More Treeper Research needed – Assistant State Attorney Richard W. Mantei

Richard W. Mantei is a new Asst. State Attorney placed into the prosecution team against George Zimmerman (article below). We need to find out more about this guy. From my initial google review of him he appears to be a “plea bargain specialist” along the line of Tom Cruise’s character in a Few Good Men. Many of his prosecution cases ended up as plea agreements. I hope that is not the direction here.

However, my initial gut response to another prosecutor was telling me this was for “positioning” or “plausible deniability” in that new exculpatory evidence (see update #28) would be in dire need of a fresh set of eyes. That is just a hunch, a spidey sense kinda thing, I really don’t know.

So what can we find out about him?

SEMINOLE COUNTY There’s a new player in the case against George Zimmerman.

Assistant state attorney Richard W.  Mantei has been appointed to handle the investigation and representation of the state of Florida.  The appointment was made June 4, but is now just being released.  (more)

This entry was posted in Tip Line, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to More Treeper Research needed – Assistant State Attorney Richard W. Mantei

  1. sybilj says:

    Age: 42
    Wife: Kelly Carrothers Mantei
    2010 total salary
    Richard W. Mantei
    Cir. Ct.
    220 E. Bay St.
    Jacksonville, Florida
    (Duval Co.)

    University University of Toledo, B.A.
    Law School University of Michigan, J.D.
    Admitted 1996
    ISLN 912558125

    Member, Florida State Bar 1997-Current

    (Former?) Member of Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules Committee

    Merit retention’s flaws: I take issue with the comments of what your paper termed “Florida Bar Leaders in Jacksonville.” While they have as much right to their opinion as anyone, these “leaders” certainly do not speak for me on this issue!

    The article references a recent poll of members of The Florida Bar. What may interest your readers is that: Total Florida Bar members as of July: 88,970

    Highest number of members voting in the “Bar Poll” for 1st District Court of Appeal: 1,561 (one judge had only 602 total votes cast).

    Translation: Less than 2 percent of lawyers even voted in this poll. Of that pitiful number, an average of about one in five voted “no” on retention. I can’t think of any credible conclusion to be drawn from that sort of sample.

    I agree that people should be educated regarding the retention of judges. But to suggest that referring to this poll is an appropriate way to do so is flat out irresponsible.

    There are, I think, at least two of those judges who deserve to be ousted regardless of any involvement with the courthouse, based solely upon their published opinions (which can all be read, for free, via A third was a central figure in another well-publicized scandal. It is amazing to me that any responsible journalist would print, or that anyone would believe, that no better candidates could be found among nearly 90,000 lawyers in this state.

    Apparently the people of Florida have never voted an appellate judge out. That doesn’t mean it would necessarily be a bad thing. California famously did it several years back with their Supreme Court. As with any candidate or issue, voters should familiarize themselves with the subjects. Their biographies and decisions are all available at the Court’s website. Maybe the judges aren’t to blame for allowing their new courthouse to become a hot potato. Regardless, it is a public disservice to simply say, “trust us, we’re lawyers.” Richard W. Mantei


    • sybilj says:
      Dorian C. Mantei… (mother)
      Surviving are her husband Frank; sons, Richard W. (Kelly) Mantei of Jacksonville, Florida, Jeremy L. (Micheleen) Mantei and Christian A. Montei, both of Findlay, Ohio and Ben G. (Melissa) Mantei of Trenton; …


      • howie says:

        Maybe he is the fixer. The Orange Blossom Special is a runaway train right now.


        • John Galt says:

          I don’t see how this can end gracefully. The new information means that the original narrative was intentionally false. Nobody will believe that Dee Dee is the brains behind the scheme.


          • ytz4mee says:

            I think it is self-evident that the original narrative was deliberately false. What the Scheme Team didn’t count on was any type of real pushback. They are so used to creating drama, threatening, extorting and general-all round getting their payday. This is new to them.


