Back To Court – Mark O’Mara Returns to Judge Nelson Today 4pm Hearing

Today George Zimmerman’s legal team will head back to court to argue motions before Judge Nelson.   The specifics of this motion are to request a delay in the Immunity Hearing scheduled for April 26th.

Judge Nelson

Recently O’Mara shared, through the GZ Defense website, numerous challenges from the prosecution discovery releases including blank tapes/CD’s from CCTV footage used by the State of Florida in their investigation.

Additionally, Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, is refusing to be deposed as a witness despite his prior assertions that he and his team had discovered specific evidence against George Zimmerman.   There are multiple issues with the claims made by Ben Crump, and subsequently advocated by the State of Florida, regarding witness #8.

To give you yet another example of the media bias and misinformation around this case take a  look at this recent article from Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinel.   Just in this one paragraph alone THREE glaring media contortions:

Rene stutzman Jeff Weiner

The 18-year-old woman at the center of dispute was interviewed by Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda April 2 in Jacksonville and gave him the same general account as she told Crump.  (link)

….”The 18-year-old woman“…..?  Rene Stutzman disengenuously never reconciles how she now comes to the position of Witness #8 being eighteen when all of her prior articles listed witness #8 as sixteen and a minor.

…. “interviewed by Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda April 2 in Jacksonville“… ?   Um, not even close.   The April 2nd interview with witness #8 was at the home of Sybrina Fulton in North-Miami.

…”and gave him the same general account as she told Crump“….?   How does Rene Stutzman reconcile this statement?   Does she have some insider information that even the defense is not aware of?

Humor in NatureCan you see how insufferably ridiculous the reporting of this case has been.

About these ads
This entry was posted in George Zimmerman Open Thread, media bias, Trayvon Martin, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

235 Responses to Back To Court – Mark O’Mara Returns to Judge Nelson Today 4pm Hearing

  1. rumpole2 says:

    I don’t know if this hearing will be streamed live? I read that George will not be present.
    IF it is streamed live… here are the usual links worth a try just before hearing is due to start:

    • canadacan says:

      I’ll have to wait to hear the results I have such a antipathy towards mNelson because she’s so irrational that I can hardly control myself

    • jello333 says:

      I’m glad George isn’t gonna be there. I’m sure he feels obligated, and that he should show up for each and every hearing. But it’s really not necessary, and why deal with all the stress if you don’t need to? Of course if George really WANTS to be there, that’s cool. But if he just feels some “obligation”… no, don’t worry about it, George.

  2. jello333 says:

    The penguin GIF?…. I guarantee at some point in these proceedings, we’re gonna see Don do that to Bernie!

  3. Chip Bennett says:

    I think, in order to move Judge “I see nothing insurmountable” Nelson, the defense is going to have to lay some cards on the table. If they do so, then what will move the date of the immunity hearing will be the timing of a Richardson hearing.

    The defense will have to demonstrate to Nelson the reason that they have been unable to complete their own discovery – and in so doing, the shenanigans being played by the State will be so obvious that Nelson will have no choice but to hold such a hearing. And if she doesn’t, the defense still gets their assertions on record, and one more nail in the appeal coffin.

    • mung says:

      I agree 100% with that. At some point they have to just pound her with everything so that she either gets the message or puts herself into a position where she has to be removed from the case.

      • jello333 says:

        We were talking yesterday about what they may have to do in order to force Crump to answer all the questions. One way to override any “privilege” he might assert is to use the “crime-fraud exception”… and to do that they’re gonna have to spell it out. They’re gonna have to come right out and accuse Ben of CRIMES. Which, of course, is exactly what they SHOULD do.

  4. mung says:

    I am going to just be getting into Atlanta when this starts. Hopefully I can watch it on my iPad as I doubt they will have it on in the airport.

  5. maggiemoowho says:

    Lets hope Judge Nelson doesn’t have a Valentine Day dinner date. Hearing at 4:00, traffic on I-4, could be a quick hearing.

  6. John Galt says:

    “and gave him the same general account as she told Crump“….? How does Rene Stutzman reconcile this statement? Does she have some insider information that even the defense is not aware of?”

    I have noted numerous inconsistencies when comparing the Crump and BDLR interviews. A couple of glaring examples:

    Crump: W8 heard somebody push Trayvon and the headset just fell
    BDLR: push changes to a bump and then to something hitting something and then to something hitting somebody

    Crump: W8 does not mention “get off”
    BDLR: W8 heard Trayvon say “get off, get off” after the phone went dead, and after the last thing she heard.

    “Same general account” but with glaring inconsistencies?

  7. art tart says:

    Thanks Sundance, it’s important for those in the media to continue to be called out for shoddy reporting.

    Remember when Crump PROMISED full cooperation of himself/Tracy/Sybrina w/LE and the investigation? Then only days later, when Tracy was ask about the PIN needed for TM’s phone, he claimed “he had to ask his attorney, Crump?” Then to insult our intelligence further, Crump claimed ignorance about Tracy asking him. NOW, Crump is AGAIN choosing NOT to cooperate with the investigation, the search for the truth. Yet none of the MEDIA seems to call them out on their grandstanding lies.

    After all, the Handler’s/Crump/Sybrina/Tracy just wanted an arrest, LOL. All grifters’s imo.

