Some, well, actually eight Treepers want the research on Mark O’Mara to stop. They include: Mwsomerset, bill, M4, Labrat, Stephaufla, ejarra, Sandy, raiikun, and CleaningMyGun specifically. Four more apparently think it is a waste of time, they include: CiGuy, Chirality, Risefrombelow and Freedom Patriot.
So in essence that’s twelve people who think O’Mara is a solid attorney for George Zimmerman. There are probably a few more unknown. Fair enough.
Question: Imagine we are at war. We are on an aircraft carrier and we have been told we are headed to battle. What good does it do for us to muster in the Combat Ops planning room preparing our plans for an island assault strategy when the captain of the ship is steaming forward in a different direction?
All the conversational planning in the world ain’t gonna help us when we arrive at a divergent destination than we anticipated. That’s why it’s kinda important to know exactly who is steering the ship, where it is headed, and what to expect. No?
To borrow a thought from Gretchen: Some here are willingly blinded by the luminescence of a “very experienced and competent criminal trial lawyer” a constant refrain among those who defend Mark O’Mara.
Mark O’Mara’s manifold errors have been exposed and blogged about here, in detail I might add, yet do not seem to make an impression. One must not look at the growing mountain of FACTS, but must seek to fixate on one thing or another that bolsters a particular viewpoint, apparently. (more)
“a very experienced and competent criminal trial lawyer”?
FACTS:
FACT – Mark O’Mara discussed the case with Mark Najame who recommended him to the Zimmerman family on April 9th.
FACT – Mark O’Mara was aware of GeorgeZimmerman.com on Tuesday April 10th.
FACT – Mark O’Mara officially took the case on Wed April 11th., the same day George was arrested. He told CNN “I intend to get up to speed quickly.”
FACT – In the time period between April 11th and April 23rd (When George left jail on bond) Mark O’Mara conducted 68 media interviews, held 5 pressers, and appeared on TV 42 different times. Yet did not have enough time to discuss the PayPal Defense Account with his client?
FACT – According to Mark O’Mara himself, every time Mark O’Mara has asked George Zimmerman a question he has been honest, direct and forthcoming in all his responses. So are we to accept that Mark O’Mara just didn’t ask the right questions, and still consider him….competent?
FACT – Mark O’Mara was responsible for prepping his client for the bond hearing. Including financial disclosure testimony. He is the attorney, he’s the professional. It’s his job. Yet, everyone blames George who never spoke a word about it.
FACT – Mark O’Mara was responsible for prepping his client’s wife for discussions of finances for the bond hearing and “indigency status,” Mark O’Mara was responsible to walk her through any conversation and assist her in answering questions. Yet, everyone blames Shellie.
OPINION – Mark O’Mara was solely responsible for positioning his client in a compromised status regarding the bond hearing by his failure to fully debrief and prepare.
FACT – After finding out about the PayPal money on April 26th (day after GZ bonded out) O’Mara could have filed an update/corrective motion with the court to notify and correct prior testimony and avoid perjury charge. He didn’t.
FACT – Mark O’Mara could have told Judge Lester right away about the discovered money. Instead he chose to go on CNN and tell Anderson Cooper 4/26. Lester found out from TV, and then O’Mara told him the following day 4/27. Priorities?
FACT – Mark O’Mara received the passport from GZ on April 26th, placed it in his briefcase planning to give to the prosecution along with the notification motion. He didn’t. Instead he kept custody of the Passport from April 26th through to June 1st and only notified the court of the issue after the prosecution used the passport to create the deceptive intent conspiracy theory, on the date of the bond revocation hearing June 1. Competent?
FACT – The media ran with the passport conspiracy theory 24/7 fueled by Scheme Team. O’Mara did what to diffuse? One, count it, o.n.e TV interview where he described the problem he created (see video).
FACT – Mark O’Mara never brought up his mistake at the second bond hearing and the deceptive passport issue was again considered by Judge Lester during his deliberations and ultimately his $1 million bond decision stemming from the 2nd bond hearing? Competent?
FACT – Mark O’Mara is a defense attorney representing a client claiming justified self-defense, yet he goes on TV and says that Stand Your Ground laws are “absurd”. If I am the prosecution I just wait ’til he has presented his case and then lead off my rebuttal with the video of him saying Stand Your Ground is Absurd ! That’s “Competent”?
FACT – On April 16th Mark O’Mara released the following media statement: “I look forward to having a conversation with [Trayvon Martin's mother] to see exactly what her feelings are on it. Obviously it was a horrible intersection of two young men’s lives and it ended in tragedy. We have to figure out how it happened, why it happened, and who might be responsible for it.” Advocate?
FACT - Mark O’Mara publicly tells the media that Shellie Zimmerman “lied“, and George “misrepresented himself to the court,” and now needs to have his “credibility rehabilitated.” The very credibility he is charged with guarding. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
FACT – On the day of the Bond Revocation Hearing the first O’Mara heard of the Jailhouse tapes was in the motion he received that morning. Legally he could have requested a continuance or delay in hearing due to prosecutions last-minute defense notification. He did not. He chose to put his clients at risk by being unprepared.
FACT – Mark O’Mara waived George’s right to a speedy trial.
FACT – The State has missed every statutory deadline for discovery, yet Mark O’Mara has never once called them out on it, asked the court to compel release, or even sounded as if he wants to get it with a sense of urgency.
FACT – Mark O’Mara spent $40,000 on paid expert witness testimony at the second bond hearing only to have the judge rule ” ”the presentation of evidence [...] is of limited relevance“… So his defenders say he did it for public opinion. How’d that work out?
FACT – Mark O’Mara says of the 911 calls: “the tape that has the person screaming for help”…. ”the person,” does he not believe the voice is George?
Opinion based on facts - Mark O’Mara is the cause of George Zimmerman losing his credibility in the eyes of the court. The only question is: Is it purposeful, or accidental?
If this is all on purpose then, well, GZ is screwed and he’s not a “very experienced and competent criminal trial lawyer”?
If it’s all accidental, well, GZ is still screwed and no-one should be spouting off about him being a “very experienced and competent criminal trial lawyer”?
And if he’s not a “very experienced and competent criminal trial lawyer”, then what the hell are people doing wanting him to stay on the case.?
What are those twelve people factually seeing that I am missing?
Through his own actions Mark O’Mara has specifically undercut his clients position and defense strategy, he has weakened his own defense, he has compromised his client, and quite frankly, publicly continues to talk in terms as if his client was guilty of a crime. Oh, and lets not forget it is now July 9th and not one time has Mark O’Mara EVER said his client is innocent, or not guilty. Not once. EVER.
Why for the love of God would anyone want to keep him on this case?
Typo: defense = state
FACT – The defense has missed every statutory deadline for discovery
Thanks. I fixed it.
ps. Far more people have caught on to the O’Mara issues than I think we recognize. Or at least far more dislike him and think him grossly incompetent that I thought.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2904067/posts
???
From your link:
…I heard O’Mara the other night on television begging and whining like a stucked pig that the state prosecutor hasn’t sent him a plea offer yet. He was asking over the aire where it was.
…
24 posted on Sunday, July 08, 2012 9:00:31 AM by Uncle Chip
Plea deal should not even be a part of the Zimmerman case, let alone coming across the lips of O’Mara. I think I also read somewhere that Don West was big on plea deals also. I read that when he was brought onto the case.
OTOH, I’ve read that Corey very rearly ever offers plea deals. She is zealous and wants convictions on whatever trumped up charges she brings against defendants.
If the state offers a plea wouldn’t that tend show their hand? Seriously, if AC/BDLR wanted him to plead to manslaughter with minimal time wouldn’t an offer like that show just how pathetic the state’s case is?
It should be the release of all the discovery evidence he is complaining about. George doesn’t need a plea deal; he needs the justice system to be concerned about justice and not concerned with covering their own rumps
I agree totally!
“Why for the love of God would anyone want to keep him on this case?” SD
I hope the love of God will compel George to remember all the hell he has been through. For someone who has ADD to be in solitary confinement for over a month, a million dollar bond with unimaginable restrictions, destroyed credibility, exposure of his family while there are death threats hanging on them, etc. Is this America we are living in?
My one concern is that if O’Mara knows about these threads, he could manipulate George in some way. His behavior with George seems paternalistic and condescending. George seems trusting and cooperative, but I hope he remembers his pain.
I hope some stronger personality or force comes through for George this week. George’s life is on the line here. It could get a lot worse, before it gets better, if he continues with that character.
I’ve never liked omamra from day 1 the first time George surrender omamra didn’t ask for bail that was a first in disliking him then when Sabrina admitted to the world it was a accident, omamra could have ran with it and didnt .I totally agree with you SD
Good point! When Sybrina *admitted* to the world it that she thought it *was* an accident I thought for sure MOM would say something…anything…but he did not. No one did. Well, Crump did. He made excuses and the people bought it. No questions asked. That was the my first inkling that MOM was just too soft to fight this the way it really needs to be fought. Since then there have been countless times my suspicions have been confirmed…Mom is just too passive and not the powerful force advocating his clients innocence as required in this shameless persecution of GZ. I have lost all faith in the judge (bias), MOM (incompetent) and our legal system (seriously flawed). Only GZ’s freedom will restore the latter.
+1
The day of the first bond hearing when O’Mara sat there and listen to the state question Shellie about the paypal account and O’Mara didn’t bother to lean over and ask Zimmerman what the heck were they talking about IMO that was the day O’Mara showed his true colors.
Yeah, O’Mara kinda seemed like a potted plant.
I need a link to the Omara interview about the plea offer statement. Can you help?
FACT: April 20 bond hearing testimony – BDLR cross of GZ after GZ’s apology
BDLR: Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you’ve done or their loss?
O’Mara: [no objection]
ZIMMERMAN: No sir.
BDLR: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested — I’m sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?
O’Mara: [no objection]
ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.
Thanks for the script John. I had tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in thinking that he was simply lazy or distracted, not paying attention, until he did the after interview, from his office, apologizing to the Martins for Zimmerman’s apology.
He said he wanted them to have “whatever” they wanted. What did that mean exactly? His head on a platter, all the money in the defense fund, all future earnings, rot in jail, work at their ranch as a slave in chains, what is “whatever?” How about they take some responsibility and apologize to George for what their son did to him.
It made me realize that Om had no objection because he really does believe GZ committed a crime, and all his subsequent 100 something media statements show that.
Good point John, guess mom is so confident in his competence he doesn’t think about an appeal.
Hi John,
I missed that. Each time, O’mara, should have jumped up and stated that George, “Commited NO CRIME”. To let that statement stand – sounds like the defense agrees that George COMMITTED A CRIME. This is gross incompetence. This flows from O’mara’s statement that, ‘…my client BELIEVES that he is innocent”. How can this guy be considered “Good”. The first two lawyers (that George did not hire) were far better.)
My question is given the Chris Serino call to GZ in late March confirming meeting with GZ with Jacksonville prosecutors (BDLR), why would any defense lawyer put GZ on the stand with exposure to cross-examination from BDLR?
Goes along with O’Mara’s statement that George is being charged with a crime he believes he did not commit.
That was the moment it became clear something was very wrong.
And his actions in court mesh with the above statement.
This is a Key fact, just the fact that the apology gave BDLR the opportunity to cross examine GZ.
Cross reference: Serino call to GZ 3/26 released in discovery.
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/statements/audio_interview_0326.mp3
O’MARA: …I didn`t know about the money. This wasn`t really discussed. I guess I`ll take some responsibility for not really vetting all of that through, but there was a lot else going on, … (CNN, April 27, 2012)
O’MARA: True. I’ll deal with that fallout if it’s there. I don’t think Judge Lester is going to believe that I misled him. I told him what I knew at the time, which is exactly what I was aware of….(CNN, April 26, 2012)
…On Rock Center with Brian Williams on Wednesday night [April 11th], O’Mara said: ‘Certainly self-defense seems to have presented itself as part of the one facet of the defense, and yes, the hold your ground statute, which sort of … authorizes or codifies the standard of self-defense in Florida is going to be one of the things that we’re going to look into.”
…When asked by reporters after Thursday’s [April 12th] hearing how many “Stand Your Ground” cases he has handled, O’Mara said: “Self-defense cases, which is really what you’re speaking of, a number of them. It shows up in a lot of personal crimes.”
“I have not had one to a jury since the ‘Stand Your Ground’ statute, but I’ve had a couple that have utilized that as … sort of an impact on it,” he added.
Impartiality is good for a Judge. Not good for a defense lawyer in a criminal case. They way the adversarial system is supposed to work is a knock down drag out in front of the Bar between the SA and Defense. The Judge is supposed to be the impartial referee on the bench. Is this the Rope a Dope defense?
There you go with those pesky facts again.
RE: FACT – On the day of the Bond Revocation Hearing the first O’Mara heard of the Jailhouse tapes was in the motion he received that morning. Legally he could have requested a continuance or delay in hearing due to prosecutions last-minute defense notification. He did not. He chose to put his clients at risk by being unprepared.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I could swear that MOM did ask for continuance and the judge denied the request. Anyone else remember that?
I remember something about the judge saying you will have to do it on the Fly.
Yes, MOM did ask for a continuance during the bond hearing. I figured that Sundance meant he didn’t file for some sort of continuance before the hearing, if that is even something that can be done.
I’m sure SD will clarify, but, the pros. filed the motion to increase GZ’s bail, or to revoke his bail at 8 in the morning. That’s when O’Mara got it also. There has got to be some sort of legal document O’Mara could/should have filed to delay the pros. request even before the hearing started. If he didn’t, I would think the judge believes he is ready to make a defense at the hearing. He wasn’t prepared except to ask the judge to delay on the ruling. The judge refused
The state always files motions when they ask the judge to rule on something. Does O’Mara simply believe in “ask and you shall receive”?
The worst part of that hearing is the judge was “required” to have GZ in the courtroom when he went as far as revoking his bail. GZ was likely out of state, barred from flying I’m sure, and had no ability to get to the hearing by 1 pm. O’Mara never brought that up. GZ was not required to speak out against his wife in the original bond hearing, yet O’Mara doesn’t bring that up either, but does a presser saying that SZ lied, and GZ was dishonest by omission.
SD you can add those to your list of “facts.” The judge by law could not revoke GZ’s bond without him being present, but he did. O’Mara, crickets.
Lester has to go
minpin says:
July 9, 2012 at 8:29 am
The worst part of that hearing is the judge was “required” to have GZ in the courtroom when he went as far as revoking his bail.
————————
Aren’t attorneys allowed to act “on their client’s behalf” or “in the client’s stead” or another term I’ve heard “by and through” their attorneys?
I know many people that do not attend hearings and let their attorney’s go for them. Was there something about this particular hearing where the judge was required to have George present in the courtroom when he revoked his bail?
Can anyone who knows about the law answer this question?
Yes I had the same understanding
sundancecracker,
Ya . . . spot on dude. George admonishing the court mom is representing him in and of itself did NOT generate that sh*t eatin’ grin on Nifong Jr’s face!
“FACT – Mark O’Mara waived George’s right to a speedy trial.” This one makes my blood boil, bothered me since he did it, just couldn’t wrap my mind around it. Till now. Speedy trial is waived when you have strong pre-trial business, mom did have. An immunity hearing. What happened? How can a competent, experienced defense attorney working in the best interest of his client not raise ‘stand your ground’? He can’t. George will be acquitted at trial for using justified lethal force, but that is an awful lot to go through unnecessarily! Sereno stated lethal force against Traymark was avoidable by George where was mom? That statement goes against the grain of the statute and the spirit of SYG, which is not the nature of the law, but merely it’s nickname. The nature of the law is no obligation to retreat in the face of danger. Sereno proved that is the case here by implying George was not fearful of Traymark ’cause he left his vehicle to observe and report. BS George was packin’ and that is exactly the reason the law exists, or at least it is in Arizona. A competent defense attorney and this case would be OVER!
One other thing. There is not one shred of evidence that the credit union records Nifong Jr. submitted where obtained legally and mom does nothing.
This case is a travesty, but it’s like a train wreck, I can’t look away! Thanks all for the enlightenment and God be with the Zimmermans.
Speedy trial was waived because there was not enough evidence against GZ yet. O’Mara needed time to construct the defensive position against George.
Everything O’Mara does is seemingly intended to weaken the defense.
For those that think this statement is wrong. Show me an action by O’Mara that has strengthened GZ defense.
Sundancecracker,
I disagree with your rationale for waiving speedy trial, IMO without enough evidence to convict the reasonable thing to do would be get to trial ASAP. However I am not a lawyer so I stipulate you are correct.
If mom would have propounded in a proper pre-trial motion the evidence he extracted from Gilbreath at the original bond hearing, then that would have strengthened George’s defense. Then again: If pigs had wings, then they could fly.
The point that I am trying to make is that mom has the ammo, he has the gun, but for no good reason he refuses to pull the trigger! If George behaved like mom he would probably be dead right now.
The facts that you have brought into the light shows reason for mom’s behavior. I hope and pray that George gets it and turns his sights on his enemy within.
Sir, you got it exactly right: Et Tu O’mara!
SD, please don’t take this the wrong way but I have to ask, how do we know GZ’s stand on SYG, and that he is not in agreement with MOM? I know what I would do, but I do support the law, when I was living in GA a neighbor lost his house because he shot a burglar in his home. The reason I ask is because is of GZ being democrat and his involvement with the NAACP and his comments about the police in general.
That is a good point, and if true does indeed reconcile the vast majority of the inconsistencies between what is in George’s best legal interests. I’ll have to think about that more and look at the interviews with his brother and his father again.
Assuming of course they represent the “intention” of what George would actually desire.
You could be on to something here. George might very well be requesting that Mark O’Mara do everything within his power to provide the very worst possible representation to insure his incarceration. That would certainly explain quite a bit.
Then again, that is also something people contributing their money to his unwanted defense should need to know.
Your theory would certainly reconcile every disparate element. Interesting.
Bravo!
I love your wit, but I’m not saying that he wants to go to jail, just that he might want to go a trial to be vindicated. IF he doesn’t approve of the law and wishes to have a trial because HE knows he is not guilty a jury verdict will be more satisfying. Perhaps I not explaining it well hope you understand where I’m going with this.
No, I gotcha, and I really am thinking you might be on to something. True – Not being Funny at all. Your comment is the ONLY comment EVER to reconcile all the inconsistencies. Therefore, applying Occam’s Razor, it could indeed be highly probable.
It really is a good theory.
