Why Judge Lester Will Refuse to Recuse
Saturday, July 14, 2012 at 11:11AM I can understand why George Zimmerman’s defense attorneys, Mark O’Mara and Donald West, filed a motion for Judge Kenneth Lester, Jr. to step down. It makes sense. For one thing, had they not, it wouldn’t help pave the way for a retrial later on if Zimmerman is convicted. I’m sure he requested it, too, and no matter what, the attorneys are there to work for their client. Besides, George is used to getting what he wants, he believes this is a frivolous case, and he wants a new judge. So there. Only it doesn’t work that way, and there are some rather good and strong reasons why.
Let me first mention a few “for instances” that were mentioned in the actual motion filed by his attorneys, the VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, which can be viewed HERE, directly from the gzlegal.com Website.
On page 5, the motion says:
“Generally a statement by the judge that he feels a party has lied in a case indicates bias against the party.”
Now hold on a minute. Didn’t another judge once say something about the truth and Miss Anthony are strangers? That had nothing to do with his recusal request, did it? No, it didn’t, and as a matter of fact, look at it this way. If all I had to do was lie to a judge to get him/her disqualified for bias, I’d lie to every judge who comes rolling down the pike, and I’d never go to trial. They’d run out of judges long before the statute of limitation runs out. Like a lot of defendants, lie your way out of it.
Let’s move on to page 7:
“The Court states that the money used to post bail ‘… is not money which the Defendant has earned through his hard work and savings, so forfeiting it for failing to appear would not impact the Defendant’s life in the same manner as a similarly-situated defendant who puts his house up for collateral to obtain bond.’ Page 7, (f). However, the Court fails to note that his family’s home would thereby be forfeited if he failed to appear. Further, the Court ignores the reality that those funds are the only funds available to Mr. Zimmerman to survive, to eat, to pay for utilities and to provide his family shelter.”
Here are the problems I see. George Zimmerman not only lied to the court, he lied to his parents, who took out a second mortgage on their house to secure the bond money. What a weasel. He lied to his attorneys, too. As for food and shelter, it was clearly spelled out that the money was to be used for his defense, not to pay off credit card bills and to buy expensive guns. Aside from that, it’s a lousy excuse and a cheap argument.
From page 9:
“The Court departed from its role as an impartial, objective minister of justice when it stated on two occasions on its Order that in the Court’s personal opinion there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant committed a violation of Florida Statute 903.035(3), a third degree felony punishable by five years in prison. This is tantamount to instructing the State that Mr. Zimmerman should be prosecuted for this offense. Comments like these are taken seriously by the Defendant, and further convinces him that he cannot get a fair trial from this Court. The Court made a similar comment about his wife at the June 1, 2012 bond revocation hearing when it said…”
We all know what it said, and Shellie Zimmerman was duly charged. The problem here is that the motion blames the judge and not his client. Had his client and wife just told the truth to begin with, this would not be an issue. It’s a situation that is being passed off on the judge. The fact remains that the Zimmermans lied and the judge pointed it out, including what the possible charges and penalties might be. Who is to blame for that? Was the judge merely telling the truth? Poor George says he takes the judge’s comments seriously. Well, shiver in me boots. What about the judge? He took the Zimmermans’ comments seriously, too, but according to the Book of George, he wasn’t supposed to do that? Only George is allowed? Gimme a break. I could go on and on, but…
George is responsible for his own mess. Based on the recusal motion, I see nothing that warrants the judge to step down, but that’s only part of the reason why this judge will refuse to recuse.
§
I think that most of you are aware of a role I played in a motion filed in another case where the presiding judge was asked to step down. I did an awful lot of legal studying back then, and in March of 2011, Casey Anthony’s defense filed a motion, the MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS, that had this one glaring statement:
c. The Court Did Not Look at the Evidence from the Hearing Objectively and Instead Displays a Clear Bias [emphasis mine] In Explaining Law Enforcement Conduct Rather than Evaluating Whether a Reasonable Person Would Have Felt Free to Leave.
