George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #3

Stolat wrote:

justanopinion wrote:At the risk of posting too much...

I noticed in the document

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/excerpt%20of%20bond%20hearing.pdf

when they are surrendering the Passport it is stated: "current passport and the only passport that he has, etc.."

So by not correcting MOM it was a lie of omission. Sorry still a lie...

It also seemed like Shellie was hedging when she said the family was "trying to pull together anything we can"

This is splitting hairs in my opinion..
other side of the coin though is if the bank accounts were solely in Georges name or any other assets were solely in his name Shellie would not have access.
But definitely she was splitting hairs and playing word games.. she was taking every question very literally. And that smacks of "don't volunteer anything that you are not specifically asked"

If she didn't have access to anything - why was GZ instructing her to move the $74,000 prior to the bond hearing? How could she have done that if she didn't have access? Even without access, anyone can open an envelope of a bank statement that comes to the house - to know in ballpark what kind of balance exists. They've been married five years, hard to imagine they keep their financials a secret from each other. According to the jailhouse tapes we actually know that is not the case.

Stolat wrote:

justanopinion wrote:At the risk of posting too much...

I noticed in the document

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/excerpt%20of%20bond%20hearing.pdf

when they are surrendering the Passport it is stated: "current passport and the only passport that he has, etc.."

So by not correcting MOM it was a lie of omission. Sorry still a lie...

It also seemed like Shellie was hedging when she said the family was "trying to pull together anything we can"

This is splitting hairs in my opinion..
other side of the coin though is if the bank accounts were solely in Georges name or any other assets were solely in his name Shellie would not have access.
But definitely she was splitting hairs and playing word games.. she was taking every question very literally. And that smacks of "don't volunteer anything that you are not specifically asked"

If she didn't have access to anything - why was GZ instructing her to move the $74,000 prior to the bond hearing? How could she have done that if she didn't have access? Even without access, anyone can open an envelope of a bank statement that comes to the house - to know in ballpark what kind of balance exists. They've been married five years, hard to imagine they keep their financials a secret from each other. According to the jailhouse tapes we actually know that is not the case.

KZ wrote:Am I missing something? Why would anyone question, or be opposed to, the use of donated funds for reasonable living expenses? It appears that from the time MOM took control of the decisions about the PayPal funds, he has taken every step to ensure the funds are managed in a reasonable fashion PRECISELY to avoid impropriety. He has every reason to manage those funds ethically, because when they are gone, he will be pro bono. Now that he has said he will bill, I don't think under FL law he can ask for JAC funds.

It seems to me that some who are upset about the funds being used for living expenses have a purely emotional response to that-- are angry or annoyed that GZ has any $$ available for personal expenses. I'm just glad the taxpayers aren't footing the bill! Let him spend his own money till it's gone. Those who donated are not complaining or crying foul. Casey Anthony had whackadoodles who donated to her snack account, too. Most people found that more amusing than annoying. And JOse Baez never did face any ethics charges or sanctions for soliciting AND managing the $200K+. I was far more outraged about that than GZ soliciting funds. He DID lie to the court about it (so did CA and JB), and he has been penalized for that by having his super secret Cheetos hideout taken away. Now he's back in jail, and labelled a liar. Did this to himself, IMO.

I'm fine with him paying off existing credit card balances, etc. Better than defaulting, IMO. If he were a wealthy celebrity, no one would have the right to tell him what to spend his money on. The donors weren't deceived in any way. They knew full well what their money was going to be used for, and donated anyway.

KZ wrote:Great post, as usual, CN, and well-researched. As I commented yesterday, my personal level of discomfort in Judge Lester's words is related to the comment "the evidence against him is strong." I would expect a judge to use comments such as "the charges are very serious" and "If convicted, the defendant faces life in prison" or phrases such as that which do not convey an opinion about the evidence in the case. The case has not yet begun to be tried.

It seems to me that if the evidence were so strong as to be a motivating factor for Judge Lester, than that should have been discussed at the original bond hearing, and GZ should have been denied bond. The very issue I'm concerned about is that the judge appears to have "changed his mind", perhaps was presented with evidence (or SA commentary) between bond hearings 1 and 2 that has influenced his opinion in such a way that he expressed that in the write up for bond2.

I don't know what is customary for judges to comment on with regard to evidence in early trial motions. But my common sense leads me to conclude that the judge has formed an opinion that he wanted to share, in an official document. For that reason, it's logical to conclude that once the bell is rung, it can't be un-rung. JL has formed an opinion about the evidence that he chose to share, in a document where it was not necessary for him to comment at all about the evidence in the case. For that reason, I would expect MOM to somehow address that. I think it is relevant to a future SYG hearing. If the judge hs openly documented that he thinks evidence for 2nd degree murder is "strong", then how impartially will he approach a hearing about self defense?

snowbird wrote:I have a question and I hope some answers, Mom saying the money won't be used for bond, how can he say that because even though it is in Trust doesn't George still have a say over how the money would be used?

I didn't think that once a trust was open for a client that they lost all say, so over the money.

I also thought that when Mom opened up his own website for George, it was state for his living and defense fund. This was when the accounts were change over.

Gizmo711 wrote:

snowbird wrote:I have a question and I hope some answers, Mom saying the money won't be used for bond, how can he say that because even though it is in Trust doesn't George still have a say over how the money would be used?

I didn't think that once a trust was open for a client that they lost all say, so over the money.

I also thought that when Mom opened up his own website for George, it was state for his living and defense fund. This was when the accounts were change over.

Probably O'Mara required a retainer for his services which Zimmerman probably had to agree to. O'Mara knew the court would no longer consider Zimmerman indigent and quite naturally O'Mara was no longer going to defend Zimmerman pro bono. Once Zimmerman paid O'Mara the retainer fee, it no longer was part of money that was available to Zimmerman. Now, O'Mara can rack up fees really fast in a case such as this one, and O'Mara's fees will come off the top.

I can think of no attorney that would defend anyone pro bono when they are sitting on that amount of money. So I believe O'Mara grabbed at it first. This also leads me to believe that maybe O'Mara was aware of the money prior to that bond hearing and he didn't want it to go to a bondsman....JMO

snowbird wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

snowbird wrote:I have a question and I hope some answers, Mom saying the money won't be used for bond, how can he say that because even though it is in Trust doesn't George still have a say over how the money would be used?

I didn't think that once a trust was open for a client that they lost all say, so over the money.

I also thought that when Mom opened up his own website for George, it was state for his living and defense fund. This was when the accounts were change over.