To expound a little further, GZ’s father was a magistrate so he would have some knowledge as to the failings of his son’s attorney, yet they seem not concerned. If it was me even with my lack of knowledge of the court and I would have fired the attorney who proclaims publicly that I’m a lier, not to mention the total lack of advocacy in my support. Just saying.
Reminds of the move The Life Of Richard Gale
Sundance – You see the iceberg – Hit it straight on. It is too late… you have to aim right to the center of it and hit it as hard as you can.
Bill Whittle – The Titanic @ 34:20
“I try to pick the most challenging, the most difficult, and the most precedent-setting cases. Because I am somewhat insulated from the pressures of the courts and the bar, I also feel a responsibility to take on cases from which other lawyers might shy away.”
http://www.alandershowitz.com/faq.php
…other lawyers shy away from.
Sundance is it possible for You to email This Post – minus the comments to Alan Dershowitz?
Is there a way to view past court cases based on the attorney? It would be interesting to see how “experienced and competent” MOM really is.
DizzyMissL says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:11 am
Is there a way to view past court cases based on the attorney? It would be interesting to see how “experienced and competent” MOM really is.
————————
You might try looking at the Seminole County District Court public records site. Sometimes there is a place to enter the attorney bar card number and it pulls up all cases that he has tried. You can then see all the judgments/orders, events, settings, parties, etc. The family law cases won’t give you any images to view since those cases are considered confidential, but if he has tried other cases, you will be able to view those documents by just creating a screen name and password. Once you do, you can view all filings and court documents. If you don’t know his bar card number, look under Florida State Bar in Google and you should be able to get it from there. I know it works that way in some counties. Good luck.
Thanks. Do you have a link? I cannot find where I make a user name.
On one of yesterday’s threads a member posted a link to a blog about the 12 year old boy that corey crucified. It’s an extremely long blog and I’m sorry that I can’t remember who posted the link, but I found the “money quote” and posted it on that thread.
It was corey, in her own words, saying she never intended for that child to get life and that she *overcharged to get a plea bargain*.
Wish I knew how to search out my own posts here, but alas, I don’t.
If a member of admin can do that and post it here I think it is relevant to this thread.
This is what you’re looking for – posted by froggielegs.
The story of Cristian Fernandez
http://justice4juveniles.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/the-story-of-cristian-fernandez/
@cajunkelly: “It was corey, in her own words, saying she never intended for that child to get life and that she *overcharged to get a plea bargain*.”
Pretty standard prosecution tactic. It’s hardly unique to Corey.
Here’s the money quote:
Angela Corey told the press in October of 2011 that she never intended for Cristian to face life without parole. This statement was in contrast to her actions in that she sought two indictments that carried a mandatory penalty of life without parole if the defendant was convicted in court. She justified the statement by suggesting that a plea deal was always the ultimate goal. She failed to mention that she had brought excessive charges against the youth in an attempt to force him into accepting a plea.
Oh, and after the plea bargain was rejected, she came out with ANOTHER charge against the child, which to me, seemed outright revenge.
Remember. The State of Florida considers plea bargains a public benefit. For the common good.
I don’t get it. All lawyers even the sleaziest lawyers (guys that represent mafia kingpins) always have one thing in common. They always say their only purpose is the defense of their client. So now you are saying that Mark O’mara is the exception. If what you say is right, GZ agrees with O’mara 100%. He can fire him any time he wants.
bill (one of the 12 O’Mara supporters) – “If” what I say is right???
Does that mean factually I am lying? What exactly are you saying here?
Is O’Mara just an idiot making mistakes, or, is it intentional?
Hey you run a great web site, I enjoy it and I know you are not lying
And yet you don’t explain…
Here is a video regarding the 12 year old. Corey says she had no choice but to try him as an adult.
Angela Corey’s Penchant for Overcharging
One of the things judges make sure of is that the defendant understands the implications of the charges against him. There is no possible way a 12 year old understands the charges being brought against him. There is no way a 12 year old understands what is going on in the courtroom. Many adults don’t even understand what is going on in the courtroom.
Now that we have the media frenzy about the Zimmerman case, the focus has been taken away from Corey’s egregious actions with the Fernandez case. Fernandez truly is a child, unlike TM the gangsta thug.
On June 25, 2012, the USSC ruled that mandatory lwop for juveniles is unconstitutional.
Thanks chopp, I forgot about that ruling. Corey’s actions though in desiring to charge a 12 year old with 1st degree pre-mediated murder, when he was 12 years old, shows the depraved mind that Corey is functioning with.
Some one want to help me see how this video and the Angela Corey V. 12 year old has to do with Mark O’Mara dropping the ball either intentionally or unintentionally ?
OMara is up against the devil personified in Corey.
Tell me what you need, SD. I will do my best.
Employing high priced corporate attorneys above O’Mara’s pay grade and private detectives who are former FBI and US Marshals is something I have done. Therefore I have a perspective about lawyers and investigators being any good or not. A client / employer should get what they pay for
reasonably expecting professional quality services from professionals. O’Mara isn’t worth his fee. He has shown damaging incompetence in court and out. So it is like GZ and father must be hypnotized to let this “dandy” represent GZ in busioness so serious. Waiving speedy trial was strategically unwise to do at an early stage. Smarter strategy is to let that speedy trial statutory limit run absent demand even if a waiver is contemplated being filed later, because not waiving early keeps the state motivated to complete discovery in a timely manner knowing that absent waiver the time clock is running. A waiver can be made at the eleventh hour if the defense needs more time, but why tell the state early there is no particular hurry, so they just take their sweet time, it is counterintuitive. Also you can be sure a CPA keeps the office books for O’Mara because he wants his own house in order for taxes or to have accurate records and statements of finances for other purposes. So DUH, it is a no brainer that substantive financial business involving firm assets or a client’s assets are each important to be documented accurately and not be made a subject of twenty questions at a hearing where the lawyer is unprepared to the point of not knowing required figures while his clients butts are on the line to provide accurate account information. Banks print out statements upon request if someone has the presence of mind to ask for those statements when they are needed. This sort of omission is straight up professional malpractice being excused by frankly implausible deniability extended by a biased court presuming that clients of O’Mara must have deceived their counsel since O’Mara is such a fine lawyer in the Court’s “unbiased” collegiate fraternity brother good ole boy reciprocity protocol, where it just could not be posssible that O’Mara is not worth a crap as a lawyer, which would explain the paypal account debacle and a lot of other things that add up no other way than that O’Mara is out of his league with this case and is not providing capable representation and has in fact hurt his own client. George Zimmerman is in effect facing two prosecutors and one of them is pretending to be his defense attorney. It is George Zimmerman’s constitutional right to have a real lawyer EFFECTIVELY defending him, not a pretender who is a trojan horse and shill of the State. If I hired an attorney who put my wife in the predicament that O’Mara orchestrated, being sued by me would be the least of that mans worries. We heard the story that O’Mara was “deceived” by his client. However, because due diligence by the attorney would have required copies of current statements to provide a verified financial disclosure for a formal inquiry where such verified information is needed, the story that O’Mara was deceived by his client is not a credible story for me but is transparent and incredible deliberate propaganda disinformation.
+1
To attempt to blame OMara for his failure to ask GZ for bank statements just makes no sense at all unless you are trying to make the case that GZ is untrustworthy. Somewhere that “incompetent” attorney got the idea that the Zimmermans were indignant – as in, had no money. Sorry but OMara did not just make that assumption. I have zero doubt that he had conversation with GZ to the effect that GZ had no money, nor did he have rich relatives who could or would cover for him. payment of fees is covered when an attorney is hired.
Now to give the Zimmermans benefit of the doubt, I am happy to accept on assumption that when that conversation occurred, it was the truth. And rest assured, there was more than just conversation that occurred. When OMara took the case, there was a contract signed, his fees discussed, downpayment normally due, etc. So we know OMara agreed to work pro bono. So then GZ was locked up when the funds started coming in. GZ s brother was managing. Suddenly at one point, there was money. A significant amount there is no, as in zero, argument that when the Zimmermans went into court, facts had changed. In fact, there is indisputable evidence that they both knew of that material change in their financial state 6 days before that trial. GZ should have told OMara. There is just no getting away from that fact.
Be gracious, give GZ the benefit of a doubt. The problem is that there was also issue of a second passport. Again, the evidence is clear that both George and Shelley knew about it and the fact it wasn’t turned in at the time of the hearing.
The fact that GZ surrendered that 2nd passport and told OMara about the funds any number of x days later, does not change the fact that GZ knowingly let his lawyer present two falsehoods to the court.
Really messed up to try and put the blame onto OMara or anyone else. And from what I have seen, George isn’t. It is people on this board doing it. Just like the Martins, you are not facing the facts before you but rather are trying to script your narrative into what you want to believe.
O’Mara Of Nazareth Follower says:
….
Exactly. Of course it doesn’t. O’Mara is filing the petition for “financial indigency status” with the court, what right do people have expecting O’Mara to ask questions about money?
C’Mon let’s get real here. George Zimmerman is the professional criminal, he knows his way in and out of the court system. He was hunting that little black kid for another notch on his belt. He knows the law like the back of his hand, and he knows just how to manipulate that young innocent inexperienced lawyer he hired to insure his own demise.
What right Do people have expecting O’Mara of Nazareth to walk on water, or be all lawyerly and stuff, c’mon, motions, petitions, courtrooms, judges and stuff,. How unfair to expect him to be in charge of all that stuff, that’s George the black hunter’s job…….. sheeesh.
Omara was told about the paypal account prior to the bond hearing.
Maybe I could be more gullibly “gracious” if I just fell off the cabbage truck, sorry i was born one day but not just yesterday. The withdrawal of the former attorneys of GZ was public and the circumstances would have to be of some interest to O’Mara unless he was wilfully ignorant. O’Mara knew about the paypal account, and should not have gone to court unprepared and walked his client and his clients wife into a predicament which is precisely what that screwup did. It was not just unprofessional it was incompetent to the point of professional malpractice to do what O’Mara did, and to then compound the dumbass mistake that O’Mara made by blaming it on his clients instead of taking the heat for the mistake himself. O’Mara should be pilloried for the quality of advocacy he has provided. I observed early on if he was pro bono then maybe it proves a person gets what they pay for because GZ sure as heel isn’t getting much for his money except being led like a lamb to the slaughter and his wife and family with him. This kind of case is the big league hardball kind of game not tee ball for pee wees. The woods in which GZ finds himself are where the big dogs eat, and GZ needs a Rottweiller not a Yorkie covering his six. Is there anything about what I just said you don’t understand ?
Here is the video for where the former attorneys withdrew. O’Mara knew his client had gone flaky and O’Mara knew there was reason to look at the paypal account to have an accurate figure if it was going to be an issue at the bond hearing, and this was a no brainer for any lawyer worth his salt. O’Mara isn’t and how much prrof anyone needs for that is a mystery. This blown bond hearing was a huge screwup and there are other huge screwups that show O’Mara is a lightweight and a dandy. No wonder Corey was glad to have O’Mara on board. Chances are good that Corey and O’Mara are flip sides of the same coin that Lester the jester tumbles through his fingers while listening to the carpenters building the gallows for GZ. It is cheap theater. When the grand jury did not materialize the circus came to town instead and Corey and O’Mara are driving the wagon.
I think Alan M. Dershowitz should represent Zimmerman.
I understand Dersh isn’t a trial lawyer. That’s too bad.
from his website
http://www.alandershowitz.com/faq.php
“My primary focus is on teaching and writing. I accept very few legal cases each year and those I do accept are primarily appellate criminal cases.”
Theres always a possibility..,from AD website: http://www.alandershowitz.com/faq.php
“My primary focus is on teaching and writing. I accept very few legal cases each year and those I do accept are primarily appellate criminal cases.”
This case will likely end up in Federal District Court. Florida is already way too deep into some real violation of due process issues involving the way the case has been mishandled by state actors for it not to end up in federal court. If Florida respected the rights of U.S. citizens and its legal processes were consistent with federal law then grievances would not be created by the state which end up in federal court. To me it looks inevitable this case will probably be going to federal court.. It will unfortunately take years to get to that point where problems the state has created can be resolved by a federal court. It is a shame really the way Florida seems so out of touch with federal law as applies to due process rights and other basic constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, like there are not minimum standards which must be *understood* and honored, when actually there are. This is one of the negatives about having elected local judges because truly unqualified persons can get to be judges as a result of politics and then they function as judges even though they do not actually have the legal knowledge to properly do the job for which they were elected, even if they are honestly trying, they simply do not know how. Pity the poor fellow that ends up in front of one of those sort of judges. They may have been great lawyers but are not competent judges.
I just PRAY REALLY HARD and A LOT, for GZ and that he does not get talked into taking a plea of ANY SORT!
I shall agree with you in that prayer ArkansasMimi. As Jesus said, if two of you are agreed on earth as to doing anything, I will be in the midst of you, and do whatever you ask of me.
I remember the scripture, not its location, but, I have experience that the prayer of agreeing together on something, has always been quite powerful in removing obstacles.
End up in federal court. Please cite. I’m seriously doubting a state criminal offense can be tried in a federal district court
Unlawful acts done under the color of authority which violate the federally guaranteed constitutional rights of citizens are qualified for injunctive and other relief under 42 USC 1983. Violations of due process are qualified for relief and due process has definitely been violated. The prejudicial language in the bond order and use of prejudicial language against GZ in other official proceedings violates the constitutional right of GZ to a fair and impartial adversarial process and is unlawful and is actionable in federal court. Malicious prosecution is also actionable. The failure to use a grand jury in an infamous case is something which may also be actionable. The state criminal offense does not simply “go away” but what does happen is the state has to do everyhting over again and ethically conduct the due process according to law instead of making up the rules as they go along. Damages are awarded that are often many millions of dollars, and generally such issues do not arise when the state had a valid case in the frist place so the state generally drops the matter. In some cases the federal court may assume jurisdiction and rule according to state law that is consistent with federal law and dispose of the case itself. Federal courts don’t “babysit” state courts every step of the way, but tend to decisively clean up the messes where a citizen has been run over roughshod and has nowhere else to go but to the federal courts to get a state run amuck off their back.
I never liked the apology….. when GZ got on the stand and said he was sorry for the loss of the Martin’s son. Of course that was going to backfire.
I didn’t like O’Mara telling everyone GZ “deceived” the court. O’Mara should have taken the blame for that.
I don’t like how O’Mara keeps referring to the up coming trial….. as if he has little confidence the SYG hearing will go his way which would eliminate a trial.
I did like the cross of the investigator at the first bond hearing. O’Mara got him to admit he didn’t know of any evidence that contradicted GZ’s story.
I’m not used to seeing a lawyer this passive about the innocence of his client in a high profile case when doing interviews.
I like alot of your points. I’m not a strong MOM advocate but I found the last half of this article interesting
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2012/07/george-zimmerman-his-attorney-is-ultimate-professional.html
“O’Mara is “the ultimate professional” who realizes “there are far-reaching consequences to the questions in this case and to a jury’s verdict.”
Is shaeffer a friend of MOM?
I had big issue with apology and why would omara allow George to get on stand & say that. That’s something saved for allocation. Did he think by saying he was sorry was going to change the direction of how his situation is or the Martin family & their supporters minds of George’s intent that night? It just opened up a can of worms for George for more issues such as TM age and why apologize at this point in time unless you are guilty as charged?
Why did Christ not defend himself when bought before Pontius Pilate? Why do I feel alone in grasping that George is a Christian?
I’ve always wondered if the apology was George’s idea or O’Mara’s. It was surprised at that development. O’Mara offered to have George make a statement to the judge in the second bond hearing but the judge declined that breach of proceedure in not letting the state cross examine. I wonder what he’d have said.
I was wondering about the “apology” myself. It was very well worded whoever done it. Conveyed sympathy, but did not say “I am sorry for what I’ve done”…Of course, everybody took it as an “I’m sorry, it was my fault”….but he did not say that.
If I remember correctly the apology on the stand was not the original plan, he had contacted TM’s parents to apologize privately but they refused.
I think it was very good hearted of him to express condolences to the people who hate him most. Took a lot of guts. And I bet they didn’t care to hear anything from him, but he did it, and I give him a lot of credit for that. Shackled up like an animal, standing tall like a man.
Ya know, at trial Don West is going to take a majority of the time in the courtroom, hes the one that will win it. I dont know what to think about O’Mara, but lets not forget he also kinda shoved the Judges words in his face and set up this mini trial production just to stick it to the Judge about his term “strong evidence” Just because hes not in your face acting like an ahole like Gloria Allred means nothing at this point. He has a calm meticulating manor about him and he really gets you without you even knowing it, just wait and be calm.
I’ve been wondering about Don West’s role. He’s been in the background except for a brief interview of a witness at the second bond hearing. I don’t know anything about him but I suspect he’s going to be a complement to MOM’s low key style. I think he might be the aggressive one if this goes to trial (likely).
“Four more apparently think it is a waste of time, they include: CiGuy, Chirality, Risefrombelow and Freedom Patriot.”
I don’t mind research. It’s a good thing and as has been shown by previous blog posts it can be very revealing. I just think people that believe MOM has some agenda other than his client’s interests, or that he’s part of a conspiracy, is looking at the research through the eyes of conspiracy theorist. People want GZ to be free. They know it’s about politics and agendas. Me, personally, I want someone who I believe is a good man and was doing his best to help others and was brutally attacked because of it, to stop being railroaded. I don’t give a crap about Obama. I don’t give a crap about liberal or conservative agendas. I care about what’s being done to GZ.
Just for the sake of clarity, when you said, “Me, personally, I want someone who I believe is a good man and was doing his best to help others and was brutally attacked because of it, to stop being railroaded,” do you mean George or MOM?
No he meant sundancer. just kidding
I meant George and I think MOM is doing a good job. Remember, he got the State to admit they had no evidence GZ wasn’t going back to the truck, that they have no evidence who attacked first, during the first bond hearing. Undermining the State’s entire case just days after he took the case.
The only problem I see is that I think he did that entirely on accident and will never even use that to his advantage. If we are going to be honest, it really doesn’t take much to poke huge holes in this case because there isn’t really a case. So, O’Mara could almost win this purely on accident.
So, regarding the actual substance of the post and not your feelings.
Is Mark O’Mara grossly incompetent and making mistakes, or, is this intentional?
The mistakes by Omara are glaring but is it intentional? I think thats why people are here…. To get the truth – thats why I started coming here. I am still waiting for the other shoe to drop to see.
No OMara is not incompetent. His
client just keeps sabotaging himself making it difficult to represent him.