          • minpin says:

            I believe that the defense has had to turn over their discovery to the prosecution. The pro. called for it to be handed over around the same time that the first discovery dump was released. The defense had 15 days to comply with that request, which is long passed.

            If the defense has the real smoking gun, and the case is dropped against GZ at the 6/29 hearing, it may not have the impact that the SC decision to declare Obamacare unconstitutional will on the same day, if that in fact happens.


  2. howie says:

    I can not see how Corey or BDLR can remain on the case. My guess is that he is coming on to be there if they withdraw. That would make sense if what we have found out is right. I really do not see how the Jacksonville crew can stay once discovery is public. Although it will be treated like Toxic Waste by the MSM. They may sue to hide it. The stench is so bad they will have to call in a Hazmat Team.


  3. elvischupacabra says:

    Put together this guy’s reputation as a plea bargain specialist and the revocation of Zimmerman’s bail. I can see where they might plead down to negligent homicide and give him probation and ‘time served’. When he gets out of jail, Zimmerman will have to move to Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska or some other state where the ‘hood is unlikely to follow. That will get him off Florida’s plate, the CBC and Poverty Pimps can complain about the sentence, but someone will throw ’em a bone or several, which is all they want, and life will go on…


    • howie says:

      All State Attorneys are plea bargain specialists. Over 90% of cases are plea bargains. That is because the perps are guilty and most charges are just.


      • figley says:

        In 1999, I took a class on prosecuting, from the prosecutor who put Mike Tyson, (defended by Dersh.), in prison. His view was that a prosecutor should never lose. If there’s not a solid case, a responsible prosecutor would never file charges.


        • howie says:

          That is why prosecutors should be held to the highest standards of legal ethics. They have so much power. This one appears to be an abuse of the process.


      • Lulu says:

        I once knew a very fine public defender who would have disagreed with you. He told me that plea bargains were for the innocent, wrongly accused, as well as the very guilty. In both cases they would often prefer the plea bargain to putting their lives in the hands of 12 strangers.


        • howie says:

          No doubt about that. Many reasons for wrongful convictions. All done by prosecutors. Absolutely. I think though that about 90% are guilty. It is the 10% that is the problem. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Or in the case of unraveling a wrongful conviction 10 pounds of cure. If the sentence is less than 9 years the innocent will be out before the case can be unraveled. Prolly at least 10% of prisoners are innocent. Look at this case and who is after Mr. Z. Amazing. Blacks are the victims of wrongful convictions too. They harm the very cause they pretend to advocate for. Justice for Blacks.


    • stobberdobber says:

      The problem I see with any plea is that George will get a min 20 years anyway because of the 10-20-life laws. His current one is min 25 yrs-so what is the diff in looking at it for plea. It would have to be a heck of a deal and in writing before agreement. NOT worth it IMO.


  4. mooserator says:

    Zimmerman would be crazy to plead to anything other than Jay Walking.

    He was made White and then held up as the KKK Grand Dragon.

    Florida has no interest in him whatsoever if his name is Devarius



    • myopiafree says:

      If you describe George Zimmerman as Hispanic-BLACK (which you can), it changes everything. (Yes he has some “white” in him). What I detest is the word, “Racist”. If the MEDIA would use the term, Alleged Racist, that would be better. But the Media is totally blind towards checking this issue out. Only on “TreeHouse” do we get fair treatment for George Zimmerman. The “State” now has a terrible problem. They have a semi-sane prosecutor, who PUBLISHED a deficient 2nd degree murder charge. Do they drop the charge? Do they now attempt to file it before a judge – who should throw it out – because it is a lie – as Dershowitz defines it. Even a new prosecutor must make that type of choice. It would be a terrible mistake for George to “Plea Bargain”. If George can stick it out, even Dershowitz would join the case. This is. after all, about TRUTH and justice.


  5. ArkansasMimi says:

    Here is a link to some cases on Rich Mantei, which I feel after reading possibly find more on him than his given name.


