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.
AJ, chuckle…
“Grand Juries are not the only factor in deciding if a case goes to trial.”
As I very clearly said in the very last 2 sentences prior to your comment.
“Actually the grand jury does, and in some places, the prosecutor bypasses the grand jury and goes directly to trial. The judge only presides.”
That’s usually done for expediency, of course, or as in this case, when they don’t think the Grand Jury will return a true bill and it wouldn’t look good for a prosecutor running for re-election, (as in this case) or there is a lot of political pressure (well, by golly, as it happens in this very case)
There is an excellent story over on another site that tells the likely true story about who is really behind the attempt to convict George Zimmerman. True or not? you decide.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/06/19/the-zimmerman-case-it-is-far-bigger-than-shellie-or-george/#more-42202
RT, it seems that your greatest skill only lies in finding how many different ways you can tell me how uninformed about the legal procedures I’m supposed to be. But then, as AJ points out, you continue to embarrass yourself with your naivete on the simplest of things.
Apparently, according to RT’s legal world, a prosecutor can bypass a judge in obtaining a bench warrant for an arrest, and try a person for a crime. Not in this country…. not as long as the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment remain standing. Prosecutors do not decide what lands on the court dockets… the judges do.
Some Legal Process 101 for you. The process begins with the prosecutors alleging a crime has taken place by a criminal complaint, pertinent information or a grand jury indictment. Along with the charges is the affidavit of probably cause.
*ONLY* if the judge is satisfied if there is sufficient information to believe a crime has been committed will he issue the bench warrant. If he doesn’t believe there is sufficient evidence that the crime has been committed, the prosecutors cannot go forward with any charges, arrest or trial. They cannot bypass the judicial decision… except, perhaps, in your very unAmerican fantasy world.
Therefore, my original statement remains correct under our due process of law – if the judge did not believe there was sufficient evidence for murder two with the State’s affidavit of PC, he would have stopped the process at that very moment, no bench warrant would have been issued, and GZ would be walking around today, uncharged unless the State attempted to file difference charges… which again would have to satisfy a judge that a crime was committed.
Oh yes… in case the basics still escape and you wander off on another errant path, even in the case of a sanctioned warrantless arrest, probable cause will be required and provided to the court after the arrest before any prosecution is possible.
You can not get around the judge’s order that evidence must be sufficient that a crime is committed before any prosecution is possible… thank heavens.
Ergo.. the original Zimmerman affidavit was enough to satisfy the court that prosecution proceed, and the additional doc dump added to the case file in May gave the judge additional information to state that the State’s burden of proving a crime was committed was strong.
AND the *only* substitute for the judge’s satisfaction there was a crime committed is a Grand Jury indictment, which is not required for all crimes. But it will require one or the other… and not possible solely at the prosecutors’ whims.
RT: I’m afraid I don’t get your preoccupation with the Judge. Under Florida law the case could be brought before a Grand Jury or the Prosecutor could go to a Judge with an affidavit.
Why the assumption that the Prosecutor did it for political reasons? Wouldn’t the safe and cowardly thing be to go to a Grand Jury and leave it in their hands? If they indict (remember the old ham sandwich line) you’re good to go. If they refuse to indict then you wash your hands and walk away. Couldn’t we just as easily look at this as an act of courage by the Prosecutor?
I’m not sure whose bias is greater: AJ who hates cop-wanna-be vigilantes toting their guns to make up for their shortcomings, or RT who thinks that all Prosecutors are filthy politicians doing things on a whim to further their political careers.
The basis for those biases do occur in the real world, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we have either or both in this case.
Layman: “RT: I’m afraid I don’t get your preoccupation with the Judge.”
would you check out the title of the Post we are commenting on?
” What Does Judge Lester Know About George Zimmerman We Don’t Know?”
I’m discussing the judge because that’s what the subject is. I’m trying to remain on topic.
“Why the assumption that the Prosecutor did it for political reasons? ” I don’t assume it was for political reasons. I assume it was because she was relatively sure she would not get an indictment by the grand jury. something she was personally selected to accomplish.
“RT who thinks that all Prosecutors are filthy politicians”
I hope that was only hyperbole on your part because I have only discussed the prosecutor in this case, no others. Basically I believe the average prosecutor is a hard working person attempting to do the best job they can and I attribute the best motives to them.
mata: thanks for putting together that legal lesson for me. I’m sure you learned a lot while putting it together. Sorry I didn’t learn anything from it, there was nothing in it that I haven’t known for many years. But I appreciate your efforts and do hope you benefited.
Maybe you should read this and see if you recognize it:
“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.”
This person clearly thinks the state DID NOT meet it’s burden at the original bond hearing, but by the 2nd hearing that either the judge had changed his mind and decided that maybe they did.
Isn’t that what I’ve said in my comments? and that because the Judge did not think so originally but later said the evidence of guilt was strong when ‘no further evidence’ had been presented to him is a miscarriage of justice.
or that he is just a really bad judge and had no ‘intentions’ one way or the other.
that quote above, that I asked if you recognize, is from the post up above, by AJ.
mata: I do need to point out that once again, you read what I said. then said I was wrong, then went on to explain that it’s works exactly as I said it did. you truly have a unique ability for that.
