Once Upon A Time...

Once upon a time, Pudgie the Bear was skipping through the woods when Trigga the Tree Troll stopped him.

“Why are you running in my forest?” Trigga demanded, as one of his giant tree limbs stopped Pudgie dead in his tracks.

“I… I… I have every right to be here,” Pudgie quickly responded. “Why did you stop me?”

“Because these are my trees. You are robbing my forest of flowers, leaves, grass, mushrooms, berries, roots and nuts!”

“No. Not me!!! I like honey!” Pudgie cried, but Trigga wouldn’t relent. The young bear tried to fight his way out, knocking chips of bark all over the place. “I’m going to make compost out of you!”

“No you won’t,” Trigga replied, and just like that, his powerful limb lifted up and came smashing down; knocking the stuffing out of poor Pudgie’s body, sending it flying all over the place. 

§

Attorneys Natalie Jackson, center, Benjamin Crump, center right, and Daryl Parks, far right, representing the family of Trayvon Martin sit stoically as George Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict is read in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla. Saturday, July 13, 2013. Zimmerman was found not guilty in second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel/Pool)

After the verdict came last Saturday night and my journey was over, I was tired. From the very first article I wrote; from the very first hearing I attended to the very end, I put in a lot of hours. One of my friends asked me if I would be alright. How would I handle it now that it’s over? Would I be depressed? No, I answered. This is the life of a writer of true crime and courtroom drama. A climbing crescendo, long and winding, coming to a tumultuous climax and compelling completion is what it’s all about. Cut to the end. If we can’t deal with it, we’re in the wrong business. That’s just the way it is. Death becomes a way of life.

By Sunday morning, most of the civilized world that paid attention to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial knew the outcome. All that was left to do was to discuss it, but not me. I needed a break. Throughout, there were multitudes of directions each and every one of us had taken — like a hundred road intersection — converging into a massive mess of a traffic jam. Which one of us had the right of way? I don’t know. I still don’t, although a jury of six women decided for us. Yield! Move on or get run over! I suppose I could write a lot about the verdict, but what’s done is done. To perpetuate the story is, to me, unbearable. I won’t let it dog me. 

The Pavlov’s Dog Affect

From the beginning of the trial — jury selection or voir dire — we were warned by the Court and deputies to turn off all cell phones or set them to vibrate. This included iPads and other tablets and devices. No noises would be tolerated in courtroom 5D. Even Siri became a serious problem. Initially, we were given two strikes — a warning, then an ejection. That changed after the second or third day when (then) Chief Judge Alan A. Dickey changed the rule. It was one of his final orders before leaving his position, which was part of routine circuit rotation. Judge Nelson wanted it to remain two strikes but, instead, it became one, you’re out, although someone in your news organization could replace you; however, if your replacement made a noise, it would be strike two and your outfit would be banished for good — to the media overflow room you go. 

Unfortunately, I heard dings, dongs, boing after beep and ring after cell phone song from the gallery. Out went a few journalists and members of the public, until the rest of us were conditioned to be scared to death. That’s a fact. For the remainder of the trial and days beyond, whenever I heard a digital noise of any kind, no matter where I was, I cringed. If I happened to be in the produce section picking out peppers when a cell phone pinged, I panicked. It was either mine or someone else’s and it meant immediate ejection from the courtroom. I called it PDSD — Post Dramatic Stress Disorder. It took some time, but I finally broke free and now feel safe when my phone barks.

Dog Eat Dog

This wasn’t my first go ‘round in criminal court. I was credentialed during the Casey Anthony trial. When journalists from all over the country and elsewhere began to come together at the courthouse for the Zimmerman trial, it was nice to see familiar faces again. We couldn’t believe it had been two years, but it was. After friendly hellos, hugs and handshakes, it was all business. Of course, there were plenty of new faces, too, from local news stations and major networks, including cable. 

It’s the nature of the business to out-scoop each other, so there’s always a competitive edge. There’s eavesdropping and lots of interruptions while talking to someone involved with the trial, as if their questions for Ben Crump seem more important than the rest. Generally, they’re not, but that’s the way it goes. Don’t get me wrong, most of the media reps are very nice, but there are a few egos that get in the way; more so from producers than from on-air personalities. Like what I discovered during the Anthony case, the more famous the personality, the nicer they seemed, and the more intrigued they were with local news people.

There was an emotional tie inside the courthouse and, most certainly, inside the courtroom. Aside from the actual trial, I mean between journalists. I could clearly sense that, after the strike rule went into effect, plenty of those people sitting on the media side would almost kill to get one more of their own in that opened up seat. They hoped and hoped a cell phone would accidentally go off, although everyone cringed when it did. We all knew it was to be expected. It’s the nature of the beast. Goody! Goody! The problem with me was that there were no replacements. I was the only blogger inside that room with credentials. Some may have resented that fact, but most didn’t. When I was asked who I was with, I proudly said, “Me!” I represented no one but myself.

Throughout jury selection and the trial, that’s the way it was. When the State rested, everyone’s attitude changed. Gone were the vibes that begged for someone’s phone to go off. There was almost a camaraderie among us. The end was near and we all sensed it. Once again, in a matter of days, we would be going our separate ways. Surely, Mark O’Mara and his defense team wouldn’t take long and we knew that, too. How did we know? Because most of us realized the State did not put on a good case. It was a letdown. Is that all there was? They sure didn’t prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the defense wouldn’t need to put on much of a show. Besides, they had cross-examined the State witnesses very effectively.

With the last few days of trial at hand, what we had waited for and built up to was going to come down. A verdict was nigh and it would be over. Time to say good bye to those who cared enough. Some just packed up and left. They knew we would meet again at the next big one. Surely, there’s always a Jodi Arias out there to cover.

On the final day, last Saturday, I could feel the electricity in the entire courthouse. The building was supercharged. I asked Rene Stutzman, who covered most of the case for the Orlando Sentinel, if she could feel it, too. “Yes,” she responded. “Absolutely.”

I spoke to one of the administrators on a floor not associated with the trial in any way. She also acknowledged that her coworkers felt it, too. It really cut into their levels of concentration. Of course, some of that could have been attributed to protesters, but they didn’t come until the final three days and, even then, it wasn’t that many. No, this was a powerful trial; one that touched the entire area surrounding the courthouse.

As a final aside, I must say that Judge Nelson was one tough judge. No, I’m not going to humor your thoughts on bias, one way or the other. This has nothing to do with that. Comparing her to Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., Perry was a pussycat. He gave us an hour-and-a-half for lunch each day and there were lots of restaurants in downtown Orlando to choose from. Plenty of time to eat, in other words. Nelson, on the other hand, gave the jury an hour each day and if there happened to be any unfinished court business after they were excused, it cut into our lunch time. That meant less than an hour, generally, with NO restaurants nearby. Well, WaWa. Despite it being cold in the courtroom, I couldn’t bring perishables, so I brought MorningStar Grillers Prime or Chipotle Black Bean veggie burgers on a toasted English muffin. No butter. Plain. I heated them in the lunchroom microwave, where I ate almost every day with a handful of other journalists. Sometimes, we’d talk shop as I nibbled on fresh tomatoes and assorted fruit. Today, there are no more daily events to discuss among my peers, but I am sticking with the diet. Plus salad. Those veggie burgers grew on me, especially the Grillers Prime.

And in the end…

After nearly five years of writing about local murders, I hope nothing else like the last two cases comes along again. In the Zimmerman trial, one must understand the residents of Seminole County in order to grasp the verdict. It is a predominantly conservative Republican county made up of a mostly Caucasian population. Gun rights is an important issue. It is not a racist area, although it used to be many, many years ago, but never as much as the surrounding counties. Ultimately, the jury based its decision on the law and how it’s written; not so much on the absolute innocence of Zimmerman, as if he did nothing wrong. In the eyes of the law, Casey Anthony did not murder her daughter, did she? Or was it, more or less, because the prosecution did not prove its case?  

In the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation, it was the ambiguity of the final moments that cemented the verdict. All you need to do is to look at something else in order to figure it out. Take a DUI (DWI) traffic stop, for instance. If you refuse all tests — field sobriety and breathalyzer — and keep your mouth shut in the back seat of the patrol car, there’s hardly any evidence against you other than the arresting officer’s word. The less evidence a prosecutor has, the less chance of a conviction. That’s what happened here. There just wasn’t enough evidence. Without it, the jury could not convict George Zimmerman — not as presented by Bernie de la Rionda and his team. There wasn’t even enough for a manslaughter conviction, was there?

On the night of February 26, 2012, something horrible took place. Was it poor judgement or bad timing, perhaps? Was it both? Had Martin arrived at the Retreat at Twin Lakes only five minutes earlier, Zimmerman would have gone on to Target. Had Zimmerman only left the Retreat five minutes earlier, Martin would have walked safely home to watch the NBA All-Star Game. Who started it and who ended it can and will be argued about for years to come. I formed my own opinion, but I choose to move on now. A verdict has been rendered. Let the rest of the media hound on it. They get richer and richer off the story and I never made a dime. In the end, trust me, Trayvon Martin did not die for naught.

As for me, what does my future hold? I may re-stuff Pudgie the Bear and write fiction. Yup, you know… Once upon a time, we had characters like the Lone Ranger. In those days, good guys always wore white and bad guys never got away.

George Zimmerman is congratulated by his defense team after being found not guilty, on the 25th day of Zimmerman’s trial at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, in Sanford, Fla., Saturday, July 13, 2013. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/POOL)

Cross-posted on the DAILY KOS

The Court of July

The Gregorian Calendar has been the most widely accepted date-keeping standard since 1582. It means that, in most parts of the globe, July 4 is just another day of the year. In the United States; however, it’s not. It’s our birthday and we love to celebrate. Yankee Doodle. Feather in the hat. Macaroni salad. It’s a time for festivities of all kinds, including some of the most impressive fireworks displays the world has ever seen. We call it Independence Day because it’s the date signed on one of our nation’s most cherished symbols of liberty, the Declaration of Independence from the British Empire in 1776. This is a holiday to eat apple pie. It’s also a great day to munch on a hot dog while taking in an American staple — a good, old fashioned baseball game. How much more patriotic can we get than that… baseball, hot dogs and apple pie? Well, we can celebrate the US Constitution and our system of justice. That’s a good part of what it’s all about. Many of us saw it in action during the Jodi Arias trial, and before that; Casey Anthony. Now, there’s George Zimmerman. Charged in the February 26, 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, his second-degree murder trial began began June 24.

Speaking of baseball and Casey, and I’m not referring to the 1888 Ernest Thayer poem, Casey at the Bat, July 5, 2011, was the day Ms. Anthony received her declaration of independence from the justice system. Not guilty. While most Americans have been able to enjoy an extended four-day weekend this year, death took no holiday in Seminole County on July 5. Court was in full session. Ironically, two years later to the date of her verdict, the State of Florida rested its case against Mr. Zimmerman. While some might call this the 7th inning stretch, although the defense did put two people on the stand, Zimmerman’s mother and maternal uncle, I do not. Sadly, I have heard lots of people in the courthouse and elsewhere refer to trials almost like sporting events. Who won this day and that day. Points made in the courtroom are points on a scoreboard. Most certainly, any time a matter of life and death is brought into an equation, it’s not a game. Young Martin is dead. He will never play another game of baseball. Zimmerman might not, either. Nelson’s courtroom is not a stadium and she is not an umpire calling balls and strikes. We are not eating Cracker Jacks in a peanut or popcorn gallery. Did I say Cracker?

What we have is the Constitution in action; the right to a fair trial. Part of our Declaration of Independence guarantees that we are all equal.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There is no doubt that the United States is still a land of golden opportunity. Everyone has a chance to follow the path to success. We see it in action every day, but in some situations, it’s not really equal; not that it has to be, because we do not live under any sort of Utopian rule. We do not live “where nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.”

That statement is attributed to French thinker and novelist, Étienne-Gabriel Morelly. Where am I going here? Proof positive of the American system at work. Look at Jose Baez, speaking of the Casey Anthony case. He walked into a gold mine. What was he before she came along? An ambulance chaser? A DUI lawyer? While I am making no derogatory claims about his background, Casey got his name from two women sitting in a holding cell at the Orange County Jail. This is not hearsay. Baez told me. The rest, they say, is history. Mark O’Mara, on the other hand, worked very hard throughout his career as an attorney to get to this point. He earned it through his strong convictions and efforts. Granted, Mark NeJame referred Zimmerman to him after turning him down, but he wouldn’t have done so had he given any thought that O’Mara’s credentials were less than stellar. While some of you may wonder why I bring this comparison up at all, let me remind you that you can read about daily trial events in the newspaper. You can see and hear all about it online, on radio and on television. What I am is a pundit; a purveyor of private opinion made public. It’s my own brand of commentary, and here’s some more of it…

§

A very powerful conservative blog, strongly favoring Zimmerman, splintered over O’Mara. Some believed his intention, all along, was to sabotage his client. Well, look at him now. He has done a splendid job dissecting many State witnesses, neutralizing some while turning others into Defense allies. This is the “mark” of a great attorney in the making, although I knew all along it was in him. He’s a natural orator and thinks fast on his feet. There aren’t too many in the field of law that can pat you on the back while stabbing you in the gut — and — at the same time, keep you smiling. That’s O’Mara. That’s class, no matter what his courtroom adversaries and the public may think. His partner, Don West, on the other hand, is blunt and direct; straightforward to a fault. He is quite effective, too. In my opinion, they complement each other. West goes in for the kill and O’Mara soothes the pain. Or is it the other way around? O’Mara numbs you first. Either way, it’s a talented team.

But has it always been effective? No, it hasn’t. Take the case of Ms. Rachel Jeantel, the State’s reluctant key witness. She was the last person who spoke to Martin before his death, other than Zimmerman. That is a matter of fact that cannot be disputed. The problem lies with her testimony, and what is left in its wake is quite complex. It falls into two vastly different camps; the thems that believe her and the thems that don’t. Granted, she lied under oath on more than one occasion, so why should anyone choose to believe her now?

In order to understand Ms. Jeantel, one must consider her style in the courtroom, not just her substance. Let’s say she will never be a diplomat. Nor will she ever be a United Nations interpreter, although she is multilingual. English is just one language and it’s not her first, obviously. De la Rionda established that she grew up in a Haitian family speaking Creole. From what I’ve learned, she lives in a ghetto section of Miami. She and her friends understand urban-speak. She knows hip hop. She comes from a different world of imperfect grammar and Ebonics, living in a different generation; under separate rules of engagement. Ghetto people of all generations have no respect for the police. If you must ask why they disrespect law enforcement, then you know nothing about inner-city culture. Why then, would anyone, in all seriousness, ask her why she didn’t call 911 after Martin’s phone disconnected? So the police would come banging on her door to interrogate her? We’re not talking about someone with visions of white knights in shining armor, anticipating that “help is on its way.” That is so delusional in her world where whites, let alone knights do nothing for her. Is it any wonder why she was adversarial? Her friend was dead at the hands of what?

What we got was a frightened 19-year-old girl, 18 at the time, who lied about going to the hospital because she didn’t want to see Trayvon laid out dead in his coffin. She lied under oath because she was questioned in front of the boy’s mother. She didn’t want to hurt or offend her. Was it wrong? Yes, but it shouldn’t have discredited all of her testimony. Admittedly, she also lied about her age, but she said she did so because, as a minor, she knew she could deflect the media from herself to her mother, meaning there could be no direct contact.

Where she had me at hello was when she told the Court that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker.” Who would possibly make something like that up to hurt the person she cared so deeply about? Immediately, one would think of anti-racism, like antimatter. Pot? Call the kettle black. Profiler profiling profiler. West jumped on it upon cross-examination.

“Do people that you live around and with call white people creepy ass crackers?”

