent and George is just as guilty, I wasn't speaking in terms of the law. Clearly he has not been charged with perjury. I was speaking in terms of his credibility and dishonesty. His just as guilty of lying as she is. Like the judge said, he could have tapped his lawyer on the shoulder. Instead, he sat there while his wife lied on the stand and did or said absolutely nothing after having several phone conversations about the money. Just because he hasn't committed the crime of perjury does not mean that the jury/judge will take him at his word and that is what his defense is based on.
Perhaps you could give a legalized interpretation of this. His attorneys discuss George's wrongdoing in Court about a fund that was being managed by his attorneys.
What's there to say? The lawyer is striking a conciliatory tone to appease an (understandably) pissed off trial judge. It's obvious George knew his finances had been misrepresented. Again - my understanding was that George himself told his attorney this after the hearing.
However, since George himself did not take the stand he did not commit perjury. Like I said, with enough evidence they could go after him for conspiring with his wife but I doubt they have it. There are numerous motives for hiding money that have nothing to do with deceiving the judge.
Get caught by George Zimmerman, volunteer watch guy? Do you realize how silly you sound?
So you really believe Sweet Little Trayvon didn't know George had called the cops? Presumably, he isn't stupid and saw George speaking into the thing he was holding up to the side of his head. He knew the cops were on the way.
The hyper-critical nitpicking about inconsistencies among George's statements are misplaced. Most if the inconsistencies are over innocuous details and the supposed "lies" wouldn't even benefit George.
Inconsistencies however innocuous some might find them go to the credibility of the witness and when the credibility of the witness is the lynchpin of a defense even what once seemed innocuous can take on much large consequences.
Quote:
The overwhelming weight of the evidence is in George's favor.
Hmmm...
"Investigative findings show that (Zimmerman) had at least two opportunities to speak with (Martin) in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding their encounter," Serino wrote in the report. "On at least two occasions (Zimmerman) failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch volunteer."
The detective also said Zimmerman's actions "are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject."
In the same report, Serino wrote that Zimmerman's injuries were "marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him."
Quote:
We now know from eyewitnesses and the injuries that George was indeed getting the crap beat out of him. Getting beat for a minute and unable to escape is prima facie proof of a fear of imminent bodily injury.
Actually there aren't any eyewitnesses who can testify to your claim all having recanted, amended or other wise changed their testimony that has been previously reported.
Quote:
The only ground for a manslaughter conviction (forget murder 2 - that just isn't there even under the most favorable interpretation to prosecution) is that George provoked the fight.
When I said that silence gives consent and George is just as guilty, I wasn't speaking in terms of the law. Clearly he has not been charged with perjury. I was speaking in terms of his credibility and dishonesty. His just as guilty of lying as she is. Like the judge said, he could have tapped his lawyer on the shoulder. Instead, he sat there while his wife lied on the stand and did or said absolutely nothing after having several phone conversations about the money. Just because he hasn't committed the crime of perjury does not mean that the jury/judge will take him at his word and that is what his defense is based on.
Using what theory under the Florida evidence rules would this information (George's silence) be allowed to impeach his credibility? It's a serious question - I don't know Florida's evidence rules. If he had indeed perjured himself and he was convicted it could probably be used unless the judge excluded it on prejudice grounds. Mere silence? Seems doubtful.
So you really believe Sweet Little Trayvon didn't know George had called the cops? Presumably, he isn't stupid and saw George speaking into the thing he was holding up to the side of his head. He knew the cops were on the way.
Yes, he was about to get caught.
What? Trayvon knew that GZ was on the phone? To the police? Do you have a crystal ball or something?
There are a lot of people out there who don't like him. I doubt if I had to kill someone in self-defense, there would be anyone coming forward calling me a racist or saying they are not surprised and that I am guilty.
From what I understand, the former coworker didn't volunteer this information to the prosecution, but it was discovered when the prosecution investigated Zimmerman's work record. There was a formal complaint filed against Zimmerman, so this isn't just hearsay.
The man who was harassed sounded very sincere in the audio of his interview, almost apologetic, and kept saying he didn't think Zimmerman only picked on him because he's a racist. He said he was used to some teasing because of his accent, but George went to the extreme and was constantly harassing him, making it difficult to do his job. It was only after this continued for a while that he finally had to file a complaint with HR.
In his 2008 complaint he wrote, "Since I started working in CarMax Sanford, George has been dealing with me in an unprofessional manner and has mastered the art of emerging as the nice guy to others in order to make me look like the unsocial type and out of place." He also said Zimmerman would call him a "F-in moron" in front of others and then laugh. He said that the other employees told him to ignore George since he was only taking out his anger and frustration on the new salesperson, because he couldn't get the promotion to manager for which he applied. We don't know why George was fired, but CarMax said it was for another reason.
Now, think about this. Zimmerman couldn't get on the police force either, so he had to vent his frustration somehow, didn't he? He became a very aggressive NW captain and went for ride-alongs with "real" cops which must have hit a nerve. Maybe that's why he complained about the "lazy" police officer who took him out one day on routine calls. A cop takes him out for a day in the life of a Sanford police officer, and then he stands up in front of the Mayor at City Hall and says the officer was "disgusting."
I don't know if he's guilty of murder, but he sure sounds like a creep to me!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
