Jun 14 2012
What Does Judge Lester Know About George Zimmerman We Don’t Know?
I have been crystal clear about why I think George Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter when he gunned down an unarmed Travyon Martin (and for all those who wanted to see the evil teenager who needed to be killed, I oblige above with a picture to haunt your souls). The early indications we had from the first sketchy information was that either this 17 old kid went berserk on Skittles, or George Zimmerman (GZ) was lying about what played out that night.
IF the latter is true (and I laid my bet early on that it would turn out to be true, based on personal experience with many other like-minded, vigilante types who get off on playing hero – with guns to embolden them) then I wagered Zimmerman was unaware of all the evidence around him. Especially the fact that a young lady was on the phone at the time of the incident and could speak to Zimmerman’s actions as she heard them, and as they were relayed DIRECTLY to her by Trayvon Martin himself. Without full knowledge of the perjury traps surrounding him, GZ was almost 100% likely to screw himself over while trying to gold plate his alibi.
We are close to seeing if my early observations do pan out, because now we are going to get the statements (but not necessarily a link to the contradictory evidence) that has given the State of Florida high confidence in a conviction of not just Manslaughter, but Murder 2.
This yet to be publicized evidence has been seen by both legal teams. The prosecution wanted it to remain out of the public because it would tip their hand before trial. And the defense wanted it out of the public because it would make his client look even worse than he does.
And then there was Judge Lester – who recently noted the evidence is ‘strong’.
There is some strange confusion as to how Judge Lester made this determination, but it would seem obvious in such a case like this with heated media attenti0n and hot heads on both sides. The likely event that exposed the prosecutors case to the judge (and defense team) would appear to be a pretrial conference of some kind:
Generally, the substance of a pretrial conference for a criminal case is the same as that for a civil case. At the conference the judge or magistrate may make rulings on motions, eliminate repetitive evidence, and set schedules.
…
Criminal defendants must raise some issues before trial in a pretrial motion. Pretrial motions are specific requests for favorable orders from the court on particular issues. Under the Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, a set of model rules written by the American Law Institute and adopted by many jurisdictions, a defendant should lose the opportunity to raise the following issues if they are not raised prior to trial: defenses and objections based on defects in the indictment or formal charging instrument; requests regarding discovery, or disclosure of evidence; requests to suppress or exclude from trial potential testimony or other evidence; requests for severing the trial in cases involving codefendants; requests for the dismissal of the case; and requests for transfer of the case to another jurisdiction.
Similar requirements are imposed on prosecutors. The prosecution must tell the defendant prior to trial of its intention to use certain evidence, such as evidence obtained as a result of a search or seizure, wiretap, or other Electronic Surveillance mechanism; evidence culled from a confession, admission, or statement made by the defendant; and evidence relating to a lineup, show-up, picture, or voice identification of the defendant (Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure 422(a)(1)).
It seems very likely that in discussing the withholding of this evidence from the public, the judge had to review said evidence in detail. Thus we can answer some marginal questions such as this:
Interestingly, he [Lester] writes for the first time that the state’s evidence is “strong.” The state chose not to present evidence on the facts of the case at the April 20 bond hearing, relying instead on its affidavit. The only testimony at the hearing on the facts of the case came from the state investigator, called by the defense, who acknowledged weaknesses in the state’s case. The state’s affidavit of probable cause, which as has been endlessly discussed, was a one-sided portrayal with factual inaccuracies and no mention defendant’s claim of self-defense. It didn’t contain evidence of the elements of second degree murder.
No, it did not. And that is because both legal teams have clearly been pushing from day one for the hard evidence against Zimmerman (his own words) to be kept out of the public light. It happens, not all the evidence is public.
Florida statutes, rules and case law provide that the accused has a right to bail unless the state establishes at the hearing that “the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.” If the state fails to meet its burden, the judge must set bail. If the state meets is burden, the judge still has discretion (as opposed to the duty) to grant bail. Judge Lester seems to be making a finding now that he didn’t make at the April 20 hearing — that the state met its burden under the Arthur standard of establishing that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.
…
Judge Lester made no such finding in April (you can watch the video of closing arguments and his ruling here), and the State never presented evidence other than its affidavit to meet that burden.
This argument against Judge Lester’s decision is handicapped by severe blinders. If both sides want to keep evidence from being made public, the Judge has to go along until he has the opportunity to do the research and make a decision on the motion(s). So, to operate within the request to hold back evidence normally made public, the obvious process is not to expose it during open trial events.