Holy Foghorn Leghorn! Only thing is, under FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, Rule 2.330, DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES, “Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.” OK fine, but what it means is that the procedure for filing disqualification motions for civil and criminal cases is set out in Rule 2.160 of the Fla. R. Jud. Admin., amended by the Florida Supreme Court in 2004.
Since this is the route O’Mara and West are taking, they should be familiar with F.S. §38.10, which states:
Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the prescribing judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith.
But please pay particular attention to this part:
However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.
Remember the first judge? Jessica Recksiedler? She was asked to recuse herself and that’s how Judge Lester came to the bench.
After Judge Recksiedler willfully stepped down, and she could have easily remained on the bench, Judge Lester cannot be disqualified because of alleged prejudice solely based on what Zimmerman claims. The only way it would work is if Lester admits he is biased in favor of the prosecution. Even then, his admission would merely be recorded in the court minutes and the trial would proceed on schedule. Of course, this would be reviewed after a conviction (if there is one) and it would, no doubt, lead to a retrial, but let me assure you, this judge will not fail. He will never admit to bias, and because he’s the second judge, the rules are different.
One of the misconceptions of trial court judges is that rulings are the basis for disqualifications. They are not, as O’Mara and West are claiming in their motion. A judge may not be disqualified for judicial bias. He/she can be disqualified, however, for personal bias against a party. (See Barwick, 660 So. 2d at 692, and cases cited therein.) You just have to prove it.
§
Lest you think I will leave you dangling with merely one slice of cake from the book of rules, allow me to add a thick, sweet, slab of icing to the entire cake.
Back to good old Rule 2.160…
Section (g) deals with the filing of successive disqualification motions. This is to prevent the possibility of abuse, otherwise referred to as judge-shopping. Yes, you read it right… JUDGE-SHOPPING!
When Judge Recksiedler disqualified herself, Judge Lester cannot be disqualified on any successive motions filed by Zimmerman’s defense “unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case.” And that ain’t gonna happen, folks. Judge Lester will be allowed to toss out any new dismissal motions filed on Zimmerman’s behalf.
See also: The Florida Bar Journal, Judicial Disqualification: What Every Practioner (and Judge) Should Know, Douglas J. Glaid, October, 2000 Volume LXXIV, No. 9
Dave Knechel | in Angela Corey, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Donald West, George Zimmerman, Judge Jessica Recksiedler, Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr., Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Mark O'Mara, Seminole County, Seminole County Courthouse, Shellie Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, Zimm v. Slimm, marinadedave | Share Article 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (130)
Well, shiver in me boots. HAHA! I never heard that before.
So basically this Judge is good to go, he can stay on the case? You also make a good point about Mr. Zimmerman lying to his parents. It never occurred to me that they did not know about the money coming into the PP account. Does 2.160 really say something about Judge shopping? Kind of surprising people would do that anyway. If I ever get in trouble for something, my plan will be to beg for mercy. And hope my Mom does not find out. No lolly gagging, no Judge shopping.
[I thought it was odd that Zimmerman takes the judge's comments seriously, as if the judge should just fold, yet Zimmerman finds that lying to the court is of no consequence. What would he expect? Sorry... Oh, that's you, George... Never mind... Me bad... You're excused.
It just seemed like an odd thing to say.]
Dave: Wow! You have out-done yourself. You do, indeed, know a few things about judge disqualification. (And you certainly deserve your stripes.)
This part isn't worth much--it is just my opinion. But I do believe you are spot on.
Thanks so much.
[If there's one legal thing I do know something about, this is the one, sad to say. Initially, I didn't think a motion like this would be filed, but I do understand why. I think it would be a bad thing if this judge steps down, because he certainly could if he wants to get out from under it, but I do believe he's the right judge for the case. He sees right through Zimmerman's chameleon-like ways. Z's a phony.]
Sounds like you've done your homework. Thank you Dave! It would be bizarre for the rules to allow someone to shoot themselves in the foot and then blame the judge for their own actions.