I knew it…. I just knew it…. I knew it was George who told O’Mara to keep that damned passport in his briefcase for 5 weeks. I knew it was George who told O’Mara not to file a motion of discovery. I knew it was George’s idea to demand O’Mara say Stand Your Ground was “absurd”. I knew it was George who refused to answer O’Mara’s questions about his finances… I knew it was George who forced O’Mara to buy that darned property next door…. I knew it was George who forced O’Mara to go on all those TV shows and media interviews instead of organizing his defense and talking one-on-one with George. I knew it was George who demanded O’Mara NEVER proclaim his innocence. I knew it….
I knew it was George demanding O’Mara immediately leave the jail when O’Mara was pleading with George to talk to him about the case.
I knew it.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Might I say ROFL at GZ sabotaging himself so he would never see daylight again? I love you, SD (in a Treehouse way, of course).
omg, SD is on a roll tonight…cracking me the heck up!!! LMAO
@Susiejoe you should change your nick to Snowjob
It’s not a conspiracy theory just because one believes players in courts have hidden agendas. Go into any room to a meeting, and you’ll find hidden agendas lurking behind many. The concern that OMara has tried to act like an impartial lawyer while Lester behaves like a partial judge has got to be concerning. Ask every one of those 4 dissenting Supreme Justices and they’ll tell you Roberts threw the decision for some reason. Is that a conspiracy theory by the 4 judges? Roberts behaved oddly. Lester doesn’t behave like an impartial judge. Omara doesn’t behave like an attorney after the best for his client. It’s too concerned by how circumstances look to CNN and their viewers. That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s pointing out odd behavior. That’s asking why? What’s going on with Omara? The lawyer’s got to hit it out if the ball park every chance he gets. The jobs not done after one bond hearing. Tomorrows another day, another chance to make a win. 1 out of 3 wins, and 2 failures for the client is not a good batting average. I don’t dislike Omara, but come on, it’s not a popularity contest. At this point seeing what crummy parents Sybil (who abandon TM to a step mom 15 years ago and father who can’t be bothered to find his son until he had to leave town to next day, why should Omara be so sensitive to what the two jerk parents think? Corey is an unstable psychopath lacking clear thinking. You can bet if it was Dershowitz who stepped into that courthouse, Corey wouldn’t be duping delight in her face.
ditto what MCBAIN says…..+1000
I’ve said this before and am saying it again: The biggest mistake we can make is undermining GZ’s defense by attacking those that are defending him. No evidence supports that GZ is guilty of murder and all evidence either supports or doesn’t contradict it was self-defense. No evidence supports MOM has any other goal than the defense of his client. Leave the imaginative conspiracy theories to Team Crump. Let the facts free GZ.
What conspiracy theories are you referring to? Bringing facts to light can only aid in getting to the truth, and hopefully, a good outcome for George.
Attempts to defend Mark O’Mara by accusing others of “imaginative conspiracy theories” certainly doesn’t aid George. Let the facts come out, argue for or against them, but don’t try to belittle others because you don’t agree with them. Argue the facts.
“They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.” — Gerald Massey
“The biggest mistake we can make is undermining GZ’s defense by attacking those that are defending him.”
There you go again with the hall monitoring Rise. Please refrain from including what “we” all must do, believe, think, etc. Most here are really capable of thinking for themselves with out being lead by anyone on what positions they must take/believe.
I ask you again for clarification- do you believe that GZ is qualified/eligible for a SYG hearing? I’m not asking for what you think may happen, but just simply do you believe he qualifies for a SYG hearing? If not, why not?
RiseFromBelow is one of the 12 disciples for O’Mara of Nazareth.
The logic in the comment is highly progressive thinking. “The biggest mistake we can make is undermining GZ’s defense by attacking those that are defending him”.
Mega-barf on the whole “we thing”…. communal thinker….. but, No, the biggest mistake we can make is ignore the attacks against GZ are being made by those who are supposed to be defending him.
As I said a few days ago SD, I am of the belief that many here that are strong cheerleaders for MOM, are actually here to undermine GZ. If they support an atty. that is both incompetent and/or complicit, it is a win for “Justice for Trayvon.” I really do believe that is their goal. Have you sensed any strong argument in favor of GZ, at least as strong as the arguments are for O’Mara. I don’t think so.
I especially make that comment about those that have not been here arguing/discussing/opining about the evidence as it was released. They were not here commenting when the wads of information was being written about the Scheme Tea. They have only entered the picture to shake their pom poms for MOM. Not all of them, but many of them.
I think MOM is great for this case and George is lucky to have him. He is so much better than the states lawyer. I have sat in the jury box at a murder trial and I will tell you every jury member mentioned how much they didn’t like a particular lawyer that we found to be rude and overly aggressive. MOM seems like someone you can trust.
And tell me, Rudy, did the jury members’ dislike for the lawyer sway their findings?
I really can’t tell you because it could have been subconsciously. I can tell you that there was very very little evidence in the case but the defendent had previously committed a violent act (armed robbery). It was somewhat of a high profile case in our area. The media called the guilty verdict a surprise. I voted in the minority bc there was so little evidence but I think jury members were sick of all the crime in our city. There was greater attention given to how the defendent might murder again if we let him go than the actual evidence that was presented. Jury members already felt like the defendent was a bad guy so when his lawyer was overly aggressive and started attacking people in court I don’t think it did him any favors.
Thanks for your reply. Based on what you said, the aggressive lawyer did not hurt his defendant. It was the jury then who felt sick of the city’s high crime rate, and felt the defendant might “murder again” (to quote you).
God help our “jury of your peers” system when jurors decide based on how much they like the atty. or the defendant. Why bother doing investigations of crimes, and wasting taxpayer money on collecting evidence. Just put the defendant on the stand and let the jurors have a conversation with them. The lawyer can go second.
It is not about making their judgement on which lawyer they liked or disliked. An attorney is the spokesman for the defendant. If the attorney is offensive, a jury will distrust what he says. Its that loss of credibility thing.
Yes, apparently juries are unable to divine between facts and so-called offensive deportment on the part of lawyers (IOW, fervent defense of the defendant).
Juries are instructed to make decisions based on the evidence, correct?
Really, what you are saying is that the court of public opinion is important…but only for MOM and not for George, hein?
Juries are composed of humans. Humans filter information through a lot of things, including their perception of the person conveying the information. If a jury doesn’t like an attorney, it can hurt the client. The bulldog approach can sometimes work, but it can blow up in your face, too.
I agree. We may not wish to acknowledge this, but it is a fact. Some jurors are going to try their best to be fair and evaluate facts, others are not even going to make an attempt. In the end, we humans all have filters we see the world through, and facts get distorted by those filters.
The public got Georgecharged with petitions, hundreds of thousands signatures. Assuming GZ does not get released on a SYG hearingby the judge, a jury will then make the determination. And yes, their decision will be a function of which attorneys they are more inclinedto believe which will be the ones they trust more.
Truth? It sets us free in Gods kingdom, not on earth. And if you want to find the truth, a court is one of the last places I would look.
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was a corrupt State Prosecutor.
Now I know it was all our fault. You know, the public and stuff.
Again, the court of public opinion is important for O’Mara, but not for George…other than the fact that he was charged with 2nd degree murder because of those petitions and all.
Lordy, make up your mind.
Question Rudy. You say the defendant was convicted of murder. You say you voted in the minority, and I take that to mean against a conviction of murder. I was of the impression that in order to convict someone of murder, the jury must be unanimous with the verdict decision in murder cases.
“He is so much better than the states lawyer.”
True, but LOL at your benchmark selection.
RUDY says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:00 am
MOM seems like someone you can trust.
————————
Actions speak louder than words Rudy. O’Mara’s cannot be trusted.
Rudy Says:
How? Specifically what has he done better? What appears trustworthy?
The thing that stands out to me is the stark difference between MOM at the first hearing and MOM lately( or since then). In that first hearing he came out and was aggressive and picked apart that affidavit but what has happened since then? Perhaps the death threats got to MOM. People react to these things differently and who knows whats going on behind the scenes with pressure from his wife or family regarding staying on the case. There definitely is a difference in demeanor and competence even.
Could also be pressure from DOJ, along the lines of “nice career you’ve got there, be a shame if something happened to it”. Or IRS, any of the Racist in Chief’s minions, being that Trayvon looks just like the RIC’s imaginary son.
+1
Good point Jasper regarding death threats against MOM. MOM did call 911 to report one of the threats. Now where is our AJ regarding the BPP threats?
He can’t bring himself to say his Client is Innocent.
He refuses to Advocate for him.
The Media representation has been nothing short of incompetence or malpractice.
The only time he has spoke with Passion – it was about some guy in some far away place reportedly creating Trayvon Targets for money.
I want to know if GZ has aleady been sacrified. I thought MOM’s on-air denunciations of his own client were way over-the-top and inexplicable.
.
“The only time he has spoke with Passion – it was about some guy in some far away place reportedly creating Trayvon Targets for money.”
The targets actually featured a faceless hoodie w/skittles silhouette and MOM wanted to make their sales a crime. Compare target seller’s advocacy with MOM advocacy:
In the ad, the seller states that “obviously we support Zimmerman and believe he is innocent and that he shot a thug.”
MOM: “I understand the law enforcement perceptive that this was avoidable — and quite honesty, in every life event or experience, we can go back to one of the premises and say had it not happened, had he not been going to the target store, had Trayvon Martin not been in the neighborhood had he not gotten out of his car,” O’Mara told NBC’s “Today” show Friday. “We have to deal with what did happen, and explain that properly and in a courtroom.”
An NFL Running back (Vikings) was arrested for not leaving a Bar after closing, he hired an attorney – and in 10 minutes CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Associated Press and on down the line was carrying his lawyers comments saying that the Running Back was actually the victim and he was mistreated and he was calling for Justice.
In 10 minutes he did what Mark O’Mara is incapable of doing.
O’Mara is letting the 11 yr old Trayvon pictures be cemeted into Juror’s heads – some of those peole (I’ve talked to some) are going to simply refuse to believe that sweet, young boy would have anything to do with a conflict of any kind.
.
Yea. Just like the whole world knew that Andrea Yates killed her children because she watched a TV show and was a religious fanatic with a chauvinistic husband who saw her as a baby factory.
And Tot Mom, Casey Anthony, didn’t get unanimous vote from her jury despite the most vicious press burning ever.
In the last bond hearing, OMara stated that T Martin’s death was the result of his own actions, and he presented evidence reflecting that GZ was innocent as charged. You guys are acting more and more like those which you profess to despise.
He throws a bone to George…
Oh snap…. He did.? You mean the Defense attorney actually did ‘a thing’ to defend his client? Wow, that changes everything right there….
Have you set the bar so low on expectations that when O’Mara does something that actually does defend his client, you consider it evidence of his wonderful capacity? And that one thing, or ten, that he actually does do, that he’s supposed to do, can then be leveraged to prove the hundreds of non-things actually don’t exist.
You are complimenting the janitor for emptying the ash trays into the over flowing trash can.
Well…. I guess there’s always that.
In all due respect SD, I’m reading and listening to your perspectives. And I respect them despite the fact I am not seeing all things the same as you are. I’m open and trying, but it just isn’t happening on the issue of OMara. And as I have reviewed it all today, many of your points are well taken but I still don’t see it. Rather I got more a picture of
OMara being an ambitious but decent lawyer. Super lawyer no but wanting to be. He wins nothing by throwing this case and everything by winning it. I find it a major leap to think that West quit his job to help blow this case. That being said, he certainly does not hold rank as the best out there, but I see he and West as wanting that status.
Now as revolting as the press has been in this case, it really is but typical of them. For most, they make their careers on ratings – number of readers and those commenting. I’ve noticed you as well have advertisements on your site. I’ve noticed too you have kids and a family which I hope you support. It is a different game than the legal system. OMara is a lawyer, not a public relations guy. Absolutely true he is not a Crump, nor a Corey. Nor does he play their games. Not the worst quality, nor what GZ needs. The only thing that will save GZ is the law. And the best lawyer he could have right now is one who respects it.
Now I cannot see what you think they should have done at that last hearing. GZ screwed him there. Gave the prosecution filet minot. GZ has done this from day one.
I also think waiving a speedy trial was to the wise. OMara has much to get that takes time and money number one being a different pathologist to reassess that autopsy. I also bet there was not a full tox report and that will take many months to get.
First any advertisments on this site are by wordpress, not me.
Second this ain’t about my family or me so WTF.
Lastly, George never did a damned thing in either Hearing. O’Mara did. Or maybe you miss that part.
GZ Screwed O’Mara ? How so..? Tick tock, tick tock…..
Touchy touchy SD. I don’t care about advertisement on your site. More power to you whatever it is. I really don’t care. The point is that you are human just like the rest of us. I question that you are losing touch with that and losing your perspective. I am not your enemy, nor GZs. Just an old crusty lady who thinks some need to chill out and refresh their perspectives I’m not arguing that you are wrong – most I am impressed with and actually agree with. But there is a track on OMara that im not seeing I rather suggest that some maybe getting to narrow in perspective and need to be careful of totalatogies.
YOU’D BETTER EXPLAIN THIS COMMENT RIGHT HERE WITH CRYSTAL CLARITY - You want to make this a personal thing.? Really?
No I really am not trying to make this personal at all. Only rather to remind that the players in this are human as we all are, including you. And as I tried learning more about OMara today sobtrying to grasp your perspevtive, I just found him to be another a human, and seemingly a decent one trying to make his way in life and support his family ( and dogs – his taking is to German
Shepards). I couldnt find any fault other than he has ambition and is trying to make his career. If any other faults, he has too much integrity and too much faith in the system. But those are
not the worst qualities a person
Could have. A Corey or Crump he is not.
Susiejoe said, “GZ screwed him there. Gave the prosecution filet minot. GZ has done this from day one.”
With all due respect, you are a prog troll. And you overreached. Progs always do in the end.
Wow, Susiejoe, it took him three months to hesitantly and hedgingly and softly whisper that, lets give him a medal. A true advocate of truth sounds like the Uhrig in the video I posted on top. Within a week of looking at evidence Uhrig summarizes and tells us the same thing, and keep in mind Uhrig was an add on, pro bono, to the Sonner team.
I am simply using Uhrig to compare to this “wow” about Om. I think we need to have a vision of what a true advocate sounds like, before we hand Om the brilliant lawyer medal.
Uhrig gives us that vision. Dershowitz gives us that vision. And the retired judge whose letter was posted here, gives us the vision, of what a true advocate sounds like. Om makes us feel like there are padlocks on our mouths, and the world will fall apart if we dare speak the truth about the Martin boy.
No thanks! Shout the truth from the rooftops and pronounce it proudly looking the judge straight in the eye, full of confidence.
Hal Uhrig is the kind of man who has grit and is ont afraid to stand up and speak up for what is right and call wrong what it is in plain language and publicly. He took personally and took personal exception with the railroading of both George Zimmerman and Bill Lee and he took that exception very publicly mincing now words about the injustice and the corruption responsible for it. He is the kind of warrior who could humiliate and shame the agitators and inciters and expose them in the evil which they are about. Hal Uhrig would play no politics with this business and “be nice” and accomodating to injustice to placate a racist mob. Looking at the mans resume he definitely knows the terrain. And he has been a lawyer for thirty-eight years.
http://www.defensegroup.com/general.php?category=Attorneys&headline=Hal+Uhrig
http://thegrio.com/2012/04/26/hal-uhrig-speaks-up-for-bill-lee-the-chief-who-released-his-former-client/
Bishop. I had no problem
Putting 2 and 2 together as to what happened and what TM was about – before I found this site.
What is with the glorification of Dershowitz? Aside from the fact he is a raging Marxist, He has attacked Corey for her affidavit but he has hardly ever advocated on GZs innocence. In fact, Dershowitz has not ever stood in defense of SYG or Zimmerman. Rather his has been about the overcharging and absence of evidence supporting the 2nd degree charge. He actually has said that it should have been a manslaughter charge.
Excuse me. Overcharging and intimidating into a plea bargin goes on all the time. Its the name of the game It is most (80-90 percent) of all criminal charges. Not just in Florida but all across this country. So thanks Dershowitz. Of course it is a violation of the fourth amendment. But what in the freak are manslaughter charges on GZ?
Excuse me. Look at the money involved in serious charges. 15k? 100k just for bond – non refundable. Memory tells me the duke lacrosse boys had 400k bonds – that’s 40k a piece, non refundable.
Then there are the legal bills. Oh yea. If you don’t have the money, declare indignant and the “state” pays. And then, who goes to court? Most plea bargin – little choice whether one is guilty or not, despite the outrageous costs and being bankrupted. And guilty or not, good luck finding a job ever again.
But the more outrageous fact is that most don’t go to jail – the court sets up a payment plan. So you stay out of jail by paying the “state” a monthly fee. well, if you were lucky enough to keep the job you had at the time.
Of course that is not everyone. 50 percent of criminals are drug addicts – many who can’t work and pay. Besides that, if they go into jail, they get free drugs – paid by the state. I’m serious. Prescription drugs so pharmacia can get their cut.
This situation is not simply about injustice to GZ. It is about the delporable state of our legal system that is nothing but a feeding trough for one of the biggest lobbyist groups in the country.
OMara or not. Walk down the street and fear the thug who will attack you and then fear your own legal system.
Sundance,
In reply to: What are those twelve people factually seeing that I am missing?
I wouldn’t call it: seeing what you do not. I would say that you give more weight to certain events than I do. I can’t speak for others. I see a difference between what happens in court vs. what happens in public. I’m sure you see there is a difference, as well. I give less weight to the public appearances than you do, I think. My opinion is that MOM goes to the public to give the voice of reason and calm minds and not much else. He understands that what he says in public is pointless in the courtroom. So, even though you would like, as a prosecutor, to use MOM’s words about SYG being absurd in court, you cannot. Sorry, but it is inadmissible.
As I’ve said before, there are a couple of things that MOM has done that I do not agree with, but I don’t think that they add up to some conspiracy of him working behind the scenes with some person, or group, in order to deliver GZ into the hands of the prosecution. That accusation is an accusation of a crime being committed. I don’t think you’re willing to say that yet. If you want to keep researching MOM to see what you can find, obviously your time is your own to pursue such endeavors. I just think your time could be better used.
As for your analogy about war, the Captain gives the orders on the ship and so you would follow them. It is likely that he has more information than you do. There is not going to be some pre-op meeting that occurs that will deter from what the Captain is doing or planning. If something like that occurred, you would be in the realm of a mutiny (punishable by death), insubordination by either the Captain (to his superiors) or crew (punishable by death in wartime), or sedition (punishable by death). This makes it a terrible analogy.