I mean – duh!
The argument being presented actually proves how bad this really is for GZ by explaining how unprecedented things are, and what the conditions must be for them to be proper – and unprecedented:
Case law in Florida since the 1950’s has held that the state is unlikely to be able to meet such a burden in homicide cases where self-defense is raised. An accused’s version of the manner by which a homicide occurred (such as self-defense) is generally accepted for the purpose of determining whether the proof of his guilt was evident or the presumption great.
…
Defendant’s version of the homicide can not be ignored where there is an absence of other evidence legally sufficient to contradict his explanation.
I am assuming everyone here is acting in good faith and within the normal parameters of the law (being seasoned legal professionals of the criminal judicial system). Which means that the reason Judge Lester is coming down hard on GZ and able to take the positions he has is because there is evidence legally sufficient to contradict GZ’s self-defense explanation.
Imagine that. Clear evidence that GZ’s story was rapidly and awkwardly concocted on the spot to cover up his aggressive and criminal decisions and actions.
Those who support GZ without question or thought will be tested very soon. Myself, if the evidence is weak I can switch positions in a second. I am not emotionally hooked to any outcome. My position has been to go to trial and let the process work – for the real victim here. A dead 17 year old American kid with so much ahead of him. The only reason I stand pat is as details have emerged, they have supported and not contradicted my initial assessment. It happens.
Only until I see proof beyond a reasonable doubt Trayvon was a mortal threat to GZ (instead of his stalked victim) I am not buying this self defense crap. TM had a right to stand his ground too. And that included not going home and hiding from a vigilante. Sadly, that would have been the better decision for the young man, but if he thought the coast was clear and began going about is business. That is not a crime.
And that is not an decision worth being killed over.
GZ stalked, confronted and likely initiated the physical altercation. That is my guess based on the character of Zimmerman and how he builds his lies and alibis. He looks to be the kind who lies easily (like in bail hearings where we now have two lies recorded regarding TM’s apparent age and his financial situation – where the coward had his wife lie for him), and he looks to build these lies by twisting events that actually occurred to his view. I truly wonder who came up to whom from behind and began this deadly dance.
I will end with this observation:
If the state wants bail rejected on June 29, it seems to me it has to file a written motion for pre-trial detention under the pre-trial detention rule, 3.132, and both produce non-hearsay evidence in support of the charges and prove there are no conditions that would reasonable assure Zimmerman’s appearance at trial or the safety of the community. If it doesn’t do that, then the court is still proceeding under the pre-trial release rule, 3.131, which requires the state to produce far more evidence, hearsay or otherwise, than it did in April, to establish Zimmerman is guilty of the charged offense.
Is it really a coincidence new evidence is becoming public over the objections of both legal teams? Not if the judge wants to free his hands in this situation. The judge rightfully noted GZ admitted to killing TM, so there is no issue with releasing more evidence of same. The question is how did this come about, and we may get some answers very soon.
Hey BGG: Try reading AJ’s post from June 13th, the one just before this. The entire post was triggered by the judge writing that the evidence against GZ is strong.
The judge when weighing the evidence for bond should have said that the Prosecution’s case is strong enough to indicate probable cause – or some other legalese, please don’t jump on me because I (proudly) am not a lawyer. By proclaiming that the evidence is strong – with no modifiers or clarification – a legitimate arguement can be made that the judge has poisened the jury pool, or shown bias, or shown incompetence, or any/all of the above.
Where RT goes overboard is claiming the judge proclaimed GZ guilty and that he should be impeached and that he is a “hanging judge”. That’s way over the top, IMHO.
Layman,
I’ve read all of the posts here regarding this issue already.
The use of the word “strong” by the judge is what is required by the applicable statutes.
Now, if you can show that the judge has gone beyond the requirements or boundaries of the applicable statues then perhaps, and only perhaps, can you make some argument regarding his wording and the evidentiary ruling.
Since we have not seen any indication from the Defense, however…or any of the TV talking heads for that matter…making an issue of the word “strong” it’s unrealistic to think that there is any issue there whatsoever.
RT’s biggest problem is he runs off at the keyboard and lets his fingers get ahead of the facts. Then, when corrected or cornered on the facts…instead of altering his arguments to reflect reality…he simply pivots to some other point.