Interesting that MOM was very explicit during the 2nd bond hearing that GZ should be allowed to address the judge only (w/o cross) because George's lying (by omission) was an affront to the judge not the state. Judge Lester was quick to note for the record that the Zimmermans lied to the court, not to him . In hindsight that looks an attempt by the defense to establish a record of personal bias toward GZ by the judge.....vewy intawesting.......
[Yes, I did, katfish, and a good part of this post was picked up (and rewritten) from a post I published after Mason hinted at doing it again. I'm telling you, those law books given to me by judges and attorneys sure have come in handy. It's good to have go to people, too.
Addressing only the judge with no cross was a farce. Once again, O'Mara was extending Zimmerman's wishes. I'm telling you, that boy is used to getting his way. He's spoiled to death and it shows. How he ended up that way is beyond me. Fortunately, this judge is as sharp as a tack and, you're right, he made it a point to clarify that Z lied to the court, not him. Disqualify the whole court!]
Didnt the first judge judge recuse herself.? she new there was a conflict of interest.
[Yes, she did, katie, and that means this judge won't have to. Thanks for asking.]
Dave~~ all I can think of is....Lest we forget!
Had Jessica Recksiedler stayed on the bench , it would have been more detrimental to the state than the defense. If anyone were to claim bias, it would have been the state.
We certainly know who it was who wanted Judge Strickland out of there... he is in my 'old fart' bag...
[You know, it never hurts to ask - on the remote chance that Lester will go along with it, but I doubt it. He doesn't have to. I remember, during a particular weekend in April, I heard tons of lawyers tell me "be careful what you wish for" because of Casey's defense motion. In this case, the defense never gave the first judge a chance and they had no clue about who was going to take her place. I don't think Lester is biased. He's all about law, and Zimmerman got off on the wrong foot. If the defense stays clean, things will be fine. Look what happened in Casey's case. And she had a very tough judge. Need I say more?]
Thank you for the very informative post Dave. This gives us great hope that O'Mara is not going to be allowed to shop for judges.
[My pleasure, A. I thought it was necessary to take the sting out of the bite before it got out of hand. No coupons, either!]
Dave~~I am just a layperson and as soon as I finished reading that bond Order, I felt oh oh, this judge must go.
[I could have written more about the order, from excerpts, but I thought it was best to cite a few and move on to the nitty gritty. Skip the vegetables and go for the meat and potatoes, so to speak. Heck, I'm just a layman, too. Maybe I lay around too much.]
Dave~~let's reminisce a bit here shall we?
Yes, we all recall those infamous words by Judge Stan Strickland, " it seems Ms Anthony and the truth are strangers", maybe not verbatim. These same words were echoed by many pro Casey and yes, there were many who felt she was innocent or knew dang well she was guilty but felt it their duty to try and prove otherwise to the public.
I recall when old fart Mason came into the courtroom for the first time. He had an arrogant gait as he strode up to the podium. He looked up at Stan and said, "you trust me don't you?" You could tell he caught Judge Strickland off guard who replied with a look of embarassment, "of course, I trust you." At that instant, Jeff Ashton gave an audible laugh. The old fart turned to Ashton and said something to the effect, "we ignore the ignornant." And so that was my introduction to the attorney who finally ended up in my 'old fart bag.'
He joined the defense pro bono to have some fun and further inflate his ego. I understand he is still having fun...but I wont go into that. The way that Mason went about to get Judge Strickland off the bench was cruel and his tactics were uncalled for. Judge Strickland did not have to step down but being the wonderful gentleman/judge he did so to ensure Casey Anthony had a fair trial.
I still sit on the fence about Stan calling you up to the bench, Dave. I have to admit, had I been the defense, I may have asked the judge to recuse himself but I would not have gone about it in the manner that Casey's defense did.
I wrote the above as just an example. It was easy to recall the details from memory as some are still etched in my mind. I was devastated when Judge Stan Strickland stepped down from the bench. It took me a while to get used to Perry but it just never seemed the same. I missed the soft spoken judge.
[Ahhh... Nothing quite like reminiscing about the old days...
