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.

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