  6. ArkansasMimi says:

    I just saw this posted on GZ facebook page. I wonder if it has anything to do with the new ASA being announced or possibly the info from The Treehouse? For some reason they KNOW they won’t be having any news about the case…..
    George Zimmerman Legal Case
    2 hours ago
    We won’t have news about the case for a couple of days, but we understand that whether there is news or not, there is a desire to discuss the case. Use this as an open thread to discuss. We will most likely delete this thread when we post our next update. Be nice to each other, please.


    • John Galt says:

      “For some reason they KNOW they won’t be having any news about the case…..”

      No news “for a couple of days” yet the next hearing is not until June 29th. Interesting.


  7. garnette says:

    Here is another case that is tied to him.

    There is a link on with the news story that says the mother was sentenced to 50 years after accepting a plea bargain.

    As I was trying to find out more about it, I saw something that mentioned that she may have had postpartum depression and had been on medication. I am trying to find out more about that. However, I noted that the child was 3 months old, which would fit into the mother having postpartum depression, most likely not diagnosed or not correctly medicated for it. The site that mentioned it wasn’t something I want to link, but I felt like the info is something that should be followed up on.


  8. knowthyenemy says:

    Wednesday, March 21, 2012

    Unintended Consequences, Again:

    So now here in Florida we have a dead black kid, killed by a neighborhood captain of crime watch white guy that has 911 on speed dial, and has the community – the country – in a rage over the fact that our “Stand your Ground” law caused the cops to decline an arrest.

    Stand Your Ground was passed by the Florida Legislature in an effort send a message that not only should guns be allowed everywhere, but that people should be allow to use them – to kill people – anywhere. The NRA supported it, NRA (and their money) loving legislators supported it, and the Governor signed it. Yeah, we all heard the testimony that it may cause otherwise minor altercations to turn into a phone call to the local funeral home, but that’s what we call “unintended consequences,” and hell, it’s just part of the parade of horribles that liberal gun-rights-hating folks whine about.

    I mean, are we really to think that some over-zealous neighborhood crime watch captain is going to blow away some kid who has a bag of Skittles and an Iced Tea in his hand and claim self-defense? C’mon.

    But now we’re going to have hearings. We’re going to amend the law. We’ve got the feds and state law enforcement department investigating the non-arrest, while the local state attorney prepares the case for a grand jury.

    The community does not believe this death, this claim of self defense was an intended consequence of Stand Your Ground.

    Unintended consequences of criminal legislation usually get the short shrift during the legislative session. Laws, brought to legislators by prosecutors, victims advocates group, or as a result of a tragic death of a child, need to be passed. That the wrong people will go to jail or not go to jail, is something that local prosecutors and judges (if given discretion) can deal with.

    Legislators normally respond to scenarios of unintended consequences with “no prosecutor would file that case,” or “we trust the police to make judgment calls.”

    Well, the police made a judgment call in this case.

    Was it the right one?

    Appears the community’s answer is a collective “hell no.”

    Death always generates emotion. The death of a child is always described as “the worst.” When the death of a child is tied to a crime, there is always legislation.

    And the Stand Your Ground law will be amended. Next session, bet on it.

    But what about other laws that have unintended consequences? How many cases have we heard about where minor drug offenders are in prison under archaic minimim mandatory sentencing schemes? What did legislators say when these unintended consequences were presented?


    What about where those that aren’t sexual offenders (in the literal sense) or sexual predators (in the literal sense) are tagged as such?

    Every year advocates go to the legislature and seek modification of these laws – these criminal laws that snag those who were not intended to be “victims” of these tough-on-crime statutes.

    But the cries mostly fall on deaf ears. Only death brings about change. The old adage “does someone have to die,” holds true in the world of criminal legislation.

    In the years I’ve spent watching the Florida Legislature, it’s been made clear that of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, the one is most sacred isn’t 4, or 5 or 6, or 8, but 2.

    And now we have a problem. We have a law – a gift to gun rights advocates and those “sick of crime” everywhere. And we have a dead kid, a kid that is viewed as having done nothing wrong. He’s dead. His killer claimed self-defense. The discretion given to law enforcement was used – but used in a manner that received disapproval.