Probably O'Mara required a retainer for his services which Zimmerman probably had to agree to. O'Mara knew the court would no longer consider Zimmerman indigent and quite naturally O'Mara was no longer going to defend Zimmerman pro bono. Once Zimmerman paid O'Mara the retainer fee, it no longer was part of money that was available to Zimmerman. Now, O'Mara can rack up fees really fast in a case such as this one, and O'Mara's fees will come off the top.

I can think of no attorney that would defend anyone pro bono when they are sitting on that amount of money. So I believe O'Mara grabbed at it first. This also leads me to believe that maybe O'Mara was aware of the money prior to that bond hearing and he didn't want it to go to a bondsman....JMO

I agree that no attorney would work Pro Bono when they knew their client was sitting on money. However when MOm opened up the new website he states in the above post I posted that money was going to be used as living expenses and their was money that was kept Liquid for George living in hiding. So that indicated to me that all the money would not be used for his defense.
So I believe his attorney saying now that all money is to be used for his defense is just to get a cheaper bond.

If he was to get out and has no money, who is going to pay for him to be in hiding because according to his attorney all his money is tied up in his defense.

IMO I don't think George turn over all the money to the attorney without something being signed he would get money to support himself because he could not work. After all George and his wife lied to the court and his attorney about the little nest egg he was sitting on that they were trying to hide in different accounts.

So, his attorney wants to have it both ways when he opens the new account he states money will be used for George to live on and his defense, but now he is going into a bond hearing and George has no money it is all defense money.

However, I have seen attorney talk out of both sides of their mouth before so this does not surprise me.

snowbird wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

snowbird wrote:I have a question and I hope some answers, Mom saying the money won't be used for bond, how can he say that because even though it is in Trust doesn't George still have a say over how the money would be used?

I didn't think that once a trust was open for a client that they lost all say, so over the money.

I also thought that when Mom opened up his own website for George, it was state for his living and defense fund. This was when the accounts were change over.

Probably O'Mara required a retainer for his services which Zimmerman probably had to agree to. O'Mara knew the court would no longer consider Zimmerman indigent and quite naturally O'Mara was no longer going to defend Zimmerman pro bono. Once Zimmerman paid O'Mara the retainer fee, it no longer was part of money that was available to Zimmerman. Now, O'Mara can rack up fees really fast in a case such as this one, and O'Mara's fees will come off the top.

I can think of no attorney that would defend anyone pro bono when they are sitting on that amount of money. So I believe O'Mara grabbed at it first. This also leads me to believe that maybe O'Mara was aware of the money prior to that bond hearing and he didn't want it to go to a bondsman....JMO

I agree that no attorney would work Pro Bono when they knew their client was sitting on money. However when MOm opened up the new website he states in the above post I posted that money was going to be used as living expenses and their was money that was kept Liquid for George living in hiding. So that indicated to me that all the money would not be used for his defense.
So I believe his attorney saying now that all money is to be used for his defense is just to get a cheaper bond.

If he was to get out and has no money, who is going to pay for him to be in hiding because according to his attorney all his money is tied up in his defense.

IMO I don't think George turn over all the money to the attorney without something being signed he would get money to support himself because he could not work. After all George and his wife lied to the court and his attorney about the little nest egg he was sitting on that they were trying to hide in different accounts.

So, his attorney wants to have it both ways when he opens the new account he states money will be used for George to live on and his defense, but now he is going into a bond hearing and George has no money it is all defense money.

However, I have seen attorney talk out of both sides of their mouth before so this does not surprise me.

Tamta wrote:

snowbird wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

snowbird wrote:I have a question and I hope some answers, Mom saying the money won't be used for bond, how can he say that because even though it is in Trust doesn't George still have a say over how the money would be used?

I didn't think that once a trust was open for a client that they lost all say, so over the money.

I also thought that when Mom opened up his own website for George, it was state for his living and defense fund. This was when the accounts were change over.

Probably O'Mara required a retainer for his services which Zimmerman probably had to agree to. O'Mara knew the court would no longer consider Zimmerman indigent and quite naturally O'Mara was no longer going to defend Zimmerman pro bono. Once Zimmerman paid O'Mara the retainer fee, it no longer was part of money that was available to Zimmerman. Now, O'Mara can rack up fees really fast in a case such as this one, and O'Mara's fees will come off the top.

I can think of no attorney that would defend anyone pro bono when they are sitting on that amount of money. So I believe O'Mara grabbed at it first. This also leads me to believe that maybe O'Mara was aware of the money prior to that bond hearing and he didn't want it to go to a bondsman....JMO

I agree that no attorney would work Pro Bono when they knew their client was sitting on money. However when MOm opened up the new website he states in the above post I posted that money was going to be used as living expenses and their was money that was kept Liquid for George living in hiding. So that indicated to me that all the money would not be used for his defense.
So I believe his attorney saying now that all money is to be used for his defense is just to get a cheaper bond.

If he was to get out and has no money, who is going to pay for him to be in hiding because according to his attorney all his money is tied up in his defense.

IMO I don't think George turn over all the money to the attorney without something being signed he would get money to support himself because he could not work. After all George and his wife lied to the court and his attorney about the little nest egg he was sitting on that they were trying to hide in different accounts.

So, his attorney wants to have it both ways when he opens the new account he states money will be used for George to live on and his defense, but now he is going into a bond hearing and George has no money it is all defense money.

However, I have seen attorney talk out of both sides of their mouth before so this does not surprise me.

BBM

I am not sure what MOM, or anyone, has said to infer this.

Lester explicitly said at the hearing to revoke bond and in his order to revoke bond that a material change could have been used to determine a different bond amount, but I did not see any specific statement on the part of the Court that said the amount of GZs bond was solely determined upon his financial situation.

We can not know if it would have had bearing on the amount he ruled upon without Lester coming out and saying so, which he has not to my knowledge.

There is no written ruling to refer to in order to see the facts that Lester used to determine how much bond to set. We just know GZ was entitled to it, he clearly was not considered dangerous to society, himself or a flight risk in the eyes of the Court, we know that the State advocated for higher bond, and we know that MOM requested a lower bond.

If the court felt that it was necessary to institute a higher bond because of other factors, like threat, flight risk or whatever other facts that were put before the court that would show against GZ appearing for his trial, Lester probably would have gone with the State's recommendation for a $1 million bond.

It is my understanding that Lester made his bond decision and ruling on amount based on other facts before the court not just GZs finances.

I also posted the CNN link the other night that shows Lester openly questioning if he has authority to say what that fund raising money can and should be spent on, ie like bond, defense, court costs, living expenses etc etc.

I have not heard any follow up on how the Court now feels about the allocations of these funds, maybe that will come out of the 6/29 hearing.

I understand that bond is not meant to be punitive nor to wipe a defendant out financially.
It is meant to make sure they show up for their trial date.