“Not creepy,” replied Jeantel, “but cracker, yeah.”

“You’re saying that in the culture that you live in — in your community — people there call white people crackers?”

“Yes, Sir.”

This was, in my opinion, an attempt to transfer the racial profiling onus from Zimmerman to Martin. Did it work? The answer is two-fold. No and no. The term Florida cracker came from the cowboys that cracked their whips to herd cattle because they didn’t use lassos. That’s one version. There’s another theory for its usage. Slave foremen in the antebellum South may have used bullwhips to discipline slaves. Hence, they cracked the whip and became known as crackers. Is it really a bad word? Get real.

Without going into fine detail over what Jeantel said on the stand, I believe that the longer West crossed her, the more credible she became. He overdid it. Call it overkill. My father put it best when he later told me, “He made the sale, and then he bought it back.”

Incidentally, my father is quite conservative, but doesn’t support either side. What’s your opinion of Jeantel? 

§

Now, we’re left with several problems. One is that the State has rested. Did it prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? At this point, I would have to say no, but I do feel that the general consensus among media types is that Zimmerman is guilty of something. The man is, by no means, innocent of everything. The State did cast him in a very negative light, but will it be enough to convict? In my mind, he was a creep the night of February 26.

However…

Looking at (1) FLJI 74 MURDER - SECOND DEGREE

3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

While some may conclude that Zimmerman was depraved when he followed Martin, it’s not as simple as that.

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and

2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and

3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

This was the major contention on Friday after the State rested. This was what O’Mara fought vehemently for in his JOA, a Judgement Of Acquittal, argument. What Zimmerman did had nothing to do with ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. The fight was started by Martin, he maintained. The judge disagreed and said the State had presented enough evidence for the trial to continue. The jury will return on Monday morning. The State will now cross-examine and we will see how they do.

Some people have wondered during court breaks whether this case would have made it to the courtroom had it not been for Civil Rights leaders. Is that true? I don’t know, but were the original powers that be too quick to jump the gun (no pun intended) and take one person’s perspective as the truth; the shooter, of all people? We cannot simply overlook the accounts of every witnesses, and that should have been enough for an arrest then, not 45 days later. Let the legal system sort this out. Ultimately, it’s all the victim’s family wanted out of this — a day in court. For that reason alone, I do not believe there will be riots at the courthouse if Zimmerman is found not guilty.

In my closing argument today, I will say that the State did not prove its case. With the possibility of a jury in doubt and the Defense lurking about, waiting to pounce, a conviction on second-degree murder is a long shot. This defense team is very strong and smart. I mean the entire team. In my opinion, it is O’Mara’s trial to lose, and I doubt he will, although I will not predict whether the six-member panel will contemplate a felony manslaughter conviction. Something really, really went horribly wrong that night. Just remember, this is not a game, the judge is no one’s teammate, and neither is the jury; not even among themselves, yet the verdict must be unanimous. No timeouts for them.

Juries, Fryes and Trials; Oh My!

George Zimmerman and his wife Shellie arrive in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla., Thursday, June 20, 2013. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel/Pool)

§

Who are They?

How many times have we heard the word they when someone makes a statement about an alleged factoid picked up from somewhere — on the nightly news, perhaps? It could be true, it could be false, or it could be a mixed up mess of information that formed at a later date inside the head of the person now telling you about them.

“That’s what they said!”

“Who’s they?” I always respond. Invariably, no one ever knows who they are, but they heard it or read it somewhere. This was an everyday occurrence during the Casey Anthony case and it is the exact same thing here. It’s not all that unusual. After all, isn’t this how rumors start? So and so said… Thus, they are never clearly identified and, therefore, they don’t really exist. Do they? Well, maybe someone said something, but without a name behind the theys of the world, there is no way I would accept any kind of statement without substance.

In order to not accept the theys of this trial, it means we need to tuck them away in our pockets and leave them alone until the end. We need to try to look at this trial as open and fair minded as humanly possible — just like the jury. While this is a tough one to abide by, it’s something we need to remind ourselves of every day for the next month. We need to keep in mind that many of the legal analysts and reporters working for local, network and cable TV companies are, by their very nature, true-life criminal defense attorneys. That means their opinions could very well be skewed in the direction of the Defense.

If you are not aware, Mark O’Mara was hired by WKMG to be one of the legal analysts during the Casey Anthony trial. WKMG is the local CBS affiliate. I must say that Mr. O’Mara impressed me tremendously back then. No, not because of his legal analyses. It’s nothing personal, of course; I was simply too busy in the courtroom and writing for the magazine at night. Because of that, I never saw or heard any TV pundits. What struck me in such a positive way was how extremely polite and professional he was. He went out of his way to greet me by name when we were near each other. That was a truly nice gesture, and I never forgot it.

Individual and Traditional Voir Dire and Jury Selection

At 3:00 pm on Thursday, June 20, 2013, a jury was seated in case 12-CF-1083-A; the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. One Hispanic woman and five white women. The four alternates are composed of two women and two men; all white. These jurors, carefully selected by the prosecution and defense teams, are not going to witness anything from TV legal analysts or correspondents working the field. Everything these ten people see and hear will come from within the confines of the courtroom. Bernie de la Rionda and his team and Mark O’Mara and his team will be the only theys they will hear. Certainly, their opinions are polar opposites and they all think they are right.

I never took the trip to the Pinellas County Criminal Justice Center in Clearwater to sit in on jury selection for the Casey Anthony trial. I wouldn’t have been able to afford a hotel room for the length of time it took, but I did watch the proceedings on live television. It’s just not the same. As this process was getting underway, several journalists and a handful of attorneys asked me if I had ever experienced jury selection. I said no. You are in for a fantastic experience, Dave, they all said, and they were right. To be able to see it all unfold in the flesh is an amazing thing. You can really sense the interaction between the hard working attorneys and the prospective jurors as they are questioned individually and collectively. During voir dire, the expressions on all of their faces were as diverse as the fields of work they are involved in, including being unemployed and retired. Homemakers. Engineers. Teachers. Book readers. Fifty Shades of Grey? A colorful lot, indeed!

Some of the 100 were dismissed early because of bias or other reasons, including hardships. I was very fastidious in my note taking as they filed in one-by-one for questioning. During the meager one hour lunch break Judge Nelson gave us each day, a couple of us discussed who we expected to make the cut and who wouldn’t. One in particular was E-6. We thought, for sure, that she wouldn’t make the grade, but in the end, she did, despite a vigorous campaign against her by de la Rionda.

While I paid close attention to each person interviewed, something about E-6 intrigued me. To be honest, she reminded me of Angelina Jolie a little. First of all, let me set the record straight by telling you that Jolie has never been my kind of woman and, to be honest, I am happily in love with someone I find to be much more beautiful, so please delete that element from the equation. This is just a descriptor. E-6 sat in the front row, in plain view.

She stated that she hadn’t formulated an opinion when questioned singly during the pre-trial publicity phase. OK, fine. During the general voir dire phase, she was very much involved in the process. That’s what caught my attention; her involvement, animation and posturing. It was during this phase that Judge Nelson made the announcement the jury would be sequestered. I watched this woman suddenly and dramatically change her demeanor. She became somewhat distraught looking, although not depressed. She certainly looked dazed. She stared into nothingness and rocked back and forth slightly. Slowly, she came out of it and eventually, I detected a slight smile. Eventually, she snapped out of it completely and became herself again. This was not an unusual reaction from anyone who’s told they would be locked up for a month. But, while I cannot say for certain, what I gathered from her was this, only in slow motion:

Oh no. Sequestration? No way. I don’t want to be a juror… Away from my two children. Away from my husband. No family life. No friends. No cooking. No fun. No sex. What will I do? This is a real problem. Hmm… What to do… No it’s not. I can see this working. This could turn out fine. I can take advantage of this. It could be my ticket. I can write a book!

While I have no idea what she was really thinking, it’s what it appeared like to me. Here we have an attractive young woman who will look good in the limelight of cameras after the trial. She will definitely have an intriguing story to tell. Yup, that could be it. To be fair, she has every right to do so, and she wouldn’t be the first one to tell a story. I am not criticizing her objectivity, so don’t even go there.

While I studied other possible jurors, I use E-6 to illustrate what really goes on in a courtroom during jury selection. There’s a lot going on, but what about the process itself? How do the jurors get selected in the end? I’m not talking about the Thursday afternoon arguments in front of the judge — meaning the peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. We all heard and watched it on TV. We absorbed it. If not, see it here.

What you couldn’t see were the three rows of forty people.They were seated in each chair for a reason. Similar to a draft lottery, this is the easiest way to explain it. As every summoned person enters the courthouse and sent to the jury room, they are given a new name, like L-01 or S-69. As voir dire progresses and some are eliminated, others move on to the next level. That’s where the forty people come in. They are randomly given seat numbers 1 through 40 and that’s where they sit in the courtroom. Seat number 1 is in the front row and seat number 40 is way in the back. Odds of that person, or anyone in the back row, being chosen are next to nothing because the numbers are called in order, starting with number 1.

Personally, I feel that both sides are content with the jury of women, although de la Rionda tried several times to strike E-6. In the end, the jury will be made up of women because the jury pool happened to turn out that way. The ratio was 2-1 women. I am sure they will be fair and just. 

§

During the traditional phase of voir dire, when those forty people were addressed as a group by Mark O’Mara, I noticed something peculiar. At an earlier hearing, on April 30, something O’Mara may have said must have sparked an idea in my head. I had to search extensively though my notes and comments before I found something I wrote on an article comment posted at the Daily Kos site. What made me think of it, I don’t recall, but this is what I wrote, in part, in that comment dated May 4:

I believe the Defense may argue that Zimmerman felt Trayvon’s cell phone was a weapon; that Zimmerman had no idea what the kid had in his hand. Was it a gun? Of course, that would change the whole scenario and the State could reasonably contend that it shows the gun was drawn earlier, which I feel is a good possibility. Trayvon fought for his life over that gun.

What happened in the courtroom this past Thursday, seven weeks later, set off all sorts of bells and whistles in my mind. I had an Aha! moment, whether it is something that will pan out or not. Watch this part of the video replay starting here. In it, O’Mara brings out a cell phone to illustrate a gun; something he could not bring into the courtroom. Was it a subliminal way of hinting at a dialog that may take place some time into the trial? To me, a cell phone has now been introduced as subtly as possible as a potential firearm. Could Trayvon’s cell phone have been perceived as a handgun? Just a thought, but George Zimmerman’s stories have changed over the course of time. 

Excuse me while I NIST the Skype

To be honest, I was never sold on the State’s expert witnesses. I was rather skeptical because they were originally hired by newspapers. I had a real problem with both experts. In her order, Judge Nelson wrote:

The State’s witness, Mr. Thomas Owen, has been involved in forensic audio work since 1981, He was retained after the shooting by a newspaper to attempt to identify the person(s) screaming in the 911 call.

For the software-reliant analysis, Mr. Owen used software called “Easy Voice,” a software program he markets and in which he has a small financial interest. Easy Voice recommends a sample length of 16 seconds to conduct its analysis. Mr. Owen only isolated seven seconds of screams from the 911 call. The seven second sample was rejected by the Easy Voice software program. To correct this problem, he ran the seven second sample twice (sometimes referred to as “looping”). Based upon conversations with sales representatives for the software manufacturer, he believed looping was an appropriate solution. As part of his technique, he adjusted the pitch of the known spoken voice sample of the Defendant to raise it up to the same pitch as the screams in the 911 tape.

The issues here are very central to the decision made by the judge in rejecting him. Mr. Owen markets the software. He has an express interest in the company. He looped the samples in order for the software to work, and changed the pitch of one of them. The judge further stated:

According to Mr. Owen, he also “cleaned up” the audio of the Defendant’s nonemergency call in an effort to identify a previously unintelligible word. Using audio editing software, he made a determination that the unintelligible word used by the Defendant was “punks.”

No other entity; governmental or from the private sector, was able to ascertain what Zimmerman said. And speaking of what was said, the second expert for the State, Dr. Reich, was full of mondegreens. What’s a mondegreen? Let me put it this way. At the end of the Beatles song, Strawberry Fields Forever, you may think you hear something that ultimately started a huge rumor back in the late 1960s — that Paul McCartney was dead:

“I buried Paul” was actually “cranberry sauce” spoken by John Lennon. It was very faint, but even at a higher volume, it was still easy to mistake what was actually said. 

Back to Reich. According to him, he heard words spoken by the defendant and the victim; disparaging words. No other expert concurred. It was virtually impossible to determine who was saying what on any of the 911 recordings, let alone make out anything else. According to Judge Nelson:

With regard to the identity of the person(s) making the screams, Dr. Reich reached the “tentative” conclusion that almost all of the screams heard in the 911 tape were made by Martin. In reaching his conclusion, Dr. Reich assumed the following: the screams could only have been made by one of two people, either Martin or the Defendant; the screams ended upon the gunshot being fired, leading to an inference that the person screaming had been shot; and the frequency of the screams indicated that the speaker’s vocal tract had not completely developed, leading to a conclusion that the person had not reached adulthood.

In addition to his opinion about the identity of the person screaming, Dr. Reich testified that he was able to hear words on both calls that have not been heard by any other witness. He identified an unusual speech pattern in the Defendant’s nonemergency call and, upon further analysis, claimed to identify several distinct previously unheard words. Similarly, he was able to hear several previously unheard words and statements in the 911 call. Mr. Owen testified that he was able to detect these words by commonly-used digital enhancement and transcription software.

While the judge could have allowed the testimony, I believe she made the right decision regarding State experts. The Defense experts were extremely credible and they debunked the junk. Was this a major blow to the State as some legal analysts contend? Remember, legal analysts are generally criminal defense attorneys and this is the side they will invariably take. Most importantly, keep in mind that the second-degree murder charge was filed long before any newspapers hired these guys and, in the end, the defense won’t be able to prove the screams came from their client, either. While it seems like a Defense victory, no one is the winner. Well… except for the jury that won’t have to put up with testimony that can only be understood by people in the field of spectrographs, human voice identification and biometrics, not to mention the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Oh, these glorious times of emerging nanoelectronics industries and applications in forensic testimony!

The Trial

Assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda, left, and lead defense attorney Mark O’Mara leave the courtroom after addresses a series of pre-trial issues with Judge Debra Nelson during George Zimmerman’s trial in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla., Friday, June 21, 2013. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel/Pool)

I expect the trial to be most gripping. While certain aspects of jury selection seemed boring to some, I never quite saw it that way. Sitting in the courtroom offers many advantages. We can see the quirks in every player. We pay attention to everything that surrounds us; the people we sit with on the media side, the public sitting on our right, the families of the Victim and the Defendant, and everyone on the other side of the gallery. There’s no way to feel the atmosphere of the room unless you are present. That’s not to say there’s nothing you can pick up by watching it on TV or on a live Internet feed. No, quite the contrary, but tension is not something that can be conveyed over an electronic conduit. Hopefully, I can do that in my writing — here, on the Daily Kos, and on my Facebook page, where you are more than welcome to friend me. I will update when I can, in my own inibitable way. 

During traditional voir dire, Bernie de la Rionda came across as a preacher — a teacher and a lecturer of sorts; like you’d find at a pulpit or lectern — in front of a congregation or large body of students. While I found him to be quite good, the following day, Mark O’Mara took center stage and he was more like a Sunday School teacher; a country lawyer with a more relaxed style. He changed the entire mood of the courtroom, including the potential jurors, and created a lot more banter between them. In my opinion, O’Mara could influence the jury by his very style, and de la Rionda should take that into great consideration. One fires up the crowd and the other settles them. 