  8. scubachick75 says:

    Speaking of Crump…he’s representing the family of a woman that died in police custody. She was arrested for abandoning her children on the steps of the police station because she didn’t want them anymore. They arrest her later that night at a known drug house and she resists. She dies in police custody.The coroner said Cocaine intoxication played a part in her death. Guess what ole Chump says??
    Benjamin Crump, the attorney representing Thomas’ family in a civil suit against the LAPD, downplayed the cocaine found in her body, saying that police should not have tried to take her into custody in the first place.

    I mean, how dare they try to arrest a black woman for abandoning her children? Silly police. Crump loves to downplay the drug use of his clients and blame everyone else.

  9. Rich Branson says:

    Rene Stutzman is just another liberal hack. Or as Alex Jones would say it, “SHE’S JUST A HATCHET-WOMAN FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!!!!!!!!!!”

  10. rumpole2 says:

    We will not have the livestream of this hearing. Bob Kealing will live tweet it below and will have a full report on WESH when it’s over.
    by Kevin Clay/ Staff 10:04 AM

  11. brutalhonesty says:

    is there a working stream?

  12. diwataman says:

    What the heck does that mean?

  13. rumpole2 says:
  14. diwataman says:
  15. diwataman says:
  16. diwataman says:

    Gee Bob, ten minutes without a tweet. Where did ya go? :)

  17. art tart says:

    Judge denies George Zimmerman’s request to delay ‘stand your ground’ hearing
    Judge says the hearing will be April 22,0,3996028.story

  18. recoverydotgod says:

    Live Chat with Updates from reporter Jeff Allen.

  19. art tart says:

    Judge Debra Nelson said Zimmerman’s immunity hearing could begin as early as April 15. Lead attorney Mark O’Mara suggested the immunity hearing being held in May or with the second-degree murder trial itself, which is scheduled to begin in June

  20. art tart says:

    Judge Nelson said: Nelson ruled that the immunity hearing won’t be delayed past April 22 unless there are “extenuating, extraordinary circumstances.”

    Outrageous! At this rate, how can she not anticipate “extenuating, extraordinary circumstances.” The Defense can’t even get the blow hard handler Crump to sit down for a deposition.

    I wish we could just SKIP the immunity hearing with Judge N and move onto the APPEAL process of the SYG Hearing since Judge N is going to deny it anyway, that would save her precious time.

  21. diwataman says:

    This just gets more bizarre. I have no idea what to make of what happened today in regards to the immunity hearing. Some reporting suggests O’Mara was seeking to continue the hearing. Some seem to say he wanted to start it at the same time the trial is supposed to start. Rene says O’Mara did not formally ask for a delay then goes on to say;

    “But that’s only because the judge was so quick to make known her intention.”I will not continue it unless there are extenuating, extraordinary circumstances,” she said.She gave attorneys the option of starting it a week early – April 15. Attorneys for both sides agreed to start it April 22, and if a second week is needed, roll into the week of April 29.”

    Giving the option to start it early? So now Nelson is trying to move things earlier than scheduled knowing the position O’Mara is in? This woman is a lunatic, plain and simple.

  22. rumpole2 says:

    Lets get this charade done. Immunity hearing ASAP then on to appeal
    15th April sounds great… my Birthday (the day people buy me cake)

  23. sundance says:

    Toldayso. :(

    Nelson is firmly committed to following the instructions from the DOJ-CRS. A trial is now a relative certainty.

    Bad News for George.

    Sorry to point it out right now but…….

    ….. if O’Mara is willing to roll/dovetail/envelope *immunity hearing* into trial then MoM is setting GZ up for a conviction (which was my position prior to West coming aboard). Without seperation there can be no appeal of immunity outcome. Self Defense *IS* the defense. Lose it, and you lose trial.Period.

    GZ needs to bail on MoM right now, or he’s headed to prison.

    Y’all thought me crazy with the “the glance” post. What do you think now?

    • ottawa925 says:

      I don’t think you’re crazy. GZ needs a fancy schmancy every trick in the book attorney at this point. An attorney from a BIG firm that has a very big reputation. One that can start putting a foot on the necks of these ppl involved in trying to railroad George. I’m thinking a New York attorney since many are also licensed to practice in Florida.

    • diwataman says:

      Maybe he should get Timothy A. Smith’s lawyer, Robert Jerome Nesmith, lol, wouldn’t that be something, a black lawyer succeeding in a an immunity hearing for George.

    • nettles18 says:

      This is your site. I’m not going to tell you you ARE crazy. That wouldn’t be polite.

      There will be no conviction, there will be no trial. What is going on and rushing everything may be to give political and legal cover to powerful people who need it.

      The State has nothing. The time the defense wants will help uncover information to help prosecute and sue powerful people in the future. It’s not needed to fight these charges.

      As a commenter on the Orlando Sentinel pointed out this afternoon,
      “3 Things have to be proven for immunity.
      • Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity.
      • Zimmerman was being attacked in a place he had a right to be.
      • Zimmerman had the reasonable belief that his life and his safety were in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by Martin

      The defense can prove ALL of these things and more, the scale is the preponderance of the evidence in the immunity hearing, that’s barely over 50 %, the lowest standard. Many just don’t seem to comprehend this about the SYG Hearing, the appeal would have to fail, which is not likely as the law is on the side of GZ before it would ever get to trial.”