As it happens, I think there are many here that have more of a command of the information surrounding this case than does MOM. He’s quickly learning, it seems, though. He, on the other hand, has more of a command on the law and court procedure and etiquette. Some of the pronouncements on here show that there is an inadequate knowledge of the law and court procedures to make a rational, knowledgeable judgement about MOM’s actions in the courtroom.
My suggestion would be to focus on those we know are meaning GZ harm. If, through your research, you find something linking MOM to these people’s intentions, then please show it the light of day. Lawyers going to the same school or attending some of the same parties is not a link to the intentions. Jumping to conclusions based on those types of links is reckless.
“He understands that what he says in public is pointless in the courtroom.” Did you see Lester’s reaction to O’Mara giving him the photo’s of Trayvon at the 711? Even O’Mara, in that moment, appeared as worried about the how the Julison effect would play on even the judge’s perception. So that is a plus for O’Mara I’m sure you would say. Sundance has shown many negatives that have nothing to do with that aspect regarding O’Mara’s handling of this case. Have you addressed those other negatives?
I’ve not seen the video. Could you post it or link to it? I don’t follow everything that sundance puts out, so I’m sure I’ve missed quite a few things. What specifically are you referring to?
DiwataMan,
You don’t need to worry about the video. I decided to watch the majority of the bond hearing, instead. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, still. The photo was given to the clerk, it looks like. The clerk gives it to the judge. I missed any interaction you were talking about.
I don’t have video but I have audio. I was referring to what was said starting at 2:25:13 of the video below. But more to the point, Sundance has clearly gone beyond the media aspect in regards to O’Mara. He’s listed many things besides the media aspect and the conspiratorial aspect that are worth considering.
I see what you’re getting at, now. I would consider the admission of the 7/11 photo important, so the judge can see what Trayvon Martin looked like. It is relevant if the judge only had an idea based on media outlet portrayals.
As for sundance’s posts about MOM outside of the media, I would ask for specifics again. If I use the OP facts, there are only a few outside of the media to consider. They are mostly about the donations, notification of them, and prepping Shellie and/or George. Hindsight is obviously 20/20 and it is easy to say what one should or shouldn’t do after the fact. The reality at the time was that even the judge didn’t know if he had jurisdiction over the funds as they were donations and not normally acquired assets. In fact, the judge, in his latest bond order, calls them other people’s money. So, were they George’s assets that Shellie “lied” about or were they other people’s money? Interesting, no?
“As it happens, I think there are many here that have more of a command of the information surrounding this case than does MOM.”
IMHO: (1) I suspect that you are correct; and (2) I think it is a huge problem if O’Mara / West don’t have a better command of the information surrounding this case than anyone else on the planet.
John,
I don’t think he lacks command of the information in this case more than any person on the planet. I do think that people on this site have been very focused on this case for a longer time period and, as such, have a much greater command of the facts than the average person, probably more than the investigators working for the state and definitely more than the judge, as should be the case, at this point. I think MOM is getting up to speed quickly. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the state’s investigator squirm when he had to admit that he knew of nothing that refuted George’s claim of self-defense. I also watched with delight when MOM presented evidence that ended up with the judge admitting that his classification of the case being “strong” was done prematurely and with limited knowledge of the facts. These wins are huge.
Mr. O’Mara had an opportunity via the info about contact with state attorney and website from Uhrig/Sonner press conference to think outside the media box of what GZ was facing. But instead…
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2012/04/george-zimmerman-former-wkmg-analyst-mark-omara-is-his-new-lawyer.html
I’m missing the connection between my post and yours.
The link is a reminder that Mr O’Mara is/was a media legal analyst as well as a lawyer. He is not a babe in the woods so to speak. Which hat to wear?
Why yes, yes you are.
minpin,
Thanks for the condescension. Please enlighten me.
My post was about MOM getting up to speed and winning a couple important points in court, thus far. The reply was about MOM taking over the case and not utilizing Uhrig and Sonner’s website in order to craft an outside the box reply to the media. The two are not connected from what I can see. Would you care to offer something more substantive?
At the rate O’Mara is getting up to speed, GZ will have already served a 20 year sentence, and O’Mara will finally be up to speed.
If you can honestly say, with a straight face, that O’Mara is “getting up to speed quickly”, now just a few days short of three months into the case, that is a testament to your distorted views.
Think about what you’re saying for a second. The crux of many of the issues raised about O’Mara are in regards to events that transpired in April. What happened in the last bond hearing in June that you disagree with? What mistakes were made? What in the last month or two has happened that makes you think he is not getting up to speed?
What mistakes were made? What in the last month or two has happened that makes you think he is not getting up to speed?
I’ll just stick to last TWO WEEKS.
June 29th. Failure to reitterate to the court that O’Mara was in posession of passport from April 26th to June 1st and forgot he had it. Diffuse the deceptive narrative.
June 29th. Paying for professional witnesses the Judge states were/are irrelevent.
June 30th CNN interview “We have a reasonable case for a jury” (Jury? why Jury?)
July 2nd CNN interview “there was a person’s voice screaming for help on the tape” (A person? why “A person”, what’s wrong with “George”?)
Not one time – still – ever – a verbal statement that George is innocent – Not one time – Ever – Still. 3 months….. (((((crickets))))) Tick tock….. Tick Tock…..
“We will decide our defense based on financial contributions”… Really? That’s the way it rolls. The defense strategy is “dependent” on how much money is collected? Really?
April 20th George Zimmerman was indigent – Remember – yet no decisions based on finances proclaimed when he was broke….. Now….. “The defense strategy is dependent on how much money is collected”
Start there.
Which ones were paid witnesses, other than the financial dude?
sundance,
This tit for tat thing is going down the path that you expressed previously that you wanted to avoid, as you didn’t want the thread to be hijacked. Please note that I’ve previously acknowledged that MOM has made mistakes. Most of them are public appearances, events that transpired in April, or connected to events in April.
Your first issue in this post is because of something in April, yet you want it revisited in June for no good reason except that the public has a misconception. The judge had previously ruled that he didn’t consider the passport an issue, so bringing it up would not make sense. The judge went against his previous decision in his latest ruling, which could not be foreseen.
Your second issue is either calling witnesses, paying witnesses, or the fact that the judge ultimately deemed the witnesses irrelevant to his decision. I’m sure you know that if you call in professionals to testify, they do so for money, and I don’t expect you have an issue with that. So, your real issue is that the judge considered the testimony irrelevant. That is his prerogative and something unforeseen. I think the witness testimony was very important, but I’m not the judge. I would think you would have a problem with the judge on this one, not MOM.
The third issue is another media appearance. I’ve stated I don’t like his media appearances, but they ultimately mean jack squat. Remember the media appearance between the SPD and the Orlando Sentinel? They openly admitted that George’s claim could not be refuted. It didn’t matter, he was charged with 2nd degree murder. The same is true for any statements by lawyers or law enforcement to the media. What matters is what happens in court.
Ditto for your fourth issue.
In regards to your fifth issue, in the latest bond hearing O’Mara said: “He got shot and he was killed because of his own doing.” I know it wasn’t stated verbally to some media outlet, but where it mattered, in court, it was stated verbally.
Your last issue is a quote that I cannot find outside of this website. Please provide a link to the original citation if you wish to continue with this.
If you don’t wish to continue, I fully understand. This is a waste of time, except that my only intention is to sway you from the opinion that I am some hack for O’Mara or some other entity. I’ve read over your sight and I like almost everything you guys put out. This is really just one issue out of probably a hundred that we disagree on.
Agreed John G. And imagine that, we aren’t even the ones getting paid hundreds of dollars an hour to find the information. If O’Mara wanted to, and if he is just to tied up to spend the time on a proper investigation, all he needs to do is to assign someone in his office to read through the information posted here, and they will be properly up to snuff. It would be very easy for someone with legal knowledge to quickly go through what is valuable information, and read right by the fluff comments. Imagine that concept, his very own investigative team, and for free. I doubt he’s interested.
According to a recent thread, he was very interested. I believe sundance turned down the offer. I’m sure I’ll be corrected, if I am wrong.
CIGuy- I’m not talking about him coming here and having a conversation with us, or even to answer our questions, though that would be nice. The Treehouse doesn’t pay what CNN does though for his opinion or analysis, and to answer questions.
I’m quite sure, especially by the way I worded my post, that you know I meant that someone in MOM’s office, with legal knowledge, could scan this site on a daily basis or so, read past the fulff comments, and grab the valuable information from those here that would/should qualify as paid investigators. No one here is looking for money, many here are looking to try to prevent the railroading of an innocent man. GZ total freedom is the ultimate prize worth fighting for.
I’m not sure what MOM was interested in doing here at the tree. He never makes his motives very clear.
Or they could better spend their time looking at the actual evidence that will be actually used in court a/k/a doing their job. There might be *some* value to going through a website like this, but it is uncertain value at best. It’s also going to be very difficult to justify that kind of billing to a client “Read website about your case in hope that we might find something useful. 6.0 hours” Yeah, that looks real good to a client.
minpin,
I understood your point. The fact that an overture was made by O’Mara in the first place pretty much guarantees that he or someone in his office pays attention to this site. Do you disagree?
CicGuy (one of the 12 disciples for O’Mara of Nazareth) What about the points specific to the construct of courtroom defense I have outlined in the post? did you actually read the post?
Or are you a ‘skip the information and jump right to my opinion of the information I choose to skip sort of guy’?
If anyone knows the case better than O’Mara, well, um, that might be a problem, no?
So which is it – Is O’Mara mistake prone by accident and inability?, or, is O’Mara mistake prone on purpose.? Or, do you just, well, not see the mistakes?
sundance,
I enjoy your wit very much. I hope you keep it. I addressed a couple of the points in your original OP in a reply to DiwataMan. There is no reason to go point by point, as I’ve already stated that there are some issues I have with O’Mara’s handling of the case.
If there are people that know the case better than O’Mara when an SYG hearing occurs, then, yes, that would be a problem. At this stage, I fully expect for many people on this site to still know more than O’Mara, simply because of the amount of man hours devoted to it.
Your last remark offers a false choice. Is O’Mara mistake prone? I don’t think so. Has he made mistakes? Yes. Do those mistakes make him incompetent? Not yet and not by a long shot. Do these mistakes add up to a criminal conspiracy to hand deliver George to the prosecutor? Not in my opinion.
By the way, it’s CIGuy, not CicGuy. I assume you made a mistake and it wasn’t intentional.
Ah yes, “the voice of reason” and “calming minds”…so much more important than the truth.
So what, exactly, is “The Truth?” There’s only two people that know, and one of them is dead by the other’s hand. All there is at this point is a set of theories on what people think happened. I’m pretty confident that, in the end, Zimmerman will be cleared of the murder two charge, though it would not surprise me at all if it had to go all the way to trial for that to happen.
Why didn’t O’Mara hire a spin doctor like Julison? I mean O’Mara says some really dumb crap that get’s spun to look even worse;
@9:53 of the video in the article linked below
“In a fundraising appeal…O’Mara…called on supporters who also would have shot and killerd Trayvon Martin”
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/9/headlines/zimmerman_released_on_1m_bond
This man has no idea how to speak, lol, good grief, how about “if you believe in innocence till proven guilty please donate” or something like that.
The part you quote I think is from the writers of the articles. This is what O’Mara wrote:
O’Mara wrote in part: “For those who feel Mr. Zimmerman was justified in his actions, for those who feel they would do the same if they were in Mr. Zimmerman’s shoes … now is the time to show your support.”
You are right the wording of the writers at http://www.democracynow.org leaves much to be desired.
I also entirely agree O’Mara needs to hire a spin doctor to fight the scheme team. How much that would cost? It would be great to have someone on the FOX cable take this under their wings and publicize the travesties perpetrated against Zimmerman in this case.
I have mentioned this previously (didn’t use the term spin doctor) on several occasions. It was pointed out to me that donations were still coming in. My argument was that donations only seem to spike when a new crisis occurs. This case really needs a marketing expert to get the right info out and mainstreamed as well as to build a solid, routinely growing donation pool. This needs to be daily practice throughout the duration of the situation.
They don’t need to spend anymore of GZ’s money doing ludicruous research. People’s comments and words, including the silences and indifference speaks louder than words.
Within a few weeks George had $204,000 before he hired O’Mara. There is more publicity, but fewer donations, since people don’t want to invest in a bus that is about to fall from the cliff.
O’Mara said that the reception was warm on the donation site when they first put it up.
Warm! Luke warm, that’s exactly what Om is!
@DiwataMan: “Why didn’t O’Mara hire a spin doctor like Julison?”
Exactly how much money do you think Zimmerman has? There are a lot more important things to spend money on (investigators, depositions, experts, etc.) than on some sort of media consultant – and the only good ones are very expensive.
I vote to keep digging. Great points on why O’Mara should go.
GZ defense team has raised 36K since the judge gave him the second bond. The bus driver that got bullied raised over 600K within days. I think it is time for MOM to reach out to potential large donors. I know the NRA doesn’t want to have anything to do with this case but maybe some of it’s big donors will give. The state is going to spend MILLIONS on this case and throw everything they can at him so he needs to be in a position where he doesn’t have to worry about the available resources.
good vs. evil. the people saw that the kids were evil towards the bus aide. the public has yet to see the evil in Mr. Trayvon Martin attacking an innocent person.
The reason George’s defense funds have slowed to a trickle is because more people agree that O’Mara is the set up guy.
Look around the web for articles about O’Mara and read the comment sections. O’Mara’s gross incompetence is one of the reasons people will not support George financially any longer.
Pretty well played, huh?
Slowed to a trickle? I don’t think so. I think the estimate for donations totals around $300,000. Most of that was donated between March and April and before the bond hearing. That’s about 45 days and amounts to daily donations of around $6700 on average and at the most. The slowness of donations happened after the bond hearing and after George was granted bail. After being brought back in and given a higher bond amount, the defense fund grew by $36,000. $36,000 in 4 days is an average of $9000 a day. Summary: The slow down of donations had nothing to do with O’Mara being George’s lawyer.
Then how did George get $204,000 in two weeks with no public speeches or interviews.
Maybe about a $100,000 has come in, primarily due to crisis, in two months of Om. People believe in GZ, not Om!
GBishop,
Perhaps. But, such is the way with donations. People are gung ho and then it dies down. This is undeniable.
I think the cash flow was heavy at the onset because we were all witnessing a mounting and disturbingly effective campaign by the Crump camp to get their aims met vs. one guy (in this instance, I think using the term “the underdog” is appropriate) against what seemed like the world. I’m guessing that this jarred many, many people, for a variety of reasons (psychological, ideological, sympathetic, etc.) to give. I know I have mentioned previously using different words – crisis and philanthropy go hand in hand. Once the storm passes, a donation pool’s growth is dependent on the issue and how it is crafted/represented to the public. This takes work on the part of the keepers of the pool. Putting a hand out with weak statements is not enough. Making a donation is similar to making an investment. The distinction is that the payoff lies in the donor feeling like he or she made a positive difference. I’ve seen a comment or two regarding it being a bad move to bring someone on board, such as a media consultant, because it requires money that seems to be fast running out but it takes money to make money – whatever the endeavor. Raising awareness and tapping in to a set of beliefs is a necessary part of keeping the donation pool alive. It will not survive based on crisis mode. During crisis mode, people tend to give generously but then they just move on to the next crisis. That is not how NPOs survive and a legal defense fund shares similar principles to an NPO.
In the second bond hearing, BDLR at one point said “George Zimmerman chased Trayvon Martin that night” and there was no objection from the defense. The word “chased” is a total fabrication as well as a deliberate exaggeration designed to paint GZ as the aggressor. The facts show GZ “followed” TM. There is no evidence GZ “chased” TM whatsoever. That’s a huge difference. If this case goes to trial before a jury, will O’Mara allow the prosecution to get away with these outright lies?
I think “followed” might even be a stretch. Seems to me there’s a good chance that by the time George “followed” Trayvon, he couldn’t see him and didn’t know exactly where he went. In that case, he would have merely been moving in the general direction of where he last saw Trayvon…nothing more. Imo, that’s not even following.
YES, O’Mara will allow it.
He seems to have some sort of Guilt complex.
Prediction: Lester calls in both sides and tells them they better be protective of Dee Dee – and be mindful of her age and the Trauma she has gone through.
.
I am not donating anymore until a substantially different tac from the defense is evident. I have not donated so the O’mara can play games and dance his way through this and appease the prosecution. I want to see an aggressive fight to get charges dismissed or REAL SYG representation. It is absolutely ridiculous that things stand the way they do now considering all the things we DO know.
Hope you are reading this MOM.
100k for bond and 40k for an accountant…..140k poof…up in smoke.
$40,000 for the accountant ?? R U serious? WTF ??
$40,000 / $200 per hour = 200 hours / 8 hours = 25 days.
Where did you get those billable hours on the accountant?
@hdfb007: “I want to see an aggressive fight to get charges dismissed or REAL SYG representation. ”
So basically, to hell with whatever Zimmerman (the actual client and guy on trial) wants, right?
This is a press interview with O Mara when he first took the case. In it, he explains that he does not formulate an opinion as to guilt or innocence until ALL evidence is in. He also talks a bit more on SYG and states that there are some clauses in it that he has issues with. He says this case will definitely be a SYG case. He also states that this is his first to meet Mz. Corey.
What is with the constant appeals to “let the process work” and “this needs to be argued in a court”? That’s what I first criticized him on months ago. What is he trying to say? What is he trying to achieve with that? It’s like he absolutely naive to the fact that the Martin family from day one has vigorously worked every single day doing just what he despises and yet he never points that out, he doesn’t fight it. He needs a Ryan Julison and a mouthpiece like Crump in the media every day and O’Mara should just be working on the case. He can not fight this thing with his approach. That’s what the Sanford Police and Wolfinger tried and look where it got them.
DiwataMan,
I understand your point of going after those that have made this a media circus, but he is correct that this does need to be worked out through a legal process. Would it make sense to go after the Martin family, Crump, Julison, Jackson x 2, Shapton, etc. about duping the media to the media, themselves? Would that win any points with anyone besides us here?
It’s about principle. If Scott and Bondi stood behind the Sanford PD and Wolfinger instead of placating to Tracy Martin’s irrational racist conspiracy about a police cover up then we wouldn’t be here. The police and the prosecutors are part of the legal process, that process was working but not to the satisfaction of Tracy Martin and the black community.
You can’t fight that kind of public pressure with appeals to the process, you have to fight it turn for turn every day. That pressure is still on because of the potential for a SYG hearing. Look at what is said from team Crump-A-Dump and will be said in the following weeks/months, everything will relate to that.