De la Rionda is a man of great conviction. He is deeply religious and can quote scriptures from the Bible like there’s no tomorrow, regarding everything you throw his way. He is one of the best prosecutors in the state of Florida and has a solid team behind him. O’Mara? I don’t know anything about his religious beliefs, but I have known all along that he’s an excellent attorney and as sharp as they come. So is Don West. They are extremely crafty and cunning.

I would make the case that de la Rionda and O’Mara have very little knowledge of each other except for what they’ve learned since their first courtroom battle, soon after Zimmerman was charged. I believe this will be one of those all-time courtroom dramas that will be read about for years to come. I can’t wait until tomorrow. Please join me.

Please see Daily Kos

Zimmerman Jury Selection Begins

George Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie, with the family’s security guard, watches the proceedings in Seminole circuit court on the first day of her husband’s trial, in Sanford, Fla., Monday, June 10, 2013. Zimmerman is accused in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel)

The last time I was called for jury duty, it was a criminal case. I had a terrible flu virus at the time, but I still had to wait until eventually being sent home. There was no way any person in that courtroom could have been unaware of my illness. We were all brought into the courtroom together. I don’t remember how many of us there were, but it seems to me it was well over a dozen. Each one of us was asked a handful of questions by each side and that’s as far as I got. When we took our first break, I was sent packing.

I think the Court is given leeway in jury selection, especially in non-capital cases such as this one. It’s second-degree murder George Zimmerman is facing and that’s why it will be a panel of six jurors. Generally, two alternates suffice, but this case is very unusual and high-profile, so Judge Nelson was wise to opt for two more than the norm. There will be 6+4.

From what we saw in the courtroom today, it’s a very tedious process. Aside from early motions, most of the morning and a good chunk of the afternoon — except for lunch, of course — dealt with explaining the process to the 100 jurors brought in for the day; asking them to fill out preliminary questionnaires and to introduce the defendant to them. The judge then went through important legal details with the attorneys while they tried to decipher what some of the people wrote, before finally sitting them down one by one to ask more detailed questions that are intended to go beyond the scope of the questionnaire. Four were interviewed today, and I expect a lot more tomorrow; perhaps a dozen or so — maybe more. I hope. 

The people interviewed today will not be picked for the jury, in my opinion. B-12, up first, was a female. She seemed to want to be on the panel. She also said she had heard that Zimmerman was following the victim. B-29 moved to Seminole County from Chicago four months ago. She’s a Certified Nursing Assistant. She sounded compassionate enough; too much, I’d say, because she said any child’s death would affect her as a mother. She also said it would be a burden to leave her children without their mother if sequestered. She did say it wouldn’t be impossible. She has a 19 year old, a 10 year old, and 3 year old twins. B-30 will be remembered for saying he’d rather be called thirty than be sixty-five. He was asked questions by a local TV reporter several months ago while dining with family in a Sanford restaurant. He would be perfect for the defense because he seems to fit the type of mold they are seeking as an older, more conservative male. He could be a gun owner, although nothing like that was made clear. It’s interesting to note that the prosecution went easy on him and it was actually the defense that elicited more information about his news and TV watching habits, which may have hurt his chance to be selected. Sadly, he also lost his wife about the same time Trayvon was shot and killed. Finally, we have B-76. She seemed to be very open-minded. She and her husband do not watch cable television. As a matter of fact, they have an old-fashioned antenna in their attic. She was aware of some of the court hearings. She had heard of the case prior to and leading up to Zimmerman’s arrest. She saw Mark O’Mara on the news. She saw Trayvon’s parents on the news. When asked, she said she recognized the boy’s mother sitting in the gallery, but not one of the family attorneys, Natalie Jackson. Ben Crump was not present at the time. She and her children had discussed the case, but she did say they are very open-minded and hadn’t formulated an opinion. Remember, the law says you don’t have to be stupid about the news; you just have to keep an open mind.

From now on, I will probably not pay this much attention (in my writing) to the details of each interviewee unless something important stands out. We’ve got, potentially, 500 people to go through, folks, and I’ve got a feeling it might take two weeks before we see the last person seated. After today, that’s the general consensus in the courtroom. What’s of utmost importance is that attorneys from both sides are allowed plenty of free space in their line of questioning. Not only is this about the death of a 17-year-old boy, it’s also about someone who could spend a minimum of 25 years in prison. It’s extremely important the jury that’s seated is as fair as they come, no matter what you or I personally think.

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that there’s a Frye hearing to conclude. We’re in it for the long haul. I know I am.

Out of Order

“I don’t see any of your issues as insurmountable.”

- Seminole County Circuit Court Judge Debra Nelson, in denying a continuance motion filed by Zimmerman’s lawyer, Mark O’Mara.

I believe George Zimmerman’s defense is so busy prepping for the immunity hearing set for late April, that it’s one of the most important reasons why O’Mara filed the DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE. Plus, time needed to sweeten the pot, of course. Granted, mounting a proper defense takes time, but O’Mara has been quick to point out that his client is so innocent, it’s blatantly obvious. SLAM DUNK! If anything, he should be in a hurry to end the nightmare he’s so sure his client is innocent of; and he’s said so on numerous occasions. I mean, why worry?

“I will call my wife as an expert witness that I want this case tried in June.”

- Mark O’Mara, at the hearing on February 5

The motion filed on January 30, sans photographic and assorted correspondence evidence, is fifteen pages long. Someone spent a lot of time putting it together, yet it was fatally flawed right from the start. If you read (5) on page one, O’Mara acknowledges:

“While it should be noted that the State Attorney’s Office has assisted the defense by organizing and presenting State witnesses for deposition without need for subpoena, there have been other problems and/or delays with discovery.”

Yet, on page three (7), the motion states: 

“Again, while the State is within its right, under the letter of the rule, to demand […] formalities, that has cost hundreds of hours of additional time to be expended, which has delayed work and progress on other substantive matters.”

This is not quite the truth. The Defense spent many hours sweeping Judge Lester out the door. (See: WRIT OF PROHIBITION.) I am convinced the judge gave George Zimmerman a reprimand he most certainly deserved when his wife lied in open court and he kept his mouth shut. I also think Lester would have moved on from that point and been as fair as possible. It was simply a scolding — holding no further grudge. Regardless, the bottom line is that it was purely something the Defendant created and the State should not be blamed for this loss of precious time. Period. That’s what the continuance motion was all about; not enough time, yet it never once mentioned the time it took to file the writ, then the appeal and, finally, to win the appeal that ordered Lester’s removal from the case. Which leads to…

“The State can’t control the methodology the [defense] uses.”

- Bernie de la Rionda, at the hearing, on how the defense schedules its subpoenas

In the State’s rebuttal motion, STATE’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE, Bernie de la Rionda let the Court know the Defense motion for a continuance was very one-sided and that he has complied with discovery rules. This is more about depositions:

“And while many depositions have been taken, in some cases it was only after the State repeatedly asked that depositions be set. There have been too many delays in getting Defense Counsel to schedule depositions, on at least four occasions depositions were scheduled (entire days were set aside), only to be informed by Defense Counsel the depositions were cancelled. The State has expressed its frustration with this process.”

Also written in the response was that, originally, both sides had agreed to set aside the entire week of January 28 for depositions, but as the week neared and nothing surfaced, the Defense informed the State that only two days would be allocated for depositions. Later, the State was informed that none would take place because the Defense was focusing on the preparation of the continuance motion during that week. This is all documented, too.

Of course, it almost goes without saying that Bernie de la Rionda formally objected to Mark O’Mara’s statement about the State’s formalities: 

“The State has previously attempted to inform Defense Counsel of certain information during ‘informal discovery’ only to have the statements taken out of context and/or misstated in motions and arguments.”

De la Rionda wrote that the State will continue to comply with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, but will not provide them with a roadmap of what the evidence shows, nor will it connect the dots before depositions are taken. He also noted that the Defense complained about having to spend a great deal of time “reviewing and dealing with all the information ‘which has flowed through various social media sites, blogs, media outlets, and other vehicles’” without mentioning that Zimmerman and O’Mara created their own sites and continue to spend hours sorting through bits and pieces information. We need only look at the Sean Hannity interview for what makes this an example of hypocrisy in action.

One of the things that’s irked me for some time is the Defense’s propensity to blame the media for all of the information that’s out there for the public to pick through, yet it is responsible for a great deal of it. That’s the pot calling the kettle black, as far as I’m concerned. We live in a different world, too, and it’s now quite apparent that all of the negative publicity spewed during the nearly three years of the Casey Anthony case, from July 2008 to the onset of the trial in May 2011, did nothing to harm her in court. In this case, if anything, Zimmerman’s Defense has been doing a great job handling public relations. They should be counting their blessings, in other words.

This is no dress rehearsal; nor is it the first time O’Mara has been involved in a complex case, so he understands the mechanisms completely. At a hearing on October 26, Judge Nelson addressed the date of trial and set it for June 10. Three days later, she issued a scheduling order, the AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BEFORE TRIAL (amended to correct year of trial date). In it, she wrote:

It is hereby ORDERED:

1.  Trial is presently set to begin on June 10, 2013.

a.  Any Self-defense Immunity / Stand Your Ground motion shall be filed and heard on or before April 26, 2013, which is 45 days before trial.

b.  Final witness lists, including any expected expert witnesses, shall be exchanged on or before March 27, 2013, which is 75 days before trial.

c.  Any other pre-trial motions shall be filed and heard or [sic] before May 10, 2013, which is 31 days prior to trial.

d.  Certain short-matter motions addressing purely legal matters may be heard on or before May 31, 2013, which is 10 days prior to trial.

e.  No continuances [emphasis mine] of the trial will be granted on the basis that the parties have not complied with these deadlines.

There it is, folks, in simple black & white. No continuances; none simply granted, anyway, and Mark O’Mara should have expected the outcome going into Tuesday’s hearing. Shades of Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., who is also a stickler for dates and times. It should also be mentioned that, before her quick ruling, Nelson noted that she had two dates set aside for hearings to deal with discovery and other issues, but neither side took real advantage of them, not that the State seems to need them. That could have, quite possibly, hindered the Defense by not keeping the Court apprised of their situation throughout.

Oh well, it didn’t hurt to try on Tuesday but, times-a-wastin’ and there’s an immunity hearing to prep for… 

Also see Daily Kos

The Labors of Social Ostracization

IT’S ALIVE! IT’S ALIVE! IT’S ALIVE!

“Osterman’s book and TV spot, although well-intentioned, are ill-timed and done without input and NOT approved by the defense.”

So said a recent @gzlegalcase Tweet from the George Zimmerman Legal Case website in response to the release of Mark & Sondra Osterman’s book, Defending our Friend: the Most Hated Man in America. Mark and his wife are the Zimmermans’ closest friends. Mark considers George his brother. It’s much more than just a mere bromance. From Dr. Phil’s interview:

“George had pure ideals, a nobility of character that I admired. I kind of wanted to be like him,” Mark says. “When I first heard that George had shot someone else, I was extremely shocked. I know that it would have been the absolute last resort.”

I sense a rather strange relationship between Mark O’Mara and his client. I’m certain that the attorney begged his ticket to fame and fortune to refrain from going on The Sean Hannity Show to spill the latest version of his face-to-face with Trayvon Martin. I think Osterman, Zimmerman’s own personal zenmeister, coaxed his li’l grasshopper to take to the airways. Unfortunately, that particular outing did absolutely nothing to enhance his credibility, but I suspect it was God’s plan all along to show the world exactly what made this grasshopper hop. In that regard, Osterman succeeded, and so did God, I guess, because li’l grasshopper ended up winning the hearts of no one. But don’t tell the Ostermans.

That’s why I am inclined to believe that this new book revelation came with George and Shellie’s blessings. Another shot. Any opportunity li’l grasshopper has to expose his name to glaring lights and stardom, he’s all for it. Cha-cha-ching! After all, he took this shooting as his ticket to paradise, as he and his wife alluded to in a taped phone conversation during his initial incarceration at the Seminole County jail, as the money kept rolling in:

“After this is all over, you’re going to be able to just have a great life,” Shellie said.

“We will,” George replied. “I’m excited.”

“Yeah, you should be. You should be excited,” Shellie said. “I wish you were here, of course.”

“I will be,” he said.

“Isn’t it crazy how something like this just makes you put everything in perspective in life?” Shellie said. “It’s amazing how insignificant the things we stress out over are.”

“I agree,” he replied.

Imagine that. They both agreed that the shooting death of Trayvon Martin was so insignificant, it was nothing to “stress out” over. Why, even the second-degree murder charge was nothing but a farce, and this is a complete contradiction of what Osterman told Dr. Phil. Oh, how George cried and cried. What this illustrates to me is that Zimmerman looked up to Osterman as his iconic mentor; the man who would justify his need to be a top cop. While I’m never going to infer that the 28-year-old set out to shoot anyone that night, he had convinced himself that it was a right thing to do given the right circumstances. He was trained. It was pumped into him and he was primed. What better way than to set those circumstances up the right way? His way. This would make him Osterman’s equal. Yes, this was God’s plan; this was his destiny. Osterman would be proud. And in the end, he was.

While I could ostracize the air marshal, I won’t. He has no idea what kind of Frankenstein monster he helped create. He only saw his student’s docile side. Granted, Osterman was once fooled by a con man when he and another Seminole County sheriff’s deputy met Juan Diaz, who convinced them he was a second basemen for the New York Yankees. Sure, the guy took them to strip clubs flashing money, and Osterman ended up losing his job over it in 1998, but that was a long time ago. Certainly, he wouldn’t be deceived again. Would he?

I think so. But still, I won’t hold it against him. Not personally. Even in the 1931 horror movie, we could feel some compassion for Dr. Frankenstein, who didn’t set out to create evil, but in the end, he still came to the beast’s defense and lost whatever innocence was left. While I am convinced Osterman is a fool for believing Zimmerman’s alibis, we all tend to put faith in our friends; some more than others, and there remains that inherent element of naiveté. We want to think people are well-intended. How many professionals — doctors, lawyers, airline pilots and, yes, federal agents — find out their spouses have been cheating on them long, long after the fact? Let’s face it, Zimmerman is a natural born liar. While you may question Osterman on his judgment, I think I’ll be looking at something else that hit me like a brick; something he said on the Dr. Phil show. It may be meaningless, but still…

“When I first heard that George had shot someone else, I was extremely shocked.”

Someone else? Just how many people has George Zimmerman shot? That triggered my alarm. Where was Osterman’s safety when he was shooting his mouth off? Oh, that’s right, he doesn’t use one. Straight from the hip. Just like li’l grasshopper.

TO EACH THEIR OWN

Speaking of the monsters we create, it’s easy to see what can happen when people let things get out of hand. Caution is thrown into the wind and trouble flares. During the entire time I covered the Casey Anthony case, I watched people go from friendly and mild-mannered to as loony as they come, all in the name of justice for a little girl they didn’t even know. Don’t get me wrong, we all seek justice, but people vary on how intent they are to get it and how far they are willing to go to prove it is their way or the highway. Talk about standing your ground. What is often neglected is that it is up to the court system to decide, not the public, as we shockingly found out when the jury came back with their verdicts at the end of Casey’s trial. Interestingly, as adamant as people were throughout that ordeal, how quickly they moved on.

Because I had a popular blog, I was subject to a lot of scrutiny. I think there’s another blogger who is quite aware of that now. Out of the woodwork came bands of miscreants determined to shut me down. I was gay, I had AIDS, I was a convicted felon and so were my parents. I was a plant for the defense out to take down the sitting judge. One woman had her grandchildren chanting “Death to Marinade Dave!” and she proudly told others. Everyone who dared comment on my blog became targets for attack. One was supposed to be thrust into a snow bank and left to die. It was the most disgusting group of people I had ever run into in my life. Ironically, these very people prayed deeply to God that justice would come for Caylee while they hypocritically spewed hatred on people they didn’t know from Adam.