      Political influence may very well be afoot in this case. Judge Nelson will rule and if it’s an adverse ruling the decision will be appealed. The 3 Judge Panel will put this nasty mess and the stain on the State of Florida to bed and their hope will be to protect those powerful people in the process.

      I hope this gets exposed for the farce it is or you can bet the playbook will be pulled out in another case and someone else will fall victim to the scheme of pushing every racial button to anger the masses and earn the right to sue innocent entities.

      There will be no trial, imo. You have that in writing.

    • howie says:

      500 jurors to get the right blend. This case is so far in the weeds it is beyond imagination.

    • howie says:

      Either he has an airtight case or.

    • selfdefenseadvocate says:

      IMO, iF it goes in front of a jury, it will be a hung jury.

    • jello333 says:

      I still don’t know what to think about “the glance” deal from way back, so I’m not gonna speculate on that. But the rest, especially about a trial and a conviction? NOPE. I’m just gonna have to stick with where I’ve been for a LONG time on this… no trial, so no chance of a conviction. Even if there WAS a trial, no chance of a conviction. You asked our opinions, so that’s mine. ;) So yeah, that cake from DMan is sounding just as good as ever.

    • Ugh says:

      MOM may have no choice, out of time.

    • rumpole2 says:

      It all sounds NUTS.
      I thought the POINT of a SYG/Immunity hearing was to AVOID a trial…. No need for a trial if Self defence/SYG applies.??

      • jordan2222 says:

        Oh, boy… now I do not know what to think. Sundance says that George is heading to prison unless he gets a new lawyer and Nettles says emphatically that there will be NO damn trial.

        I do not recall that we have ever had such conflicting opinions about George’s future.

        This is worrisome to me. Does anyone else have an opinion?

        • justfactsplz says:

          I have known for a very long time that this was political, so though it is sad, I agree with Sundance. I wish it were not so.

          • jordan2222 says:

            It is sad and tragic to think about this. Do you believe that George should get a new lawyer? How would he do that?

            • jello333 says:

              There was a time here that probably the majority of people didn’t trust MOM. And while that no longer seems to be the case, there are still some who feel that way. So let’s just say that MOM can NOT be trusted. I don’t believe that, but for the sake of argument. Alright, how ’bout this: Do we trust Don West? I think I know the answer nearly all of us would give to that. Soooo…. unless and until we see Don up and QUIT, I think it’s safe to assume these guys are more or less on the same page (though I agree with Sundance there’s likely some differences as far as tactics go). Even if MOM was willing to do something that created a serious risk to the outcome (which I don’t think he is), would West go along with that? If the answer is NO, then, as I say, unless he quits, everything’s good.

              • jordan2222 says:

                IDK, Jello:

                Sundance is not prone to making unfounded emotional statements so I have to take his comment seriously. He’s never completely trusted O’Mara and his comments about him from the beginning tell me that he has done a lot of “boots on the ground” research to say the things that he has in the past.

                We all know that he keeps some things to himself and lets us “guess” or try to figure out on our own what is happening so that in itself is not unusual.

                You may not think so but I find it disturbing for him to do this at a time when we were all thinking on a much different plane. All of a sudden, we are not of like minds.

                I am hoping that Nettles will add more to this conversation. Her reaction did not surprise me and she seemed “upset” about what he said.

            • justfactsplz says:

              I don’t know what to think. What good would it do if the powers that be control the outcome?

              • jordan2222 says:

                “What good would it do if the powers that be control the outcome?”

                The powers that be?

                If I did know Sundance on the level that I have come to know him, I would label him a conspiracy theorist when he talks about “meetings of the powers that be.” Wouldn’t you?

                • justfactsplz says:

                  What good would it do? For the good of the BGI. It is a conspiracy. Do you not remember when I told you that the top man in the FBI that answers directly to the president was involved in this case? Bondi, Scott, Holder, Obama, are all involved.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    As soon as came to this site I began to post about the politics of this case and how Scott, Corey and Bondi were the real conspirators, under the “tutelage” of Holder and Obama.

                    None of that has changed but I had hoped the Truth would reveal their colors and that George would be exonerated. Silly, romantic, me.

                    BTW, I meant to say If I did NOT know Sundance on the level that I have come to know him…

                    I want to hear from Nettles.

                  • justfactsplz says:

                    It’s not silly. I am normally a hopeless romantic and I want more than anything for both George and Shellie to be set free from such malicious prosecutions. The way things are going lately it is easy to see the writing on the wall. Evidence says George is innocent but politics says he is guilty.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    I feel like I know you so I share even more of your frustration and pain. This is tragic for all of us here. For now, I want to believe that someone is making a huge mistake that will soon be corrected.

                    There was a time when We the People of the State of Florida would get off our butts and put a stop to this crap.

                    It is absolutely absurd that we, the citizens, could actually end up paying Crump millions of dollars for this in lieu of so many other things our state needs. I am getting ill thinking about this.

                  • justfactsplz says:

                    We need to stand up against this. Sign petitions, have a huge rally in support for George. But we won’t do it, we have become complacent. We need to quit thinking they can’t do this or that. Yes they can and they will.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    Today is one day I hope that George is doing something else other than reading this thread. Sundance has said he is going to prison if he does not get a new lawyer and others are also painting a pessimistic picture. Can you even imagine what he would be going through in reading all of this?