To your point, the outrageous lies and distortions. TM was just sitting in the back porch (Brandie), he left during halftime of the game (brother thru Crump) , the picture of 12yr old TM, no injuries, 245 lbs the weight of GZ, to this day you go to some sites and this is what still people believe. The propaganda was allowed to circulate and it is still circulating, without some effective counter-balance.
Let them go out there and hang themselves with their own words. If O’Mara gives compelling argument in court and George wins his SYG hearing, these people will be liable for their actions, hopefully to the tune of millions of dollars.
Ci GUY States, “If O’Mara gives compelling argument in court and George wins his SYG hearing.” ……………………..The fact is GZ’s credibility has been reduced to ZERO and he will never win a SYG hearing. There will be a trial or plea deal so Crump and company can sue everyone for millions. Everyone gets huge bucks and GZ’s is screwed for life!
Credibility is one thing. Evidence is another. The defense simply has to get the judge to see that the prosecution doesn’t even have 50% of the evidence on their side.
It could greatly help sway public opinion in Georges favor. Right now public opinion is against George in the majority. I have a friend who did not follow the case at all, but she is aware of it. She is under the belief that George killed a young child, that he murdered him I tried to set her straight, but she was very resistant, she had her mind made up, what she had was no facts.
Public opinion matters not. The public is/are notoriously stupid. Given the media’s penchant for distorting the facts in this case and others, it is expected that the public remains uninformed, as usual.
Where is the jury coming from? Of course you are going to try to find impartial jurors, but it remains that negative influence can and has affected cases. In a case like this, this is more likely than not.
There are a handful of people that pay attention to this case as much as we do. The majority are interested in their evening shows or what their favorite celebrity is doing.
I am certainly not trying to be rude, but let me just point out the obvious flaw to your statement. “Public opinion matters not” is what you said. Here’s what O’mara says, “For those who have given in the past, for those who have thought about giving, for those who feel Mr. Zimmerman was justified in his actions, for those who feel they would do the same if they were in Mr. Zimmerman’s shoes, for those that think Mr. Zimmerman has been treated unfairly by the media, for those who feel Mr. Zimmerman has been falsely accused as a racist, for those who feel this case is an affront to their constitutional rights — now is the time to show your support.”
Do you suppose that if there was a PR campaign in favor of GZ, more folks might donate?? Because most people will not donate to a 245 lb, KKK member, white, racist child killer.
Good point.
Hey wait a minute… I’m the public
So’s she, and that guy over there, and the two people above you… 
Come to think of it aren’t you the public too?
No, sundance. I’m a person. The public is the mob. I, you, she, and the two above are individual persons who think for themselves. The public reacts. See the difference.
If we were still a nation operating under the rule of law, public opinion wouldn’t matter. But from the very top way down to the local municipal judges, we have a destructively high percentage of LEOs who no longer see the rule of law as a primary goal. Not all of them, obviously, but enough of them that the rule of law is no longer a given. That was one of the genius bits of DNA in this nation of ours when it was established. Too bad it’s not any more, because now it’s pretty much a gamble.
“Swaying public opinion” is one of the primary factors in mob rule which is why the Founders didn’t select a democracy as the form of government–we are a Republic Correction: were a Republic.
@DiwataMan: “What is with the constant appeals to “let the process work” and “this needs to be argued in a court”? ”
Pretty standard tactic for a high-profile, high-emotion case. Appeal for calm, profess trust in the jury system, etc. Defense attorney 101.
I think “let the process work” is an attempt to keep the native from getting restless
And?
He takes a case in which he does not (yet) believe his client is innocent?
He clearly states he has issues with SYG?
In the first three minutes, he says, “The prosecutor knows the evidence much better than I do right now. She’s professional…”
Wow.
He says, “We’re trying to work out the best way to keep this as calm as we can…”
Wow.
Responding to a reporter: “I know nothing more than you.”
Wow.
“I don’t think the prosecutor is going to try it before cameras, and I’m very glad to hear that.”
Uh, Trial-Before-Cameras-A-La-Crump. Crump is Corey’s proxy.
This is all in the first three mintues.
Really, that’s your defense of MOM?
Susiejoe, you says that in the video clip, MoM explains that he does not formulate an opinion as to guilt or innocence until ALL evidence is in. So…
(a) During his numerous media interviews, has MoM ever repeated the above explanation as to why he’s not publicly defending his client, so that interviewers and the general public understand why he’s STILL presenting a neutral aspect after MONTHS on the case? If this is the real explanation for his apparently tepid attitude, he needs to make sure that it’s repeated EVERY SINGLE TIME. (Of course, that’s no guarantee that what he says will actually be reported, but if he were savvy, he could weave it seamlessly into a sentence so that it couldn’t easily be edited out.)
(b) Would it break his jaw to say, “All the evidence that I’ve seen so far points STRONGLY to my client’s innocence”? After all, that still allows him to change his mind if compelling evidence against GZ surfaces later, and in the meanwhile, he’s letting people know that SO FAR he’s finding nothing but POSITIVES as far as his client is concerned.
(c) According to the latest reports on another thread here, MoM expects discovery to go on for another YEAR – 6 months for prosecution and 6 months for defense. So for another YEAR, he’s not prepared to go on record as believing his client is innocent? For another YEAR, he’s prepared to keep on giving interviews that will do NOTHING to counter the filthy lies spewed by the Scheme Team and in fact will actually STRENGTHEN the Scheme Team’s case in the eyes of many viewers/readers/potential jurors, who will say, “Well, heck, even his own lawyer doesn’t try to claim he’s innocent”? For another YEAR, MOM is content for GZ’s image to be publicly blackened while he does NOTHING to rehabilitate that image b/c he has no faith in his ability to judge a client’s character but is waiting until he’s read every last item of the paperwork before making up his mind?
Even if MoM finally reveals himself to be Superman instead of Clark Kent and has the jury in the palm of his hand (I seriously doubt that there’s a judge with enough guts not to kick this one down the road to a jury), by that point how many people will be capable of understanding that GZ really *was* innocent all along and wasn’t just saved at the last moment by a clever lawyer?
Yes, MoM has done some good things for GZ, and yes, there are many circumstances in life where strict-neutrality-until-all-the-evidence-is-in is an admirable attitude. But being a defense lawyer isn’t one of them.
Certainly keep digging, and pay no mind to convincing anyone in the thread, only one opinion matters, GZ. I don’t agree with your conclusions, why should that bother you?
I don’t care if you agree or disagree with me one bit, it is the behavior of the disciples for O’Mara of Nazareth I have to consider.
It can be a big issue when up and down the comment segments the same inane points are stated over, and over, and over, and over, and over, the thread becomes hijacked.
That’s the only part that captures my “bothered” sense.
Only GZ’s opinion matters? His opinion is important–but “the only one?” Good grief…doesn’t it matter what the opinions of Judge Lester are? What the opinions of former Inv. Serino are? What the opinions of Crump are? What the opinions of West and O’Mara are? To say that only GZ’s opinion matters is silly. He has probably been in very high agreement (his opinion) with 90% of what’s written here–for months. What good has it done him to “be convinced”–when the authorities of all types surrounding him are making decisions based on their opinions that are structuring and limiting his entire life at this point.
Just because GZ “agrees” (assuming he does) doesn’t solve a thing.
Only GZ’s opinion matters with respect to who his attorney is.
It seems to me that O’Mara’s goal is to ensure that Zimmerman receives a fair trial and is acquitted for acting in self defense. O’Mara also wants to tamp down the public rhetoric which is probably one reason he is not going on TV and declaring George is innocent and Trayvon is a little thug. It appears that others’ goals are, in addition to ensuring that Zimmerman is set free, is to ensure that the SYG law is not reversed or any anti-gun laws are enacted because of this case. Some also want to ensure that the TrayTeam does not make any additional money off of the death of Trayvon, which they would not be able to do if SYG law is used and Zimmerman is given immunity and it was determined that Travon caused his own death. Then there are others who want to continue the narrative that President Obama is some how orchestrating this case to ensure he is reelected. You also have an element of people who resented that blacks were capable of coming together and through their actions (right or wrong) caused this nation to sit up and take notice of the SYG law and the use of guns in general and even racism. Gun control, President Obama being reelected, blacks becoming empowered …these seem to be underlying themes when discussing the Zimmerman case. I doubt O’Mara worries about such things when trying to defend Zimmerman. He is more concerned with Zimmerman’s safety and providing a fair trial for him. At this point I am looking at what has happened thus far, Zimmerman is out of jail, the rethoric has been tamped down and this case is moving forward. I have accepted the possibility that there will be a trial (and no SYG immunity) because no one in Florida, including Lester, wants to be the single person who let Zimmerman walk…..they think it is better to let “the people”….aka the jury…..make that call. I happen to agree with that because of how political and polarizing this case has become. If y’all want to continue your search for looks, links, and relationships of all the parties involved in this case….knock yourselves out. If by these actions and “findings” you can convince Zimmerman to change lawyers (if he is reading this site)….that’s fine too. I came to this site because of the excellent research y’all did, especially on Trayvon. That was my biggest unanswered question….Why would Trayvon hit Zimmerman… and now I know.
Trayvon needs to be the focus. maybe they should abolish MMA, but don’t touch the right to bear arms or SYG.
@Lou da Jew: “Trayvon needs to be the focus.”
Not gonna happen in the criminal case – the focus is rightly on the guy who killed someone. Zimmerman only needs to show that he was justified in killing Traydmark, which shouldn’t be terribly difficult, but keep in mind, not all of the evidence is favorable to Zimmerman. O’Mara’s going to have to explain away the “fucking punks” and “they always get away” comments – evidence which suggests Zimmerman had a degree of aggression. That shouldn’t be enough to convict him, but it has to be dealt with.
They did always get away.
“I have accepted the possibility that there will be a trial (and no SYG immunity) because no one in Florida, including Lester, wants to be the single person who let Zimmerman walk…..they think it is better to let “the people”….aka the jury…..make that call. I happen to agree with that because of how political and polarizing this case has become”
So politics trumps the rule of law ?
In this case so far politics has trumped the rule of law. There’s really no doubt about that.
I think the goal right now is to have the charges dismissed, tossed, thrown out. stomped on, gotten rid of, shredded, and obliterated. Then no trial will be needed.
And once again, even if he is acquitted, that sets the stage for the civil lawsuits.
Depends upon what the verdict is – if the killing is ruled justified, good luck with any civil suit. Keep in mind also that more of Traydmark’s background will be admissible in the civil suit than in the criminal.
If the ruling is justifiable homicide that may or may not track. OJ won at the criminal trial but didn’t he lose the later civil suit? A former pastor of ours was charged with serial criminal sexual assault against an unstable woman in our congreation, fine wolf that he was. He was found guilty on the charges and served prison time, but yet won in the civil suit.
Good luck with a civil suit regardless.
He would have to be aquitted under SYG or Self Defense, Then he is immune from any and all civil suits. GZ would also be entitled to all back wages and damages from the state. Team TM could not touch him or anyone. GZ will have all the suing power.
There are statutory limits on how long after a death the family can bring suit not sure how long in Florida
Typical progressive BS from a typical Prog.
You can always tell a prog because they “allow” you to do things…..
Progs grant you permission to “be” because in their ideology they are in control of everything. You see this sense and outward expression a lot from Progs. It is a central Tenet and ideological marker. We are to thank them for allowing us the benefit of their intellect.
As for O’Mara, I would have fired him on the spot for publicly stating that George lied about funds. That was a betrayal of the highest order, particularly since everyone seems to agree that the self-defense and SYG aspects of the case hinge on George’s credibility. I suppose there are people who prefer to believe that O’mara calling George a liar is part of a very cunning defense strategy of some sort, but I do not see it. If someone can explain that, please do.
It is almost as if he thinks he is an assistant judge. I can’t explain anything about this case at this point. It is way out there. Maybe Judge Judy could figure it out.
On the George ‘apology’ thing, I just want to draw what I think is an important distinction. I viewed what George said as expressing his condolences that the Martin’s suffered the loss of their son, NOT that George was sorry he defended his life when being assaulted by Trayvon, only sorrow that it had to result in the young attacker’s death. I think that any moral person would feel sorrow that they had to kill another person in order to defend their own life from that person’s violent attack.
Yes, that was the idea…. but, often, no good deed goes unpunished.
I agree completely. George said he was sorry for the Martin/Fultons that their son lost his life. He did not apologize by saying he was sorry for killing him. Two different things. The Orlando Sentinal and Team Skittles picked up quickly on this however and labelled it an “apology for killing TM” and it got syndicated all over the country in order to further twist words to fit the narrative.
The one’s who feel guilty and show remorse are the one’s who are not guilty of murder. True killers don’w show remorse they go about their business as if nothing happened.
Or true killers’ remorse is that they got caught and now face a life in prison. It is always about them and not the sorrow of their victim’s family.
Precisely, Truth Fan. GZ expressed his condolences on their loss, NOT his regret for killing TM in a situation where he felt he was fighting for his life. Which means that on his Order Setting Bail, when Lester wrote, “The Defendant apologized on the record for shooting and killing Martin,” it indicated to me that he either failed to recognize this crucial difference (why? is he so unskilled in one of a judge’s most important skill sets, i.e., the finer points of language use, that he simply failed to grasp exactly what was being said?) or was determined to use every opportunity to paint GZ as being guilty and/or comply with the narrative and/or placate the race baiters. IOW, it made him appear either not very bright or not very unbiased.
Do we know whether MoM is protesting/appealing any part of that Order? The most important thing, of course, is that GZ was granted bail, and we must certainly acknowledge that MoM succeeded there and tip our hats to him in that respect; but in the long run, will his many smaller-scale misjudgements, oversights and errors outweigh his larger-scale achievements?
FACT – After finding out about the PayPal money on April 26th (day after GZ bonded out) O’Mara could have filed an update/corrective motion with the court to notify and correct prior testimony and avoid perjury charge. He didn’t.
——————————-
This man is intentionally causing harm to George, Shellie and the entire Zimmerman family. I wish you could mail Mr. Zimmerman this information. Mr. Zimmerman needs to get his son another attorney before he looses him for good. GZ is not in safe hands.
I thought he did make a correction to the court within days after the bond hearing, but Lester is just being a jerk and making wild assumptions of a GZ flight plan.
He did. In the minutes on the flcourt site on 4/27 he advised the court of a change in the defendant’s financial status. The State immediately made a motion to revoke bond. Judge Lester reserved his ruling and ordered the Defense to provide genesis of the account, who is in charge of the account, the date of payments and how the money became aware of to the defendant.
Sandy. Sundanceracker said that if O’Mara would have filed a corrective motion with the court to notify and correct (SZ’s) prior testimony she could have avoided a perjury charge. How was Shellie charged with perjury then? Did O’Mara do everything he ws supposed to do except correct her testimony? I don’t know exactly what he did to tell you the truth, but I do wonder why she was charged with perjury if what Sudanceracker stated was a fact, was indeed a fact.
She was charged with perjury as a tactical maneuver by the prosecution — to prevent her from testifying at any further bond hearings. In other words, to silence any defense or explanation she might give in opposition to the bond revocation. Just because she was charged does not mean she will be convicted. It’s up to her lawyer to assert her defense that her testimony wa corrected before she was charged or threatened with prosecution. This has nothing to do with any failing on O’Mara’s part. Remember, O’Mara’s duty is to George, not his wife. He corrected the information at the first opportunity, and he did that because it was in his own client’s interest — not because he had a duty to fend off perjury charges against the wife.
First Bond Hearing April 20th. Bond revocation hearing June 1st. 2nd Bond Hearing June 29th.
Sundance, what you are doing is truly heroic, for this reason.
We live in a happy, positive world, where everyone wants to get along, have a nice day, think good of everyone and a simple handshake is enough to forgive the most atrocious of crimes against humanity.
But in this happy, sweet, forgiving and naive world are unhappy totalitarians who want to visit cruel punishments on others because they cannot value the good. They are enabled by the caring but naive ones who take up battle against their own.
For anyone to speak out and hold a contrary opinion, takes sheer force of will and great courage. It is not easy to fight against the deceptions, and it is especially hard to help the caring but naive ones to see the truth.
People who fight the good fight, as you have been doing, show remarkable resilience and extraordinary power to protect our freedom and keep this world livable. I am glad you are speaking and articulating what many of us were feeling and couldn’t say.
Sandy, IANAL but perhaps verbally advising the court of a change in the defendant’s financial status isn’t the same thing as filing an update/corrective motion to the court. Filing a motion would put all the necessary facts on paper so that there was no dispute as to what was said/known when to whom, and as Howie has several times pointed out, voluntary recantation of statements (I forget the exact wording, but basically correcting what you previously said BEFORE you’re threatened with perjury charges) is not only allowed but protects the voluntary recanter from being so charged.
So what went wrong here? How and why did MoM slip up, and worse than that, why did he then go on television repeatedly saying that GZ had a credibility problem, and talking about rehabilitation? How and why was MoM still talking about GZ’s alleged credibility problem at the second bond hearing, instead of pointing out (if the prosecution tried to raise the issue) that while his client didn’t interrupt the earlier court proceedings, he nevertheless did put the record straight at the earliest opportunity?
“Very experienced and competent”?
He did file some paperwork. In the June 4 Motion to Revoke Bond the State, as part of their motion discusses a hearing on April 27 concerning various motions of the media and in that hearing MoM advised the court of the problem with finances. And as I said before the Judge wanted all the details. The State goes on to say in this Motion to Revoke that they were in receipt of copies of the letter and documentation that Mom had submitted to the Court. I don’t know where you can find a copy of these or if they have been released.
Yes, I really hope George or Shellie or the dad read this. I’m sure the father knows someone who could help George. He needs somebody 100% on his side, who believes in him and who will fight for him.
I believe MOM wants to bypass SYG and is trashing GZ’s credibility. The plan is to go to trail or accept a plea bargain! Then no matter what the outcome Civil Suits can and will be filed!
You are correct RZ! Over charge then plea down. MOM looks like the type of lawyer you hire who will “be nice” and ask to please be gentle on my client. The real battle will be in Civil Suits where millions of dollars will be at stake. Both sides duking it out.
okay sundance I wish you’d read this
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-12/politics/31328825_1_press-conference-deadly-force-law
Duuuude, that’s the dumbest piece of stupidity penned under the guise of journalism EVER. Totally. Can’t you see the propaganda flaw in it.? The article is all about Stand Your Ground, O’mara’s intent, public vs. potential jurors etc. etc. Right.
But SYG does NOT get argued in front of a jury !