BTW, Redteam… prove of your continuing substantiation of unmitigated ignorance of the system is exemplified in the single statement below:
We’re going to leave aside your own opinions. That’s proven not to be worth the dime a cup of joe doesn’t cost these days….
Clearly you have demonstrated… again… your ignorance if you think the the judge can “change his mind” if he thought the original affidavit was insufficient to prove a crime was committed. If it’s not sufficient at it’s filing, it goes no where.
I repeat.. need to borrow a shovel?
OK RT… any more nits to pick? Did you happen to notice I had a couple typos in there as well. I’ll be happy to rephrase.
“RT, I’m afraid I don’t get your preoccupation with insisting that the Judge has changed his mind or let in new evidence for nefarious and/or political reasons.
Seems to me the simplest explanation is that at the original bail hearing he just plain & simple screwed up . Had he made the affirmative statement “I find the affidavit presented by the Prosecution sufficiently strong to warrant probable cause…” then all this discussion would not be taking place.
Same goes for the Prosecutor. We don’t know that the Prosecutor skipped the Grand Jury because she was politically motivated and knew she couldn’t get an indictment. Maybe she was just taking ownership of the case. Maybe we should be complimenting her for her actions instead of putting her down.
And finally, based on reading your posts I came to the conclusion that you were bringing a bias to the table, just as it has become clear to me that AJ brought a bias to his analyses. If I had to sum up all your posts it would be: “A corrupt system run by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats is subcombing to pressure from interest groups and railroading an obviously innocent man with the help of the media.”
May be the case, probably some truth in there, but it can’t be proved. Continually seizing at miniscule items to “prove” your case does you a disservice. IMHO
Meanwhile, back in the real world…the recognition of self defense by most prosecutors is seen daily, often with less “justification” than the evidence presented in the TM/GZ case.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/
Individual state laws vary, but have much in common WRT concealed carry and firearm use in self defense: http://handgunlaw.us/
Considering how the media, race baiters and “important public people” responded, think that there is more political agenda than legal…especially if one removes the blinder obsession seen here.
Layman, no nits to pick. but you asked why the preoccupation with the judge ‘changing his mind’ and again I refer you to the post by AJ. That was one of his key points that between the original bond hearing and the revocation hearing, the judge clearly changed his mind. I’m confused as to why you think that discussing the subject of the post is a preoccupation. but as you pointed out, he might not have ‘changed’ his mind. True, it could have just been total incompetence.
“RT, I’m afraid I don’t get your preoccupation with insisting that the Judge has changed his mind or let in new evidence for nefarious and/or political reasons.
“We don’t know that the Prosecutor skipped the Grand Jury because she was politically motivated and knew she couldn’t get an indictment. ”
absolutely true. There are very few absolutes ‘known’ in this case. One thing we do know for sure, and that is that with the ‘existing publicly available evidence’ and only that with no ‘guessing’ or surmising’ there is absolutely nothing that indicates that GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder. I have no dog in the hunt. Don’t care if he gets convicted or not. I’m for justice being done and I’ve seen absolutely nothing that makes me think for one second that the special prosecutor is interested in anything but a conviction. I don’t think she has any interest in justice being done. I’ve certainly not detected anything in your comments that suggest you are interested in anything other than justice. Some others seem to have a dog in the hunt and I just can’t figure out why.
Layman:
“RT, I’m afraid I don’t get your preoccupation with insisting that the Judge has changed his mind or let in new evidence for nefarious and/or political reasons.
whoops. I didn’t quite pick up that you said ‘or let in new evidence’. Not I don’t think he did that at all. In fact, all indications are that he was still just using the original info.
mata: “Clearly you have demonstrated… again… your ignorance if you think the the judge can “change his mind” if he thought the original affidavit was insufficient to prove a crime was committed. If it’s not sufficient at it’s filing, it goes no where.
I repeat.. need to borrow a shovel?”
yeah, to bury your BS.
Mata: the subject of the post by AJ was that:” 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.”
see that sentence in there? “Judge Lester seems to be making a finding now that he didn’t make at the April 20 hearing”
AJ said that, I didn’t. That teeny weeny little technical point, which you are trying desperately to deny, will not go away. It is the key to what the ‘entire post’ was about.
on second thought, Send a larger shovel. .
mata: “Clearly you have demonstrated… again… your ignorance if you think the the judge can “change his mind” if he thought the original affidavit was insufficient to prove a crime was committed. If it’s not sufficient at it’s filing, it goes no where.
I repeat.. need to borrow a shovel?”
yeah, to bury your BS.
Mata: the subject of the post by AJ was that:” 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.”
see that sentence in there? “Judge Lester seems to be making a finding now that he didn’t make at the April 20 hearing”
AJ said that, I didn’t. That teeny weeny little technical point, which you are trying desperately to deny, will not go away. It is the key to what the ‘entire post’ was about.
on second thought, Send a larger shovel.
Mata: the subject of the post by AJ was that:” 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.”
see that sentence in there? “Judge Lester seems to be making a finding now that he didn’t make at the April 20 hearing”
AJ said that, I didn’t. That teeny weeny little technical point, which you are trying desperately to deny, will not go away. It is the key to what the ‘entire post’ was about.
on second thought, Send a larger shovel.