Here we are, at it again. With Zimmerman, there’s the race factor. There’s gun rights. Emotions are running quite high across a much broader spectrum. There’s politics; liberals against conservatives and Democrats against Republicans, not to mention the NRA and Second Amendment rights. There’s a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman’s head, dead or alive. We are witnessing character assassinations of the “n”th degree, with “n” being the word that most folks should have thrown away with the dirty bath water they washed their mouths out with long ago. Once again, people are getting hurt in so many God-awful ways. Ironically, one blog opens their day with The Lord’s Prayer before their brood goes on a self-righteous rampage on everyone and anyone who stands in their path. Trayvon was a drug addicted thug dealer with a history of violence. Every single word that comes out of the mouth of George Zimmerman is the Gospel truth. Every word. Yet, they really know nothing about him.

This is my opinion. What they talk about over there is their business. While I certainly disagree with their opinions, they have a right to discuss the case the way they want, although I do draw the line on spreading falsehoods and, particularly in this day and age, republishing copyrighted artwork that’s licensed to someone else, especially when it’s pirated from the website they are attacking that actually paid for the work. This is a real war, folks, and people are going to get hurt.

CLICK TO IMAGE TO ENLARGE

There are also blogs that are intent on implicating others in the crime. We saw it with Roy Kronk during the Casey case. The poor guy was run through the ringer because he found Caylee’s body. Even Leonard Padilla claimed Kronk was involved in some sort of intricate daisy chain. Kronk placed the body there, not Casey. How sad that people who do good things are sometimes burned beyond recognition by a false story that’s so fiery to touch, it blinds some to the truth. Sadly, his life will never be the same. Almost a hero, he’s also seen as a villain.

Look at one of the rumors that’s made the rounds of late. Someone was in the vehicle with George Zimmerman the night of the killing. It was Frank Taaffe. No, it was Shellie. No, it was Mark Osterman. Whoever it was, it has become Gospel to those “fact” finders who choose to buy into it. They need no proof because, so it was written, so it must be true. Call it the Lemmings Doctrine.

The problem with this sort of missive is that it can destroy a person. No doubt, Frank Taaffe has his own monsters to fight, and he certainly needs no further encouragement to go off the deep end, so why push him off the edge? Is it fun to belittle a teetering man?

The fact is, George Zimmerman acted alone. All by himself, he pulled the trigger. Why try to include others? In his book, Mark Osterman wrote that Shellie was at her father’s house at the time of the shooting. She immediately called him while he was out walking his dog in his own neighborhood. He was never at the scene prior to the police showing up. Whether you choose to believe him or not is your own prerogative, but I base my opinion not on what he wrote. Instead, I use common sense, just like what generally guided me throughout the Casey Anthony case. I take my guidance through documentation, evidence and the State. Nothing points to anyone else. Not one shred of evidence.

For example, every piece of trash in the woods where Caylee’s body rested was not attributable to her. That old worn out tire did not come off her car. There was no proof the needle in the bottle ever touched her hands. The State of Florida never used it in any of their documents, and that’s where I put my faith. Nowhere in this present case has the State mentioned an accomplice at all, and until they do, the thought of it is not plausible.

In the meantime, we are not put here on this earth to make a mockery of others, are we? Take it from one who knows; one who’s experienced it — it’s not fun being the target of incessant, never ending ridicule, abuse and lies that lead nowhere but down, especially coming from people hiding behind some really strange faith in a god that not only encourages it, but seems to relish in it. That’s not my God, and it’s as much of a mockery of God as Zimmerman telling Sean Hannity that the shooting was God’s will. How ludicrous.

Tree hugger, Tray hugger, what’s the difference if it’s nothing more than a stupid mind game where all that matters is that YOU win? Plow into everyone in your path!

Cross Posted on The Daily Kos

The Misconception Of A Stand Your Ground Hearing

Right after Judge Lester was removed from the bench, Mark O’Mara said he would likely schedule a “stand your ground” hearing sometime next year. On August 31, Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinel wrote:

Nelson will now be the judge who must decide whether Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder, is entitled to immunity under Florida’s much-debated “stand your ground” law, which allows anyone with a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury to use deadly force against an attacker.

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara has said he would likely schedule that hearing next year.

“It will take a tremendous amount of judicial courage at this point to throw the case out following an immunity hearing,” said Winter Park criminal-defense attorney David Faulkner. “My guess is that any judge, Judge Nelson or otherwise, is going to let a jury decide this issue for the benefit of the public.”

Of late, there’s been a lot of discussion and, perhaps, some arguments, over the difference between filing a stand your ground motion and a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal. In essence, they are nearly interchangeable; sort of like buying a GM or Chevy vehicle. You can’t have a Chevy without GM, but it doesn’t work the other way around. Without the stand your ground law, there would be no immunity and dismissal motion applicable in this case. In other words, the important thing to remember is that the immunity and dismissal motion is based on Florida’s stand your ground law, F.S. Statute 776.032: Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force, which states:

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer… As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Initially, the Sanford Police Department followed the tenets of the stand your ground statute by not placing George Zimmerman under arrest, but that act did not mean he was free from future prosecution. Now arrested and charged, Zimmerman has a right to file the immunity and dismissal motion based on the statute. F.S. 776.012 states:

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Right now, we will pay particular attention to 776.012(1) and whether or not Zimmerman was right to believe that firing his gun into Trayvon Martin’s chest was necessary to prevent imminent death. After all, he said he was being pummeled to death by the teen. We will ignore 776.013 because it addresses the unlawful and forceful entering of “a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle…” 776.031 doesn’t apply, either, because it covers the use of force in defense of others.

Before going into F.S. 776.012, it’s important to first mention F.S. 776.041 and the “Use of force by aggressor.”

 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Here is where some of the confusion may originate over stand your ground and immunity. By most witness accounts, and certainly something the State can clearly establish, the fight did not end where Zimmerman described. Trayvon’s body was found 30-40 feet south of the “T” joining the east/west sidewalk with the north/south one. Witnesses will testify that there was a scuffle with people running and yelling. Who was chasing whom is not relevant at this point because, once able to escape, Zimmerman chose not to. After all, he was the man with the gun. The bottom line is, he cannot prove that Trayvon cold-cocked him there at the “T” intersection. Furthermore, he cannot prove that’s where the fight ended with a bang, as he showed in his reenactment the next day. His best bet is to not bring it up at a dismissal hearing and that means the State will not be able to address it. That’s why, in my opinion, the Defense made an “adjustment” in its strategy, and it’s what led to the confusion over stand your ground and the impending dismissal motion.

At some point, the Defense realized it stood a better chance if it heeded F.S. 776.041. Where the Defense would most likely falter during a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal hearing lays in (1) and the first part of (2) in 776.041. Why? In (1), will the Defense be able to factually establish that their client was not the aggressor, who forced himself upon the victim, therefore committing a felony? The shooting at the “T” has been debunked by evidence. The gunshot took place far enough away to establish that Zimmerman’s story is false. If the Defense goes in that direction, so will the State, and Bernie de la Rionda will have every right to do so. And, boy, will he ever!

There’s a big word in (2)… unless, and here’s where it will come into play. Let’s move south. For sure, there was a fight, and since no one can really prove who was on top and who was on the bottom, it’s important for the Defense to lay claim that Zimmerman was on the bottom, being beaten to death. I don’t believe (2)(b) will apply because there’s no testimony by the defendant that he attempted to withdraw. He will most likely assert that his mouth was covered and couldn’t speak, but if he does, the State will counter with the lack of evidence; there was no blood, saliva, or any of Zimmerman’s DNA on the victim’s hands. The Defense will not be able to prove it, any more than it will be able to prove that their client was the one yelling for help. If they try, the State will mention that the screaming stopped immediately after the gunshot while Zimmerman stated that he continued yelling for help as he spread the victim’s lifeless hands away from his torso.

Let’s try (2)(a) instead. Bingo! Here’s Zimmerman’s greatest hope. By claiming, which he has all along, that his life was in danger and that he had exhausted all means to escape, he had no choice but to shoot. OK, fine, but how did he gain access to his gun? The only way to explain it is to show the judge exactly how he did it, and the only person who could do that is George. Without taking the stand, he can’t do that because the video reenactment is too sketchy. If not that, then what’s left?

The medical records.

Yes, let’s just say that Zimmerman did have a fractured nose, meaning broken to some extent. The ARNP who diagnosed him was qualified to do so, and that’s what she wrote in her report:

1. Scalp Lacerations: No sutures needed given well-approximated skin margins. Continue to clean with soap and water dally. We discussed the red flag symptoms that would warrant Imaging given the type of assault he sustained. Given the type of trauma, we discussed that it Is imperative he be seen with his Psychologist for evaluation.

2. Broken Nose~ We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septal deviation. The swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury. I recommended that he be evaluated by ENT but he refused.

Review of Systems:

Constitutional Symptoms: Denies fevers and/or chills.

Eyes: Denies loss and blurring of vision, diplopia.

Ear, Nose, Mouth, Throat: Admits nose pain. Denies hearing loss, tinnitus.

Cardiovascular: Denies palpitations, chest pain/pressure.

Respiratory: Denies shortness of breath.

Gastrointestinal: Denies abdominal pain, nausea and/or vomiting.

Integumentary: Admits- (Scalp lacerations).

Neurological: Admits head trauma. Denies tingling, numbness, weakness, headache, dizziness, speech difficulty, gait disturbance, loss of consciousness.

Psychiatric: Admits stress. Denies suicidal thoughts or attempts.

Nothing in that document paints a portrait of a person remotely close to death the day before. Even the Sanford Fire Department EMT report from the night of the incident showed nothing life threatening. Patient Conscious. Breathing normal. No external hemorrhaging. Mucous membrane normal. Extremities normal. Abrasions to his forehead and bleeding/tenderness to his nose. Small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding. If you combine both reports, it doesn’t help the defense because Zimmerman cannot, in any way, shape or form, establish that he was remotely close to death, and if he tries, he opens a can of worms the State is going to take full advantage of.

§

Back to the matter at hand — the legalities. Enough of the medical. If Zimmerman can factually establish that his use of deadly force occurred under the circumstances outlined in the above statutes, he could walk. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) showed that F.S. 776.032 established a true immunity and not just a justification for what he did. According to the Jacksonville law firm, Hussein & Webber’s website:

The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.  Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.

The main issue in this case will be whether or not Zimmerman will be able to show enough evidence to establish immunity. Once again, I must reiterate what I touched on in The Prince and the Pea: Subjective or Objective Fear in the Petitioner? Was Zimmerman’s fear subjective or objective? Was he correct in fearing for his life or did he just panic? That’s the difference, and there’s a huge distinction between the two and whether or not immunity applies. Of course, there’s one more thing that could only be brought up at trial; did George Zimmerman shoot Trayvon Martin in cold blood? For that reason alone, and for the lack of evidence showing “by a preponderance of the evidence,” Mr. O’Mara had better be preparing his client for trial. I see it no other way.

Cross posted on the Daily Kos

A Full Nelson?

On November 6 of this year, Americans who are registered to vote will have the opportunity to elect the next president of the United States. This may or may not include hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and half the roster of dead people in the city of Chicago, but that has nothing to do with the context of this post.

If President Barack Obama prevails, he will have another four years in the White House. If Mitt Romney wins, he will be sworn in as the 45th president on January 20, 2013 — Inauguration Day. How this election fits in with the topic du jour is quite simple. There will be a smooth transition between the outgoing and incoming members of the executive branch. It’s the same as it’s almost always been since the inception of this great country. Every four or eight years, we witness this peaceful transference of power, and the country never skips a beat.

It’s the same with the George Zimmerman case. In a 2-1 vote, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rendered its decision regarding Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. 

PER CURIAM.

George Zimmerman petitions for issuance of a writ of prohibition. This is the proper mechanism for challenging the denial of a motion to disqualify a trial judge. See, e.g., Lusskin v. State, 717 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Reviewing the matter de novo, see R.M.C. v. D.C., 77 So. 3d 234, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), we grant the petition…[.] Accordingly, we direct the trial judge to enter an order of disqualification which requests the chief circuit judge to appoint a successor judge.

PETITION GRANTED.

While some may gloat over the decision to remove Lester from this case, I most certainly do not. I feel that the judge scolded Zimmerman and nothing more. I am convinced that he would have soldiered on, putting that reprimand behind him. He would heve continued to rule judiciously and fairly, but that’s old news now; what’s done is done. There’s no point in arguing over the how and why of it. While we had our discussions and disagreements over the motion to recuse and subsequent writ of prohibition, today, it is nothing more than water under the bridge, and it’s time to move on.

I am convinced that, just like our election process, there will be a very smooth transition from Judge Lester to the person Chief Judge Alan A. Dickey names as his successor. Who will it be…?

First of all, let me explain what I know about the inner workings of a courthouse, having some experience in it. 

At the very beginning of the Casey Anthony case, Ninth Circuit court Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. asked several judges if they’d be willing to take the case. One by one, they said their dockets were too full. Keep in mind that these were judges working the criminal division, not civil. Judges routinely rotate between criminal and civil every two years or so. No one wanted the case. Perry then turned to someone else. He made a wise choice when he asked Judge Stan Strickland to take the case. You are one of my best judges and, most certainly, extremely qualified to handle it. Strickland agreed, despite having recently moved from criminal to civil. It’s important to note that Strickland continued to hear civil cases, too. Judges, like criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors, are not narrow-minded or restricted. Like servers in a restaurant, they can wait on more than one customer at a time. Trust me, to Judge Lester, the Zimmerman case was just a job and nothing more. What happened to him is part of the process.

When the first judge in the Casey Anthony case was asked to step down, he did so without argument. Why he did it is of no relevance in the Zimmerman case. What matters now is, where do we go from here? When Judge Strickland removed himself from the bench, what happened next was somewhat revealing and it will be similar, if not identical, to the type situation that Judge Dickey is faced with today.

[Since this writing, Judge Debra Nelson has been named to replace Judge Lester.]

During the Anthony mess, media pundits were reporting that, generally, chief judges take on highly problematic cases. Judge Belvin Perry certainly did end up doing just that, but in the interim, it was far from as simplistic as the news actually reported. Behind the scenes, Perry was asking his Orange County circuit court judges to take over the case. I will never reveal how I know that, but it came from more than two sources — all at the top. One-by-one, they turned him down. Do you see the caseload I’m sitting on? I’ve got over 3,000 cases on my docket right now, was the common mantra. Ultimately, Perry was left with no choice. It was, after all, a most problematic case and, reluctantly, he decided to take the helm. The rest, they say, is history.

§

In one of his recorded phone calls from jail, Zimmerman discussed what judge he wanted with his wife, Shellie. This was just as Mark O’Mara signed on to defend him, so it was an early conversation. Zimmerman hoped to get retired judge O.H. Eaton. Eaton has a sterling reputation as a fair judge, levelheaded and extremely knowledgeable in law. What Zimmerman knew about him then is a mystery, but even I was aware of it.

He ain’t gonna end up with Judge Eaton. And I’ll tell you why I think that. Eaton is a retired judge. That’s not to say he’s too old. It has nothing to do with that. Retired judges are not salaried. Retired judges are freelancers. They make a lot more $ per hour than sitting judges. This trial is at least a year away. Would the taxpayers of the 18th District, particularly voters in Seminole County, agree to that kind of arrangement? Granted, you couldn’t end up with a better judge, but would he be willing to take on the task if asked? He doesn’t need it. He’s the kind of retired judge who listens to cases to take the burden off other judges, but they are not major cases like this one. If Dickey runs out of judges in Seminole County, better yet that he would discuss this matter with some of his active judges in Brevard County before handing it over to someone outside of his circuit. Technically, Eaton is no longer active.

