The mock trial thread is somewhat interesting but I’d rather see a mock pre-trial hearing thread with Bricker as the judge. Aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves even discussing trial possibilities? I would like to hear a scenario in which the prosecution can move the case against Zimmerman forward. The only way I see that happening is evidence that seriously contradicts Zimmerman’s account thus exposing him as a liar or a credible witness whose testimony accomplishes the same thing.
Considering Florida law, I see Zimmerman walking free after the judge dismisses the case. Sucks, but it appears inevitable.
I’m using clear English. Perhaps you should stop letting your prejudices get in the way of your reading comprehension, stop pretending that this case is “obviously murder”, and actually think about what it will take to obtain a conviction.
Or, you know, you could keep posting in ALL CAPS that you ALREADY KNOW something that would CONTRADICT SEVERAL OF YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS.
I’d be willing, but only if we have a mock pre-hearing conference with whoever is going to serve as mock counsel. This won’t work if we have vastly different understandings about how to do this.
As someone who’s heard the jury instruction on premeditation in more jurisdictions than I’d care to count (around two decades of jury duty . . . watching real live criminal trials on [del]TruTV[/del] Court TV) I’d like to join the weeping circle.
Two reasons: one is that there’s no appropriate accountability for the funds. That can lead to situations just like this one: “No, Judge, my client doesn’t have any money.”
Second: registering an official entity allows you to go after and shut down unofficial competing sites.
And there’s a PR aspect as well. I think enough comments were made about the original site, with the flag waving and supposedly genuine comments from “George” that no defense attorney wants his client associated with that…er… approach.
I commend George’s family and friends on their desire to help, but desire does not translate into useful ability.
He may not be, but I suspect it won’t be a big deal. O’'Mara discloses it the moment he becomes aware of it and it’s possible that even Zimmerman himself wasn’t aware of the amount during the bond hearing – after all, he had been in custody with no access to a computer for a period prior to that point.
It doesn’t look like the media will be barred from accessing the discovery evidence at this time. Concerns about protecting witness names and addresses seemed perfectly legitimate to me under the circumstances. I seem to recall that the judge expressed some concern about witness statements to the media.
I can believe that O’Mara wasn’t informed but Zimmerman had to know. The site was set up by “family members” so his lack of computer access isn’t relevant. But perhaps they didn’t mention it to him, after all it’s just $204,000. Not really noteworthy.
I read somewhere that the 200k was accrued from checks sent by 50 donors. Anyone know if that is accurate? It suggests one or two major donors. Perhaps the Koch brothers or the NRA.
Doesn’t anyone get tired of making these absolute declarations with no proof?
No, he didn’t “have” to know. I don’t know which family members were involved, but bail is one thing thing a Virginia magistrate would know about. Maybe Dad thought it would be better to keep this information to himself so Son wouldn’t know and wouldn’t paint himself as a flight risk.