Gizmo711 wrote:

Tamta wrote:

snowbird wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

snowbird wrote:I have a question and I hope some answers, Mom saying the money won't be used for bond, how can he say that because even though it is in Trust doesn't George still have a say over how the money would be used?

I didn't think that once a trust was open for a client that they lost all say, so over the money.

I also thought that when Mom opened up his own website for George, it was state for his living and defense fund. This was when the accounts were change over.

Probably O'Mara required a retainer for his services which Zimmerman probably had to agree to. O'Mara knew the court would no longer consider Zimmerman indigent and quite naturally O'Mara was no longer going to defend Zimmerman pro bono. Once Zimmerman paid O'Mara the retainer fee, it no longer was part of money that was available to Zimmerman. Now, O'Mara can rack up fees really fast in a case such as this one, and O'Mara's fees will come off the top.

I can think of no attorney that would defend anyone pro bono when they are sitting on that amount of money. So I believe O'Mara grabbed at it first. This also leads me to believe that maybe O'Mara was aware of the money prior to that bond hearing and he didn't want it to go to a bondsman....JMO

I agree that no attorney would work Pro Bono when they knew their client was sitting on money. However when MOm opened up the new website he states in the above post I posted that money was going to be used as living expenses and their was money that was kept Liquid for George living in hiding. So that indicated to me that all the money would not be used for his defense.
So I believe his attorney saying now that all money is to be used for his defense is just to get a cheaper bond.

If he was to get out and has no money, who is going to pay for him to be in hiding because according to his attorney all his money is tied up in his defense.

IMO I don't think George turn over all the money to the attorney without something being signed he would get money to support himself because he could not work. After all George and his wife lied to the court and his attorney about the little nest egg he was sitting on that they were trying to hide in different accounts.

So, his attorney wants to have it both ways when he opens the new account he states money will be used for George to live on and his defense, but now he is going into a bond hearing and George has no money it is all defense money.

However, I have seen attorney talk out of both sides of their mouth before so this does not surprise me.

BBM

I am not sure what MOM, or anyone, has said to infer this.

Lester explicitly said at the hearing to revoke bond and in his order to revoke bond that a material change could have been used to determine a different bond amount, but I did not see any specific statement on the part of the Court that said the amount of GZs bond was solely determined upon his financial situation.

We can not know if it would have had bearing on the amount he ruled upon without Lester coming out and saying so, which he has not to my knowledge.

There is no written ruling to refer to in order to see the facts that Lester used to determine how much bond to set. We just know GZ was entitled to it, he clearly was not considered dangerous to society, himself or a flight risk in the eyes of the Court, we know that the State advocated for higher bond, and we know that MOM requested a lower bond.

If the court felt that it was necessary to institute a higher bond because of other factors, like threat, flight risk or whatever other facts that were put before the court that would show against GZ appearing for his trial, Lester probably would have gone with the State's recommendation for a $1 million bond.

It is my understanding that Lester made his bond decision and ruling on amount based on other facts before the court not just GZs finances.

I also posted the CNN link the other night that shows Lester openly questioning if he has authority to say what that fund raising money can and should be spent on, ie like bond, defense, court costs, living expenses etc etc.

I have not heard any follow up on how the Court now feels about the allocations of these funds, maybe that will come out of the 6/29 hearing.

I understand that bond is not meant to be punitive nor to wipe a defendant out financially.
It is meant to make sure they show up for their trial date.

But things have changed drastically since that bond hearing...Zimmerman was holding a valid passport and hiding money from the court. Two things that are a big No, No,.. When a person is out on a bond for this type of crime they are to turn in their passport (everyone has to), also they have to expose their bank accounts to show if they have the money to run with. Zimmerman failed on both. He held his valid passport as well as enough money to go anywhere he chose to if things didn't go his way. This will weigh heavily at the next bond hearing.....

Tamta wrote:But Lester's oral statements at the hearing to Revoke bond are understood that he was not swayed by nor seems to have an issue with the other passport, and he apparently accepted MOMs explanation.

However in contrast, Lester, in his written order to revoke bond, now includes the passport as an issue.

Marica wrote:snipped portion I wanted to respond to. Hate those long quotes ...

Tamta wrote:But Lester's oral statements at the hearing to Revoke bond are understood that he was not swayed by nor seems to have an issue with the other passport, and he apparently accepted MOMs explanation.

However in contrast, Lester, in his written order to revoke bond, now includes the passport as an issue.

I was sort of shocked that the judge didn't seem concerned
about the passport issue when it first came to light.
Why do we question that the judge is now concerned?
After some time and consideration he apparently has come
to the conclusion he should have taken this more seriously at
the time. Either that, or something else has surfaced
to cause him to reassess the situation.

Tamta wrote:

Marica wrote:snipped portion I wanted to respond to. Hate those long quotes ...

Tamta wrote:But Lester's oral statements at the hearing to Revoke bond are understood that he was not swayed by nor seems to have an issue with the other passport, and he apparently accepted MOMs explanation.

However in contrast, Lester, in his written order to revoke bond, now includes the passport as an issue.

I was sort of shocked that the judge didn't seem concerned
about the passport issue when it first came to light.
Why do we question that the judge is now concerned?
After some time and consideration he apparently has come
to the conclusion he should have taken this more seriously at
the time. Either that, or something else has surfaced
to cause him to reassess the situation.

I am not questioning his concern only pointing out what in my mind
appears a notable, yet unexplained contrast.

And I agree and wonder, what are the causes of any reassessment of the facts and what they mean.

serenaz1 wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Marica wrote:snipped portion I wanted to respond to. Hate those long quotes ...

Tamta wrote:But Lester's oral statements at the hearing to Revoke bond are understood that he was not swayed by nor seems to have an issue with the other passport, and he apparently accepted MOMs explanation.

However in contrast, Lester, in his written order to revoke bond, now includes the passport as an issue.

I was sort of shocked that the judge didn't seem concerned
about the passport issue when it first came to light.
Why do we question that the judge is now concerned?
After some time and consideration he apparently has come
to the conclusion he should have taken this more seriously at
the time. Either that, or something else has surfaced
to cause him to reassess the situation.

I am not questioning his concern only pointing out what in my mind
appears a notable, yet unexplained contrast.

And I agree and wonder, what are the causes of any reassessment of the facts and what they mean.

Maybe after Lester heard or read the transcript of them talking about keeping it in the safe deposit box, rather than 'oh, we just found this & gave it to OM', he thought differently about it.