                  • justfactsplz says:

                    Jordan, Geoge knew he was a politcal prisoner when Eric Holder refused to answer George’s family’s letter complaining about the Black Panthers. I want more than anything for the evidence to prevail and for George to go free. However, the truth is shinning brightly and we cannot have our heads in the sand.

          • jello333 says:

            Calm down guys. Just yesterday, virtually everyone here was in agreement that things would be fine in the end, most even saying they don’t think it’ll get to a trial. And that was with us all being aware of the type of judge Nelson is, and what kind of rulings she might make. So what has changed since then? Only one thing: MOM’s comment about considering “rolling the immunity hearing into the trial”. But all that is is a strategy IMO. And I don’t even mean a strategy regarding why he would do that, and what it would involve. No, I think the “strategy” is just SAYING that. The comment itself is strategic. I’m still trying to work out in my mind exactly what the purpose is, but I’ve got some ideas. But again, I don’t see what we’re suddenly worried about. Does George still have the vast, vast majority of evidence on his side… or did some shocking revelation happen that I don’t know about?

          • dmoseylou says:

            “Be strong and of good courage.”

  24. nettles18 says:
  25. justfactsplz says:

    Omara considering combining the immunity hearing with the trial is a very bad thing. It all makes me sick with worry and grief. George has already been judged to be guilty. The powers that be have decreed it. None of the scheme team or the Martins will be held accountable. Omara will not get the evidence he needs. Crump will not be forced to testify. Stop this injustice now.

    • howie says:

      Now. What if you were going to take a criminal case to trial? Then what if all the states witnesses had to plead the 5th? No wonder they need 500 jurors.

      • justfactsplz says:

        It is going to most difficult to seat a jury. Unless you are a hermit you have heard all of the biased media about this case. I am sure the witnesses that saw Trayvon beating George are very nervous about their safety and testifying. It is all so insane that this can happen and will continue to happen to others.

        • howie says:

          Like I said. This case is so far out in the weeds. Hope it is not a precedent.

        • Sharon says:

          I don’t think it will be difficult to seat a jury. I would expect that the CRS folks would gently guide through the system those who will be suitable jurors. Out of a group of 500, “selecting” 6 (or 12?) will be child’s play for them.

          Willing suspension of disbelief really isn’t even an option any more for me. Maybe I’m just observing from too great a distance.

          • justfactsplz says:

            I should have said it would be hard to seat an impartial jury. I don’t believe for one minute that that would be the goal. This has already been decided and the writing is on the wall.

          • sundance says:

            The DOJ-CRS has the invitation list. The only juror invitation list…. Funnily enough it seems to have the same familiarity with various *church* attendees.

            Y’all think that sounds “out there”, it aint.

            • justfactsplz says:

              It doesn’t sound “out there” to me. I bet there will be a lot of people in Sanford who will receive drivers licenses. They won’t even have to stand in line to get them.

            • jordan2222 says:


              I have the utmost respect for you but you are crossing the line when you say things like this:

              “The DOJ-CRS has the invitation list. The only juror invitation list…. Funnily enough it seems to have the same familiarity with various *church* attendees.

              Y’all think that sounds “out there”, it aint.Y’all think that sounds “out there”, it aint.”

              Yes, that is “way” out there. Seriously, how are we supposed to believe that? I need to hear more to make that believable. If I said something like that to any of my friends, they would put in the same camp as Alex Jones and I bet some of your friends would, too.

              Surely, you understand my skepticism.

              • sundance says:

                You are absolutely right to find yourself in a state of disbelief. It’s beyond crazy to believe the list will stem from a federally protected anonymous group that no-one is permitted to talk about unless they are willing to face federal charges. You are correct.

                No-one would ever advance the notion of it being absurd to use minority disenfranchising Drivers License rolls to find jurors. After all, it’s not like the DOJ files lawsuits or anything to stop such processes from being followed…. No, wait…..

    • John Galt says:

      “Omara considering combining the immunity hearing with the trial is a very bad thing.”

      Assuming: Nelson would deny a pretrial motion for immunity after a two-week hearing beginning on April 22 sometime prior to the June 10 trial date. She probably wouldn’t rule on immunity before late May.

      Potential advantages of combining immunity hearing and trial:

      1. avoids previewing the defense’s case to the State (witness coaching and rehearsal opportunity)
      2. avoids giving the State two chances to cross-examine Z (with attendant further inconsistencies to nit-pick before the jury)
      3. gives the defense more time to prepare (obtain discovery and experts)
      4. potentially avoids the time and expense of putting on the defense case twice
      5. potentially avoids adverse pre-trial publicity associated with a denial of a pretrial motion for immunity.

      Question: Is there an automatic stay of trial pending appeal of a denial of a pretrial motion for immunity? I haven’t researched this question, but from news media accounts, it appeared to me that they were intending to continue forward with trial in the Trevor Dooley case pending appeal of denial of the pretrial immunity motion. Although I think perhaps that the denial of immunity was affirmed prior to actual start of trial. The article states that Dooley’s lawyer sought an expedited review on appeal.

      • howie says:

        No there is not. And there may not be anything to gain from the state they don’t already know. And they may know what the judge is going to do anyway. There is more than a mountain we do not know and they do. Dooley was just let out on bail post trial. But he is black. 100k. After conviction. Compare that to this. They did not need to tamp it down.