You, along with the author of this piece don’t seem to understand that. It’s an immunity hearing.
In his own words: “When he’s talking, he’s not talking to the press. He’s talking to the potential future jurors,” Jarvis said in a phone interview late Wednesday night.
What jurors? ????
That’s the point. If O’Mara is talking to potential jurors with his “strategy” he is already implying, heck, he’s saying, he’s going to TRIAL.
This is the reason a person in George’s position needs a “Stand Your Ground” Lawyer. The immunity hearing is before a Judge. It is either “UP” or “DOWN”. If it is “DOWN”, George goes to Grand Jury. If “UP” – George is free – from everything. If you are ever in this situation, go on-line, Goggle a lawyer who states, “Skill – with SYG and “Castle” cases. Call that lawyer. While you are waiting for me to arrive – don’t talk to the police.
Sorry but I just do not see it the same way at all. In a trial, the merits of a law are NOT to be argued or debated in front of a jury, not even interpreted by the jury. I hear OMara making this point. SYG is the LAW. If the Martins, Crumps, anyone does not like the law or aspects of it, that is fine but their place to scream about it is to the State Legislature who passes the laws, not to the judge and jurors hearing GZ’s case. Even if they get it changed, the law as it read in February is what GZ was obliged to follow. I also do not see that OMara stating he has issues with parts of the law as representing him being against the law in basic theory. I believe in the right to self defense but my support actually stops there. If it is not a true self defense situation but rather where a person has simply stolen property and is on the run, then no, the other person does not have a right to shoot the other dead.
Would it not be irresponsible at the very least for MOM to assume the only focus of his representation of George be an SYG hearing? He would have to consider going to trial. Anything else is short sited. Prepare for the worst.
Yes.
I think MOM is trying to make a valid point based on a misunderstanding of the SYG statute. Both GZ and TM had a legal right to stand their ground. TM was under no more of a legal or moral obligation to retreat to Brandy Green’s condo than GZ was morally or legally obligated to stay in his car. The pertinent issue is who initiated the violent confrontation. If GZ had been attempting to detain TM only because he suspected that TM had or was about to commit a crime, then GZ would have been committing a crime and TM would have had a right to defend himself. If GZ had attempted to detain TM with drawn gun, then TM would have had a right to respond with deadly force. Alternatively; if TM had simply approached GZ as described in the Trump narrative to ask, “why are you following me,” GZ would have had no right to respond with deadly force.
IMHO, Detective Serino does make a valid but irrelevant point by suggesting that the confrontation could have been avoided if GZ had identified himself, not as neighborhood watch because he wasn’t on watch, but as a resident who was concerned because he didn’t recognize TM. (it isn’t racism because lots of Black people live in the neighborhood and GZ knew them). TM then could have replied that he and his dad were staying with BG and all would have been well. However; given TM’s threatening display of circling GZ’s car while repeatedly reaching for his waist, GZ would have been nuts to roll down his window to talk to TM. (I would have drawn my pistol but kept it
hidden at that point.).
One can also make the point that the conflict could have been avoided if GZ had simply stayed in the car. However; it is GZ’s neighborhood. He has a right to walk around in his own neighborhood. GZ even has a right to surveil a potential prowler in the neighborhood. TM might not like being watched, but his alleged fear of the “creepy looking white guy” is not a reasonable fear that gives him any valid reason to initiate an
assault. I’ll probably piss off Sundancecracker by pointing out the FBI crime stats on gender, age and race based Victim-Offender relationships that make it real obvious that GZ had far more justification to fear TM than than TM had to fear GZ.
The bottom line is that SYG does create confusingly ambiguous cases such as this where it is difficult for the police to determine who was the aggressor. It would be so much easier for the cops if everyone would just cower in their home or car and never, ever risk provoking a confrontation by taking notice of suspicious behavior and calling the cops. Of course this puts the cops in a position of aiding and abetting the criminals which IMHO is what most of them do.
Well, maybe the defense can finally convince the defendant that he is guilty, of a crime he does not think he committed. Sometimes these defendants can be stubborn.
I was trying to find and post a link to a video clip from the movie “Raising Arizona” that eloquently expresses my opinion of many cops, but I can’t find it. It is the scene in the furniture store where the Apocolyptic Bounty Hunter is offering his services.
“if you want to find an outlaw, call an outlaw. If you want to find a Dunkin Donuts, call a cop. …. A cop couldn’t find his butt if he had a bell on it.”
This is a perfect description of Detective Cris Serino.
Should be on the Screaming Front Pages of the New York Times and Washington Post!
Excellent Howie!
.
Hi James – Those are very good points. There needs to be a “flow chart” about when and how the lawyer invokes “Stand Your Ground” in a case like GZ/TM. In fact the ambiguous area is that the police can’t be given that type of judgment. (Even here, I am not clear about that subject – and I don’t think anyone is.) In fact, the proper “charging” body is the prosecutor’s office (Norfinger). This George was in limbo, until a charge was filed. This is where a “stand your ground” lawyer should have been involved – to either force a charge to be made, or insist that the case (with no charge made) go before a Judge for a decision. I think that is the issue that MUST be cleared up in this case – and all future cases like it.
Grand Jury is required for any SYG cases that are not clear cut IMO.
You said, “The pertinent issue is who initiated the violent confrontation.”
You got some ‘splaining to do, Lucy.”
Ultimately, it simply comes down to who threw the first punch. I dont thing there are any non violent actions that gives someone premission to punch someone else in the face. I have thought about punching someone in the face but did not do it because I knew i would be wrong and end up arrested and/or sued. Yes, when I was a teenager and early twenties I did get into some fights. I was not the aggressor but defended myself. These were outside bars, no one got seriously hurt and no one wanted the cops involved. TM had nothing to lose and threw the first punch. GZ had everything to lose and knowing that is enough to not get into a physical fight.
New evidence will be released on Thursday according to the Orlando Sentinel
Sundancecracker is correct again. And thank you for the summary of MOM mistakes.
Those who continue to support MOM….you are only hurting George Zimmerman. GZ needs to fire MOM yesterday, and hire competent counsel. Heck GZ would do better to represent himself….many on this site do a better job of legal research that anyone MOM seems to have in his employ….GZ has better legal research from here
I know someone else posted the link somewhere. I hope noone minds the length, but it was so nice to read this, that I wanted to post the full text. This is written by a retired judge:
Honorable Kenneth R. Lester, Jr.
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court
Seminole County, Florida
Dear Judge Lester:
I just finished reading the text of the “Order Setting Bail” regarding George Zimmerman, wherein you raised the bail to one million dollars. With great respect, I am moved to tell you that it was a distressing experience to this old retired lawyer because the order was so far removed from the actual facts of the case.
In that order you portrayed the defendant, George Zimmerman, as a clever, knowledgeable person who has “tried to manipulate the system when he has been presented the opportunity to do so.” You described him as a fellow who lied to everyone, including his own counsel, about the state of his finances and accordingly was not to be believed on any matter. You waxed eloquent on the deception played upon you when Shellie Zimmerman, the defendant’s wife, stated in court that she was not aware of any funds the couple had.
Your honor, you then went on to state: “While not exactly the same, this Court finds that deceiving the Court at a bond hearing is akin to violating a bond condition.” Then, sir, you came perilously close to equating that deception to the act of committing a new offense while out on bond.
You went on to consider the defendant’s past and present conduct and had to conclude that there was no record of previous convictions “or failure to appear at court proceedings.” You reviewed the defense claims that Zimmerman’s silence in the presence of his wife’s false testimony in court was occasioned by his fear and confusion.
You rejected those arguments and then jumped to this extraordinary conclusion: “Although there is no record of flight to avoid prosecution, this court finds that circumstances indicate that the Defendant was preparing to flee to avoid prosecution.”
On the core issue of the weight of the evidence supporting the charge of second degree murder, you concluded that the State’s case was “strong” and to support that finding you mentioned the infamous probable cause affidavit submitted by special prosecutor Angela Corey. In that affidavit and in testimony of one of her investigators, it appeared that “the Defendants actions were imminently dangerous to another and that he acted with a depraved mind regardless of human life.” You agreed with those damning statements.
In my view, you are wrong on each of these important points, save one. The Zimmermans did mislead you on their finances and my hope is that you see that for what it is, a small part of the overall picture. Recall that George and Shellie have been the victims of what amounts to a national lynch mob, led in part by the president and the attorney general. They have received a flood of death threats from the Black Panthers and many others. They have been forced to leave their home in Sanford. So have other family members. George has had to leave his job and his college. They have been forced into hiding and he must now stay in a safe house. Think of how you would feel if you received constant death threats and had to leave everything with which you were familiar. In that situation, it is quite understandable that you would become secretive and be very cautious when asked about your finances in a court hearing.
These are terrified young people and you are treating them as clever pariahs and devious criminals. You are supposed to assure their dignity and their safety. You have sought to do neither. Just the opposite. For shame.
It is as if you had graduated from the Al Sharpton School of Law.
My review of all of the available evidence and information leads me to believe, as have other legal analysts, that the state’s case is fatally weak. That has led me to conclude that George Zimmerman is innocent, which is an extraordinary public statement for an old lawyer and legal scholar to make — since the case has not yet been tried. I am not saying merely that there is insufficient evidence for the state to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I am saying innocent. Period.
Here are some of the facts that led to my conclusion. Zimmerman’s claim of self defense is supported by almost every piece of information that has come to light. The first police officer on the scene arrived within minutes of the tragic shooting. He observed that Zimmerman was bloody and looked beaten. The second police officer arrived moments later and reported that Zimmerman told him that he had been screaming for help but that no one would help him. The fire department emergency medical technician told of how he had treated Zimmerman’s head and face wounds. A subsequent doctor’s report confirmed his injuries and stated that he suffered from a broken nose.
Such reports made within a short time of the incident, in my experience, are the most persuasive. There is no time to make up stories in such hurried circumstances. All of them support Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. These statements made in the heat of the moment, or near to it, are much more compelling than the affidavit filed by Angela Corey months later, an affidavit you cited with approval.
None of the early statements by officials mentioned any hint of racial bias in any comment made by the defendant.
Trayvon Martin was killed with one shot to the chest fired at close range. This was consistent with Zimmerman’s description of the encounter. Had Zimmerman been intent on stalking and killing the young man, he could have taken out his pistol and fired several shots from a distance, perhaps hitting him in the back.
On the evening of the sad event, George Zimmerman agreed to voluntarily take a CVSA Truth Verification test in the Sanford police station. This is a form of lie detector test used by many police departments. While not ordinarily admissible in a formal court trial, as you know, it does help guide police and prosecution officials in determining whether or not to proceed with an arrest and prosecution in the early stages of a case. The confidential report gives the examiner four choices to describe how the subject fared. The examiner checked the fourth and highest level: “The examinee has told substantially the complete truth in regards to this examination.” Such evidence quite probably figured in the decision by the police chief and the then-prosecutor to drop the case, at least initially.
It is of major significance that, in the early stages, the only official to question Zimmerman’s racial tolerance and also his innocence was lead detective Christopher Serino. Within a few days he practically accused Zimmerman of being a bigot and also urged that he be charged with manslaughter. Recently, Serino was reduced to a patrolman on the night shift. The change was labeled as voluntary but there is some new information that his role in the case, on numerous fronts, has been quietly discredited.
Your honor, I am baffled to try to understand your conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee the jurisdiction. That is simply bizarre. Adam Vincent, a Seminole County probation officer, testified, “We never had any problems from Mr. Zimmerman while he was under our supervision…. For all intents and purposes he was a model client.”
I have been forced to conclude that like Christopher Serino and Angela Corey, you have made it obvious that in your mind George Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder. It would help restore my faith in the legal profession, which faith is a cornerstone of my very being, if you recused yourself from the case — and moreover issued an apology to all concerned for the misleading contents of the bail order.
With sadness and deep concern,
Arnold S. Trebach
BRAVO!!!!
Hire Him Quick!
.
Very well said sir….very well said Indeed. Hope “The Court Jester” reads It sometime.
I really like that letter and it directs our attention to a larger problem than O’Mara’s mistakes with “money” issue. It is the judge! If you had the ultimate fantasy lawyer what can he do with a judge that deterimines GZ is flight risk based on his belief that he prevented with his “surprize” order for eletronic monitoring.
GB, where did you find this? Maybe if it’s spread around more “retired” judges and lawyers will come out and affirm this. A most excellent post!
Hi ejarra, here is the link for that letter:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/09/memo-to-the-zimmerman-judge-fr/1
It’s too bad the signature line is some guy named arnold instead of some guy named Mark O’mara
How about Bondi on the phone with Crump? ” I tried to get your case….!” does this make anyone else wonder? What kind of conversation did they have previously about her “getting” this case and what transpired so that Corey got it? Bondi’s talk and corey’s praying with the Martins makes my skin crawl- is this normal/ethical for an atty?
YES, exactlly!
Arnold has had quite a career, he still has eyes and expresses himself quite nicely.
Why is everyone assuming there will be no SYG hearing?
Also, as one of the named contrarians in the opening post, I want to make something clear. I am in no way trying to shut down any research or discussion about O’Mara’s representation of Zimmerman. I have read all of your so-called points supporting your conclusion that O’Mara is somehow in league with the prosecution or motivated by some agenda other than getting the best result for Zimmerman, and quite simply I disagree with your analysis, interpretation and conclusions. In my opinion, your points do not lead to the conclusion you’ve arrived at, and there are many more points that point in the opposite direction. Your conclusions are not supported by simple logic either, in my opinion. I think you are whipping up a conspiracy where none exists. If that makes me an unwelcome participant in this dialogue, I accept that.
Further, I can speculate that if I were Zimmermans attorney, I might have handled certain things differently or stated things differently or taken a different strategical approach. But that doesn’t mean that O’Mara is somehow deficient or working against Zimmerman’s interest. It also doesn’t mean that a different strategy would yield any better results for Zimmerman. It means nothing other than the fact that different lawyers have different styles and employ different strategies. Some of you seem to prefer the Crump/BDLR stop-at-nothing-win-at-any-cost style if lawyering and think Zimmerman would fare better with that type of attorney. I disagree. From observing Zimmerman (although I clearly don’t know him) his manner seems much more compatible with O’Mara’s style.
And here’s the bottom line: if Zimmerman had the perfect attorney in your opinion, as opposed to whatever you fund lacking in O’Mara, how would Zimmerman be any better off right this minute compared to his current circumstances? In my opinion, there is nothing more that could have been gained for Zimmerman at this point, even if a lawyer had done everything you think should have been done. I’d really like an answer to this question.
Can you name… say, well, three? or so…..
Yes, I will do that when I get back to my computer. (I’m on my phone now).
Could you please indicate how Zimmerman could be any better off right now if your ideal lawyer had been his representative?
I read Arthur’s note to Lester above and agree with virtually every word. I would bet O’Mara does as well, but O’Mara does not have the luxury of writing letters to the judge or criticizing his rulings other than through appeals and motions. Irrespective of Lester’s questionable conclusion about Zimmermam preparing to flee, the amount and conditions of the bond are not unreasonable and there’s no reason to appeal the order. O’Mara may take issue with the stated reasoning in the order, but there is really nothing he can do. He cannot go out and make a public statement dressing down the judge or arguing with his order, as it seems you would like him to do. Crump can do that because he is not representing any party in the case — much like Dershowitz.
*Arnold, not Arthur
M4, you say that “O’Mara does not have the luxury of writing letters to the judge or criticizing his rulings other than through appeals and motions”.
Do we know whether he has in fact filed any appeals or motions, as opposed to rolling over and waving his legs in the air?
Yes, he filed a motion to reconsider Lester’s ruling allowing disclosure of anonymous “witness 9″ statement re: GZ being a racist. He filed a motion to reinstate bond that was very persuasive and very strong advocacy. He opposed the judge proceeding to hear evidence that led to bond revocation because he had no notice, but he was told to defend it on the fly. That’s the judge’s right on matters of bond revocation.. Not something that could be appealed — the remedy is to file a motion to reinstate bond, which he filed and won, although bond was increased.
So far, every motion he has filed he has won, other than the motion to suppress the witness 9 statement — and in that case he filed a motion to reconsider.
What are you referring to as O’Mara rolling over and waving his legs in the air?
I replied to this earlier, but at the time there was a notice that my comment was awaiting moderation. Perhaps SD or another admin could check the moderation cue and see if the comment is still there.
Ok, here goes….you want three or so points that indicate that O’Mara is actually representing Zimmerman’s best legal interests and is not motivated by some other contrary agenda:
1. 1st bond hearing — got Zimmerman released on 150k bond
2. 1st bond hearing elicited testimony from 1 or 2 investigators that there is no evidence contradicting GZ’s claim that Trayvon started the confrontation
3. Statement on GZLegal website: “We steadfastly maintain that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense and that he is not guilty of second degree murder.”
4. Filed motion to suppress statements of anonymous “witness 9″; regarding GZ being racist; when Lester ruled against him, he filed a motion to reconsider re-urging that the statement be suppressed and not released as part of public disclosure.
5. Filed motion to reinstate bond — motion was very good, very well written and argued. Read it if you haven’t. Read it again if you already have.
6. 2nd bond hearing – submitted 8 hours of recorded testimony supporting GZ’s self defense claims and tearing apart the state’s case and publicly released that evidence on the website. It is now widely accepted that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and it is Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 tapes. The state put on no evidence refuting the testimony and interviews stating that it was GZ screaming for help.
7. Successfully got GZ released a 2nd time on bond, despite Lester’s clear preference to keep GZ in jail pending trial.
8. Made the point at 2nd bond hearing that the only reason state filed perjury charges against Shelly was to make sure she wouldn’t testify at the 2nd bond hearing explaining the finances and her prior testimony.
9. I think O’Mara did everything he possible could to deal the deception about the donations from the 1st bond hearing. I think it is strategically in GZ’s legal interest to acknowledge the deception and GZ’s tacit participation and to explain it in the way that he did — which was very likely the truth. Zimmerman has been railroaded by a prosecution team beholden to a public lynchmob and he did not trust the system because so far it has unjustifiably taken his life off course. Lester is pissed and saw what he wanted to see. Judges don’t like to be deceived or made to look like fools, and Zimmerman committed a huge error in hiding this information from his attorney and from the court. Nevertheless, Lester’s conclusion that Zimmerman was preparing to flee is ludicrous and it’s likely a result of Lester’ being pissed that he as deceived. The fact that Zimmerman turned over control of the funds to O’Mara immediately after the 1st bond hearing and that O’Mara promptly informed the court and the prosecution about the funds and the expert testimony about the use of the funds all clearly indicate that Zimmerman as not preparing to flee. Lester’s shortsighted conclusion is on Lester and to some degree on Zimmerman for screwing up — it’s not O’Mara’s doing.