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

KZ wrote:Great post, as usual, CN, and well-researched. As I commented yesterday, my personal level of discomfort in Judge Lester's words is related to the comment "the evidence against him is strong." I would expect a judge to use comments such as "the charges are very serious" and "If convicted, the defendant faces life in prison" or phrases such as that which do not convey an opinion about the evidence in the case. The case has not yet begun to be tried.

It seems to me that if the evidence were so strong as to be a motivating factor for Judge Lester, than that should have been discussed at the original bond hearing, and GZ should have been denied bond. The very issue I'm concerned about is that the judge appears to have "changed his mind", perhaps was presented with evidence (or SA commentary) between bond hearings 1 and 2 that has influenced his opinion in such a way that he expressed that in the write up for bond2.

I don't know what is customary for judges to comment on with regard to evidence in early trial motions. But my common sense leads me to conclude that the judge has formed an opinion that he wanted to share, in an official document. For that reason, it's logical to conclude that once the bell is rung, it can't be un-rung. JL has formed an opinion about the evidence that he chose to share, in a document where it was not necessary for him to comment at all about the evidence in the case. For that reason, I would expect MOM to somehow address that. I think it is relevant to a future SYG hearing. If the judge hs openly documented that he thinks evidence for 2nd degree murder is "strong", then how impartially will he approach a hearing about self defense?

BBM red
I am legally stunted (no, that's not like saying I can hang a little card in my mirror and park anywhere I want) - I mean I am not well versed in legal protocols so I rely on you guys.

From a layman's perspective - isn't this a given? Maybe I'm getting this confused with other legal procedures, but didn't GZ have to have some kind of trial (arraignment or something) or have his case reviewed by someone who said that there was enough evidence to move forward with a trial? And if so - isn't that basically the court's way of saying the evidence against him is strong? Otherwise I would suspect that there would be no trial if the evidence against him was - weak. (?) help.

Hi Stolat,

Just adding on to KZ, according to the records as they relate to the motions, rulings, for bond hearings ONLY:

Lester NEVER made an express finding that the state's evidence meets the standard of 'guilt evident' or 'presumption great', and in fact the state NEVER asserts its case meets the standard either.

Lester's answer to MOMs 4/12 Motion for Bond is that MOMs argument for bond is well taken and GZ is ENTITLED to bond, meaning there is NO evidence that he can cite that would indicate otherwise at that time, and even by 4/20.

Even in his 6/11 Order Lester still concludes that GZ has a RIGHT to bond.
If he has a RIGHT to bond still, then I am again forced to scratch my head and question this citation of 'strong evidence' because from what it sounds like from his Order, this 'strong evidence' should revoke his RIGHT to bond and make bond a matter of the court's DISCRETION.

In a nutshell, I find this whole thing bewildering.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

KZ wrote:Great post, as usual, CN, and well-researched. As I commented yesterday, my personal level of discomfort in Judge Lester's words is related to the comment "the evidence against him is strong." I would expect a judge to use comments such as "the charges are very serious" and "If convicted, the defendant faces life in prison" or phrases such as that which do not convey an opinion about the evidence in the case. The case has not yet begun to be tried.

It seems to me that if the evidence were so strong as to be a motivating factor for Judge Lester, than that should have been discussed at the original bond hearing, and GZ should have been denied bond. The very issue I'm concerned about is that the judge appears to have "changed his mind", perhaps was presented with evidence (or SA commentary) between bond hearings 1 and 2 that has influenced his opinion in such a way that he expressed that in the write up for bond2.

I don't know what is customary for judges to comment on with regard to evidence in early trial motions. But my common sense leads me to conclude that the judge has formed an opinion that he wanted to share, in an official document. For that reason, it's logical to conclude that once the bell is rung, it can't be un-rung. JL has formed an opinion about the evidence that he chose to share, in a document where it was not necessary for him to comment at all about the evidence in the case. For that reason, I would expect MOM to somehow address that. I think it is relevant to a future SYG hearing. If the judge hs openly documented that he thinks evidence for 2nd degree murder is "strong", then how impartially will he approach a hearing about self defense?

BBM red
I am legally stunted (no, that's not like saying I can hang a little card in my mirror and park anywhere I want) - I mean I am not well versed in legal protocols so I rely on you guys.

From a layman's perspective - isn't this a given? Maybe I'm getting this confused with other legal procedures, but didn't GZ have to have some kind of trial (arraignment or something) or have his case reviewed by someone who said that there was enough evidence to move forward with a trial? And if so - isn't that basically the court's way of saying the evidence against him is strong? Otherwise I would suspect that there would be no trial if the evidence against him was - weak. (?) help.

Hi Stolat,

Just adding on to KZ, according to the records as they relate to the motions, rulings, for bond hearings ONLY:

Lester NEVER made an express finding that the state's evidence meets the standard of 'guilt evident' or 'presumption great', and in fact the state NEVER asserts its case meets the standard either.

Lester's answer to MOMs 4/12 Motion for Bond is that MOMs argument for bond is well taken and GZ is ENTITLED to bond, meaning there is NO evidence that he can cite that would indicate otherwise at that time, and even by 4/20.

Even in his 6/11 Order Lester still concludes that GZ has a RIGHT to bond.
If he has a RIGHT to bond still, then I am again forced to scratch my head and question this citation of 'strong evidence' because from what it sounds like from his Order, this 'strong evidence' should revoke his RIGHT to bond and make bond a matter of the court's DISCRETION.

In a nutshell, I find this whole thing bewildering.

KZ, Tamta and Stolat - Maybe this will help. Read this case: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc95265.pdf and we can discuss it when I return this evening if you like.

Tamta wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Stolat wrote:

KZ wrote:Great post, as usual, CN, and well-researched. As I commented yesterday, my personal level of discomfort in Judge Lester's words is related to the comment "the evidence against him is strong." I would expect a judge to use comments such as "the charges are very serious" and "If convicted, the defendant faces life in prison" or phrases such as that which do not convey an opinion about the evidence in the case. The case has not yet begun to be tried.

It seems to me that if the evidence were so strong as to be a motivating factor for Judge Lester, than that should have been discussed at the original bond hearing, and GZ should have been denied bond. The very issue I'm concerned about is that the judge appears to have "changed his mind", perhaps was presented with evidence (or SA commentary) between bond hearings 1 and 2 that has influenced his opinion in such a way that he expressed that in the write up for bond2.

I don't know what is customary for judges to comment on with regard to evidence in early trial motions. But my common sense leads me to conclude that the judge has formed an opinion that he wanted to share, in an official document. For that reason, it's logical to conclude that once the bell is rung, it can't be un-rung. JL has formed an opinion about the evidence that he chose to share, in a document where it was not necessary for him to comment at all about the evidence in the case. For that reason, I would expect MOM to somehow address that. I think it is relevant to a future SYG hearing. If the judge hs openly documented that he thinks evidence for 2nd degree murder is "strong", then how impartially will he approach a hearing about self defense?