        • John Galt says:

          Nelson would decide a motion to stay trial pending appeal of her own order denying immunity? Ruh Roh


          (a) Application.
          Except as provided by general law and in subdivision (b) of this rule, a party seeking to stay a final or non-final order pending review shall file a motion in the lower tribunal, which shall have continuing jurisdiction, in its discretion, to grant, modify, or deny such relief. A stay pending review may be conditioned on the posting of a good and sufficient bond, other conditions, or both.

      • howie says:

        And the white family of the victim has not got a pass the trash tour to collect money.

      • howie says:

        And the Congressional White Caucus is not having a caniption fit.

      • justfactsplz says:

        Well, I’m not an attorney. The way you put it makes a lot of sense, especially about not having your case put out there before trial. However, I doubt that Nelson will let them postpone the immunity hearing. What is it with judges here? She has no backbone.

  26. John Galt says:

    You think O’Mara reads CTH ?

    O’Mara today: “I may ask the court to envelop the immunity hearing into the trial itself.”

    jordan2222 says:
    February 7, 2013 at 3:54 am
    Exactly what has to happen at a trial for George to be immune to civil suits aside from being found innocent? Could he be found immune at a trial?
    eastern2western says:
    February 7, 2013 at 3:57 am
    not very likely.
    LetJusticePrevail says:
    February 7, 2013 at 4:03 am
    Nope. Immunity is ruled on separately, during a pre-trial hearing,
    John Galt says:
    February 7, 2013 at 10:05 am
    I read one case where somebody filed a post-trial motion for immunity.
    LetJusticePrevail says:
    February 7, 2013 at 3:15 pm
    Really? Can you cite the case for me?
    John Galt says:
    February 7, 2013 at 3:34 pm
    LetJusticePrevail says:
    February 8, 2013 at 3:07 am
    Thanks for the link, That was a VERY interesting ruling, and something I did not think possible. I am guessing, but I assume there was no earlier motion for immunity?

  27. jordan2222 says:

    Nettles: You and Sundance are not on the same page. That is disturbing. I would like to know exactly why you believe that there will be NO trial.

  28. rooferx says:

    Thanks manybuddies….
    MOM…..”I don’t believe that an ‘ESQ’ after your name makes you immune from deposition”

  29. diwataman says:

    Okay, just when I thought I understood this whole enveloping thing, now again I’m not sure. I just simply do not get what it means or how it works. Has anyone ever heard of it? Or another case where it was done?

    Regardless, this judge just ain’t going to do it. She scheduled the hearing for April so it’s in April. You think you can tell her otherwise? So really it’s pointless to entertain the idea cuz it just ain’t gonna happen, well, I don’t think it will, I guess anything’s possible but this is the schedule nazi after all we are talking about so, ya know.

    Who knows, maybe O’Mara is just floundering and doesn’t know what to do, he thought he was in the club but Nelson has made it clear he’s not, he’s probably getting uninvited to a few dinner parties and is being ostracized from the community for not toeing the line and so he’s flipping out saying odd stuff about enveloping immunity hearings into trials.

    • John Galt says:

      For a combined immunity hearing and trial, the judge and jury would hear the evidence at the same time. That was done in the case linked above, because the defense filed a post trial motion for immunity. I don’t think it is that big of a deal. Judges already have to analyze the facts and law to rule on Rule 3.380 motions for judgments of acquittal in every case anyway. Nelson would just have to do a little more analysis for the 776.032 immunity determination.

      • jordan2222 says:

        I read that this procedure gives George only one chance for an appeal instead of two but I am no lawyer so IDK for sure.

        The ONLY advantage is that it gives the defense more time, which they should be entitled to anyway. If they are not ready and can easily prove that it is due to the stalling tactics of the State, then what is Nelson realistically going to do? Imagine if the State refuses to turn over all of those cell phone records, ping logs, etc for 2/26 or claims they are lost. Suppose Crump refuses to submit to a depo. Or that DeeDee cannot be found. Do you really think she would require that the trial proceed? I do not think she has the balls to do that. A couple of press conferences by the defense would certainly be appropriate at that point.

        This has become a trap in my view and O’Mara is taking a great unnecessary risk. I say stand by and wait for ALL of the discovery to come in. If that does not happen, then holler as loud as you can.

        If O’Mara continues on this course, then I will reluctantly agree with Sundance.

        • jello333 says:

          “I say stand by and wait for ALL of the discovery to come in. If that does not happen, then holler as loud as you can.”

          They (MOM & West) will. Otherwise they’re guilty of malpractice.

    • jello333 says:

      MOM & West, after next Friday’s hearing:

      “Despite our repeated statements to Judge Nelson that a deposition of Ben Crump is essential to the defense moving forward with our collection of evidence, she has seen fit to deny us that right. And we firmly believe it IS a right to depose such a witness under the circumstances. As well, despite our many motions in which we presented many, many examples of foot-dragging on the part of the prosecution, as well as outright withholding of discovery from us, Judge Nelson has declared that our problems are not insurmountable, and that we have plenty of time to prepare for trial. Last week, we even proposed to merge the immunity hearing into the trial, in order to give us more time to prepare. That motion also was denied. Judge Nelson seems to not understand the significance of what we’ve had to deal with. Accordingly, we will be asking the DCA to grant an extension of the trial date, and to examine a number of aspects of this case that are very troubling…..”