One of the names being bandied about is Seminole Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson. She is every bit as qualified as Judge Lester to sit in judgement of Zimmerman. As a matter of fact, she is most deserving because she is also a no-nonsense judge who was appointed to the 18th Judicial Circuit in 1999 by then-governor Jeb Bush.

In 2007, Judge Nelson presided over a rape case. The accused male, then 41, was eventually convicted of dragging a 10-year-old girl into the woods, choking and raping her. It might be interesting to note that the perpetrator, Antonio Rosales, was in the United States illegally. Also, during the trial, he confessed to murdering a woman in Tucson, Arizona.

While his trial was under way, he went berserk in the courtroom:

His defense attorney, Tim Caudill, moved for a mistrial. He claimed that the outburst tainted the jury. Judge Nelson rejected that, and upon sentencing, she did something unusual. Let me preface this first. Because of the girl’s age, in rape convictions, the charge carries a mandatory life sentence. Judge Nelson decided to take it two steps further. She added two additional life sentences, but she never gave a reason why. To this day, the sentence stands. (See also: Orlando-area jury convicts illegal immigrant of 2003 child rape)

What’s most interesting to me is that Judge Nelson has a reputation for setting harsh sentences. In George Zimmerman’s case, he’s facing a mandatory 25-years to life in prison. That’s because of the 10-20-life law enacted by Governor Jeb Bush in 1998. It’s sometimes referred to as “Use a gun and you’re done” law. According to Florida’s 10-20-life statute, anyone who pulls a gun during a crime receives:

• Felon in possession of a gun - mandatory minimum 3 year prison sentence
• Brandishing a gun in the commission of a crime - mandatory minimum 10 year sentence
• Discharging a gun in the commission of a crime - mandatory minimum 20 year sentence
• Injuring or killing another person in the commission of a crime, by discharging a firearm - 25 years to life in state prison

Just ask Marissa Alexander, a young Jacksonville mother who was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault and sentenced to 20-years for firing a warning shot into a wall during an argument with her husband. She lost her Stand Your Ground motion and she had, what appears on the surface, to be more of an excuse for pulling the trigger than Zimmerman will ever be able to conjure up. Incidentally, the prosecutor during that case was none other than Angela Corey. She said that Alexander was angry and reckless the night of the shooting, not fearful of her life. She will bring the same argument into court when Zimmerman files his immunity motion. Was he more angry or afraid? If in fear, was is objective or subjective?

Judge Lester ruled judiciously and so will his successor. Whoever Zimmerman ends up with, that’s it. There will be no more musical benches, and who he gets will not be singing anything in his ears. He may be laughing today, but his silly games are now over.

Just for your information, In 2012, Judge Lester was deemed the best judge in Seminole County (in all categories) by his peers of criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors. So was another judge in Orange County back in the day. Oh well. If Judge Dickey decides to take the case, it’s not going to be any easier than Nelson or anyone else. Judges are not amused by the antics of George Zimmerman. Of course, that’s my opinion, but I am allowed to be judgmental… or let me say, I am allowed to say so. So will the next judge. Zimmerman is plum out of dismissal motions.

Click to enlarge image

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

This article was written prior to the court’s decision regarding Judge Debra Nelson.

The Prince and the Pea: Subjective or Objective Fear in the Petitioner?

In his ORDER SETTING BAIL on July 5, 2012, Judge Kenneth Lester made several stipulations clear about what attorney Mark O’Mara’s client, George Zimmerman, could and could not do. For instance, he would be able to travel anywhere he wants as long as it’s within the boundaries of Seminole County. If he finds it necessary to leave the county, all he has to do is pass it by the court for authorization. It’s a rather plain and simple directive and something a five-year-old should be able to comprehend.

However…

In his MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE dated August 22, 2012, Mr. Zimmerman, through his attorneys, cited two issues pertaining to matters addressed in the judge’s above order. Call them problematic. The Court, for instance, must realize by now, due to the great amount of national and international publicity, not to mention notoriety and animosity, that Zimmerman “and his entire extended family have had to live in hiding, fearing for their own safety.” Therefore, he should be able to move out of the county, too.

I disagree with Mr. O’Mara’s choice of words. He exaggerates. How? In many ways, but for now, here’s a ‘for instance.’ It’s one thing to complain about the woes that have befallen his client, but his client and only his client was responsible for the big mess he’s in — not his family. Daddy did not hold his hand the night he pulled the trigger. Therefore, why bother bringing up any issue over his family’s fears for their own safety? It’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that there is nothing stopping them from moving out of the area any time they please. There are no restrictions on them whatsoever, and to suggest in that motion, albeit indirectly, that the Court was somehow responsible for this problem is, well, not showing a clear sense of responsibility. There is no way the Court can magically order the public to leave the Zimmerman family alone.

This is George’s unfavorably conducive style; his M.O. These are his edicts, sua sponte, not necessarily those of his attorneys. While his motions are filled with innuendos that tend to absorb what little substance they hold, it’s when he opens his mouth that we see him for what he is.

Full of Zimmermanure.

He not only speaks with a forked tongue, he also twists his tongue when he speaks. A good example of this came during his Hannity interview on FOX News. When asked if he would have done anything any differently, given ample opportunity to think about it now, he said he really hadn’t had the time to think about it, but after thinking about it, he wouldn’t have changed a thing. He regretted nothing and it was God’s plan. He had nothing to feel sorry about. Did that make sense? Wait. It gets worse.

Later in the broadcast, he turned and faced the camera, and in his best “My fellow Americans…” presidential-style address, he apologized to the nation, his wife, and everyone involved in the case, including Trayvon Martin’s parents. In my opinion, it was, at best, sickeningly insincere. Incidentally, a truly biased judge would have called him on the carpet for addressing Trayvon’s parents because, in his order, Judge Lester wrote:

“The Defendant shall not have any contact with the victim’s family, directly or indirectly, except as necessary to conduct pretrial discovery through his attorneys[.]”

Redundancy

My complaint, while being about the Petitioner, also includes his attorney and how he’s handling the case; his motions, in particular. In this very same Motion To Modify Conditions Of Release, O’Mara wrote:

“One of the conditions of release is that Mr. Zimmerman is not to leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this court.”

Right, Mr. Knechel, you already said that. Well, yes I did, but so did the judge and Defense, and just to clarify, this is a two-part motion. The second part addressed traveling outside the county, not moving out. The judge’s order covered it and the defendant acknowledged it, so what was the point of this final statement in Zimmerman’s latest motion?

“The restriction of Mr. Zimmerman not to leave Seminole County has had a deleterious effect on his ability to assist in the preparation of his own defense. Communications have been unnecessarily limited to telephone and occasional visits by counsel. Mr. Zimmerman must be able to travel to meet with his lawyers, and to attend to various other necessary matters to prepare this matter to move forward.”

Hmm… deleterious… injurious to health; pernicious, hurtful, destructive and noxious according to dictionary.com. My, what $5.00 words he uses that won’t impress any sitting judge let alone little old me. While I realize the motion also asked that Zimmerman be allowed to move outside of Seminole County, a request the Court denied, the rest of it is redundant. Here, verbatim, is what the judge wrote in his July 5 order:

“The Defendant shall not leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this Court[.]”

How much clearer can one get? All the defense had to do was ask. Why was it necessary to dedicate the brunt of this motion on something that was already covered a month-and-a-half earlier? And if O’Mara were really fearful of Zimmerman’s safety while residing somewhere in the entire county of Seminole, how much safer should he feel while his client is sitting in his office in downtown Orlando? Talk about deleterious! I’m serious.

Here’s the way I see George Zimmerman. When he doesn’t get what he wants, he whines and cries. He feels boxed in and claustrophobic. He gets restless and can’t sleep at night. His mattress turns lumpy. You see, George is starting to remind me of The Princess and the Pea with one major difference. He cannot get a comfortable night’s sleep until all his demands are met. The pea, in this case, is Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. who must be removed and replaced by a fairy tale friendly judge so Prince George, his friends, his family and his fellow American loyalists will be allowed to live happily ever after.

Fearing Fear Itself

In Nit-Picking Nit-Writ, I addressed the PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION filed by the Zimmerman defense. I pointed out how O’Mara had offered evidence about the shooting on the night of February 26 and why it was not only unnecessary, it was useless. A writ of prohibition, in this case, only pertains to why the trial judge should be recused. It’s not for anything else. What O’Mara did was inflate a very weak document with superfluous fluff, like adding TVP to a package of fatty, grisly hamburger meat, and I don’t feel the appeal court is going to buy any of it. 

I do believe that Assistant Attorney General Pamela Koller offered up a much meatier argument against the Defense appeal. I will elaborate on that a bit and address the finer points of the State’s RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION. In particular, I want to look into the two types of fear that the district court will examine — objective and subjective.

In 2005, I wrote a post about how slants change your views of the news. Titled, An unbiased look at news slants, I last updated it in February of 2010. I think it should give you a foundation on objectivity and subjectivity.

Objective information strives to remain unbiased. Dictionaries and other materials of reference, such as encyclopedias, generally provide factual information. Traffic lights are red, green and yellow. Yellow means caution, green means to go and red means to stop.

Subjective information is formed by personal opinion. Editorial sections in newspapers are subjective. While editorials and letters to the editor can be based on fact, opinions are usually based on personal interpretations of facts. Humans are responsible for global warming. Global warming is caused by natural earth cycles, such as the Ice Age. In these cases, separate and valid viewpoints can be substantiated by citing legitimate sources.

We know that George and Shellie Zimmerman lied to the Court about access to money and a second passport they claimed they didn’t have. The judge acknowledged that in his order revoking bond and Team Zimmerman then proceeded to call it biased, including the judge’s reprimand. (It’s interesting to note that the defendant still managed to post bail despite the Court setting it much higher than what was originally granted.) The fact that bail was granted at all after the second request could be considered a testament to the judge’s fairness. 

The Judge’s Order Setting Bail infuriated the Defendant and his counsel. How dare the Court look at his lies at all, let alone “judge” his actions and lack of respect for the court. To do so was nothing short of biased, they claimed, so they filed their writ of prohibition with the higher court. The bottom line now is how the Fifth District Court of Appeal will look at this motion — as an objective or subjective complaint — and rule accordingly, based on objectivity. Does Zimmerman have a leg to stand on? Is his distress based on a paranoid fear of persecution in general (subjective) or has this judge exhibited (objective) behavior in the past that truly legitimizes his concerns?

Let’s look at this objectively. In its response to the writ, the State wrote:

Petitioner complains about rulings in the past in his background section, but it is well established that “[t]he fact that the judge has made adverse rulings in the past against the defendant, or that the judge has previously heard the evidence, or ‘allegations that the trial judge had formed a fixed opinion of the defendant’s guilt, even where it is alleged that the judge discussed his opinion with others,’ are generally considered legally insufficient reasons to warrant the judge’s disqualification.” Rivera, 717 So. 2d at 481 (quoting Jackson v. State, 599 So. 2d at 107; see also Areizaga v. Spicer, 841 So. 2d 494, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (It is well established that a trial court’s prior adverse rulings are not legally sufficient grounds upon which to base a motion to disqualify).

In other words, this is not merely a complaint about Lester’s language in the bail order, it’s also about his prior rulings in Zimmerman’s pretrial motions. This is something that should be taken up post-conviction, if necessary, not now, and it epitomizes my description of superfluous fluff; not worth the paper it’s printed on. What the defense wants to do is set a silly precedent; that every single defense motion denial is biased. This would then have to include every case that has ever come before a court. Overturn every verdict because motions were denied! All in the name of George! Clearly, this is subjective thinking. “I think,” O’Mara could opine, “every motion that was turned down was done so by judicial bias.”

Of course, it’s every defense attorney’s dream, but most are smart enough to know it’s nothing more than a whimsical flight of fancy. Cheney Mason tried the same thing during the Anthony case and got nowhere.

The State cited Rolle ex rel. Dabrio v. Birken, 984 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008):

Likewise, we recently pointed out that a “mere ‘subjective fear’ of bias will not be legally sufficient, rather, the fear must be objectively reasonable.” Arbelaez v. State, 898 So. 2d 25, 41 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240, 242 (Fla. 1986)). We do not find Mansfield’s allegations of fear to be objectively reasonable. See also Asay v. State, 769 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2000). Our cases support the trial court’s denial of the motion to disqualify, and we affirm the trial judge’s order. 

Notwithstanding, Lester had every right to keep Zimmerman behind bars because the State went on to say that:

The judge again set a bond for Petitioner, and Petitioner is currently out on bond. Thus, the grounds listed by Petitioner in his motion are facially insufficient.

… and that the Petitioner is manipulating the system. From Cf. Brown, 561 So. 2d at 257 n. 7:

(“We hasten to add that our holding should not be construed to mean that a judge is subject to disqualification…simply because of making an earlier ruling in the course of a proceeding which had the effect of rejecting the testimony of the moving party. At the very least…there must be a clear implication that the judge will not believe the complaining party’s testimony in the future.”).

While the assistant attorney general cited many examples of why this particular writ of prohibition is without merit, it is, by its very nature, nearly as subjective as the writ itself. Both sides came to their respective conclusions based on their own interpretations of case law. As the appellate court looks at this issue with complete objectivity, it should see that Judge Lester has not been prejudiced against George Zimmerman — and most assuredly, not personally. In my opinion, based on what the Defense and State both submitted, the original motion to disqualify the trial judge in this case was legally insufficient. Judge Lester made the right choice, and so will the appellate judges,  C. Alan Lawson, Jay P. Cohen and Kerry I. Evander.

Poor Prince George is not just afraid of a li’l old pea, he’s also afraid of his shadow. Oh, and don’t even get me started on (d)(1) and (d)(2). That’s a whole “nother” bedtime story.

Cross posted at the Daily Kos

Nit-Picking Nit-Writ

This article will focus on the writ of prohibition filed by George Zimmerman’s defense attorneys, but before I do that, I’ve got to get something off my chest. It’s something I haven’t read much about elsewhere and it’s been bugging me in subtle ways for several months. As far as I’m concerned, it gets to the heart of the matter and why any motion to dismiss (in lieu of SYG) may be problematic for the defense.

I think most people will agree that Zimmerman has given several conflicting accounts of what transpired on February 26, the night Trayvon Martin died by a perfectly placed gunshot wound to the chest.

While his imagination has run wild, there’s one part of his stories that has remained consistent. He prefaces each and every 911/non-emergency call with, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood…” or words to that effect. Why does he start each one with that statement? Is it an excuse for what may transpire before the police arrive? Cover your butt? Let me tell you why I did it, in other words, by setting up his version du jour. In my opinion, it lays down a foundation as either of two things. Or both.

• He criminally profiled Trayvon, which is what the State claims, and he knows it.
• There was premeditation. By premeditation, I mean, as soon as he spotted the boy, his mind clicked into some sort of mutated high-gear attack mode and that’s when he began to stalk his prey with a vengeance. They always get away. NOT THIS TIME. In my book, it’s malice prepense, or malice aforethought — premeditation, pure and simple. 

Whether he intended to shoot Trayvon or not, he began a deadly game of cat and mouse. A killer cat pseudo-cop. Have gun, will shoot. And he did just that.

§

If you’ve ever seen video footage of babies falling out of chairs, they always look around. If someone is there, they immediately begin to wail and wait for mommy or someone else to run over and comfort them. If no one is there, they shrug it off and continue going about their business, climbing back up for more fun. Of course, I mean this only when there is no real harm done. It’s human nature and we learn at a very early age how to gain sympathy. In George Zimmerman’s case, he’s lived this way all his life. Someone has always been around to comfort him, and he’s forever gotten away with everything. He reminds me so much of Casey Anthony in the sense that her mother, Cindy, let her get away with murder. Don’t ask me if I mean that figuratively or literally. 