RT practices what I like to refer to as “Pogo Stick Logic” bouncing wildly up and down, back and forth, hopping and skipping from Point A to Point D while completely ignoring Points B and C.
Layman, in deference to your request for brevity.. :0)… your last paragraph is exactly the point the RT seems unable to grasp (over and over).
RT, I see you can’t provide a link to Dershowitz. Finding it would be easy, had Dershowitz even remotely said what you claim INRE the bond hearing and the Judge’s authority. Perhaps spin is the last desperate act, eh? Got your slippers handy?
INRE the Miranda vs 5th, you requested:
Perhaps you need a reminder of your own words, yes?
Since the incident being discussed is during a bond hearing in a court room, you decided to erroneously evoke “Miranda UNrights” as your argument… which is what I pointed out… apparently correctly.
Layman,
Excuse me, but this is my blog and people can post comments as they and I see fit. It is not your place to moderate commentary here.
Someone more relevant (iconic being a personal and subject view) than Dershowitz who stated more than once that GZ was obligated to correct misinformation was the presiding judge.
Again, it is not incriminating to have funds. It is not incriminating to disclose those funds. It is incriminating to *not* disclose those funds, or to allow the misinformation about those funds to stand in a bond hearing.
So you didn’t have to wait long, RT. The revocation order has been out for a few days now.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for your Dershowitz link…. toes tapping, toes tapping.
Layman:
“Where RT goes overboard is claiming the judge proclaimed GZ guilty and that he should be impeached and that he is a “hanging judge”. That’s way over the top, IMHO.”
I agree that some of this BS goes overboard, but it gets a little frustrating trying to explain some things to people that don’t have a very basic understanding of this case. But in this particular incident the judge did say, in public, that the evidence against GZ was strong. No, it’s not likely an impeachable offense, but he certainly should be censured. I just can’t imagine ANYONE defending that. Certainly if your wife or husband were on trial, you wouldn’t want the presiding judge out making speeches about how strong the evidence is against you… ‘hanging judge’ was just a metaphor for a ‘judge that wants the defendant to be found guilty’ .
one other point Layman, it does no good to attempt to have a conversation with BGG. He’s in LaLa land and doesn’t have a clue. A complete waste of your time. I told him I was not responding to him any longer because of his obvious immaturity but he’s still trying to antagonize me into responding to him.
mata: with all due respect, that business about “Let’s see, how would this be stated? Mr. Zimmerman, you do know that you do not have the right to remain silent, etc..” would you point out the place where I said that took place in a courtroom? That’s what I mean about the question I actually ask instead of the ones that you ‘wish’ I had asked.
“RT, I see you can’t provide a link to Dershowitz. Finding it would be easy, had Dershowitz even remotely said what you claim INRE the bond hearing and the Judge’s authority. Perhaps spin is the last desperate act, eh? Got your slippers handy?” So, you’re admitting you don’t know how to do a search on the internet. But surely since you’re so ‘up’ on this case, you’ve already read it. Why do you have a need to re-read it again?
BTW… for the record:
1: the Judge did not “give a speech”, nor proclaim guilt. In a revocation bond ruling/order (not a speech), he noted that the State had met their burden for the charge because the evidence was strong… an assessment that is part of his job.
2: Jury pools can’t be “tainted” because both State and defense must agree on the acceptance of any single juror. The questions they ask are of their own choosing, and their decisions require no explanation or justification to reject.
“Tainting” also requires the assumption that everyone eligible for jury duty reads court rulings available in the public domain, or holds with a media’s opinion/reporting of that same ruling. A potential juror’s knowledge of the case via media reports is always addressed by both State and prosecution during jury selection. Again, both side must agree to the juror, or it’s a no go.
Non issue.
Still can’t find it, eh? Probably because searching for something that doesn’t exist is a daunting task at best.
I’ve been commenting on this site for a very short period of time.
Since my arrival however, I’ve been running circles around you, kicking you squarely in the keister every time I’ve passed by.
The reason you won’t respond to me is based on the simple fact that I’ve destroyed your arguments repeatedly.
Now, if there’s a proclamation of guilt out there from the judge you should link it.
If there’s a statement from Dershowitz regarding the bond hearing/bond revocation you should link it.
If there’s a statement from Dee Dee that says Martin was “at the apartment door” you should link it.
Now is the time to show everyone your superior Interwebz and analytical skillz. You keep claiming that those of us in The Great UnwashedTM don’t possess the “understanding” that you have of this case.