    • John Galt says:

      “Regardless, this judge just ain’t going to do it. She scheduled the hearing for April so it’s in April. You think you can tell her otherwise?”

      If push came to shove, I dunno. Withdraw the immunity motion and refile it after trial or at the close of the evidence? Could the State block that by arguing that the Peterson case mandates seeking immunity by filing a pretrial 3.190(b) motion? Or do you have the right to seek immunity at or after trial? (like the case at the jaablaw link in my prior post).

      • boricuafudd says:

        John, Jello, I have a question, if the prosecution cannot offer the ping logs to prove a call to TM was actually taking place or prove that DD was actually on the phone with TM would that not make any of that testimony moot? In other words is the prosecution can’t prove DD, for whatever reason, can’t MOM ask that her statements be stricken as they are not verifiable?

        • jello333 says:

          For ANYTHING regarding Dee Dee to be used against George, the prosecution would have to tie many loose ends together first. And along with that, the defense would have to be allowed access to everything concerning her, her statements, the phones, etc, etc. And that includes deposing Crump, IMO. Otherwise, yeah… it would all be inadmissible. Now if we wanna say “SO WHAT, the judge will do what she wants, rules or no rules, laws or no laws, precedent or no precedent”… well, if that’s the case then yeah, just forget about it.

  30. Sharon says:

    I probably totally misunderstand this, but it seems contradictory and mutually exclusive to combine two issues in this way.

    With regard to SYG, the burden of proof is on the defense. The prosecution has the burden of proof for the charges against GZ.

    So, as the trial begins, the burden of proof will be, simultaneously, on the prosecution and on the defense. What a mess.

    Since the SYG decision is primarily the judge’s and the prosecution’s case is for the jury to answer, will each witness’s testimony have to be identified as to which issue it is addressing?

    Any six people that are chosen for this jury will be the epitomy of low-information: they’re going to find six people in Florida who have not formed an opinion on this case, which means they are either liars or illiterate–or possible illiterate liars…. and these six dunderheads are going to be presented with a trial in which the defense and the prosecution must both meet burden of proof criteria.

    What could possibly go wrong.

    • jordan2222 says:

      That there is funny as hell.

      • justfactsplz says:

        It is. That pretty much sums up the state of things in a nutshell.

      • Sharon says:

        I was going for clarity :(

        This mess interests me because it’s like my dad has just gone out to start the John Deere back in 1953 not knowing that somebody sneaked on to the farm in the middle of the night and dropped a bunch of 3/8″ nuts into the engine.

    • John Galt says:

      “So, as the trial begins, the burden of proof will be, simultaneously, on the prosecution and on the defense. What a mess.”

      The jury doesn’t know anything about the burden of proof until given the jury instructions by the judge. This doesn’t happen until the close of evidence. The jury would not be instructed on the defendant’s immunity claim or associated burden of proof, because the judge decides that issue. The jury would get the usual standard jury instructions.

      “Since the SYG decision is primarily the judge’s and the prosecution’s case is for the jury to answer, will each witness’s testimony have to be identified as to which issue it is addressing?”

      The immunity decision is made exclusively by the judge. Both the immunity and jury determinations are based on the same evidence, as a whole. There is no need to identify the evidence with respect to differing issues. I think the main difference is that Z can be acquitted by the jury pursuant to 776.041 even if he is found by the jury to be the initial aggressor. However, he can not get immunity unless he proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not the initial aggressor because 776.032 does not include 776.041 among the enumerated statutory grounds for immunity.

      From the jury’s perspective, it would be just like a regular jury trial. From the judge’s perspective, there would need to be an additional separate hearing, without the jury, in which the attorneys argue the law and evidence related to the immunity determination by the judge.

      • Sharon says:

        Thank you.

      • jordan2222 says:

        Thanks for a clear explanation but I am wondering if Nelson could or would want to hear more than what is presented at a trial.

        There is really very little that George needs to be able to prove to be immune.

        Could she decide to ask more questions herself in regards to the immunity phase?

        • John Galt says:

          90.615 Calling witnesses by the court.—
          (1) The court may call witnesses whom all parties may cross-examine.
          (2) When required by the interests of justice, the court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by the court or by a party.

      • jello333 says:

        Ok, I do NOT think it’s gonna go that route. But for the sake of argument let’s say it DOES happen this way. And let’s even say that after all the evidence is in, and the judge hears the immunity stuff, she rules against George… ruling the “preponderance” of evidence is not on his side. Then what happens? (Well for one thing it’s appealed, but let’s forget about that for now. Let’s just talk about the trial.) Right, it then goes to the jury. Now it’s THEIR turn to decide. But it’s no longer about “preponderance”. Now it’s about “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The jury would have to find that the vast majority of evidence — some legal people say it can be thought of as 95% or so — was AGAINST George.

        Does anyone here think that’s possible? If so, I’d like to hear why. SPECIFICALLY how could that be pulled off?

        • jordan2222 says:

          I want to be on your side in this because I cannot wrap my head around all of this conspiracy stuff. Too many people would have to be in on it, including at least 6 jurors.