Zimmerman handily dismissed the first judge, Jessica Recksiedler, and he’s working on another. To be fair, I believe the motion to remove Recksiedler was Mark O’Mara’s idea, and he seemed to be careful when he constructed the recusal motion, just in case he needed to do it again.

Uh oh, he did it again.

This time, it was due to the “scorching” language the new judge, Kenneth R. Lester, Jr., wrote in an order denying bond after he discovered Zimmerman and his wife lied in court about a large sum of money they had in an account she only acknowledged existed. She denied knowing how much was in it when, in fact, she knew it was more than $130,000. There was also the issue of a tucked away passport they both failed to mention but openly discussed in coded jail house phone calls to each other prior to the initial bond hearing.

Oh my, judges do not like to be lied to, no matter how many inane explanations a defense attorney can conjure up.

Granted, the judge’s wording was quite tough, but did it reach the plateau that separates a legal reprimand from a personal one? It depends on which side of the fence you live on. Actually, it depends on what benches the three appellate judges sit on. That would be judges C. Alan Lawson, Jay P. Cohen and Kerry I. Evander.

After Lester revoked Zimmerman’s bond, the defense filed a new motion to set bond. Of course, the State objected, but in the end, it was granted to the tune of $1,000,000. In his ORDER SETTING BAIL, the judge noted that:

… the Defendant did not offer any explanation of or justification for his deception that was subject to cross examination… As noted, the Defendant spent a substantial portion of the hearing presenting evidence relating to self-defense in an effort to counter the State’s case because, in the initial order, the Court characterized the State’s case as “strong.” Notably, at the initial bond hearing, this Court had only limited evidence; to that point, the State showed the Defendant had shot and killed Trayvon Martin. There was other evidence presented through the probable cause affidavit and the testimony of Dale Gilbreath, an investigator with the State Attorney’s Office, that the Defendant’s actions were imminently dangerous to another and that he acted with a depraved mind regardless of human life. The Defendant certainly indicated through cross-examination that he acted in self-defense, but he put forward no evidence of such. As a consequence, this Court found as a preliminary matter that the evidence against the Defendant was “strong.”

The order further stated that:

Since the June 29, 2012 hearing addressed whether to reinstate bond was not an Arthur hearing, the presentation of evidence attacking the State’s case is of limited relevance at this stage of the proceedings… The actual questions before this Court at this time are: is the Defendant entitled to bail when he presents false testimony at a prior bond hearing and what recourse there is when the Defendant has shown blatant disregard for the judicial sysyem.

In other words, the judge maintained throughout that the reason he stated the evidence against the defendant was strong was because the defense offered up nothing substantial to prove otherwise up to that point, and since the defendant lied to the court, was granting bail the proper decision? The argument that Zimmerman claims in his PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on:

There was little evidence regarding the strength of the State’s case at the initial bond hearing other than the bare-bones probable cause affidavit… and the testimony of State Attorney Investigator Dale Gilbreath, a witness called by the defense… Gilbreath acknowledged that the State had no evidence to contradict the conclusion that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and threw the first punch and no evidence to contest that Mr. Zimmerman was headed back to his car when Mr. Martin attacked him.

Herein lays the problem, whether you see it or not. While the writ of prohibition does make mention of the judge’s strong language, the rest of it is filled with smoke and mirrors. Why, you may ask? Because it doesn’t stick to the matter at hand, as I clearly pointed out above. The writ reads more like a motion for dismissal.

Granted, the judge did make strong statements, but the defense virtually ignored the reasons why. The fact remains, George lied, whether by remaining silent as his wife directly lied to the court, or by proxy. By that, I mean he authorized his wife to lie. Sadly, the writ includes the issue over his wife being charged with perjury. Zimmerman and O’Mara blame it on the judge, who mentioned it in his bond revocation order. Well, she did lie! She did break the law! Is that the judges’s fault? No, but Team Zimmerman thinks so.

Getting back to the June 29 bond hearing, O’Mara deviates from the truth in his writ:

On June 29, 2012 a hearing was held on Mr. Zimmerman’s Motion to Set Reasonable Bond. At this hearing, Mr, Zimmerman presented evidence… in support of his claim of self-defense. This tidal wave of evidence…

A tidal wave of evidence? In his later Order Setting Bail, Judge Lester noted that:

Argument by counsel is not evidence.  See e.g. Wheeler v. State, 311 So. 2d 713 (Fla 4th DCA 1975) (noting that counsel’s opening statement is not evidence).

In plain English, it means that this tidal wave of evidence was nothing more than dirty bath water going down the drain. To clarify, the evidence was presented by O’Mara that day, not by the defendant. Sadly, the defense was aware of that, too, before it wrote the writ. 

ON COURT ETIQUETTE AND ETYMOLOGY

The writ of prohibition states that:

The court chose language in its July 5, 2012 Order to describe the Defendant in ways that reflect the court’s opinion of Mr. Zimmerman’s character as much as his conduct. In its Order, the trial court said, “[u]nder any definition, the Defendant has flouted the system.”

Ouch! Poor Zimmerman threw a pity party over it because:

“Flouted” is defined at Merriam-Webster.com as “to treat with contemptuous disregard; to indulge in scornful behavior.”

In Zimmerman’s case, the court was correct in that assessment. He did flout the system. It continues…

The court went on to say that, “[t]he Defendant has tried to manipulate the system when he has been presented the opportunity to do so”… and again that “… it appears to this Court that the Defendant is manipulating the system to his own benefit”… The court also accused Mr. Zimmerman of showing “blatant disregard for the judicial system.”

The strange thing about the above statement is that every quote by the court is true. Interestingly, one of the defense team’s only ways to counter the court’s language is to camouflage it with claims of what transpired the night of February 26, which really has no bearing on the writ. Meanwhile, the defense laments that:

The court completely ignored Mr. Zimmerman’s voluntary disclosure of the alleged wrongdoing and failed to acknowledge Mr. Zimmerman’s surrender of those donated funds to his lawyer…

The problem is that Zimmerman was caught with his grubby hands in the cookie jar and something tells me he’s always been a sneaky little bastard, pardon my language, who immediately apologizes when he gets caught. See? All better. This is the type of creep who will admit to nothing if he gets away with it, and the more and more we get to know him, the more we recognize it as one of his strongest traits.

I can go on and on citing the examples the defense used in attacking the judge. I can write about harsh language the judge used in his bail order, but consider what he also wrote:

The State notes that his stories changed [with] each retelling, but on the surface he should be deemed to have been cooperative. However, he clearly understood that he was being investigated for committing a homicide and, while he believes that he was justified in his actions, there has been nothing presented which indicates that he was misled into believing that he would not be charged with a crime. Contrary to being betrayed, the Defendant received normal, reasonable treatment and was granted reasonable bail.

That sounds fair to me, but Zimmerman disagrees:

Of particular relevance in the instant case is the legitimacy of Mr. Zimmerman’s belief that the trial court has prejudged his guilt regarding the alleged (by the trial Judge) violation of Florida Statute Section 903.035(3), and how it may carry over to guilt in the underlying second degree murder case.

The way I look at this is no different from any other scolding. Just like parents disciplining their child, they get over it and move on. My God, if parents held grudges, how could they ever treat their children fairly? Even O’Mara admitted when questioned during his writ of prohibition news conference that Judge Lester is a professional and fair. Basically, he contradicted his writ.

I am convinced that this judge can proceed from here and fairly preside over the entire George Zimmerman case. In his ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, Lester made it clear that the DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE was legally insufficient. He further stated that:

The Defendant moved to recuse Judge Recksiedler on the basis of Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(2), which mandates recusal when a judge is related to an interested party… [The] Defendant also argued language associated with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2330(d)(1). However, in an abundance of caution and based on the “totality of the circumstances,” she recused herself. This would indicate that her recusal was, in fact, based upon Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(1), making this a successive motion under subsection (g) of that rule. Should that be determined, this court is prepared to rule on the facts alleged in support of the motion.

What that means is simple. The lower court is ready to show the higher court what this writ may be all about. Uh huh. Judge shopping.

Statement in Response to Zimmerman’s Motion For Stand Your Ground Hearing

FROM TRAYVON’S PARENTS AND THEIR DEFENSE TEAM:

Let it be clear on the record, that we feel confident that the unjustified killing of Trayvon Benjamin Martin should and will be decided by a jury.   Many of the legal architects of the Stand Your Ground law have already opined that it does not apply in this case.  A grown man cannot profile and pursue an unarmed child, shoot him in the heart, and then claim stand your ground.  We believe that the killer’s motion will be denied during the Stand Your Ground Hearing, and as justice requires a jury will ultimately decide the fate of a man that killed an innocent child. 

There is only one version of this story that represents that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, and that’s Zimmerman’s self-serving version.  Everyone will agree that the killer’s credibility is clearly questionable.

Trayvon’s parents do not feel that this is a man that feared for his life the night he shot and killed their child, this is a man whose only fear is spending his life in prison.

Statement Regarding Attorney General's Compensation Fund From Family of Trayvon Martin and Their Attorneys

On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman immediately claimed that he killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense.  The Sanford Police Department and the Seminole County State Attorney’s Office did not arrest George Zimmerman for this homicide.  George Zimmerman was viewed by law enforcement and the public in general as the victim while Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old teen walking home from the store armed with nothing more than Arizona Ice Tea and Skittles, was portrayed as a criminal who assaulted George Zimmerman thereby causing his own death. 

On March 29, 2012, in an effort to get the State of Florida to recognize her son as the true victim of this homicidal crime,  Sybrina Fulton, with the help of a concerned friend, filled out initial paperwork applying to the Florida Attorney General for victim’s compensation. At that time George Zimmerman still had not been arrested for this crime.  The Attorney General’s Compensation Fund provides money and support for victims of crimes committed in Florida. Ms. Fulton felt it was important for the State of Florida to recognize her son as the victim in this case in order for justice to be served and for George Zimmerman to be arrested.

In April, George Zimmerman was arrested and Trayvon Martin was officially recognized by the state of Florida as the victim of a crime committed by George Zimmerman.  Since that time, Sybrina Fulton, with her ex-husband, Tracy Martin, has concentrated her efforts on the Trayvon Martin Foundation and raising awareness on the need to stop senseless gun violence.  Sybrina Fulton has not yet completed the very time-consuming paperwork required by the state

As the attorneys for the Estate of Trayvon Martin, we have encouraged Ms. Fulton and Mr. Martin to complete the application for the funds.  These funds are collected from perpetrators of crimes as reparations to victims.  If eligible for the funds, the family of Trayvon Martin intends to donate the money to the Trayvon Martin Foundation in hopes of preventing other parents from suffering the pain they have had to feel due to senseless gun violence.

Will it be that Appealing?

On August 1, Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. of the 18th Circuit Court issued his ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, citing the defense motion requesting his recusal as legally insufficient. That was no surprise to me, but it was to George Zimmerman. His attorney, Mark O’Mara, quickly told WKMG’s Tony Pipitone that, “We presented the motion. I think the motion was sufficient on its face. He made his decision. We’re going to review it and make a determination about whether or not to appeal it or accept it.”

I’m not surprised by O’Mara’s reaction, either, but what does it entail now? I mean, where can Zimmerman’s defense go from here? They can appeal it. Or should I say may? They may certainly appeal but it’s not all that simple, as O’Mara made clear in his second statement to Pipitone about what could happen next. The case, he said, “stays in limbo, unfortunately, for a while. We will be seeking a stay of all other matters pending until the appellate court decides, if we decide to appeal.”

The key word in the final sentence is seeking, as in “seeking a stay.” What that means is that it’s not attached to an appeal. It’s a separate request. While the appeal goes to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, a stay on all other matters, quite literally, stays with the circuit court.

Here’s the first thing I thought of after learning of the judge’s decision and O’Mara’s reaction. What happens to Zimmerman’s GPS ankle monitor? What about the court order restricting him to Seminole County? I know he’s been complaining about it, and that his defense is prepared to file a motion to lift the restriction. If he files an appeal, doesn’t it put everything on hold? Well, no, but that doesn’t mean he and his team don’t have a lot of other complex things to think about.

There’s the issue of money, for instance. Filing appeals isn’t free. Just consider the time it takes to file paperwork at $400 per hour, not to mention other continuing work on the case. The appeal itself will take a long time to be heard. Where is Zimmerman’s money going to come from after his parents’ Website stops pumping oil? It will not last forever. The whole mess becomes a perplexing quandary. Does he bite the bullet and stick with Judge Lester, or does he go for the appeal with money he doesn’t really have?

WILL ZIMMERMAN DOUBLE DOWN?

The idiomatic verb form of double down means to double or significantly increase a risk, investment, or other commitment. Is Zimmerman willing to risk everything, which includes an impending money problem, in order to have a judge removed from his case? While waiting an indefinite amount of time for any other relief? Remember, filing an appeal does not mean an automatic win. The appellate court might just turn him down. Where would he go from there?

In the meantime, the defense still has the option to file an indigency motion if the well runs dry, but that means getting the JAC involved and O’Mara can kiss his $400 per hour good bye. You see, while the motion to appeal is at the appellate level, the show must go on, and Judge Lester would proceed as usual. So, while things seem like they are beyond reach for the defense, they really aren’t, but there are a number of catches. There’s the part about seeking a stay. Plus, by allowing this judge to decide motions, doesn’t it just confound the whole thing? Why let the same judge rule on anything if you want him off the bench? Right now! If O’Mara files an appeal, he’s pushed himself into a corner where he’s pretty much forced to file a stay. That’s a given, right? So what’s he supposed to do?

THE GOOD OLD INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

The Free Dictionary defines an interlocutory order as:

“Provisional; interim; temporary; not final; that which intervenes between the beginning and the end of a lawsuit or proceeding to either decide a particular point or matter that is not the final issue of the entire controversy or prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of the lawsuit.”

This could include the issue over the judge, but I doubt it, because, even though these types of actions are taken prior to trial, which fits in this case, and must be answered by an appellate court; there is a reluctance to make interlocutory orders unless the circumstances surrounding a case are serious enough to warrant such action. And they are restricted by courts because they don’t want to be tied up by piecemeal litigation. The clincher is that the lower court usually enters a final judgement, meaning a verdict, before it’s appealed.

If not that, then what?

THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION

According to The Florida Bar Journal, “A writ of prohibition enables an appellate court to prevent a lower tribunal from further exercising jurisdiction in an action. Generally, it cannot be used to remedy an act that has already happened.” Whew! Relief, right? It’s not quite that easy.

While a petition for writ of prohibition “is generally used to challenge the denial of a motion to disqualify the judge of the lower tribunal,” it is also “the appropriate method for forcing a lower tribunal, including an administrative agency, to dismiss a matter for lack of jurisdiction.”

In his order, Judge Lester did leave open the option of argument at the appellate level to establish whether the motion to recuse him was the first or second motion to dismiss the trial judge, but I wouldn’t bet the farm that the higher court would rule Zimmerman’s way. As a matter of fact, that’s not even close to being the crux of the perplexing quandary he’s in. It’s…

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULE 9.310.

Let’s just say that, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310:

RULE 9.310. STAY PENDING REVIEW

(a) Application. Except as provided by general law and in subdivision (b) of this rule, a party seeking to stay a final or non-final order pending review shall file a motion in the lower tribunal, which shall have continuing jurisdiction, in its discretion, to grant, modify, or deny such relief. A stay pending review may be conditioned on the posting of a good and sufficient bond, other conditions, or both.

(b) deals with exceptions, such as money judgments and public officials. (c) pertains to bonds, (d) with sureties, and (e) with duration, and none of them apply. But if you move on to (f), and combine it with (a), we hit pay dirt.

(f) Review. Review of orders entered by lower tribunals under this rule shall be by the court on motion.

What’s that mean? It’s quite simple, actually. Remember O’Mara’s words to Pipitone, “seeking a stay of all other matters…”?