10. Aside from those specifics, it simply makes no logical sense that a 28-year criminal defense veteran,, former bar association president, attorney with no prior grievances or notable ethics violations would suddenly risk his entire career to help the prosecution or political activists over a pro bono case. There is absolutely no evidence of what you have concluded — it is your bare conclusion based on your speculation and interpretation of a legal strategy that you are seeing from a distance.
I could go through every one of your “facts” listed above and discuss why those points are not indicators that O’Mara is playing for the other side or is doing anything other than trying to get the best result for Zimmerman .. but I don’t think you’re open to hearing it.
One question I do have for you though — how much experience do you have with the legal system? I mean, are you a lawyer or do you have some other personal or professional experience that gives you greater insight into the process than the average person?
M4 wrote, “I could go through every one of your “facts” listed above and discuss why those points are not indicators that O’Mara is playing for the other side or is doing anything other than trying to get the best result for Zimmerman .. but I don’t think you’re open to hearing it.”
I certainly can’t speak for SD’s interest or otherwise in hearing your counter arguments for the points he raises, but as long as the discussion is civil and to the point, I would hope he’d be willing to allow you the space to make your arguments here. The points that SD has listed above seem pretty compelling to me, and MoM’s “defense” of GZ has seemed pretty tepid. I absolutely do not see how a lawyer who is “trying to get the best result for Zimmerman” could represent him for this length of time and give the number of interviews MoM has given and never ONCE state plainly and firmly to the general public (by means of the media) that all the evidence so far shows that his client is NOT GUILTY of the crime with which he has been charged. However, at this stage I’m still willing to listen to a different perspective, provided Sundance is willing to allow you to state your case.
BTW, if I may reflect back at you the question that you asked SD, are you a lawyer or do you have some other personal or professional experience that gives you greater insight into the process than the average person?
I am a lawyer.
Ok, sonve youre interested and I said I could do it, here’s my commentary on why SD’s facts dont logically lead to the conclusion that O’Mara is doing anything other than trying to get the best outcome for Zimmerman, without any other secret contrary agenda I’ll quote each fact and respond immediatelt below each one.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara discussed the case with Mark Najame who recommended him to the Zimmerman family on April 9th.”
Ok. I haven’t looked it up myself but take this as true. Nothing about this suggests anything about O’Mara’s ulterior motives or agenda.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara was aware of GeorgeZimmerman.com on Tuesday April 10th.”
True. I assume this fact is recited to support an argument that O’Mara should have known Shelly’s testimony was misleading, but I’ll address that later when the argument is actually laid out with this quick observation: knowledge of the existence of the site does not equal knowledge of any more detail beyond its existence.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara officially took the case on Wed April 11th., the same day George was arrested. He told CNN “I intend to get up to speed quickly.” ”
Ok. Nothing unusual do far.
“FACT – In the time period between April 11th and April 23rd (When George left jail on bond) Mark O’Mara conducted 68 media interviews, held 5 pressers, and appeared on TV 42 different times. Yet did not have enough time to discuss the PayPal Defense Account with his client?”
That’s a lot of media interviews and pressers in a short time. I am generally not in favor if a lawyer making a lot of media appearances about a case that he is presently involved with, but there are times when it’s appropriate and beneficial to the client. I don’t have a problem with it in this case because of the complete lack of any reporting from Zimmerman’s perspective prior to O’Mara, and also considering the manner in which Crump et al exploited the media to fit their agenda. For sure some good PR was warranted on Zimmerman’s behalf, and I have no doubt they O’Mara had Zimmerman’s consent and approval to hit the airwaves to start delivering the Zimmerman side.
Regarding having enough time to discuss the PayPal account, I think you’re making an erroneous assumption here: because O’Mara didnt know how much money was collected, he must have failed to discuss the issue with Zimmerman. In preparing for the bond heading and indigent plea, I believe that O’Mara did discuss with Zimmerman the need to disclose all available resources — he may have specifically inquired about the PayPal account or he may not have, but I have no doubt that he made GZ aware that ALL resources would be considered by the judge, and it’s GZ’s responsibitu to fully and accurately deliver that information to his lawyer, which he failed to do whether O’Mara specifically asked about the PayPal donations or not.
For argument’s sake, lets assume he did not ask the specific direct question about how much had been collected in donations. No one, and I mean no one, would have guessed that the website had collected $200,000 in a matter of days. I still can’t believe it. I can see O’Mara simply making the assumption that donations would not amount to anything significant for purposes of setting bail. I think anyone would have made that assumption. If so, GZ absolutely had an obligation to disclose the amount in the accounts, but he failed to do that. That’s the best case scenario, and in hindsight I guess you could say that it would have been better if O’Mara had asked exactly the right question — but there’s no way to get around the fact that GZ had knowledge of the amount of donations and he did not disclose that to his attorney. I do not believe that such an omission on GZ’s part could possibly be an oversight or careless mistake. Under this scenario, the omission was deliberate — it had to have been.
Another unpalatable possibility is that O’Mara did specifically ask how much was in the account, and Zimmerman lied to his attorney or willfully withheld the information even when asked directly.
Even if I concede that O’Mara should have asked detailed questions about the donation account, there’s no way to avoid the fact that Zimmerman withheld the information from his attorney even though he knew the amount and knew that the court would be considering ALL available resources.
“FACT – According to Mark O’Mara himself, every time Mark O’Mara has asked George Zimmerman a question he has been honest, direct and forthcoming in all his responses. So are we to accept that Mark O’Mara just didn’t ask the right questions, and still consider him….competent?”
This is O’Mara making an attempt to bolster Zimmerman’s credibility despite the obvious lack of candor about the donations. He’s covering for his client because credibility is important in this case.
Like I said above, it’s possible O’Mara did not ask for the account balance for the donations, never imagining it could be anywhere close to $200,000. It’s a reasonable assumption. It’s also a given that Zimmerman knew how much he had and knew he should have disclosed it to his attorney — but chose to withhold the information prior to the bond hearing. I would much rather O’Mara speak of his client as being honest and forthright tab for him to come out and say that his client withheld critical information from him, or worse, that his client lied to him.
This does not in any way indicate that O’Mara is incompetent. In fact it indicates that he is a zealous advocate who is committed to restoring his client’s credibility.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara was responsible for prepping his client for the bond hearing. Including financial disclosure testimony. He is the attorney, he’s the professional. It’s his job. Yet, everyone blames George who never spoke a word about it.”
See above. Mark O’Mara had every right and reason (prior to this) to trust his client to be forthcoming about his available resources. It is not O’Mara’s job to assume his client is lying or withholding information and go do a secret investigation of his client to determine whether his client is telling him the truth. That is literally absurd.
Zimmerman gets blamed because Zimmerman elected to withhold the information from his attorney while his attorney was relying on Zimmerman to tell him the complete truth.
Youre essentially arguing that Zimmerman must wait until he is asked the precise exact right question before giving any information to his attorney — and that is simply not the way an attorney-client relationship works. It is always essential to give your attorney ALL information and to be 100% candid and truthful with your attorney — to do otherwise is a calculated gamble and undermines the attotney’s ability to represent you effectively. That is exactly what happened in this case — GZ gambled when he withheld information about the $200,000 he had access to, and O’Mara’s effectiveness was compromised. If that money had been disclosed up front, Zommerman’s bond would have likely been set at 1MM at the first bond hearing, and Zimmerman would have made bond and been released without ever having his bond revoked and damaging his SYG argument in the process.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara was responsible for prepping his client’s wife for discussions of finances for the bond hearing and “indigency status,” Mark O’Mara was responsible to walk her through any conversation and assist her in answering questions. Yet, everyone blames Shellie.”
Again, O’Mara was operating on the reasonable assumption that he his client has fully disclosed the amount of available resources. Since no one told O’Mara about the extra $200,000, there would be no need for him to do any preparation about that specifically. I guarantee you that in preparing his witnesses, he told them to testify truthfully.
Nevertheless, I do not blame Shelly, and reviewing her testimony I do not think she was deliberately dishonest or withholding information. I believe that she would have disclosed the exact amount of donations if she knew the exact amount as of that time and if she had been pushed on the issue. She offered to get her brother in law on the phone to give the information and it’s likely she did that because he was the person who had the best working knowledge of how much had been collected, transferred and spent. Fron the recorded phone calls, I got the distinct impression that Shelly is not at all sophisticated in matters of finance, and it was George who ran that aspect of the fanily’s life. I think she testified honestly and would have told the whole truth if she had been asked. I do not blame her, and I also do not think she will be convicted of perjury.
On the other hand, it cannot be said that George is naive or unsophisticated, and he knew very well that the information about his finances that was presented to the court was materially incomplete and misleading. After all witnesses had spoken, I do believe that Zimmerman had an obligation to make his attorney aware that there was this $200,000 that had not been properly revealed to the court through the witness testimony.
“OPINION – Mark O’Mara was solely responsible for positioning his client in a compromised status regarding the bond hearing by his failure to fully debrief and prepare.”
See above. An attorney should be able to rely on the truth and completeness of the information given to him by his client. O’Mara was prepared for the hearing and got the best result possible based on the information his client had given him.
“FACT – After finding out about the PayPal money on April 26th (day after GZ bonded out) O’Mara could have filed an update/corrective motion with the court to notify and correct prior testimony and avoid perjury charge. He didn’t.”
Zimmerman, his only client, has not been charged with perjury. O’Mara had no obligation to protect Shelly from a perjury charge — but nevertheless he did file a correction with the court well before Shelly was charged press threatened with prosecution. The State charged her anyway for strategic reasons (to assure that she could not testify at any subsequent bond hearing and have an opportunity to explain her testimony. Just because she had been charged does not mean she will be convicted. Since her testimony was corrected before she was threatened with prosecution and before there was any inkling that the truth would be exposed, then get attorney should be able to assert that defense and have the charges dismissed or win an acquittal. O’Mara did al that he could do and corrected the record promptly for his own client’s interest.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara could have told Judge Lester right away about the discovered money. Instead he chose to go on CNN and tell Anderson Cooper 4/26. Lester found out from TV, and then O’Mara told him the following day 4/27. Priorities?”
If its true that O’Mara told CNN about the undisclosed funds before he informed the court, that’s poor judgment in my opinion but not incompetence. The fact is he promptly notified the court and made the best of a crappy situation that was thrust on him unknowingly.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara received the passport from GZ on April 26th, placed it in his briefcase planning to give to the prosecution along with the notification motion. He didn’t. Instead he kept custody of the Passport from April 26th through to June 1st and only notified the court of the issue after the prosecution used the passport to create the deceptive intent conspiracy theory, on the date of the bond revocation hearing June 1. Competent?”
This should have been handled better, but it caused no harm this client. He told the judge the passport was handed over weeks prior, and there’s no indication the judge doesn’t believe him. It doesnt matter — Lester concluded Zimmerman was planning to flee prosecution when all the evidence points in the other direction. Forgetting to hand over the passport immediately is not incompetence and it certainly does not indicate that O’Mara is in secret cahoots with the prosecution of SYG activists.
“FACT – The media ran with the passport conspiracy theory 24/7 fueled by Scheme Team. O’Mara did what to diffuse? One, count it, o.n.e TV interview where he described the problem he created (see video). ”
It’s such a minor issue I’m surprised he mentioned it at all in the media. He mentioned it in court, and the judge dismissed it (initially) as irrelevant, likening it to losing a drivers license, getting a replacement and then finding the one you lost.
The media has made mountains out of countless nonexistent molehills, and certainly O’Mara should not be out doing multiple interviews specifically addressing each and every instance of media hysteria. In a sense, even responding to some of the nonsense gives it more legitimacy.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara never brought up his mistake at the second bond hearing and the deceptive passport issue was again considered by Judge Lester during his deliberations and ultimately his $1 million bond decision stemming from the 2nd bond hearing? Competent?”
The judge had already addressed the second passport issue and had dismissed it as irrelevant. Why would O’Mara revisit or rehash an issue on which he had already persuaded the judge? One does not expect a judge to do a complete about face and suddenly attach importance to a circumstance which he previously determined to be irrelevant. But that’s precisely what Lester did on the passport issue. Lester did the same thing on the issue ofZimmerman’s prior diversion and injunction — at the first bind hearing, he considered them and dismissed them as”run of the mill”. But lo and behold, in his revocation order he brought them up again as part of his reasoning for revoking bond.
That’s not normal or expected judge behavior, and it’s not really fair expect an attorney to anticipate such behavior and prepare for it.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara is a defense attorney representing a client claiming justified self-defense, yet he goes on TV and says that Stand Your Ground laws are “absurd”. If I am the prosecution I just wait ’til he has presented his case and then lead off my rebuttal with the video of him saying Stand Your Ground is Absurd ! That’s “Competent”?”
First, there’s no way the prosecution can use anything O’Mara said about SYG in an interview. That’s not evidence; O’Mara is not a party, and it’s quite common for an attorney to take one position on a law in one case and take a totally contrary position on he same law in another case. Happens all the time –attorneys use whatever position and interpretation is most beneficial to their client at the moment.
Now, I’m not sure of the timing of O’Mara’s comment, but there is nothing sinister here at all. I interpret the comment as O’Mara’s opinion that SYG is unnecessary as an independent defense because it’s all covered by traditional self defense. Remember, O’Mara’s task is to ultimately win an acquittal for Zimmerman, which he clearly thinks is supported by a self defense claim, whether SYG or traditional self defense. There’s nothing magical about SYG other than it allows a piminary opportunity to raise a self defense claim. In the mind of a defense attorney, whether the case is dismissed on SYG or through assertion of self defense, it all flows to the same conclusion — the guy who met force with force when he was attacked and beaten is not going to jail on a murder conviction.
O’Mara has at least a couple of times alluded to a possible SYG hearing for Zimmerman, so it’s safe to conclude that he will use the SYG statute to his client’s advantage, even if he thinks it’s an absurd law and even if he thinks it’s unnecessary and redundant. The problem with SYG now is Zommerman’s credibility with Lester is now shot, and he can’t win an SYG motion without taking the stand and telling his account of what happened. Lester is totally within his discretion to not believe anything Zommerman testified to.
“FACT – On April 16th Mark O’Mara released the following media statement: “I look forward to having a conversation with [Trayvon Martin's mother] to see exactly what her feelings are on it. Obviously it was a horrible intersection of two young men’s lives and it ended in tragedy. We have to figure out how it happened, why it happened, and who might be responsible for it.” Advocate?”
I see this as O’Mara’s gentle way of expressing his desire to bring Trayvon’s mom around to accepting reality. Yes, advocate. This is not O’Mara questioning whether Zimmerman is responsible or not — this is O’Mara understanding that Trayvon’s mom holds beliefs that are not based on fact.
“FACT - Mark O’Mara publicly tells the media that Shellie Zimmerman “lied“, and George “misrepresented himself to the court,” and now needs to have his “credibility rehabilitated.” The very credibility he is charged with guarding. With friends like that, who needs enemies?”
He cannot be more responsible for guarding Zimmrerman’s credibility that Zimmerman himself. It’s a fact that Zimmerman’s credibility needs to be rehabilitated so why pretend otherwise? After those jail calls were released and we all heard for ourselves that both Shelly and George knew the amount of donations and transferred the funds to their own personal accounts — do you really think O’Mara could have “guarded Zimmerman’s credibility” if he had proclaimed that George and Shelly told the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the bond hearing? Of course not– the only thing that would have done is destroy O’Mara’s credibility with the judge along won’t the Zimmerman’s. Since Zimmerman’s credibility is shot, it’s extremely important that O’Mara maintain credibility with the judge (and public) as Zimmerman’s representative and mouthpiece.
“FACT – On the day of the Bond Revocation Hearing the first O’Mara heard of the Jailhouse tapes was in the motion he received that morning. Legally he could have requested a continuance or delay in hearing due to prosecutions last-minute defense notification. He did not. He chose to put his clients at risk by being unprepared.”
He did object to the judge going forward on the issue of bond revocation, and the judge overruled him. O’Mara did exactly what is necessary to preserve the issue for appeal.
Lester did not conduct a full evidentiary hearing when he revoked bond, but doesn’t have to and it’s really not an appealable interlocutory issue because the remedy is to request that bond be reinstated — which is exactly what O’Mara did and secured Zimmerman’s release for a second time.
If a judge decides he’s going forward with something without notice and without time to prepare — there’s nothing an attorney can do other than raise the objection and respond to the outcome. That’s what O’Mara did.
You seem to think that O’Mara’s mere request for a continuance would automatically be granted, but that’s not the way it works.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara waived George’s right to a speedy trial.”
Totally appropriate and commonplace. At the the time he waived it, Zimmerman was out on bail and O’Mara did not even have discovery yet. Given the complexity of the case, the extremely high emotions, the potential preliminary SYG hearing and the need to fully and adequately investigate and prepare a defense, waiving speedy trial is common sense. Also, this waiver is not something O’Mara arrived at on his own — he cannot waive Zimmerman’s right without an explicit consent and instruction from his client.
All of you need to keep in mind that Zimmerman is participating fully in his own defense. There is no reason to think otherwise.
“FACT – The State has missed every statutory deadline for discovery, yet Mark O’Mara has never once called them out on it, asked the court to compel release, or even sounded as if he wants to get it with a sense of urgency. ”
You don’t have any idea what communications and agreements have taken place between O’Mara and the prosecution. Also, it’s no big deal if a statutory deadline is missed unless there reason to believe that the state is going to completely ignore their discovery obligation and refuse to comply at all. If that were the case, O’Mara would seek judicial intervention. It’s not the case though.
Heres a fact: judges hate discovery disputes whether you’re the complaining party or the party abusing the rules of discovery. Judges expect the attorneys to be able to work with each other on discovery issues and come to agreements without running to court for every conceivable issue. O’Mara knows this and in my opinion is playing it right. Comfort this to Jose Baez’ approach, which was to file motions every other day accusing the prosecutors of discovery violations, among other issues. It certainly did not endear him to the judge and it nearly got him sanctioned. It’s not smart, even if it’s permitted by the rules.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara spent $40,000 on paid expert witness testimony at the second bond hearing only to have the judge rule ” ”the presentation of evidence [...] is of limited relevance“… So his defenders say he did it for public opinion. How’d that work out?”
Now you’re holding Lester’s ruling out as reasonable or somehow legitimate to criticize O’Mara’s strategy in hindsight?