        • kathyca says:

          I can’t see how this scenario could happen. The idea that immunity could be denied and the decision go to the court of appeals to potentially be reversed while the jury goes on to hear the case entire and potentially comes to an inconsistent conclusion while the appeal is pending is anathema. Is that what peeps think O’Mara is proposing and what could potentially happen? No way, imo. The potential for inconsistent results is avoided for the most part. And THAT kind of inconsistent result would be the stuff of new rules/laws and many “learned treatises” lol

          • jordan2222 says:


            Where on earth have you been? We have missed you. Have you been keeping up?

            • kathyca says:

              good grief, it’s full-on sports season for my kids, so practice, gams/competition on the weekends and related travel, plus work, plus my dd’s b-day. Doesn’t sound that daunting, but I’ve literally got something going on 7 days a week at this point. Lacrosse is on Sunday and they think that’s doing us a favor since it doesn’t conflict with OTHER sports lol. Thanks for missing me :) I’ve been keeping up pretty well. I made sure to check in today since I knew there was another hearing :::waving at George and fam — still rooting for y’all with confidence!:::

          • jello333 says:

            Hey, where were you earlier? I, and a couple others were in here doing our best to try to calm things down. We coulda used some help. ;) So yeah, I’m with you. MOM’s comment sure got things riled up though. I think in a few days we’ll be seeing things from a different perspective.

            • kathyca says:

              I was at a teeny bopper concert hours away from my home with my dd for her b-day. Which is why I’m still up at this ungodly hour! He’s just trying to get more time, imo. There may be more to the agenda, but I think it’s really that simple since the Judge isn’t going for it otherwise. I still don’t like O’Mara. But I do like West and trust him not to sell out — I think — at least not without being sure his intended result for George is in the bag.

          • diwataman says:

            O’Mara said in court; “I may ask the court to envelop the immunity hearing into the trial itself.”
            @1:14 (second video screen)

            Now I have no idea what that means. Does it mean that during trial they will have a separate immunity hearing? Or does it mean the judge can throw the case out during the trial based on the statutes and grant immunity? I just don’t get the concept at all. One report says she won’t consider granting a continuance of the immunity hearing which makes me think it is not a separate hearing during a trial because that in effect is just a continuance then I read she’ll consider enveloping the hearing into the trial which makes me think it’s something that’s part of the trial and not some separate hearing during the trial. One thing I know it is; confusing.

            If you listen to the reporter in that video roofer posted above, with O’Mara thumnailed on it, it sounds like something that is part of the trial and not a separate hearing during the trial.

            • selfdefenseadvocate says:

              “If you listen to the reporter in that video roofer posted above, with O’Mara thumnailed on it, it sounds like something that is part of the trial and not a separate hearing during the trial.

              I wonder if lumping Immunity Hearing into the trial would mean GZ does not have to testify, but ALL evidence for self defense could still be presented? Hey John Galt, what do you think?

          • John Galt says:

            “I can’t see how this scenario could happen. The idea that immunity could be denied and the decision go to the court of appeals to potentially be reversed while the jury goes on to hear the case entire and potentially comes to an inconsistent conclusion while the appeal is pending is anathema.”

            That’s what they were apparently intending to do in the Dooley case. I think the appeals court did in fact affirm denial of immunity prior to trial.


            “The State’s case against Trevor Dooley will proceed to trial just after Labor Day.”

            “Dooley’s defense attorneys filed a motion for dismissal based on Florida’s “stand your ground” law. The trial judge denied that motion last spring. The matter was appealed and is currently pending before the state Court of Appeal.”

            • kathyca says:

              Thanks, JG. Does that not strike you as completely inappropriate? I wonder if the lower court just kept the trial date in place pending the court of appeals ruling and would have pushed it if there had been no decision prior to trial.

              • John Galt says:

                Seems like a big waste of time and money to proceed with an immediate trial pending an immunity appeal, particularly where the defendant has a very strong case. You are potentially wasting a month of court time, juror time, attorney time, expert time. Of course if you are the State attempting to bankrupt the defense, that might be the way to go.

                I do note that procedure under Rule 3.380 allows for a judge to overrule a jury verdict of guilty on a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal. So there is already a procedure in place which allows the judge and jury to reach inconsistent results. So I don’t think that combining an immunity hearing / determination with trial is a particularly radical thing to do.

        • John VI says:

          The jury doesnt have to be in on it. All that has to happen is to have the jury FEEL like george SHOULD be guilty, and they will want to blame him. Then the jury will convict regardless of the evidence. If the jury consists of 6 liberal ” I dont want to be called a racists so he must be guilty” types then poof. Conviction, regardless of the evidence.

      • sundance says:

        And you really think that after the State and Defense lay out their cases before God, the media, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, the Congressional Black Causus, the professional BGI, and, oh yeah, the jurists, … the judge, in this example *cough* Nelson, is going to say:

        OK, I got this…. he’s clear, it’s self defense, y’all ain’t needed no more because I’m going to take this out of your hands, take all the heat and ridicule onto myself, and rule him immune.


        ((((shaking head walking away slowly))))

        • Sharon says:

          Believing that the template of law can be effectively applied at this point to the lawless individuals and groups in this case resulting in a change of direction and a different quality control process requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

          I do not understand why those most deeply invested in the analysis of the case are willing to continue providing that WSOD, because it’s a choice not supported by facts in evidence. The WSOD is an essential ingredient.