Now is the time for you to demonstrate that superior skill and superior understanding.
Of course, if you don’t produce sources to support what you’re claiming…well, we’re gonna all point and laugh at you. Again.
mata: “1: the Judge did not “give a speech”, nor proclaim guilt. In a revocation bond ruling/order (not a speech), he noted that the State had met their burden for the charge because the evidence was strong… an assessment that is part of his job.”
why are you deliberately leaving out that ‘in the original action, the ‘state did not meet it’s burden’ and therefore bail was required and not discretionary.. Had it done so the judge would have been required to so state. he did not.
Before and/or during the bond revocation hearing, nothing had changed and NO FURTHER evidence or testimony was allowed as pertains to meeting the burden therefore, the state STILL HAD NOT met the burden of proof and bond was still required. It was at this time that the Judge said the state had met the burden and the evidence was strong. This was not true, of course, so was clearly a miscarriage of justice.
but then, you being such a legal beagle, you knew all that, you just choose to not state it because it would destroy your point. Ahem….
Layman: see what I mean.
AJ: My apologies if you thought I was trying to moderate comments. I was simply trying to prevent the headache I get trying to follow posts that are sometimes (when 2-3 are back to back) longer than your original. I stand chastized!
Still awaiting your thoughts on the new wave of launch vehicles from the commercial sector and the ramnifications for access to space. While a bit too early to say it (commercialization) is in the bag, in a short 6 months we could see SpaceX, Orbital, and Virgin Galactic all having (successfully?) launched their vehicles. And there are others on deck. I liken this period to the late 1950s when the Army and Air Force were working like the devil to make their converted ICBMs into viable launchers. It was a scary and exciting time – as is today.
Fellow Strataspherians:
If anyone watched the OJ trial or the Caset Anthony trial you saw that real life is nothing like Perry Mason or Law & Order. Both sides make mistakes, both sides fumble their words and questions and follow-ups. It is not pretty.
Just because the Judge did not come out at the original bail hearing and make the affirmative statement that the State had met its burden does not mean that he has now changed his mind or allowed in new evidence. While those are possibilities maybe he just screwed up and no one new any better. So RT, would it have been better if he’d done so? Sure? But by reading a nefarious motive into it you’re just spooling up the tread mill and we’re not getting anywhere.
The Judge has either made a perfunctionary mistake or he behaved (at best) a bit incompetantly. I happen to think the latter. But both sides, hanging your hat on a single word or phrase is nuts! More evidence is going to come out, mistakes will be made, recognized, and then corrected. It will all come out at trial.
I found this transcript of the interview DeeDee gave to the police. http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2012/05/19/chilling-transcript-of-trayvon-martin-girlfriends-interview-with-police/
It doesn’t exactly match up with what the Lawyer (Crump) says that she said, but as far as I can tell it’s close. Will the details matter at trial? You bet.
Now there is one question I have. How did GZ catch up to TM, corner him, and start the fight? Go to the transcript.
Lines 24-30: TM tells her a guy is watching him, sitting in his car, talking on the phone. (Consistent with GZ’a account. my ed)
Later: He starts walking fast. Then running. She can tell because he’s out of breath. She tells him to keep running.
Later: “GIRLFRIEND: I said, ‘Keep running.’ He said he ain’t gonna run. ‘Cause he said he is right by his father’s house. And then in a couple minutes he said the man is following him again.”
So TM is right by his father’s house. We can all agree there is a lot of wiggle room in what that means. Maybe outside the front door, may be 3-4 houses away. A couple minutes later the guy is following him again. Again, a lot of wiggle room. Maybe 2 minutes, maybe 30 seconds? But some time passed.
We know GZ is out of breath because he’s winded on his 911 call.
Later: She says: “GIRLFRIEND: Real hard (referring to his breathing). And then he told me this guy was getting close! He told me the guy was getting real close to him. And the next I hear is, ‘Why are you following me for?’
So how did a fat old guy outrun a fit 17 year old when he was “…right by his father’s house.” How did GZ turn him away from heading to his father’s house and lure him back to the scene of the confrontation? Can we all agree that this doesn’t make sense?
RedTeam, had the State *not* met their burden from the moment of the Affidavit of PC, it would never be going to trial at all. At that point, the State’s presentation of what they were going to prove was compelling enough to pass his muster, despite your (and sundry legal talking heads’) chagrin.