That’s right! In order for the defense to seek that stay, they must go through the same court, “which shall have continuing jurisdiction, in its discretion, to grant, modify, or deny such relief.” “Review of orders entered by lower tribunals under this rule shall be by the court on motion” actually seals the deal. A stay motion would be filed in Lester’s court and he would have to move to agree to it. Would he? Oh, probably, but in the meantime, like I said, the show must go on. While filing an appeal, the defense can soldier on with their motions and the judge can continue to write orders. Unless. of course, the judge rules on a stay. In which case, poor, poor George will stay in Seminole County for months and months to come, gnawing at the bracelet that will stay on his ankle.

Yes, there’s been lots to ponder since Friday. I wonder what George thinks God’s plan is.

Lester: No Judge to Rush

I could be wrong, but I do think it’s rather revealing that Judge Lester has taken his good old-time deciding whether or not he’ll step down from the bench. Granted, he’s been on vacation, but Zimmerman’s recusal motion was filed on July 13, well over two weeks ago, and as far as I’m concerned, the accused hasn’t had enough time to get nervous yet. He still thinks he’s the boss. Now, if I were in charge, I’d make him wait the full 30 days that’s allowed under the law before rendering a decision. Really rattle him. Then, I’d drop the bomb — that the judge has decided to remain on the case.

I’m not saying this because I expect Lester to be personally biased against the defendant. No, that’s hardly the reason. I just don’t think it’s right that George should get his way this time, like he’s been used to most of his life. Throw a tantrum. After all, he’s the one who lied to the court by ordering his wife to hide the truth. That means that he’s responsible for his wife facing a perjury charge. Now, he blames the court for it.

Even his attorney, Mark O’Mara, said his client lost his credibility. Soon after Zimmerman’s bond was revoked, he told Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning, “Judge Lester gave us all a very strong signal that he and he alone will run the courtroom and that everyone is going to tell the truth. So I’m certain that not only the Zimmerman family but all other witnesses that come before Judge Lester had better tell the truth and nothing but the truth if they’re going to be treated fairly.”

He readily accepted the judge’s fairness. Treat me right, I’ll treat you right.

According to a USA Today report, O’Mara said, “He [Zimmerman] should have jumped up and said she is lying. He should have done something, and he didn’t.”

I could go on and on with remarks made by Zimmerman’s own defense, but the fact remains, he lied and that’s all there is to it. O’Mara acknowledged that it would take a lot of work to regain the judge’s trust, and he admitted it was a huge mistake. He expected the judge to have a strong opinion. Rightfully so! This is nothing new, and it leads me to believe that, had the more prudent O’Mara prevailed, he would have worked out the messy kinks because he knows how much the judge and most in the legal field admire his honesty and professionalism. I believe the motion to recuse was Zimmerman’s idea, and his alone; just like taking command of his Website again. Not to mention his parents’.

Here’s the deal, in my opinion. Judge Kenneth Lester will “Stand His Ground” and remain seated. Why? Because Florida and federal law is on his side, and I don’t think he will relinquish anything to a punk, whether it’s “appealing” or not. He doesn’t strike me as a quitter.

According to The Law of Judicial Disqualification or Recusal, Florida Rules of Disqualification: Rule 2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges, Zimmerman’s defense cites:

(d) Grounds. — A motion to disqualify shall show:

(1) that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge; or

(2) that the judge before whom the case is pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, is a party thereto or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney or counselor of record in the cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to the cause.

I can clearly understand the first motion to recuse against Judge Reckseidler based on (d)(2), but will the motion against Lester stand on the merits of (d)(1)? On his motion against Lester, Zimmerman added:

(f) Determination — Successive Motions. — The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.

This means if the judge denies the defense request, no explanation is to be given. A simple “NO” will suffice. End of story. Time to move on.

As I wrote in my first article, Why Judge Lester Will Refuse to Recuse, a defendant cannot simply lie to a judge and get away with it. If a judge cannot respond without showing any kind of opinion regarding said lie, what’s the court to do? Evidence proved Zimmerman lied and the judge responded with disdain. Lying in court is against the law, and if all a person has to do is lie to the judge to get him/her recused for voicing concern, it would be anarchy in the courtroom. This would mean that every time a judge cries, “May God have mercy on your soul” after a death sentence is pronounced, the defendant should get the case thrown out of court. Not guilty on a technicality. The judge voiced his opinion on the verdict and a personal belief in religion. Separation of church and state!

Now, we come to a matter of law. Let’s quickly examine Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code, Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge. The most important part of this section is that in order to warrant a recusal, the judge’s expressions of opinion about the merits of the case must have originated outside the case.

Held: Required recusal under §455(a) is subject to the limitation that has come to be known as the “extrajudicial source” doctrine [or factor]. Pp. 3-16.

The general rule is that a judge should be disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding…” This pertains to a prior opinion, and that would mean Judge Lester would have to have had an interest in the case before it was assigned to him. Surely he heard about it in the news? That’s not relevant. (See: Liteky v. United States (92-6921), 510 U.S. 540 (1994).) Under Liteky, the judge is expected to form opinions based on what is presented during the proceedings, not before. Remember that a judge formulates an order based on case law, and each side presents its own case law examples. Such is the situation regarding this recusal motion and the state’s very own response.

If we go back to the Casey Anthony v. State of Florida case, we saw multitudes of examples where Judge Perry admonished Jose Baez. If ever there was a situation that appeared to be biased and prejudiced, that was the one. Had Ms. Anthony been convicted, would it have been overturned on appeal based on the less than cordial interaction between Perry and Baez? I seriously doubt it, and do you want to know why? Because, in the end, the defendant was found not guilty of murder. The End. If the judge showed any bias or prejudice toward the defendant or any of her attorneys, the jury failed to notice. Why? Because the system worked and it will work again.

Judge Lester is tenacious. He has no reason to relinquish the bench. He saw right through George Zimmerman from Day 1 and he will see him right through to the end. That’s my judgement. That’s my opinion.

All About You

Plurality: the Concept of Quantity

Lately, I’ve been listening to the beats of distant drums. The boom-ba-boom-ba-boom I’m hearing questions whether the state has a case against Shellie Zimmerman. Was the felony perjury charge against her too far reaching that it really holds little to no merit? Or was the state correct in issuing the arrest warrant?

Some of what I’ve been reading comes down to a relatively simple, yet complex, statement similar to the one that former President Clinton once uttered. “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.” I think we’re familiar with that one — not that this has anything to do directly with what I’m writing about, but keep in mind that the 42nd president was also an attorney and we are talking about law. Besides, Clinton’s statement segues easily and smoothly into linguistics, which is the study of language. This post will come down to the meaning of you. Not you personally, mind you, but the meaning of the word itself. You.

In college, I was fascinated with the English language. One of my first English course books was Language in Thought and Action by the late S.I. (Samuel Ichiye) Hayakawa, once a premier linguist, psychologist, semanticist, teacher and writer. Back then, he taught me a lot about word usage. There’s a good and bad way to say things, and depending on how you use words, the outcome could be disastrous. An example of this would be in how you might order something in a restaurant. Would you ask for a chopped up dead cow sandwich when all you really want is a hamburger?

Another one of my favorite writers was (also the late) William Safire; well versed in lexicology, syntax, pragmatics and etymology, he was once the premier etymologist in the country, and for many, many years, I tried my best to read his column, On Language, every week in the Sunday New York Times Magazine. Between those two men and my (very much alive at 93) uncle, David A. Kyle, they are who inspired me to write. Not that I learned anything. Anyway, back to the matter at hand…

I’m going to ask you a simple question and I want no answer. I just want you to remember it for now and wait until I tidy it up at the end. By then, you should understand. Suppose you are at the mall without your significant other. You run into a friend with or without their spouse. You chat briefly and then are asked, “Would you like to join us for a double-date Friday night?” Keep that in mind.

§

We know what perjury is and we know Shellie Zimmerman was charged with it soon after an official courtroom proceeding. We also know why she was charged.

“… whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree…” (F.S. 837.02 - Perjury in official proceedings)

Do we agree that, in a legal sense, the charge will stand? Can we really make any call like that until after the dust settles, when a verdict is read? One of the most important things we need to keep in mind is that, in a courtroom, the battle between opposing sides comes down to the interpretations of laws and many of the statements made by people directly involved in the case and, most importantly, the defendant. That includes words and actions.

During Ms. Zimmerman’s telephonic testimony regarding finances at her husband’s bond hearing on April 20th, she was first questioned by his defense attorney, Mark O’Mara. Here is part of the exchange between them:

Q. Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?
A. None that I know of.
Q. I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband George declared indigent for cost, have I not?
A. Yes, you have.
Q. And is — are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?
A. Uhm, not — not that I’m aware of.
Q: I understand that you do have other family members present with you, and I’ll ask some more questions of them, but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pull together some funds to accomplish a bond?
A: We have discussed that —
Q: Okay.
A:— trying to pull together the members of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can.

Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda had an opportunity to cross examine her:

Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?
A. To my knowledge, that is correct.
Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A: I’m aware of that website.
Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —-
A: Currently, I do not know. 
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.

I don’t know if you are getting my drift or not by now, but let me say that there could be a possible problem over that final exchange and the word you. You see, there’s a method to my madness and it comes down to how that simple word is conceptualized. In the English language, there is no plural for this particular second-person pronoun. Singular is the same as plural, so it is open to interpretation. It could go either way.

In the O’Mara exchange, “other major assets that you have…,” if you is taken as plural, it would include her husband, and it would change the entire meaning. De la Rionda was a bit clearer when he worded it, “‘you all’ had no money,” but the final exchange between them is the real quandary. “Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?” Is that singular or plural? You see, the secret jail house code conversations will show that she was aware of money, and lots of it, but did she have an estimate of the amount at the precise time she was questioned by the prosecutor? That could be a sticking point. She, by herself, denied knowing, but if de la Rionda’s usage was intended to be plural, then, legally, they both had an estimate; just like asking you out on a double-date. Singly, you as a word wouldn’t work for the state. As a couple, it would.

Personally, I think the state has the goods on her — enough to convict, but you never know these days, as we all understand from the last Orlando debacle. Oh well, what will be will be. It is what it is, you know, and I guess, in the end, it may come down to what the meaning of the word “you” is.

Why Judge Lester Will Refuse to Recuse

I can understand why George Zimmerman’s defense attorneys, Mark O’Mara and Donald West, filed a motion for Judge Kenneth Lester, Jr. to step down. It makes sense. For one thing, had they not, it wouldn’t help pave the way for a retrial later on if Zimmerman is convicted. I’m sure he requested it, too, and no matter what, the attorneys are there to work for their client. Besides, George is used to getting what he wants, he believes this is a frivolous case, and he wants a new judge. So there. Only it doesn’t work that way, and there are some rather good and strong reasons why.

Let me first mention a few “for instances” that were mentioned in the actual motion filed by his attorneys, the VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, which can be viewed HERE, directly from the gzlegal.com Website.

On page 5, the motion says:

“Generally a statement by the judge that he feels a party has lied in a case indicates bias against the party.”

Now hold on a minute. Didn’t another judge once say something about the truth and Miss Anthony are strangers? That had nothing to do with his recusal request, did it? No, it didn’t, and as a matter of fact, look at it this way. If all I had to do was lie to a judge to get him/her disqualified for bias, I’d lie to every judge who comes rolling down the pike, and I’d never go to trial. They’d run out of judges long before the statute of limitation runs out. Like a lot of defendants, lie your way out of it.

Let’s move on to page 7:

“The Court states that the money used to post bail ‘… is not money which the Defendant has earned through his hard work and savings, so forfeiting it for failing to appear would not impact the Defendant’s life in the same manner as a similarly-situated defendant who puts his house up for collateral to obtain bond.’ Page 7, (f). However, the Court fails to note that his family’s home would thereby be forfeited if he failed to appear. Further, the Court ignores the reality that those funds are the only funds available to Mr. Zimmerman to survive, to eat, to pay for utilities and to provide his family shelter.”

Here are the problems I see. George Zimmerman not only lied to the court, he lied to his parents, who took out a second mortgage on their house to secure the bond money. What a weasel. He lied to his attorneys, too. As for food and shelter, it was clearly spelled out that the money was to be used for his defense, not to pay off credit card bills and to buy expensive guns. Aside from that, it’s a lousy excuse and a cheap argument.

From page 9:

“The Court departed from its role as an impartial, objective minister of justice when it stated on two occasions on 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. Comments like these are taken seriously by the Defendant, and further convinces him that he cannot get a fair trial from this Court. The Court made a similar comment about his wife at the June 1, 2012 bond revocation hearing when it said…”

We all know what it said, and Shellie Zimmerman was duly charged. The problem here is that the motion blames the judge and not his client. Had his client and wife just told the truth to begin with, this would not be an issue. It’s a situation that is being passed off on the judge. The fact remains that the Zimmermans lied and the judge pointed it out, including what the possible charges and penalties might be. Who is to blame for that? Was the judge merely telling the truth? Poor George says he takes the judge’s comments seriously. Well, shiver in me boots. What about the judge? He took the Zimmermans’ comments seriously, too, but according to the Book of George, he wasn’t supposed to do that? Only George is allowed? Gimme a break. I could go on and on, but…

George is responsible for his own mess. Based on the recusal motion, I see nothing that warrants the judge to step down, but that’s only part of the reason why this judge will refuse to recuse.

§

I think that most of you are aware of a role I played in a motion filed in another case where the presiding judge was asked to step down. I did an awful lot of legal studying back then, and in March of 2011, Casey Anthony’s defense filed a motion, the MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS, that had this one glaring statement:

c. The Court Did Not Look at the Evidence from the Hearing Objectively and Instead Displays a Clear Bias [emphasis mine] In Explaining Law Enforcement Conduct Rather than Evaluating Whether a Reasonable Person Would Have Felt Free to Leave.

Holy Foghorn Leghorn! Only thing is, under FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, Rule 2.330, DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES, “Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.” OK fine, but what it means is that the procedure for filing disqualification motions for civil and criminal cases is set out in Rule 2.160 of the Fla. R. Jud. Admin., amended by the Florida Supreme Court in 2004.

Since this is the route O’Mara and West are taking, they should be familiar with F.S. §38.10, which states:

Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the prescribing judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith.

But please pay particular attention to this part:

However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.

Remember the first judge? Jessica Recksiedler? She was asked to recuse herself and that’s how Judge Lester came to the bench.

After Judge Recksiedler willfully stepped down, and she could have easily remained on the bench, Judge Lester cannot be disqualified because of alleged prejudice solely based on what Zimmerman claims. The only way it would work is if Lester admits he is biased in favor of the prosecution. Even then, his admission would merely be recorded in the court minutes and the trial would proceed on schedule. Of course, this would be reviewed after a conviction (if there is one) and it would, no doubt, lead to a retrial, but let me assure you, this judge will not fail. He will never admit to bias, and because he’s the second judge, the rules are different.

One of the misconceptions of trial court judges is that rulings are the basis for disqualifications. They are not, as O’Mara and West are claiming in their motion. A judge may not be disqualified for judicial bias. He/she can be disqualified, however, for personal bias against a party. (See Barwick, 660 So. 2d at 692, and cases cited therein.) You just have to prove it.

§

Lest you think I will leave you dangling with merely one slice of cake from the book of rules, allow me to add a thick, sweet, slab of icing to the entire cake.

Back to good old Rule 2.160…

Section (g) deals with the filing of successive disqualification motions. This is to prevent the possibility of abuse, otherwise referred to as judge-shopping. Yes, you read it right… JUDGE-SHOPPING!

When Judge Recksiedler disqualified herself, Judge Lester cannot be disqualified on any successive motions filed by Zimmerman’s defense “unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case.” And that ain’t gonna happen, folks. Judge Lester will be allowed to toss out any new dismissal motions filed on Zimmerman’s behalf.