    Unintended consequences of criminal legislation imprison people every day, take away their livelihoods, their families, and their futures.

    But when these unintended consequences result in death, those that were too busy to listen before, now cry for justice.

    Equal Justice means that equal attention to those who are victims of unintended consequences is required – whether they are convicted, imprisoned, or dead.

    Brian Tannebaum is a criminal defense lawyer in Miami, Florida practicing in state and federal court, and the author of The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer.Share/Save/ rules Post to Twitter
    Posted by Brian Tannebaum at 8:53 PM

    Rich Mantei said…

    I recall prosecutors and the sheriff’s association pretty uniformly opposed this particular law. To no avail.
    10:59 AM
    Anonymous said…

    Unfortunately, I don’t think this will cause a movement against the law in the States that have it besides Florida. I think it is just enticing racial issues (rightfully so) that still exist in this country. I was also reading about the “stand your ground laws” at another blog (Law Blog but it didn’t seem to mention what the outcome will be for the law itself in all States. I am curious as to what you might think might happen in other States as well?
    1:54 AM

    Post a Comment
    Newer Post Older Post Home

    ~ Brian Tannebaum blog (response by Rich Mantei)


    • sybilj says:

      May 12, 2012
      Another obvious mandatory sentencing injustice in Florida “warning shot” case

      (See link for full conversation)

      …Prof. Berman:

      Full disclosure: I work for Ms. Corey.
      Fuller disclosure: CNN didn’t tell the half of this case. The defendant has a well-organized PR machine to try her version of the case in the media. Problem is, their facts are not just incomplete, but really wrong. Here’s what she did to the same man while she was out on bond pending trial for the shooting (she pled guilty):–2010-pdf.pdf

      Here’s what the first judge ruled about her supposed defense (the current judge upheld this ruling, page 4 is especially helpful):

      The jury took about half an hour to convict her.

      Think what you will of the minimum mandatory system, but at least do so with more of the facts.

      Please don’t judge the rest of Florida by Corrine Brown. I promise not to judge Ohio State by Terrelle Pryor.

      Posted by: Rich Mantei | May 12, 2012 10:32:19 PM

      …Dear anonymous internet dweller: If you want to have a discussion this is a strange method. I presented the known factual court documents. You present ellipsed stories from HuffPo and hide your identity (which is your right, just as it is my right to suggest you are a fact-lacking coward).

      Do you find that constructive as far as sentencing policy discussions?

      I believe the election is being held this fall. And if you are as good a troll as you seem to think you are, it should not be hard for you to find out whether there is opposition.

      Posted by: Rich Mantei | May 14, 2012 7:20:01 AM

      …Federalist- Some Defendants waive valuable rights, like that to trial. They get a reward for so doing. Some defendants do not, and so recieve no reward. I don’t agree that failure to reward someone for doing nothing is fairly termed a “penalty,” and I daresay the guy who waives his right in exchange for a better sentence would be a bit put off if someone who waived nothing, got the same as he did. The US Supremes I thought answered that issue in Bordenkircher.

      Greg, the only person who speaks for “the office” isn’t me, but I recognize your organization is opposed to pretty much all Minimum Mandatory terms including this one, and I doubt anything I say changes that one bit. Your particular question here assumes a premise with which I don’t agree, that an offer made at Time “X” would always be an appropriate offer at Time “Y” (and presumably, at any other time). That just isn’t so, including where trials are had. In fact, sometimes it works in reverse, where an initially high offer might get lowered.

      As for a “just sentence” the best way I can answer that I think, is that there is almost often more than one single “just” sentence for any given case. For example if “just” for Crime X is 40 months, is 39 unjust? 45? 24? It’s not a difference between 3 and 20 years as in this particular example, but my point is that using individual cases to guide policy is, I think, a bit unproductive. Legislatures are often criticized for passing a law in response to a sensational case. Are you not doing the same thing, just in reverse?

      Posted by: Rich Mantei | May 14, 2012 12:58:55 PM


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s