Come on, now. Lester wasn’t persuaded by anything or any evidence that indicated Zimmerman had no intention of using those funds to flee — including discounting the expert’s testimony. That’s really not O’Mara’s fault. I thought O’Mara did a good job with what he had to work with at the 2nd bond hearing. If Lester weren’t so pissed at Zimmerman, he would have see the relevance and value of the expert’s testimony as supportive of O’Mara’s position that Zimmerman was no flight risk.
It cost $40,000 which was apparently available from donated funds. Zimmerman still managed to bind out on 1MM 24 hours after the order. What’s your issue with the expenditure? I guess it could become a problem if Zimmerman does something to get his bond revoked again and has to come up with another large sum to make bond. Otherwise, I dont see a problem at all with using the resources as they’re intended.
“FACT – Mark O’Mara says of the 911 calls: “the tape that has the person screaming for help”…. ”the person,” does he not believe the voice is George? ”
Clearly he has taken the position and argued that it is George screaming for help in the 911 calls. He did a great job of getting this evidence in front of the court at the last bind hearing — having Sr. identify the voice as belonging to George. I don’t even think this is going to remain a contested issue in the future. I believe the prosecutors have even accepted that its George screaming for help. I think even Tray’s parents know it even if they won’t acknowledge it publicly. Notice that the state did not put either mom or dad on the stand to identify the screams as belonging to Trayvo , even though both parents were in the courtroom
and listened to the tape being played.
M4 you make some very good points. I am not an attorney but I do have some experience in the judicial system being a Judicial Assistant to Circuit Court Judge for quite a few years. I do know how the system works and as I’ve posted before, so far whether you like Judge Lester or not, he has ruled in favor of the Defense and against the State on most every issue that has come up. It’s the outcome in the courtroom not the outcry on the courthouse steps that you need to win.
I agree with you. I think a lot of comments that are against O’Mara fail to take into account what’s possible within the rules of ethics and procedure and what’s advisable or beneficial when it comes to winning in court.
Well, M4, Sundance doesn’t appear to be objecting, so hopefully you’ll take the time to give us a lawyer’s perspective on SD’s statements above. (Are you civil or criminal, BTW?)
I will make a point of it tomorrow if it’s ok with SD. It’s late now.
I am a civil trial attorney.
No – I’m an everyday, average, ordinary invisible American.
However, I did get gas once at a gas station -owned by a guy who got his hair cut – from a barber who also cut the hair of a judge, I think. I might be wrong. I don’t remember exactly. I think they sold out of BBQ Corn nuts that day.
1. From a layman’s perspective it looks that even the most incompetent of lawyers could have gotten George out on bail given Florida’s laws. What is the ratio in Florida for bonds granted/denied? I bet it’s high for granted.
2. A) The State doesn’t care about that aspect. B) The judge still considered the State’s case as strong.
3. I can’t find that statement. Why is it not bannered?
4. Wow he filed a motion.
5. O’Mara never argues the main point, in fact he does the opposite.
6. The judge didn’t reverse himself on the state’s case being strong and cited what O’Mara did was of limited relevance.
7. I don’t see anything in the Judge’s bond order that directly corresponds to O’Maras Motion to Set Reasonable Bond that reflects O’Mara had successfully did anything. The judge sites that it was the State’s failure to prove that George should be held without bail. I guess there case was not so strong huh?
8. I don’t see what that has to do with anything and apparently the judge didn’t either.
9. I have to accept that what George did he did as though he knew he was breaking the law only by virtue of his attorney’s word. This does not satisfy my interest in the truth of the matter as it may merely be a lawyers “strategy” and not truth. O’Mara has as much responsibility in ensuring that if his client had any monies anywhere that he must declare them, by all accounts O’Mara did not do this, even though he apparently had direct contact with the guy who was running the PayPal account. I have much more to say on that but will leave it for another time.
10. What is O’Mara risking? The pressure for this to go to trial is clear. Who is going to complain? Crump? Lol. What is Sundance’s main conclusion? That based on the numerous reasons given, here as well as other postings, George ought to seek other counsel. Given the tone of your writing it appears you are personally offended, your last paragraph reeks of it.
DiwataMan,
Your responses to #2 and #6 are patently false. Here are the judges words (I’ve condensed it so that you can get the meaning as the judge is obviously loquacious):
“Notably, at the initial bond hearing, this Court had only limited evidence … As a consequence, this Court found as a preliminary matter that the evidence against the Defendant was ‘strong’.”
This is an undeniable acknowledgement that the preliminary finding was based only on limited evidence. As such, it indicates that the judge may no longer hold that view.
1. So we agree, O’Mara did what any other defense attorney would do.
2. At trial, the investigator will be bound by his testimony that there’s no evidence to contradict Zimmermans account that Trayvon’s started the confrontation. That’s extremely important testimony to lock in.
3. http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/34-regarding-the-one-million-dollar-bond-set-for-george-zimmerman
4. Yes, he did what defense attorneys do when they represent their clients’ interests. That’s my point.
5. Disagree. He argues the main point and also gets whatever favorable information he can in front of the judge.
6. Not my point. My point is O’Mara used the judge’s revocation order as an opportunity to present a great deal of evidence favorable to Zimmerman — strong advocacy.
7. O’Mara requested that bail be set, and bail was set and Zimmerman released. In other words, O’Mara’s motion was granted. Without the motion, there would have been no 2nd bond hearing and Zimmerman would be sitting in jail until trial.
8. Calling the state on their underhanded tactics. Cuts against the argument that O’Mara is in league with the prosecutors.
9. O’Mara had every right and reason to rely on the truth and accuracy of the information his client gave him. No, O’Mara’s job is not to independently investigate his client to determine whether his client has told him the truth or withheld information.
George didn’t break any laws by withholding the information from his attorney — he undermined his own credibility by doing so, and he got his bond revoked and may have irreparably damaged any chance he has at a SYG victory.
10. I’m not at all personally offended. There is nothing about this that affects me personally in any way. I think SD’s conclusion makes no sense and is not supported by the points he uses to argue his conclusion. I think GZ has been railroaded by political pandering, and I want him to get the justice he deserves. Whether that happens or not has no bearing on anything in my life. As SD likes to say, I have no dog in this fight.
I take issue with the demonization of O’Mara because I think it’s unwarranted and distracts from the proper focus on the bad guys who are railroading Zimmerman. I also don’t like to see anyone unfairly maligned, and that’s how I view this discussion about the incompetent, unethical, two-faced O’Mara. Finally, it always causes me to bristle when a blog admin/moderator becomes so strident and entrenched in his/her pet theory that s/he criticizes, mocks and banishes divergent opinions. That was the feel here yesterday.
“At trial, the investigator will be bound by his testimony that there’s no evidence to contradict Zimmermans account that Trayvon’s started the confrontation. That’s extremely important testimony to lock in.”
Nonsense. The investigator won’t even be allowed to testify at trial regarding his opinion of the evidence.
John,
Testimony in a bond hearing may be admissible at trial as well as an SYG immunity hearing. The fact that a state investigator could not produce or describe any evidence to refute George’s claim is huge.
Gilbreath’s opinion on the evidence testimony from the bond hearing will not be admitted at trial. It is not huge.
John,
It is not his opinion on the evidence that I am talking about, it is whether or not there is evidence to refute George’s claim. I agree that his estimation of the evidence is opinion, but what was said during the initial bond hearing is different than that.
O’MARA: … And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.
GILBREATH: Well, it’s not that I have one. I probably could have used dirty words.
O’MARA: It is an antagonistic word, would you agree?
GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.
O’MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.
GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.
O’MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?
GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don’t know how much more explanation you wish.
O’MARA: Anything you have, but you don’t have any, do you?
GILBREATH: I think I’ve answered the question.
Again, this is not about interpreting evidence (opinion), this is about lack of evidence (fact). This may very well be admissible.
“It is not his opinion on the evidence that I am talking about, it is whether or not there is evidence to refute George’s claim.”
Gilbreath’s opinion on whether there exists evidence to refute George’s claims will not be admissible at trial.
It is not his opinion that the investigation yielded no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s account — such testimony is descriptive of the investigative process and its results.. The investigator absolutely can testify about his investigation and it’s a virtual certainty that he will. If not called by the prosecution, he can be called by the defense and will be bound by his prior sworn statements.
Just to make sure those here undserstand my position, since I’m in the honored position of one of the 12 [Disciples of O'Mara of Nazareth]. Do I believe that MOM could have done a better job? Yes. Do I think he should be fired and replaced? My answer is no since no one better has come forth, nor is there money to pay someone who may be better at defending George. If someone were to come forward, then maybe I might change my mind. Until then….
My main point that I’ve been posting about is the exactly same as the retired judge that GBishop posted on, Arnold S. Trebach; the problem is with Lester. He’s the one that needs to go. I don’t know the way that it’s done, but this is one area where if MOM/West don’t try to do it, I’ll no longer have positive thoughts for MOM/West and their ability to properly defend George. The problem is: who would come forth at such a late hour.and be affordable?
You’d be surprised ejarra. This is America, people care about law and morality, those who are born here and those who are new here, appreciate the freedom and value this country stands for.
For one thing, this case involves career making benefits of fame, fortune, friends, respect, recognition, power! Secondly, despite the mess MOM has created in the kitchen, it is an open and shut case. The law and justice system can yet work.
There are many who will not be stopped despite the death threats. Americans have always been willing to risk their life and limb for the values we care about, and many lawyers went into law because they wanted to make good law, uphold the constitution, value freedom and justice.
I was going to write a reply, but what you said ejarra, basically is my position. O’Mara is far from covering himself with glory in the PayPal funds issue. We really don’t know what really happened. I certainly don’t accept Judge Lester’s fantasy scenario. I provided a theory to O’Mara by email that might be the case or not. I tend to thing the whole thing was a series of fumbles by everyone envolved rather than deliberate deception. Aside from that I thing that O’Mara is doing a credible job. Perhaps this criticism here will have a good effect of showing him some areas for improvement.
The real problem is Lester not O’Mara. With a more balanced judge, O’Mara’s explanation would have been accepted and the whole farce of bond revocation and reinstatement at an absurd level would never have happened. The flawed reasonable about flight risk shows that Lester has lost all objectivity in this case.
I am a newcomer to this site and while I don’t post a lot I do read all of the posts. I do agree that something needs to be done and done soon. I am supporting George on any site that I visit, I would like to know what isn’t that I can do in order to further support George.
Where did I ever say I wanted the research on MOM to stop? How did I get in this post?
Where, when? Hello?? I’m the one that said NO WAY, NO HOW would my lawyer ever had gone into court to make a financial statement without documentary evidence(bank statements) in hand to back them up.
John Galt,
For some reason the reply button is not available below your remark just above, so I’ve replied here. I hope that’s okay.
Prior testimony has been admitted in other cases and I don’t see what rationale the judge would exclude it here. The testimony is relevant, it is from a qualified, potentially expert, witness and it speaks to the existence of evidence, not the interpretation of existing evidence. Here are Florida’s Rules of Evidence for you to read up on:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0090/0090ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%2090
Gilbreath’s opinion testimony on whether or not evidence exists to rebut Z’s claim that he was attacked while returning to his truck will not be admissible at trial.
Apparently you propose its admission pursuant to 90.702:
90.702 Testimony by experts.–If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion; however, the opinion is admissible only if it can be applied to evidence at trial.
This attempt fails the predicate requirement of demonstrating that Gilbreath has specialized knowledge or training that will assist the jury in understanding the evidence. The State will introduce evidence contradicting GZ’s claim, such as physical evidence (TM’s body and personal effects were located well south of the T across which Z claims that he was walking); perhaps DD’s testimony; perhaps GZ’s prior inconsistent statements; perhaps testimony from witnesses who saw or heard the fight. None of this evidence requires specialized knowledge or training to assist the jury in gaining an understanding. The State will present the evidence, the defense will rebut, the judge will instruct the jury on the law, opposing counsel will argue the matter to the jury, and the jury will decide whether or not the evidence presented at trial rebuts GZ’s story.
Courts do not permit “experts” to take the stand and testify, “I have reviewed all the evidence and there is no evidence to rebut the defendant’s version of the facts.”
Don’t know what else to say, but you’re wrong on this one. Have you ever watched a criminal trial? The police and investigators always testify. He’s not an expert witness, he’s a fact witness. Testimony about investigative procedures, protocol, and collection of evidence is certainly admissible.
John Galt,
I didn’t propose his admission pursuant to anything. I simply stated that his previous testimony can be admissible in an actual trial and I don’t see any grounds for the judge excluding it. Echoing M4′s comment, the investigators will more than likely be called to testify. If they are, the previous testimony will more than likely be admissible as relevant to his contemporaneous testimony.
If nothing else it can be used to impeach the investigator since he has now given contradictory sworn testimony — swearing out an affidavit that Zimmerman followed and confronted Trayvon, yet later testifying that he had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s account that Trayvon started the confrontation and attacked him as he was returning to his vehicle.
Just ask him the same question.
Regarding the 40K, we have no idea if he spent all of that on witnesses for the bond hearing. I assume he has hired PIs and other experts and has paid them some money.
SDC: Apologies if this has already been noted, haven’t had time to read all comments yet.
“FACT – On the day of the Bond Revocation Hearing the first O’Mara heard of the Jailhouse tapes was in the motion he received that morning. Legally he could have requested a continuance or delay in hearing due to prosecutions last-minute defense notification. He did not. He chose to put his clients at risk by being unprepared.”
This is FALSE. At the June 1 hearing (watch it) MOM absolutely did request that Bernie’s Motion to Revoke Bail be calendared for a subsequent hearing, in fact he flat-out Objected to it being heard at that time and did so on the basis that he had only received it that morning. Lester slapped him down on the spot, in fact lectured him: told him there was nothing to research, that the matter was cut-and-dried (talk about prejudice, that’s literal meaning of the word). In all probability, Lester also received the motion that morning (and it contains multiple misrepresentations all of which went right past Lester). Lester bought into Bernie’s Bullsh*t on the spot, BEFORE the June 1 hearing, he had already decided Shellie lied and basically told MOM to STFU.
In a nutshell: MOM asked for delay. Lester growled at him. MOM freaked like a terrified bunny rabbit and promptly dove into what he thought was safest hidey-hole in the courtroom — shoved his face right up Lester’s back door (a variation on the Ostrich move).
MOM is no wolverine, he’s a bunny rabbit. Forget the streets, MOM won’t even stand his (client’s) ground in the courtroom. Forget about SYG rights, MOM won’t stand up to a mindless bully when its his sworn duty to do so.
Look what he did after June 1 hearing: He started the TV interviews on the courthouse lawn and kept them up for a week: Told the whole world over and over again that his client had totally screwed up and lied to the court, and not just George but his whole family. Huh? He even said the family would need to apologize(!!) to the court. WTF??? He has NO BUSINESS speaking for ‘the family’, he doesn’t represent them (talk about unethical — but NOBODY has complained, wow!). Seriously: He was out there blabbing away about what GZ’s father, a former magistrate/judge, for whom he does not (ergo cannot) speak, needed to do. HUH??
And how MOM himself, who had no culpability in all this, would personally repair all the damage these fools, in their fear and distrust, had brought upon themselves. OH PUKE!!!
I especially like this line (on Charlie Rose’s first show after hearing — try to watch first 10 seconds of video without throwing up):
“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.”
Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Mark-OMara-says-George-Zimmerman-could-remain-in-jail-until-trial-for-Trayvon-Martins-death–VIDEO-157183175.html#ixzz20F2esXU2
—————————
So WTF is MOM game? (SDC — I absolutely agree with you comments on the never-ending TV appearances, and I think its the key). I think its this:
MOM practices in basically two fields – divorce and criminal defense. When he says his usual billing rate is $400/hour he’s talking divorce, not criminal cases. Criminal defendants rarely have much (any) money. Divorce case clients tend to be the opposite. MOM’s legal practice makes its money in the divorce business.
He does criminal to get those good-paying TV consultant gigs — they’re almost always criminal cases. Look what he’s been doing with this case: He’s spent at least 10X and maybe 20X more time in front of TV cameras than he has with GZ (and his whole family combined). He hasn’t made any money off TV (yet!) , but he’s turned himself into maybe the nation’s best-know criminal defense attorney, and sold himself as ‘wise and unbiased’ — what could be more lucrative after the GZ case? Especially if he’s seen as having used his ‘wisdom and skill’ to cut his ‘guily-as-sin’ client a really sweet deal (plea bargains are MOM’s forte, remember) — something like time served & probation instead of life in the big house? Everybody’s happy — Crump can sue all the deep pockets, GZ can move on (maybe with a small nest egg from his legal fund), no riots, Bernie and Carey can claim victory, Lester looks like the tough-on-crime no-bull judge he so much wants to be, and MOM makes millions …
Forget all MOM’s ‘noble pro-bono’ bs. MOM is working entirely for himself and only for himself. I didn’t see how at first, but it’s been clear for some time: He’s using GZ to get about $100M in free TV publicity — advertising for the MOM law firm, but more importantly for his upcoming TV-consultant contracts (think $ millions). He’s NOT trying to run up his billable hours (won’t ever get paid his ‘usual’ rate anyway). He IS trying to maximize his TV face-time — because, post-GZ, that’s where he’ll make at least 20X what the billable hours are worth anyway (which he can pad out and write off as loss on his taxes, thereby effectively getting paid for them anyway).
Why hasn’t O’Mara filed an appeal on the high bond amount? From what I am reading it would be O’Mara that would be the one to file that appeal. Instead of just accepting the high bond amount, and going on TV crying about it in order to get more donations, why hasn’t he appealed the outreageous amount? Is he using the high bond amount to further his appeals for more money? Talk about the trashcan parents, isn’t O’Mara also putting out the proverbial trashcans for the same purpose?
Appealing the excessive bond would be an excellent opportunity to once again challenge the State’s evidence against GZ. I would call the ME who did the autopsy report that mischaracterized the gun shot as Intermediate range when the presence of soot made it obvious that TM was shot either at Close Range or Contact range. I would also challenge the ME’s incident synopsis which seems to have been dictated by Ben Crump and Detective Serino.
He’s not appealing it because Zimmerman was able to post bond and get released, which could be argued is an indicia of “reasonableness” in and of itself. You cant accept the benefit of bail by posting bond and leaving detention – and then turn around and challenge its reasonableness on appeal.
I don’t think he’d be successful with an appeal anyway succeed in an appeal because the bond amount was not unreasonable considering Zimmerman’s availability of liquid assets. If he had disclosed all of his resources at the first bond hearing, bail probably would have been set at 1MM to begin with.