Yeah except that that judgment (the stand your ground determination) is the judge's. The same judge that Zimmerman just lied to. But we don't expect you Zimmerman defenders to know that.
If the court lets the evidence in, I agree with ak. It makes him look like an easy liar. His lawyer will argue it is more prejudicial than probative and asked to have it excluded. It will be an interesting call for the trial judge. if the hearing judge is the trial judge it would be very interesting.
haha. . . . zimmer and his wife , talking in code to siphon the sympathy money . lol , 377's twenty bucks donation is somewhere in that stash..
That money has been publicly known about for quite a long time. Why does it come up now? And if they recorded the passport discussion a month and a half ago, why is that just coming up now? If I were on the jury I would call this one strike against the prosecution. Sounds like it was their motion that got the judge to order Z back to custody.
As a general rule, anti-propensity doctrine prevents the prosecution from presenting evidence of a defendantâs "bad character" because our system of justice does not want a jury convicting a defendant for being a bad person when, in fact, he or she is on trial for some specific crime -- in this case murder. If prosecutors could present a case made against the "character" of the defendant they would be telling the jury that this is a person who should be punished irrespective of whether or not he was actually guilty of the alleged crime. What gets presented in the courtroom is up to the judge, but a character assassination that's not directly related to the commission of the crime probably will not see the light of day. If Zimmerman were charged with defrauding Martin, then a pattern of lies would be relevant; but in a murder case I doubt it.
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-credibility-could-issue-legal-case-070716310.html Zimmerman credibility could be issue in legal case SANFORD, Fla. (AP) â The credibility of Trayvon Martin's shooter could be an issue at trial after a judge said that George Zimmerman and his wife lied to the court about their finances to obtain a bond, legal experts say. That's because the case hinges on jurors believing his account of what happened the night the 19-year-old was killed. The questioning of Zimmerman's truthfulness by the judge on Friday could undermine the defendant's credibility if it is brought up at trial. It also may complicate how his defense presents him as a witness, said Orlando-area attorney Randy McCLean, who is a former prosecutor. "The other key witness, unfortunately is deceased," McClean said. "Basically, Zimmerman is going to be asking the jury to believe his version of the facts ... As the case stands now, his credibility is absolutely critical to the case." Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder for the February shooting. The neighborhood watch volunteer says he shot Martin in self-defense because the unarmed 17-year-old was beating him up after confronting Zimmerman about following him in a gated community outside Orlando. Witness accounts of the rainy night Martin was shot are spotty. There is no video of the fight, though photos prosecutors have released showed Zimmerman with wounds to his face and the back of his head. Zimmerman's credibility with the judge would be important if O'Mara tries to get a judge without the jury to dismiss the charges based on the law, said Orlando defense attorney David Hill. "If he was in on something that was not truthfully revealed to the judge, when there is a 'stand your ground' hearing, of course you're going to second-guess him," Hill said. Both McClean and Hill said O'Mara would be able to challenge the admissibility of the bond revocation at trial by questioning its relevance. Zimmerman was arrested 44 days after the killing, and during a bond hearing in April, his wife, Shellie, testified that the couple had limited funds available. The hearing also was notable because Zimmerman took the stand and apologized to Martin's parents. Prosecutors pointed out in their motion that Zimmerman had $135,000 available then. It had been raised from donations through a website he set up and they suggested more has been collected since and deposited in a bank account. Shellie Zimmerman was asked about the website at the hearing, but she said she didn't know how much money had been raised. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester set bail at $150,000. The 28-year-old was freed a few days later after posting $15,000 in cash â which is typical â and has since been in hiding. Prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda complained Friday, "This court was led to believe they didn't have a single penny. It was misleading and I don't know what words to use other than it was a blatant lie." The judge agreed and ordered Zimmerman returned to jail by Sunday afternoon. "Does your client get to sit there like a potted plant and lead the court down the primrose path? That's the issue," Lester said. "He can't sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods." The defense countered that Zimmerman and his wife never used the money for anything, which indicated "there was no deceit." His attorney, Mark O'Mara, said it wouldn't be a problem to bring Zimmerman back into custody by the deadline. The judge said he would schedule a hearing after Zimmerman is back in custody so he could explain himself. Police in Sanford did not immediately arrest Zimmerman, citing Florida's "stand your ground" law that gives wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat in a fight if people believe they are in danger of being killed or seriously injured. Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon Martin's parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, said his clients have always said Zimmerman should remain in jail until trial, which O'Mara said he believed wouldn't be until next year. Crump was asked if he thought that if Zimmerman would be willing to lie about his finances that he would be willing to lie about what happen the night Martin was killed. "We fully expect that the special prosecutor will make George Zimmerman's credibility be front and center in this entire case," Crump said. "And whatever dishonesty that comes forth by George Zimmerman that they can prove, you can best believe it will become the issue of this case." The revocation of Zimmerman's bond also puts pressure on O'Mara to not delay the trial, McClean said. "When your client is out on bond, the pressure is much lighter to rush to trial ... because your client is sitting at home," he said. "When your client is sitting at the Seminole County Jail, your client is going to want this resolved."
What makes me a defender of Zimmerman? Because I don't buy into the hype of people calling for his head without knowing Florida law? If this happened where I live there would be no case. The case is very interesting to me because of Stand Your Ground. Such a law was not around when I took crim law as a 1L. For me the notion of justice is out of the picture. I am unsusceptible to such delusion because I know how the sausage is made. The prosecution of this case is political and it looks to me the prosecutor overreached with murder 2. I'm interested to see how she gets out of this with her reputation intact. (If I were to predict and bet, my money would be on a hung jury and mistrial.) The issue with the bond is mostly a sideshow good for TV. It's comical that people are using the word "lie." Oh no, we don't want people to lie. LOL The defendant is represented by a lawyer. The lawyer will have an explanation for everything. The comment that the judge may not allow Stand Your Ground into the case is interesting. If that were to happen, all it would mean is that the defense would get a free shot at the case without it and if there's a conviction it will be appealed with a high likelihood of winning on appeal and a new trial being granted with the statute allowed in. Not saying it can't happen, but the judge has his reputation to protect as well.
That's the same reason the evidence regarding lying to the judge about finances will probably not be allowed. It's likely to be seen as prejudicial and grounds for appeal. The judge was pissed about being lied to and reacted accordingly at the hearing, but when the trial starts the possibility of appeal will loom large and the judge will make decisions based upon a different set of standards. The biggest problem, though, has nothing to do with any of these side show extravaganzas. The real issue is whether or not there's evidence under Florida law to prove "murder." So far, that's missing. A murder trial has "hung jury" written all over it. I expect the charges will be reduced to manslaughter before the trial begins.