BBM red
I am legally stunted (no, that's not like saying I can hang a little card in my mirror and park anywhere I want) - I mean I am not well versed in legal protocols so I rely on you guys.

From a layman's perspective - isn't this a given? Maybe I'm getting this confused with other legal procedures, but didn't GZ have to have some kind of trial (arraignment or something) or have his case reviewed by someone who said that there was enough evidence to move forward with a trial? And if so - isn't that basically the court's way of saying the evidence against him is strong? Otherwise I would suspect that there would be no trial if the evidence against him was - weak. (?) help.

Hi Stolat,

Just adding on to KZ, according to the records as they relate to the motions, rulings, for bond hearings ONLY:

Lester NEVER made an express finding that the state's evidence meets the standard of 'guilt evident' or 'presumption great', and in fact the state NEVER asserts its case meets the standard either.

Lester's answer to MOMs 4/12 Motion for Bond is that MOMs argument for bond is well taken and GZ is ENTITLED to bond, meaning there is NO evidence that he can cite that would indicate otherwise at that time, and even by 4/20.

Even in his 6/11 Order Lester still concludes that GZ has a RIGHT to bond.
If he has a RIGHT to bond still, then I am again forced to scratch my head and question this citation of 'strong evidence' because from what it sounds like from his Order, this 'strong evidence' should revoke his RIGHT to bond and make bond a matter of the court's DISCRETION.

In a nutshell, I find this whole thing bewildering.

KZ, Tamta and Stolat - Maybe this will help. Read this case: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc95265.pdf and we can discuss it when I return this evening if you like.

Great.

DebFrmHell wrote:I think I have reached staturation point. I am in danger of getting "Zimmed-Out" and we have the big Doc Dump coming up on the 27th. And then there is the "redo" of the Bond Hearing on the 29th.

I am going to a read only status for a week or so.

Seriously, I had a dream about all this BS last night! I hate having my two hours of uninterrupted sleep disturbed by GZ.






LOL! Well, I am going to try avoid posting unless there is something that perks my attention.

Requiem wrote:I have a couple of comments/questions. So far, the only person who has been formally charged with a crime resulting from the misrepresentation of facts to the Court, is Shellie. Why not GZ? I have come up with a possible answer, and would welcome feedback. Shellie testified during the Arthur hearing. Even though GZ knew she was not telling the truth, is he legally required to give testimony against her? I mean, had he told the judge his wife was lying, wouldn't that be a violation of marital privilege rights? Granted he did allow the lie to go unchallenged which goes to his integrity and credibility, but is he technically guilty of perjury? After all, for all he knew, Shellie has cleaned out all of his accounts during his short period of incarceration and donated the entire cash stash to the NRA.
Also, if he did commit a crime during the hearing, that crime was pre not post release. So, he didn't technically violate any terms of his pretrial release. And the crime he did commit, if there was a crime, is one that requires release without bond.
As for his bond revocation for the misrepresentations made to the court regarding his financial situation, it seems to me that he continues to be eligible for bond, but the maximum amount, if I am reading the statute correctly, is a maximum of double the original bond, which would be $200,000. Please note, if I read the statute correctly. I am unclear at this point whether or not Judge Lester now has grounds to hold him without bond. Also, ifnhe does grant bond, is this a start from scratch bond hearing or is it an application for reinstatement of release on bond? I hope my questions make sense. LOL

Requiem wrote:Thanks CN. Those were just a coulpe of my musings, while thinking about the bond fiasco. The fact that GZ was not charged with perjury at the same time as Shelly leads me to believe they don't think they have sufficient grounds to charge him. I do know that he knowingly allowed MOM and Sherie to misrepresent material facts to the court, but he can't be compelled to testify to that fact. I also agree that the "potted palm" should have let MOM know that Shellie was lying. But, GZ and Shellie seem to be rather fond of semantics.
I thought I read that the reinstatement of bond would be a minimum of $2,000 or double the original bond in the links you provided, but I could have read that wrong. I couldn't remember exactly what the original bond was. Thanks for that clarification.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Requiem wrote:I have a couple of comments/questions. So far, the only person who has been formally charged with a crime resulting from the misrepresentation of facts to the Court, is Shellie. Why not GZ? I have come up with a possible answer, and would welcome feedback. Shellie testified during the Arthur hearing. Even though GZ knew she was not telling the truth, is he legally required to give testimony against her? I mean, had he told the judge his wife was lying, wouldn't that be a violation of marital privilege rights? Granted he did allow the lie to go unchallenged which goes to his integrity and credibility, but is he technically guilty of perjury? After all, for all he knew, Shellie has cleaned out all of his accounts during his short period of incarceration and donated the entire cash stash to the NRA.
Also, if he did commit a crime during the hearing, that crime was pre not post release. So, he didn't technically violate any terms of his pretrial release. And the crime he did commit, if there was a crime, is one that requires release without bond.
As for his bond revocation for the misrepresentations made to the court regarding his financial situation, it seems to me that he continues to be eligible for bond, but the maximum amount, if I am reading the statute correctly, is a maximum of double the original bond, which would be $200,000. Please note, if I read the statute correctly. I am unclear at this point whether or not Judge Lester now has grounds to hold him without bond. Also, ifnhe does grant bond, is this a start from scratch bond hearing or is it an application for reinstatement of release on bond? I hope my questions make sense. LOL

I don't know if he "technically" committed a crime, but he definately did not comply with Fla. R. Crim P. 3.13(5), which is grounds for revocation of bail. Now whether that is a punishable criminal offense, I do not know...haven't researched that. His bond was revoked, and the Court must entertain another motion to reinstate the bond. And, while the court did not expect him to speak out that shellie was lying, but the court did expect him to make his attorney aware of that fact - because as it stands, GZ let MOM and Shellie both make misrepresentations to the court that he knew were untrue. If the maximum allowed (I don't know, didn't check that out either) is double...then it would be $300,000, since GZ's original bail was $150k. I also do not know about starting from scratch... Sorry, all of your questions are not things that I was looking up and haven't run across in my research.

CherokeeNative wrote:



KZ, Tamta and Stolat - Maybe this will help. Read this case: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc95265.pdf and we can discuss it when I return this evening if you like.

Thanks for this work and thoughtful post, and I hope my method of addressing the areas of my concerns or questions is not too messy. (I am going to preview before send.)

This is an investigation, so I do not expect all of the evidence to be out there or decided upon yet. However, in comparing 4/20 to 6/11 to see the Judge respond with what appears almost retroactive indignance- while also saying that bond was a discretion and not a right on 4/20 when nothing on 4/20 indicated that it should be indicated otherwise, is really needling me.