      • diwataman says:

        See this is my main point of confusion. Is it something that is separate from but during the trial, that is, is O’Mara essentially asking the judge to continue the immunity hearing till June or is this something the judge just considers during the trial itself within which she can make an independent decision at any time to then end the trial and also grant George the immunity aspect?

        I thought it was the latter but now I’m not sure. I mean judges can just end a trial whenever they want right? So can’t she just end it any time during the trial and grant the immunity aspect? Is that what O’Mara is considering?

        • jello333 says:

          I think all this may become moot next Friday. If Nelson, in her infinite wisdom, rules that MOM/West can’t depose Crump, that’s it. No way will this case move forward until that’s resolved. And even if she rules the RIGHT way, I suspect Crump will appeal, and THAT could take a lot of time. I don’t see how any of us can’t understand this. Without the defense having complete access to all things Dee Dee — everything re. the tapes, everything re. the phones, and Crump’s depo — the case stalls. And no, Nelson is not the last word.

        • boricuafudd says:

          In a lot a trials after the prosecution presents its case the Defense would ask for a dismissal, claiming the prosecution failed to meet its burden. The judge could use that. as the time to end the trial. It has happened that a Judge after the prosecution has dismissed charges, due to lack of evidence, can she attach immunity at that point, IDK.

    • sundance says:

      You just outlined the case process perfectly. Unless someone steps in to call out this nonsense PUBLICLY, this is exactly where it will be.

      • Sharon says:

        Thank you.

        Sometimes things are as bad and as crazy as they appear to be.

        • sundance says:

          Yes. You missed your natural calling. Judge Sharon would have been more wise than a stadium filled with Solomons’. True.

          • Sharon says:

            Hmmm….yer too kind. I absolutely don’t have the ability to go at this with the intensity so many do…just trying to figure out if the slice I was looking was in focus at all. Thank you.

      • jello333 says:

        “Unless someone steps in to call out this nonsense PUBLICLY”

        GOOD. I get to agree with you again. I like that much better than when we differ. ;) I agree that if MOM and West just sit around waiting for someone else to fix this mess, it ain’t gonna happen. They, THEY must lay it all on the table, including describing, in detail, all the ethical, perhaps criminal violations that are taking place. If they try to be Mr Nice Guy, or worry about who they’re gonna “hurt”, or are otherwise unwilling to CALL OUT the wrongdoers, then we’ve got problems.

        • boricuafudd says:

          There is the possibility that they are confident that the State does not have the evidence necessary for a conviction. MOM’s actions seem more about exposing the Scheme Team than anything else. Besides as you said what does the State have to prove GZ guilty at this time. Can anyone based on what we know make the prosecutions case as it woud be presented to a jury?

      • jordan2222 says:

        “Unless someone steps in to call out this nonsense PUBLICLY”

        Who do you honestly think could do that?

        • jello333 says:

          If you ask me, I say it has to be MOM and West. And I think they’ll do it. It’s been slow coming… but I think they’ll do it when they have to (very soon).

    • rumpole2 says:

      If this goes to trial… you are quite correct… it will be down to “6 dunderheads”.

      A scary prospect.

      I saw it happen with the Casey Anthony case… ( Only it was 12 Pinellas Pinheads)
      I know a few here think that worked out swell… but that was decided by 12 dunderheads who did not even have the sense to pretend to take some time in deliberation.. could not think of a single question to ask after over a month of testimony (some of it about very complex, science and logic and stuff…. requiring some questioning….especially for somebody coming across it for the first time).

      Best prospect is a HUNG jury… … but the psychological dynamics of the jury room seem to most always wear down dissension… that could work either way.

  31. Unicron says:

    Hey guys, would any of you be interested in getting a chatroom going for discussing this case? I think it could be a lot of fun to be able to converse real time. I have used mIRC since 1994, though I don’t use it much these days. If anyone IS interested, I’m going to start one. If you grab mIRC on a site like Cnet’s and then connect to any server (I’m using I’m in channel #Zimmerman. I really hope to see more of you there. I have no need to be the controller of the channel and would gladly hand the reigns over to Sundance, give OP powers to Diwataman and all the other figureheads here, I would just really enjoy the chance to talk to some of you real time. Particularly during the trial. I think it will be really good if we get into the habit of using a chatroom now, and get people aware of it and using it by trial / immunity hearing time. We can moderate the channel and try to prevent Trayvonites from coming in if that becomes necessary. If anyone has any questions about the channel, the chat program, or anything about this idea… contact me at

    • John Galt says:

      My spidey senses are tingling.

      • Unicron says:

        Well, they shouldn’t be. Sometimes I think there’s too much paranoia on the internet. That said, something I’d forgotten since last I used IRC regularly was that a person’s ISP and (I think) IP address are visible by doing a /who on them and when they join channels, which might not be problematic but then again it might help nutcases like Trent Sawyer (Cabbage Patch guy) try to get a better idea of who people here are for his stalking purposes, people like him seem to like to treat the opinions we hold on this case as though they are against the law or something.

        So, in light of that perhaps it isn’t the best idea after all. Still, I’d really like to think that by trial time we might find some sort of way to discuss this case real time, without compromising anyone’s information or feeling of security. If you think of something, let me know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s