CNN TRANSCRIPT: 7/13/12
And now, new developments tonight in the case against George Zimmerman. Defense attorney Mark O’Mara has filed a motion to disqualify the judge. Kenneth Lester is his name and Mark O’Mara says he’s biased against Zimmerman. He said this after he made what O’Mara is called gratuitous and disparaging remarks in his bail order last week.
Including and I quote, “Under any definition, the defendant has flouted the system.” And, I quote again, “The defendant has tried to manipulate the system when he has been presented the opportunity to do so.” Those and other remarks are what the defense says will prevent Zimmerman from getting a fair trial.
CNN legal analyst Mark NeJame is OUTFRONT.
Mark, do those statements, flouted the system and manipulating the system, do you agree with Mark O’Mara, that those are gratuitous and disparaging? Or are those fair ways to describe someone who when asked if he had money said no and he really did have money?
MARK NEJAME, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it’s a fair comment from a court who’s evaluating the evidence, one can agree or disagree. But you can’t throw a judge off every time you disagree with him because basically you’d have half the judges thrown off at any given time, because somebody typically is going to be on the other side.
The fact is, is that, you know, the question will be did the judge go too far to suggest that he’s in fact, might be biased? I don’t think the judge is biased at all.
However, in order for the defense to claim that, down the line in the event there’s an appeal, you have to first raise it. So, if it’s not raised in this forum, then it’s forever waived. So, I think the defense has no option if they truly believe in a good faith believe what they’ve alleged, and I believe that’s their position —
BURNETT: And, Mark, you know this judge personally, right?
NEJAME: I know the judge. I know the defense lawyer. Yes, I know them all, for a long time.
BURNETT: So you believe when you look at this person, Mr. Lester, his integrity, the way he would handle this, you think he’s fair?
NEJAME: I think he’s without re reproach. I think he did go pretty far in that order. And I think that’s the basis of the defense motion, that they’re claiming that the judge went further than he needed to go. He could have simply granted the bond and moved on. But the judge interpreted a lot of things. Basically, he said that he believed Zimmerman was going to flee because of the dishonesty he associated with the moneys that were obviously in a fund that were not disclosed to the court.
So the judge took some leaps there. But I think that’s within his right to do so.
BURNETT: So who decides? So, you know, Mark O’Mara makes this motion. But who decides whether the judge stays or goes?
NEJAME: The judge.
BURNETT: The judge?
NEJAME: There’s already one recuse, you may remember that Recksiedler, the wife my law partner, first got off the case.
BURNETT: Yes.
NEJAME: You basically get one free bite of the apple. The second one, the judge basically has to agree with the motion. And if the judge doesn’t agree, then the remedy for the defense is to take it to an appellate court on a petition for a writ of prohibition and go to the appellate court, which here is in Daytona. My partner Eric Barker assisted me on this to get this ready for you all.
But basically, they will make a determination whether the judge is — they’ll be looking at the facts to see if the judge in fact shows bias.
BURNETT: Right./
NEJAME: There’s an assumption of correctness in the judge’s order. So, it’s hard to overturn.
BURNETT: So, let’s just — OK, sorry. So, let’s just say the judge remains on this case. And now the — George Zimmerman’s attorney is asked to be removed. Doesn’t this put George Zimmerman’s entire case, entire trial, put him at a disadvantage? The judge, if he doesn’t already dislike him would, even if he didn’t want to be biased, he obviously would have reason to be, even if kind of in the back of his mind —
NEJAME: You know, I don’t think so. You know, we all — we can fight against each other. We can be in trial against each other for a week and we can be duking it out and then go out to dinner with each other. It’s just the way you’re set up when you do this. And none of this is personal.
So I didn’t hear any — I didn’t see any personal attacks on the judge. I simply said what I heard and what I read is basically that there was a suggestion that in light of the judge’s ruling that they believe there’s bias.
They filed their motion. It wasn’t a personal attack. It was a legal motion that suggested that the judge was biased.
But no, I don’t think they’ll be anything lingering. This judge I think calls it down the middle. He’s done that. He’s known for that for his entire career.
BURNETT: Right.
NEJAME: And I don’t think it’s going to impact it one way or another.
BURNETT: Hey, Mark. Thank you.
NEJAME: My pleasure.
Transcript
Relevent: Orange County Florida – Ninth Judicial Circuit
The Standards set forth herein are those expected of Attorneys practicing in the Courts of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. While not meant to be exhaustive, the Standards also set a tone or guide for conduct that might not be specifically covered by these Standards. The overriding principles promoted by the Standards are communication and civility between counsel, as well as cooperation with the Courts and other participants in the justice system.
- Attorneys shall refrain from discovery requests not reasonably related to the matter at issue. Attorneys shall not use discovery for the purpose of harassing, embarrassing, causing needless duplication of effort, or causing the adversary to incur unnecessary expenses.
- Attorneys shall not propound or object to discovery for the purpose of causing undue delay, needless vexation or obtaining unfair advantage.
- Attorneys shall ensure that responses to reasonable discovery requests are timely, complete, and consistent with the obvious intent of the request. Attorneys shall not, and must counsel their clients not to produce documents in a way calculated to hide or obscure the existence of documents.
- Attorneys shall, whenever appropriate, discuss and coordinate discovery planning with counsel for each party to the action (e.g., counsel should cooperate in scheduling and coordinating depositions after requested documents pertaining to the deponent have been disclosed).
- In all matters litigation or not, Attorneys shall not knowingly misstate, misrepresent, or distort any fact or legal authority to the Court or to counsel for any party to the action. Further, if this occurs unintentionally and is later discovered, it shall immediately be disclosed or otherwise corrected.
- Attorneys shall notify opposing counsel of all oral or written communications with the Court or other tribunal, except those involving only scheduling matters. Attorneys shall simultaneously provide to counsel for each party to the action by substantially similar mode of delivery, copies of any submissions, correspondence, memoranda or law, case law, etc. to the Court (e.g., if a memorandum of law is hand-delivered to the Court, a copy shall simultaneously either be hand-delivered or faxed to each party). If the Court requests the parties to submit a proposed order, written closing argument, or statement of a party’s legal position, unless otherwise specified by the Court, the submission shall be in the form of a pleading, memoranda, or proposed order and not in the form of a letter.
- Attorneys shall draft proposed orders promptly, and the orders shall fairly and adequately represent the ruling of the Court. Attorneys shall promptly provide, either orally or in writing, proposed orders to counsel for each party to the action for approval. Any objections to entry of the proposed order shall promptly be communicated. The drafting Attorney shall clearly advise the Court as to whether or not the proposed order has been approved by opposing counsel.
- In drafting agreements and other documents, Attorneys shall use their knowledge, training, skill, and integrity to ensure that the agreements and documents fairly reflect the true intent of the parties. Where revisions are made to an agreement or other document, Attorneys shall point out or otherwise highlight any such additions, deletions, or modifications to counsel for each party to the action.