I hope this does not mean that he is subject to influence, like a direction that the evidence appears to favor, that would bias him.

I hope the answers will be revealed 6/29, because I do not have any!!!

DebFrmHell wrote:I think I have reached staturation point. I am in danger of getting "Zimmed-Out" and we have the big Doc Dump coming up on the 27th. And then there is the "redo" of the Bond Hearing on the 29th.

I am going to a read only status for a week or so.

Seriously, I had a dream about all this BS last night! I hate having my two hours of uninterrupted sleep disturbed by GZ.






LOL! Well, I am going to try avoid posting unless there is something that perks my attention.

Requiem wrote:I have a couple of comments/questions. So far, the only person who has been formally charged with a crime resulting from the misrepresentation of facts to the Court, is Shellie. Why not GZ? I have come up with a possible answer, and would welcome feedback. Shellie testified during the Arthur hearing. Even though GZ knew she was not telling the truth, is he legally required to give testimony against her? I mean, had he told the judge his wife was lying, wouldn't that be a violation of marital privilege rights? Granted he did allow the lie to go unchallenged which goes to his integrity and credibility, but is he technically guilty of perjury? After all, for all he knew, Shellie has cleaned out all of his accounts during his short period of incarceration and donated the entire cash stash to the NRA.
Also, if he did commit a crime during the hearing, that crime was pre not post release. So, he didn't technically violate any terms of his pretrial release. And the crime he did commit, if there was a crime, is one that requires release without bond.
As for his bond revocation for the misrepresentations made to the court regarding his financial situation, it seems to me that he continues to be eligible for bond, but the maximum amount, if I am reading the statute correctly, is a maximum of double the original bond, which would be $200,000. Please note, if I read the statute correctly. I am unclear at this point whether or not Judge Lester now has grounds to hold him without bond. Also, ifnhe does grant bond, is this a start from scratch bond hearing or is it an application for reinstatement of release on bond? I hope my questions make sense. LOL

Gizmo711 wrote:I'm sure the prosecution is wishing that they had asked George about the pay pal account while he was under oath, but they probably didn't give it much thought at the time. In Fact they may not have given it much thought until Judge Lester made that remark at the bond revocation hearing. They may have done it then in order to insure that the judge takes it into consideration at George's next bond hearing. I'm sure he will, and I do believe the bond will be set so high that Zimmerman will not be able to make it. Unless some big organization comes along and bonds him out.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:I'm sure the prosecution is wishing that they had asked George about the pay pal account while he was under oath, but they probably didn't give it much thought at the time. In Fact they may not have given it much thought until Judge Lester made that remark at the bond revocation hearing. They may have done it then in order to insure that the judge takes it into consideration at George's next bond hearing. I'm sure he will, and I do believe the bond will be set so high that Zimmerman will not be able to make it. Unless some big organization comes along and bonds him out.

During his cross, the prosecution couldn't ask GZ about the PayPal account while he was under oath because it was outside the scope of what GZ had testified to during direct questioning. GZ testified only to the extent that he offered an apology to the Martins and added "I thought he was a few years younger than me." That was the scope that the prosecutor had to work with and he tried his best to ask questions that were indeed stretching the scope but MOM was on it (as he should be) and objected everytime he appeared to be crossing that line.

alabama52 wrote:

serenaz1 wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Marica wrote:snipped portion I wanted to respond to. Hate those long quotes ...

Tamta wrote:But Lester's oral statements at the hearing to Revoke bond are understood that he was not swayed by nor seems to have an issue with the other passport, and he apparently accepted MOMs explanation.

However in contrast, Lester, in his written order to revoke bond, now includes the passport as an issue.

I was sort of shocked that the judge didn't seem concerned
about the passport issue when it first came to light.
Why do we question that the judge is now concerned?
After some time and consideration he apparently has come
to the conclusion he should have taken this more seriously at
the time. Either that, or something else has surfaced
to cause him to reassess the situation.

I am not questioning his concern only pointing out what in my mind
appears a notable, yet unexplained contrast.

And I agree and wonder, what are the causes of any reassessment of the facts and what they mean.

Maybe after Lester heard or read the transcript of them talking about keeping it in the safe deposit box, rather than 'oh, we just found this & gave it to OM', he thought differently about it.

Serenaz, that's exactly how I see it! Judge Lester wasn't getting the 'whole' picture that day like some of us were, but he has it now!

Tamta wrote:
MOM will call witnesses 6/29

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Def.%20witness%20list%20for%20bond%20hrg.pdf

snowbird wrote:

Tamta wrote:
MOM will call witnesses 6/29

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Def.%20witness%20list%20for%20bond%20hrg.pdf

I wonder why he would be calling the bail bond men. George did not even pay his last bond. I am at a loss and looking for any suggestions why he would be calling bail bond men.

Porky wrote:

snowbird wrote:

Tamta wrote:
MOM will call witnesses 6/29

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Def.%20witness%20list%20for%20bond%20hrg.pdf

I wonder why he would be calling the bail bond men. George did not even pay his last bond. I am at a loss and looking for any suggestions why he would be calling bail bond men.

My guess is that he intends to fight hard at the bond hearing and have already worked something out with these new bondsmen in case the Judge springs him. Sounds like he is going to take the "reasonable bail" route. That said, I do not know how he gets around not putting GZ on the stand ( very risky).

snowbird wrote:

Tamta wrote:
MOM will call witnesses 6/29

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Def.%20witness%20list%20for%20bond%20hrg.pdf

I wonder why he would be calling the bail bond men. George did not even pay his last bond. I am at a loss and looking for any suggestions why he would be calling bail bond men.

Tamta wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:
KZ, Tamta and Stolat - Maybe this will help. Read this case: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc95265.pdf and we can discuss it when I return this evening if you like.

Snipped for space
BBM
CBM
Post Cherokee Native

Okay - let's see if I can make this make sense. First, keep in mind that both the prosecution and the defense have bent over backwards to make sure that absolutely none of their evidence is released through the Court's proceedings to the public….the Court has been trying to aid in that effort as much as possible and still conduct its judicial business. So, I would imagine that there are lots of things that the Judge would have preferred to put on the record that he didn't in an attempt to keep things under wrap. Had he denied bail, then he would have been forced to set forth his findings.
-Yes. Wasn't it the 4/12 hearing that Lester alerts MOM to the fact that he has reviewed some evidence that MOM will definitely find exculpatory?

