You mean a lawsuit? Well, maybe. I’m sure the prosecutors won’t mention it, and George doesn’t seem to be the type to think of it on his own.
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that Zimmerman takes a 3 year plea. First of all, could a civil suit even proceed while he was still in prison and his ability to assist in his own defense (questionable at the best of times) is so restricted? Second, could a civil court judge freeze Zimmerman’s assets while they await the outcome of a civil trial? Because if that isn’t possible, the wife could easily blow through a hundred grand or more in 3 years, and Zimmerman could walk out of jail essentially judgement-proof.
I doubt he made any incriminating and contradictory statements. He would have been arrested almost immediately after the shooting. He even passed a lie detector test. I think what the contradictory statements are referring to, Zimmerman’s father and brother accounts, which were at variance from Zimmerman’s account. Guilt by proxy. They may simply have been trying too hard to help him, and Angela Corey smelled blood.
A lie detector test isn’t evidence of anything and is generally not admissible in court. Larry Mudd is speculating the the reason the judge is characterizing the evidence against Zimmerman as “strong” may be that Zimmerman has made contradictory statements about the incident. That, to me, seems a more likely explanation of the judge’s language than yours, simply because a judge should know better than to hold the statements of third parties against Zimmerman.
I was myself intrigued by the “strong evidence” language. But I wonder if there may be less to this than meets the eye. There is unanimous agreement that GZ shot and killed TM. Regardless of how much evidence there is concerning whether he was acting in self-defense, the mere fact that there is consensus that he killed him might count as strong evidence for purposes of the whether GZ is flight risk.
As I see it, there is “strong evidence” which may or may not have an innocent alternative explanation.
I notice that Bricker and other lawyers are constantly pointing out to other posters on this board that “so-and-so claims that this happened” is evidence, although many people don’t think of it that way. That’s not exactly analogous to the situation here, but I’m wondering if a judge might similarly use the term “strong evidence” in a way that is not what most people think of when they use the term.
You may well doubt it, but the prosecution asked that his statements be withheld from the public on the grounds that they amounted to a confession which might be held against him at trial, and the judge that will be trying the case agreed that this was a reasonable assessment of them.
No, Lester has asserted that there is “strong evidence” that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime of second-degree murder.
Understood. I’m suggesting that the mere fact that someone killed someone else counts as “strong evidence that the killer is guilty of the crime of second degree murder”.
IOW, that strong evidence just means some strong connection to the scenario, and is not necessarily a judgment of what happened.
I wouldn’t go that far. The judge cited the relevant language which lays out the grounds for revoking or continuing bail, which include:
The judge comments characterize the strength of the evidence, but not the probability of guilt. I’m not entirely sure how to separate those two things myself, but apparently the legal profession considers them separable.
I’m a little confused. Should Judge Lester even be looking at the discovery evidence until it is placed as evidence before the court? Even the prosecution has admitted that some of the discovery evidence may not be used in court. It seems to me that Judge Lester should be the least informed person concerning the evidence.
I don’t know if the lying and perjury charges in particular are that common, but bringing some kind of charges against people close to the “main” defendant as a way to leverage a guilty plea seems pretty common. At least that’s what my Law & Order legal education tells me.
They find some theory to charge a parent or spouse or SO as an accomplice or accessory and then offer to drop those charges and maybe even reduce the charges against the person they really want in exchange for a deal to avoid a trial. It’s even better when there’s actual evidence to support the extra charges.
I haven’t read her specific testimony, but it seems clear from the fact that she was moving all this money among account, that at the very least she knew how much money there was. If she lied specifically about the amount of money they had, I would think they can pretty well stick a fork in her, because she’s done. Unless… Zimmerman wants to make a deal to save her.
If a judge is asked to make rulings before a trial based on the nature of specific pieces of evidence, I don’t see how the judge can avoid looking at the evidence.
Also, the prosecution AND the defense both may need some kind of preliminary rulings in advance of the trial about whether certain evidence will be admissible. A ruling one way may allow them to present a particular theory to the jury to explain the facts of the case, but an adverse ruling may mean they’ll need to find another theory. And obviously the judge needs to be able to assess the nature of the evidence in order to make a ruling.
Sure, the one Larry Mudd refers to upthread. The prosecution has asked that Zimmerman’s statements be withheld from the public because they are, according to the motion at least, at least somewhat in the nature of a confession, or can be interpreted as such. In order to make such a determination, I would think the judge has know a couple of things. 1. Is the prosecution correctly describing the nature of the statements Zimmerman made? And 2. Does the law allow what the prosecution wants, aside from any question about how accurate their interpretation is.
To answer the first question, the judge clearly has to read the statements.
I suppose the most obvious example of things like this are confessions gathered by police. It’s pretty common for there to be some kind of hearing and finding before the trial about a confession. Was it obtained legally? Was it really a confession of guilt to the charged crime, or some kind of generic statement of guilt or remorse that lacked a degree of specificity? A hearing might get the confession tossed out, or might lead the judge to issue some specific instructions to the jury to explain some legal issue related to it.
And the prosecution is apparently claiming some of Zimmerman’s statements might be considered confessional. So I suspect that whether to release them to the public or not won’t be the last ruling the judge is asked to make on them.
I could be wrong but it seems like a stretch that prosecutors are hoping to use the perjury charge to leverage a plea bargain with Zimmerman. I assume this is a first offense for Shellie Zimmerman, so wouldn’t it be more likely that, if convicted, she would get probation and a fine rather than any significant jail time?
I suspect they will probably plea it down to a misdemeanor and get probation. Her statements during questioning were very vague and the prosecution was very sloppy on the follow-up questions. She kept referring to Robert Zimmerman for the exact numbers. If it came to a jury trial, then I suspect a jury will find reasonable doubt. I just don’t think it occurred to anyone that there were large sums of money contributed to the paypal account or the prosecution questions would have been more pointed. I think their questions were sloppy and left enough wiggle room for a jury to find reasonable doubt. The prosecution should have stopped and gotten a printed statement on the paypal account from Robert Zimmerman.
So if the prosecution asks sloppy questions, the defense has no duty to reveal the Paypal account when asked directly by the judge, “Are you saying you have no money?”
She unambiguously perjured herself with full consciousness of it; they can’t lay any blame at the feet of the prosecution.
Beyond that, when it comes to plea bargaining, you shouldn’t overlook the fact that the prosecution is still holding back some cards - they can elect to file structuring charges against her at any time. That’s an additional five years to stare down. If there is any negotiation on her plea, bet your ass they’ll leverage that.