See also: The Florida Bar Journal, Judicial Disqualification: What Every Practioner (and Judge) Should Know, Douglas J. Glaid, October, 2000 Volume LXXIV, No. 9

No Smoking Gun?

There wasn’t really any shockingly new or surprising material in Thursday’s document release from State Attorney Angela Corey’s office, but I did manage to squeeze out a bit of information. Ever since this news story broke, my main contention with George Zimmerman was that he got out of his vehicle with a loaded pistol to chase after a figment of his distorted imagination — a hoodlum; a bona fide bad guy. Prior to yesterday’s release, we knew nothing about Sanford’s three main gangs, all known as “goons” in one way or another. Could Zimmerman have uttered “f*cking goons” under his breath during his now famous call to a Seminole County police dispatcher that fateful night of February 26m 2012? It makes more sense than “cold” or “punks” doesn’t it? And it’s a matter of fact that the majority of those goons are made up of minority ethnicities; African-American and Hispanic. For me to say so does not make me a racist.

One thing is certain regarding race. Not one of the nearly 30 people interviewed considered Zimmerman to be one, either, and I, for one, never believed he was from the gitgo. If anything, look at the city of Sanford and Norm Wolfinger’s office for racial issues but, even there, I would dare say you will never find anything close enough to substantiate claims of bias. Odds are good that had it been a Hispanic wearing a hoodie that night, his fate would probably have been the same. Zimmerman was on a mission. Look to Bernie de la Rionda for guidance on this matter. He maintains that Zimmerman is guilty of criminal profiling. That’s a far cry from racial profiling. On this issue, I suggest we move on because there is nothing to substantiate any prejudice and all that will come out of it will be feuding and hard feelings among commenters. The real issue remains the same. Zimmerman profiled, stalked and murdered an innocent teenage boy. Regardless of what anyone feels Martin had done prior to that night, he did absolutely nothing to deserve what he got — a hollow-point bullet through his heart.

I’m going to start by taking this page-by-page. I will readily admit I didn’t get everything, so I will rely on you, dear reader, to fill in the gaps and offer up your ideas. There’s a lot to discuss.

§

On page 11 of the 284-page document, State Attorney’s Office Investigative Division Memorandum, an enlightening statement was made by a Sanford police officer:

“Officer Mead saw the flashlight ‘on’ at the intersection of the two walkways when he responded to the scene.”

Actually, the flashlight was found south of the intersection, as the maps will show, but the part that’s very revealing comes from what Zimmerman told investigators during his next day reenactment. He specifically said his flashlight was not working that night.

“… I had a flashlight with me. The flashlight was dead, though…” (Watch HERE; 8:11/15:04)

This is another example of Zimmerman’s imagination getting the best of him. Does he assume that changing the facts literally changes the facts to his advantage? Does he think people are so stupid he can pull the wool over their eyes, including trained law enforcement investigators? Yes, I’m afraid so. It also means, in my opinion, that he pounced on Martin, cop style, with gun and flashlight in hand, right in the young man’s eyes.

§

On page 34, during the night of February 26, while at the police station:

“The Evidence Technician came and collected clothing and photos of Zimmerman. The injuries to the back of the head of Zimmerman appeared to be abrasions and not lacerations.”

What this tells me is that Zimmerman was never close to his demise. If Martin popped him one, it was in self-defense and he he had it coming. It also tells me that those butterfly bandages on the back of his head, placed there by his wife, (shown the next day during the reenactment) were a farce and nothing more than a pity ploy to make him look more injured than he was.

§

On page 54 of the document, and part of the FDLE Investigative Report, Wendy Dorival put on a presentation at a Retreat at Twin Lakes HOA meeting at Zimmerman’s request. She is a civilian liaison with the Sanford Police Department. Held on September 22, 2011, she clearly instructed Zimmerman of the rules. A witness (name withheld) at the meeting said that:

“… it was told, you watch, you do not take any action on your own, you get away from the situation and you call the police.”

These are guidelines, not laws. Zimmerman was not supposed to be carrying a firearm, either, but he was licensed by the state of Florida to do so. The point of this is to show that he was aware of the rules, yet he chose to ignore them. Why?

§

On page 60, one of the witnesses noticed that the loud noises were getting closer.

“They first thought it might be kids in the neighborhood or people having a good time outside. Hearing the noise a second time, he decided to mute the television. Not hearing anything at first, he heard the sound again as if it was coming toward him and getting louder.”

What this signifies is movement, which contradicts Zimmerman’s account of where the fight began and where Martin fell to his death, which were in close proximity. According to Zimmerman, there was no running; no real movement. The maps show that the fight did not take place where he said it did, and Martin’s body was found farther south.

§

On page 65, another witness describes what she heard and saw. To be fair, she did take her contact lenses out before being compelled to look out of a back bedroom window:

“Hearing what sounded like running, she glanced out of the bedroom window (rear facing) to see a person go by from left to right (in a south to north direction).”

What this tells me is that, if true, Martin and Zimmerman were farther south than Zimmerman explained in his reenactment, and that Martin was much closer to where he was staying; in the townhouse that was east and most south of the sidewalk where he fell.

§

Another witness, on page 71, states that he heard what sounded like an argument, right in the area of the T-section on the walk way. He then said:

“… he heard a scuffling sound that was moving down the walk way getting closer to the building next to his house.”

This means the chase headed north, but the ensuing battle moved Zimmerman and Martin toward the south, as one of them fought back. (See map)

§

On page 74-75 of the FDLE Investigative Report, Wendy Dorival said she never had any further contact with Zimmerman after their September HOA meeting until the following month, when he requested information on a recent burglary that happened in the area. However, at the meeting, she gave him a neighborhood watch coordinator’s handbook and explained all the duties and responsibilities. She also asked him for something else:

“Dorival said during the meeting with Zimmerman she asked him to make a list of all the neighbors who wanted to be involved in the crime watch program. Zimmerman was then to determine who would be willing to be block captains and get her the list… Dorival said Zimmerman never provided her with the list of names for the crime watch program.”

This can be highly revealing. Was Zimmerman a loner? Was he a vigilante who wanted all the glory for himself? Or was he lazy and someone who didn’t follow through on his obligations? Not according to his work ethic, where he was quite adept at his responsibilities, according to interviews with associates.

§

Page 76 is a very telling page. The FDLE report explains what agents found in Zimmerman’s possession the day he turned himself in to authorities on April 11:

“Upon the completion of booking Zimmerman into the Seminole County Jail, SA Rogers transferred a Fabrique Nationale Herstal (FNH) Five-seven handgun cal. 5.7 x 28 SN# 386201358 and three magazines with ammo to SAS Duncan. SA Rogers stated that the handgun and magazines were the property of Zimmerman.”

It’s my understanding that this particular weapon is a police killer because of its ability to pierce armor. I imply nothing by stating that. You can formulate your own opinion, but the gun was fully loaded and each clip holds 20 rounds. That’s 80 bullets, folks. I understand his fear and desire to protect himself, certainly in light of the New Black Panther Party threat against him, but my question is whether this particular gun is overkill. Until his arrest, it was still legal for him to carry a firearm. To those who give to his cause, you’re out $1,200, plus extra clips and ammo. If he’s found not guilty, thank yourself for buying him one helluva pistol.

§

On page 78, Zimmerman spins his tale to a witness, who I will assume is Frank Taaffe, Joe Oliver or Mark Osterman. What really intrigues me the most is how Zimmerman was able to pull the gun out of his holster. Of particular interest is the fact that he is left-handed and the holster was on his right hip, set-up for a left-handed person to reach across his chest and belly to go for the gun. While that might not seem like much, it also means that when he went for the gun with his right hand, he either fired it upside down or he had the time and space to turn the gun right-side-up before firing it straight into Martin’s chest:

“Zimmerman used both his hands to pull Martin’s hands away from Zimmerman’s mouth. Martin then observed or felt the handgun on Zimmerman’s side, took his other hand away from Zimmerman’s nose and reached for the handgun stating, ‘You’re gonna die now Mother F*cker.’ Zimmerman slapped Martin’s hand away from the handgun, pulled the handgun, rotated the weapon and fired one round. Zimmerman’s elbow was on the ground at the time he fired.”

I find this to be extremely problematic for several reasons. It means that, since the bullet went straight into Martin’s chest, he had to have been perfectly parallel to Zimmerman’s body at the time the bullet was fired. Why? Because earlier in the interview, Zimmerman’s friend said this:

“Martin and Zimmerman struggled, which resulted in Martin gaining a position on top of Zimmerman, sitting on Zimmerman in the ‘mounted position,’ Martin’s butt on Zimmermans stomach, with Martin’s knees on the ground next to Zimmerman’s ribs.”

 With knees positioned the way they were, how does one wiggle their way out? How did the gun move from behind Martin’s thigh to in front of it? If Martin was riding Zimmerman like a horse, how did the bullet go straight into his chest while Zimmerman’s elbow was in direct contact with the ground? If Martin was positioned parallel to Zimmerman at the time of the shooting, how did Zimmerman manage to get the gun between the two sandwiched chests, let alone with enough of a gap to point the gun straight in?

Incidentally, Zimmerman said he made eye contact with three witnesses during the struggle, yet no witness has admitted to that. How observant for a guy to notice that, yet he contradicted himself regarding Martin’s age; someone who was a heck of a lot closer than the nearest witness.

§

On page 86 of the FDLE report, a background interview took place with the person who provided Zimmerman’s firearms safety training course. Zimmerman’s certificate was dated November 7, 2009. I will have a complete article that will describe, in detail, what led up to George’s obsession with buying guns. Yes, it’s about a dog. Until then, there is plenty to discuss, including personal issues regarding his family and a certain ex-fiance. That’s too much to handle in this post, so please feel free to address his temperament and anything else. Certainly, if I’ve missed anything else, I’d be more than happy to learn, but as far as I’m concerned, the only smoking gun, so far, is the one that George Zimmerman held in his hand on February 26, 2012.

Gun Power

There’s been plenty of talk around the blogs and forums of late about working out a plea deal. You know, why not let George Zimmerman plead guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter and get it over with? It would save the state of Florida a lot of money, and that’s what this was all about to begin with, right? Well, yes, it would save money but, no, it was not what the state had in mind at all. Well, maybe there’s one major detail, which I’ll explain later.

To begin with, I now agree with what former lead investigator Chris Serino said about the manslaughter charge. He actually knew what he was talking about, but before any of you throw racial darts my way, or missiles of any kind for any reason, you’d better keep an open mind and read the entire article or you’ll be spending some time left out in the cold during one of the most brutal summers on record.

Yeah, George, take the plea!

No, don’t!

Any way you look at it, if he is convicted of second-degree murder, it goes without saying that it would be a felony conviction. But what about manslaughter? Would it be a felony or a misdemeanor if he’s convicted of that instead? Murder is a piece of cake to explain. It means that malice aforethought must be present, whereas in manslaughter, it’s absent. Absence of malice. OK, that’s easy enough to grasp, but what makes it a misdemeanor or felony?

Involuntary manslaughter means causing the death of another person without intent. Generally speaking, it’s caused by an improper use of reasonable care while carrying out a lawful act, or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony. Let’s say drag racing with your car that results in a homicide. You took an unreasonable and high-degree of risk and that’s considered criminally negligent manslaughter. On the other hand, let’s say you’re chopping down a tree and accidentally hit someone with the ax — killing him — there’s nothing criminal about it. In many states, depending on the degree of involuntary manslaughter, it could be a misdemeanor or a felony.

In the case of voluntary manslaughter, we’re talking about an intentional killing that’s accompanied by added circumstances that mitigate the killing, not excuse it. In its most common form, it occurs when a person is provoked to commit the homicide. This is felony manslaughter, and it goes to the very heart of the Trayvon Martin shooting death, whether it’s considered manslaughter or second-degree murder. Either way, if George Zimmerman is convicted, it will be a felony conviction. Interestingly, the Orlando Sentinel reported that the paperwork originally sent to prosecutors stated that there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. The Sentinel article went on to say that it “was signed by lead Investigator Chris Serino and his boss, then-Sgt. Randy Smith, but it was the department’s official position and had the support of [former Sanford police Chief Bill Lee Jr.] said Capt. Bob O’Connor, who oversees the department’s major-crimes division and also was part of the investigation.”

Well, what’s all this hubbub about manslaughter or murder? Why is the public split on it? I mean those in the Martin camp. You see, it really doesn’t matter and that’s why some attorneys believe the state overcharged. Of course, that major detail I said I’d explain later could be as simple as getting him to plead to something — PLEAD DOWN — but it’s not. It can’t be.

You see, back in the late 1990s, George Bush’s younger brother, Jeb, was governor of the great state of Florida. He pushed through a law, Florida Statutes, Section 775.087 (2)-(4), that became effective on July 1, 1999. What was it, you ask, that could have come from a conservative, gun-respecting, NRA-allied Republican; the same Jeb Bush who signed SB 436, better known as “Stand Your Ground” into law in 2005?

Why… the legislation enacted his initiative providing mandatory sentences for felony convictions of crimes in which a gun was used. Plain and simple.

For pulling a gun during a crime, a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years is imposed. For certain felony crimes or attempted felonies, the 10 year mandatory sentence is authorized if the criminal possessed a gun (or destructive device). For firing the gun during a crime the mandatory minimum sentence is 20 years. For injuring or killing a victim by firing the gun during a crime, a mandatory minimum sentence from 25 years to life in prison is authorized. (See: Mandatory Sentences Under the 10-20-Life Law and Experts: Florida’s ‘10-20-Life’ empowers prosecutors but handcuffs judges, juries, defense attorneys)

So you see, forget about whether it’s second-degree murder or felony manslaughter because, either way, they are both felonies and if you are in Trayvon’s camp, all you want is a conviction. Stop worrying about a plea. The least Zimmerman could get would be 25-years. That sort of changes the perspective on Mark O’Mara now, doesn’t it? 

Through Paranoid Eyes (The Clincher)

And his own words that are nothing but lies

In the last post, I wrote about the inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s stories about what transpired the night of the shooting. The following 8 photos are video screen shots taken from his reenactment. Below it will be an overhead view of the location, according to George, of where the fight and gunshot took place.

Approximate area where Trayvon stood according to Zimmerman.

The above photos show George’s reenactment positions during the confrontation. I have several problems with that. One, where was Trayvon hiding? The sidewalk paths are open except for the spindly trees — certainly no place to hide. Two, Trayvon was positioned southeast of George, who said he was heading back to his vehicle. In order for this fight to have occurred where George said, it meant he would have had to go to Trayvon. If it was the other way around, the fight would have taken place where George stood, on the sidewalk heading west. The third problem with the scenario George gave was that Trayvon shouted out to him. I’m not a fighter, but common sense tells me that if I am going to surprise someone with a punch, I am not going to say a word beforehand, which would give my opponent a warning first. I’d hit him and then ask him why he was following me.

Do you understand the problem? George would have to have turned toward Trayvon and walked to him. That’s all there is to it. Of course, there’s one more thing that makes absolutely no sense at all, and one of the commenters, CherokeeNative, brought light to it last night, before I had a chance to put this post up. THIS IS THE CLINCHER. To those of you who don’t read the comments, you can see from the next image why there’s a major, major problem with George’s account of the events the night of February 26. Had George been walking back to his truck like he said he was, from east to west, then why was Trayvon’s body found much farther south?

George must have surprised Trayvon, and that means he was never walking back to his truck from checking house numbers, like he said in his reenactment. Nor was he ever asked by the dispatcher to do such a thing.

Witness points to spot where Trayvon died

George's Reenactment and other links

Some rather interesting information was published today. Until I can decipher it all, please add your links and discuss the day’s events here. I’m trying to make sense of it. We all are.