There were three hearings that are in play here when it comes to the "he said, she said" - there was the original bail hearing (4/20/12), a subsequent media hearing where MOM advises the Court of the discovery of the funds (4/27/12) and then there was the bail revocation/media hearing (6/1/12). I believe it was at the 4/27/12 hearing that Judge Lester assured MOM that he would view the GZ statements as exculpatory evidence.

I am not going to set forth Judge Lester's Order again, but he stated that at the bail hearing, he exercised his discretion and set what he believed at the time was reasonable bond and that GZ's financial status was a key factor in balancing GZ's right to be free and still insuring his appearance in court.

-"it revolves around the facts of this particular situation as presented to the court", which at that time was only APC.
Oral Ruling: @ 8:24 closing remarks, 4/20 Bond Hearing.
So by law, looking at what the facts before the court were at that time, bond appears ruled based on defendants right of pre-trial release, where he is entitled to it.
However 6/11 written ruling says it now was based on discretion not right.
There is an obvious conflict but it is difficult to address it without a written ruling which would have listed specifically the facts before the court at that time and if the ruling was GZs right or the court's discretion.


Actually I disagree with the premise that the Judge somehow didn't have enough facts to exercise his discretion in ruling on the bond. While a Defendant has the right to be free, when the case is a capital offense or one punishable by life imprisonment, the Court always has discretion to decide whether or not to issue bond. Now, there are specific factors that must be found in order to detain the defendant and not allow release, I believe this is a moot point since the Judge granted bail.

The only reason a court renders findings of fact and conclusions of law is to advise the parties and any potential reviewing court of the Judge's reasoning behind his ruling and the law relied upon. Since the defense obtained the relief they requested, there was no need to do that.


Article I, section 14 of the Florida Constitution does require particular findings before the right to pretrial release can be denied. If a person is charged with a capital offense or one punishable by life imprisonment, a court must specifically find that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption of guilt is great before ordering pretrial detention. Russell v. State, 71 So. 27 (Fla. 1916); State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717, 710 (Fla. 1980). In any other circumstance, bond can be denied only if the court specifically finds that no condition of release can protect the community from risk of physical harm, assure the presence of the accused at trial or to assure the integrity of the judicial process.

-Is it not the law that he should list these findings if he were indeed alerted to them, which at 4/20 he clearly did not seem aware nor did the state seem to have anything to alert him of.


No, I am not aware of such a law - especially in light of the fact that the Judge did not deny bail. You know, I believe what the issue here is that those who are questioning Judge Lester's Order are looking for a reason to discredit the Judge's conclusion that "the evidence against him [GZ] is strong." You can't do that without knowing what the Judge knew and what the Judge had reviewed at the time he made his discretionary decision to allow GZ bond. This goes back to everyone's attempt to keep the evidence under wraps away from the media and general public. Unless and until a reviewing court holds that Judge Lester abused his discretion, we will never know.

In the state of Florida, the appellate courts have decreed that the phrase "the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great" is to be understood as creating a standard of proof for use at the hearings to which it applies. It "is actually a greater degree of proof than that which is required to establish guilt merely to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. State v. Perry 605 So.2d 94, 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (citations.). Even when the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to convict on a capital or life offense, but there is some doubt arising from other evidence, contradictions, or discrepancies, this exacting standard is not met and the accused is entitled to reasonable bail. Elderbroom v. Knowles 621 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Thus, a Florida defendant charged with a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment has a substantive constitutional entitlement to bail unless the prosecution can show that the proof of his guilt is evidence or presumption of his guilt great, i.e., unless the prosecution can, at a pretrial hearing, establish the defendant's culpability to a standard higher even than that required for a sustainable conviction at trial.

-Was there one between 4/20 and 1/6? DId I miss something in the docs maybe?


You know there wasn't. But this is all moot because the Judge granted bail. The only way these standards of proof come into play are if the Judge is denying bail.

Florida Statute 903.0471 provides: Notwithstanding s. 907.041, a court may, on its own motion, revoke pretrial release and order pretrial detention if the court finds probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a new crime while on pretrial release.

-Is his allowing material misrepresentations considered a crime?


The recently enacted F.S. §903.0471 (2000) states that “a court may, on its own motion, revoke pretrial release and order pretrial detention if the court finds probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a new crime while on pretrial release.” 2000 Fla. Laws Ch. 178. A defendant who violates some other condition of pretrial release can now be subject to pretrial detention upon motion by the state and a hearing. 2000 Fla. Laws Ch. 229. The defendant in this case violated Fla. R. Crim P. 3.13(5).

While the trial court has discretion to refuse bail upon the necessary showing by the State, see State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717, 720 (Fla. 1980), once it grants bail, it cannot revoke the decision if circumstances have not changed or additional evidence emerged since the bond was originally set. See Creech v. Ryan, 972 So. 2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Burton v. Felton, 625 So. 2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

-This is going to MOMs approach?


First, we need to keep our conversations straight - either we are talking about the events that have already occurred, or we are talking about what may occur in the future. The above was stated under the assumption that we were discussing what had already occurred.

In this case, circumstances did change - GZ violated Fla. R. Crim P. 3.13(5), his wife committed perjury, and MOM unknowingly made false representations to the Court - not to mention that the premise that GZ was destitute was untrue and there were in excess of $135k available to GZ at the time of the hearing - and the Judge was within his discretion to revoke bail, as he did.

It is a statutory condition of pretrial release that the defendant not engage in any criminal activity. § 907.47(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1997). It is also a statutory condition of pretrial release that all information provided by a defendant in connection with an attempt to secure bail to any court shall be accurate, truthful, and complete without omissions to the best knowledge of the defendant and that the failure to comply may result in the revocation or modification of bail. Fla. R. Crim P. 3.13(5).

-Another angle for MOM?


Angle? The entire proceedings before the Court are premised on the understanding that statements and representations to the Court are accurate, truthful and complete without omissions. Do you really believe that MOM would go before Judge Lester and argue a technicality that GZ "wasn't under oath" and "didn't testify"? I dare him. And how would MOM use "to the best knowledge of the defendant" in his favor? To the best of GZ's knowledge, at the time of the hearing, he had a whole shit load of money that he was moving around into his, his wife's and other family members' various accounts. To the best of his knowledge, at the time of the bond hearing, GZ knew he had applied for a second passport that was sitting in a safe deposit box.

GZ breached the statutory condition of his pretrial release by engaging in deceitful conduct through the omissions more particularly described in the Order. Since the GZ failed to comply with Fla. R. Crim P. 3.13(5) by being accurate, truthful and complete without omissions to the best of his knowledge, he clearly violated a statutory condition of his release. GZ was also afforded procedural due process. First, the State moved to detain the GZ following his arrest on the grounds of past convictions and charges, etc. Second, GZ was afforded sufficient notice of the State’s intent to seek detention when it orally announced its request that the Bond be revoked at the hearing when MOM advised the Court of the existence of the $135,000, and then, the court actually heard the matter on June 1. By failing to comply with Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.13(5) in securing his release, GZ showed a flagrant disregard for the court’s authority and breached a requirement for obtaining bond.