You could not be more behind the eight ball on saying “nothing had changed” between the time of the original April 20th arraignment for the charges, and the bond hearing at the end of May. What transpired in between was the May 15th evidence/document dump. Therefore the Judge can further state that the prosecution’s evidence for meeting their burden is strong.
Layman, the timeline and what the State believes to be the Zimmerman’s movements and actions are what their case will be all about.
I doubt that Dee’s transcript which you provided – made from the audio YouTube I provided earlier for RT’s convenience (oddly enough, still no ebonics or “apartment door” in that one either…) – can be time stamped to match any particular movements, or push pin locations, of Martin as they relate to Zimmerman. At best it may be influential only in that it alludes to GZ, continuing to hunt – without actual locations and corresponding time – and TM continuing to retreat.
Of the meeting, all witnesses corroborate an arguments first, so it wasn’t a surprise jump from behind, catching GZ unaware. If this is one of GZ’s official statements, this will not play in his favor.
What the State will focus on is an armed man, pursuing a teen who was committing no crimes, for approx two minutes after he was advised not to. Tho that is not illegal in and of itself, when a life is taken, the responsibility of those choices does play into that specific charge of Murder Two. The State will endeavor to prove those choices constitute potential “criminal acts” and a “depraved mind”. Martin’s location at any given moment will have nothing to do with Zimmerman’s continued prowling around for the search.
Mata: First you are right. “The State will endeavor to prove those choices constitute potential “criminal acts” and a “depraved mind”.
Second, you are partially right: “… the timeline and what the State believes to be the Zimmerman’s movements and actions are what their case will be all about.” Agreed, from the Prosecution’s standpoint. The Defense will call into question TM’s movements and actions.
Third, I think you are wrong. “Martin’s location at any given moment will have nothing to do with Zimmerman’s continued prowling around for the search.”
DeeDee’s staement opens the possibility that TM did not return to his “father’s house”, but rather he doubled back and confronted GZ. If he did so, then a whole new chain of events began wherein TM was not the hunted but the hunter. GZ was not the stalker but the stalkee. I think this is where the defense may be heading. They will try to show that TM doubled back and for whatever reason confronted GZ ( ‘Why are you following me for?’) and attacked him. If they can prove this, or even raise the possibility as reasonable doubt, then they will win the case.
The prosecution must know this and is working on ways around. In the meanwhile we will all continue to speculate untill the final judgement is reached.
Happy hunting, all!
Layman, did you notice that you wrote 4 comments in a row? gets contagious doesn’t it. but I enjoy reading them, seems as if you have a good grasp of reality and understand the case about the same way I do. I will admit to using more hyperbole, and I’ll try to reduce it a little, but some things I respond to are so far from reality, it’s a little hard to remain subtle.
mata, I’m surprised, the more you write, the more I realize you are really pretty much a novice at understanding the law and judicial processes and you especially have a real difficulty understanding simple questions and responding to the context.
It is clear that you don’t understand the legal process in Fl. In a case like this, when a defendant is charged, it will likely be taken to trial even if the state didn’t make a compelling argument of the likelihood of guilt. If that is the case, the judge is ‘required’ to grant bail. That was the case here. If the state does make a compelling argument of the guilt then bail is discretionary. As was NOT the case here. Then at the revocation hearing, the judge stated that the evidence was strong (this was pertaining to the original court hearing when he had specifically not stated that it was (which was required if it were true) and at this point NO NEW evidence had been allowed to be introduced and he made the statement. WHICH WAS NOT TRUE.
Now if you were the true legal beagle that you think you are, you would know all this. But you have clearly demonstrated that you are lost in the discussion because you are still discussing something that you should have already comprehended that you are clearly wrong on. I guess my suggestion would be for you to steer clear of ‘legal discussions’ as you seem to be lost.
Just an aside, if you think DD was not speaking in ebonics, what language would you say she was using?
How do you get into and out of your place without a door? (I’ve looked all day and every house I saw had a door.) must be peculiar to Louisiana.
mata: you seem to be under the impression that a judge decides if a case goes to court. trial.
Actually the grand jury does, and in some places, the prosecutor bypasses the grand jury and goes directly to trial. The judge only presides.
RT,
Please stop posting your naive view of the judicial process. Really, it’s getting embarrassing.
Grand Juries are not the only factor in deciding if a case goes to trial.