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 Soon after Zimmerman’s bond was revoked, he told Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning, “Judge Lester gave us all a very strong signal that he and he alone will run the courtroom and that everyone is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.

ZIMMERMAN: I'M SORRY, BUT IT WAS GOD'S PLAN

Statement from Martin Family:

GZ said that he does not regret getting out of his vehicle, he does not regret following Trayvon, in fact he does not regret anything he did that night. He wouldn’t do anything different and he concluded it was God’s plan.

Tracy Martin: We must worship a different God because there is no way that MY God would have wanted G. Zimmerman to KILL my teenage son.

§

Yes, George Zimmerman did say both, but not in that order. God came first — then the apology. Throughout the interview, he kept his eyes on the host, Sean Hannity, but when he was offered the opportunity to give his final thoughts with a minute or two left, he turned to face the camera, just like a seasoned politician. My fellow Americans… This dude is one smooth operator, but fortunately, he thinks more highly of himself and about what he did than most people’s perceptions. He’s good, but he’s no pro. Ironically, I do believe he and Mark O’Mara are reeling in the money after tonight’s performance because we live in a time when you can make a fortune off your dead victim. How sad.

I’ll tell you, while most reasonably sane people understood Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and what made them tick, their flock kept right on flocking and the dumb kept right on donating. The main difference between Zimmerman and Tammy Faye are the make-up and tears. Well, I think there’s another distinction and it’s an important one. Had Tammy Faye been around The Retreat at Twin Lakes that fateful February night, God rest her soul, she most likely would have marched right up to Trayvon and asked him what he was doing. She was a feisty one. She would have asked him to pray with her, too. Then, she would have asked for money. George, on the other hand… he just wimped out.

Hannity went easy on him. He could have asked questions about why Trayvon’s body was found farther south from where the confrontation took place, according to his account; how he managed to get the gun out of the holster upside down and fire directly (meaning straight) into the victim’s upper chest; and how the boy’s arms were tucked neatly under his body the way they fell, when he showed investigators during the reenactment how he spread them out and away from his sides. There have been so many inconsistencies in his stories but, like political interviews, I suppose, there will always be questions that remain off-limits. I understand — there’s a trial ahead — but I still believe that George Zimmerman will never, ever admit that what he did was wrong, and tonight he proved it. He said he was sorry about what happened, but quite absent was an apology for what he did; he got out of his vehicle with a loaded gun. Instead, he asked for apologies from Al Sharpton and Spike Lee for calling the shooting a racial crime.

PFFFFFT. As if he would ever be the one to say I’m sorry to.

Oh yes, he’s good, alright, but even after he clarified his ethnicity by saying he’s caucasian and Hispanic, he made it a point to call himself an American first; above and beyond. Well, Yankee Doodle Dandy, George, you sure do know how to touch the masses. I don’t think you’ll ever be president, but after tonight, I’m not quite sure how you feel about that.

(The interview was held today at an area hotel and there was no monetary payout according to both parties. Zimmerman denied ever knowing about “Stand Your Ground” prior to the incident, and neither Zimmerman or O’Mara solicited donations on the show.)

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? 

The Bond Conundrum

Judge Lester’s bond order regarding George Zimmerman will be released by the Seminole County Clerk of Courts today. Will it allow Zimmerman to be released or will it keep him in jail until the outcome of his trial? I don’t even consider Stand Your Ground a viable defense, so forget that.

In my opinion, the judge has an easy route to take. He can allow Zimmerman to be released on bond, but set that bond as high as $1,000,000 (or higher.) It would clearly take the onus off the court and lay it directly into Mark O’Mara’s lap. How, you say? It’s quite simple, actually. If Lester disallows bond, he may come across as a hard-nose — unbending and cold. On the other hand, if he grants bond, he could be perceived as having the wisdom of Solomon. I think he’s a shrewd intellectual. By washing his hands of it, Mark O’Mara would be left holding the cards. That means $100,000 will come out of Zimmerman’s bank account to free him. What does that mean? Would it cut into the defense team’s budget? Immensely! Will the defense come to a screeching halt? Will O’Mara try to convince Zimmerman to remain in jail so a proper defense can continue? There lays the conundrum. The money really belongs to Zimmerman. It would be his call to make.