-The jailhouse phone calls and account activity were too much to ignore.

While I don't see that the State met its burden at the original bond hearing, I don't know that it is an issue since the Judge granted bail. I believe his failure to state on the record his reason for such following the first bail hearing was based upon the defense's and prosecution's desire to keep the evidence secret. I believe that if he had ruled against granting bond to GZ, he would have prepared a written Order with findings, but because he granted bond, he did not believe it necessary at the time. While the Judge does make a finding that the evidence is strong in the bail revocation order, we have no way of knowing what evidence he reviewed to come to that conclusion. Nevertheless, under Paul, the Court's decision whether to deny a subsequent bond application must be based on the criteria for pretrial detention set forth in section 907.041(4). So, at this point, I see no harm, no foul.

-I wonder??
-If he had to have filed it I am sure he would have.
-Exactly, and this is why I am perplexed and concerned. Is this fair, I am asking.

The point I believe you are missing is there was no reason to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of a written order - and obviously, neither side requested that one be prepared. MOM was apparently pleased that GZ had been granted bond. What would be the purpose - for the public to know? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

And yes, Tamta, I mentioned a while back when GZ's bail was first revoked that MOM most likely needs to file a request for reconsideration before he can appeal this Court's ruling. I believe that Judge Lester set forth his Order either because he is a "follow the law to a 'T' type of Judge", or MOM has requested that findings of fact and conclusions of law (in essence what this Order is) be prepared in order to make such a request before proceeding to seek a writ from the Court of Appeal should His Honor refuse to reissue bail.

- I can see that happening.


____________________________________________________________

Thanks for this work and thoughtful post, and I hope my method of addressing the areas of my concerns or questions is not too messy. (I am going to preview before send.)

This is an investigation, so I do not expect all of the evidence to be out there or decided upon yet. However, in comparing 4/20 to 6/11 to see the Judge respond with what appears almost retroactive indignance- while also saying that bond was a discretion and not a right on 4/20 when nothing on 4/20 indicated that it should be indicated otherwise, is really needling me.

2000 Fla. Laws Ch. 178 added §4(b) to Fla. Stat. §907.041. This section states, “No person charged with a dangerous crime shall be granted nonmonetary pretrial release at a first appearance hearing; however, the court shall retain the discretion to release an accused on electronic monitoring or on recognizance bond if the findings on the record of facts and circumstances warrant such a release.”

State v. Arthur, the court held that:

(1) that when a person accused of a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment seeks release on bail, it is within the discretion of the court to grant or deny bail when the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great; and, (2) that before the court can deny bail the state must have carried the burden of establishing that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption great.

The court stated:

We hold, therefore, that before release on bail pending trial can ever be denied, the state must come forward with a showing that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.

The Court reasoned:

Simply to present the indictment or information is not sufficient. The state's burden, in order to foreclose bail as a matter of right, is to present some further evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, would be legally sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of guilty. This is the predominant view among jurisdictions with similar constitutional provisions. Fountaine v. Mullen, 117 R.I. 262, 366 A.2d 1138 (1976). The state can probably carry this burden by presenting the evidence relied upon by the grand jury or the state attorney in charging the crime. This evidence may be presented in the form of transcripts or affidavits. If, after considering the defendant's responsive showing, the court finds that the proof is evident or the presumption great, the court then has the discretion to grant or deny bail. On this issue, the burden is on the accused to demonstrate that release on bail is appropriate. It is with regard to this question that consideration of the likelihood that the accused will flee, regardless of the sureties required, becomes appropriate.
(Emphasis supplied.)

On "right versus discretion": - GZ may have went into the bail hearing with a "right" to expect bail - but once the prosecution offered evidence against granting bond - the decision was now within the sound discretion of the Court. IMHO. I am without energy to pursue this further at this point - the Judge did not withhold granting bail, so I find this all an exercise in futility more or less.

907.041 The Pretrial detention and release statute provides, in pertinent part, that:

(b) No person charged with a dangerous crime shall be granted nonmonetary pretrial release at a first appearance hearing; however, the court shall retain the discretion to release an accused on electronic monitoring or on recognizance bond if the findings on the record of facts and circumstances warrant such a release.

(c) The court may order pretrial detention if it finds a substantial probability, based on a defendant’s past and present patterns of behavior, the criteria in s. 903.046, and any other relevant facts, that any of the following circumstances exists:
* * *

I believe that the Judge had the discretion under Arthur and by statute to decide whether or not to grant bail.



I hope this does not mean that he is subject to influence, like a direction that the evidence appears to favor, that would bias him.

No matter how the Judge rules on the many pretrial motions that will ultimately be held in this case, someone will always claim bias or otherwise complain if the ruling is different from what they believe should have occurred.

I hope the answers will be revealed 6/29, because I do not have any!!!

For those who are interested in following the 6/29 hearing and understanding what is occurring, I would suggest that they review the applicable statutes and the State v. Arthur case as well as the Paul case. I would suspect that everyone will be on the best game for this hearing and it should be highly interesting.

I will be gone most of the day but will check back later upon my return. LOL


http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/6-1%20supplemental%20discovery.pdf

Tamta wrote:

snowbird wrote:

Tamta wrote:
MOM will call witnesses 6/29

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Def.%20witness%20list%20for%20bond%20hrg.pdf

I wonder why he would be calling the bail bond men. George did not even pay his last bond. I am at a loss and looking for any suggestions why he would be calling bail bond men.

Maybe to show that the family was concerned about money, had to try to come up with bond rather than immediately post the whole amount and the bondsmen could attest to that, or the bondsmen assessment that GZ was not a flight risk.

Something along those lines???

snowbird wrote:

Tamta wrote:

snowbird wrote:

Tamta wrote:
MOM will call witnesses 6/29

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Def.%20witness%20list%20for%20bond%20hrg.pdf

I wonder why he would be calling the bail bond men. George did not even pay his last bond. I am at a loss and looking for any suggestions why he would be calling bail bond men.

Maybe to show that the family was concerned about money, had to try to come up with bond rather than immediately post the whole amount and the bondsmen could attest to that, or the bondsmen assessment that GZ was not a flight risk.

Something along those lines???

I would not think that would be a good idea, because he had the money in his account or a family account at that time. I think he only owned like 5,000 and he had 135,000. So he would not have been truthful to the bond men.