Yes, Judge Strickland did utter those words and they had nothing to do with the recusal motion filed nearly 2 years later.
Today, it is the general consensus from a lot of people, including me and someone else very close to the situation, that it was Mason who authored the motion. Pompous air bag. He's still representing her, too. I'm sure he's getting a cut of Dr. Phil's check.
Anyway, whether he made a mistake for calling me up to the bench or not doesn't matter today. Certainly, I erred when I wrote about it, but it's nice to know he never blamed me for it. The best thing is that he came out of it unscathed and he is a much respected legal analyst today. I must say, he's a great guy.]
Well thanks for settling that in my own mind (judge shopping). I think I heard Mark NeJame say it was something they had to do now for future appeals. If they didn't do it now, then when the trial was over and he was convicted they couldn't come back and say "we want an appeal because the judge was biased". It has to be on record during the case that they felt that way. Old memory here, but I think that was the gist of things.
Like I said before "be careful what you wish for". I can't see this judge going anyplace. he wasn't acting biased stating the defendent lies. He lied by omission to the court, and his wife lied. HE LIES.
The court states that there is probable cause that GZ committed a felony punishable by 5 years. Like duhhh.. HE DID. geez. So George takes that seriously but he didn't take lying about the funds seriously? I would think as the son of a judge that he knew up front what would happen to those funds and acted accordingly - trying to hide them from the court.
Nuff said. Thanks for another good article on a subject we all know you are nauseatingly familiar with by now .
[I had to settle it, Connie. I knew a lot of people were worried about it. This post actually came from one I wrote in March of 2011 titled Fool's Mate. Gee, is it possible to plagiarize your own writing?
I'm happy Mark NeJame concurred. I know he mentioned it a day before I put this post up, but I had just put the other post up and had to wait a day.
You're right, the gist of it is all about a possible appeal. Without this motion, a case couldn't be made later if GZ is convicted. Of course, I'm sure it still comes down to the recusal. They really want this judge out, but they already used their trade-in coupon.
The arguments made in the motion are weak. In my opinion, it's similar to a jury finding a defendant guilty and then appealing because the panel had to have been prejudiced to come to that conclusion. The fact remains, Zimmerman is a liar. He lied to his attorney, he lied to his family, and he lied to the court. One key point the judge made during the June 29 hearing may have made all the difference, too, and that's why I really like him. He's very sharp and can see right through Zimmerman. When O'Mara said Z was sorry he lied to the judge, Lester was quick to point out that he didn't lie to him, he lied to the court. That small detail cut right into the heart of the matter. It was no personal issue at all. It was an issue with the court. Because of Z's antics, I hope the state does charge Zimmerman with perjury, not so much because of this motion; it's because he deserves it.
Thanks. Yes, I am very familiar with this type of thing, but did I expect it here? Now? No, but it was always lingering below the surface.]
You know, I thought that one old lawyer, Arnold S. Trebach, had made a good point in his memo to Judge Lester. Until reading your post, Dave, and coming to the conclusion of the matter, that being the difference between judicial bias and personal bias. What Trebech saw as personal, Judge Lester carefully crafted it as judicial. I guess I can't be too much against O Mara for this ploy-its worth a try.
You said: " For one thing, had they not, it could have paved the way for a retrial later on if Zimmerman is convicted." Do you mean, "..had they not, it could not have paved the way for a retrial later on..."?
[Just so you know, I did fix the mistake in my wording. Thank you for correcting me! I probably had two ways to write it in my mind, but out came one.
I do think Trebach made some good points, but were they legally valid? No, I don't so. Same thing with other so called scholars sitting away from the bench. I'm no lawyer, but this is a topic that goes deep, deep into the abyss of my brain, and it cuts right into my heart. Lesson well learned, in other words.]
Dave~~I have a question. When a judge is elected, how long do they serve their term for? Let's take Judge Strickland, did he have to be elected and if so, does he keep his position as judge until he decides to retire?
Does the elected just apply to Chief judges?
I am still trying to learn your Florida ways.
{Great questions, Snoopy! In Florida, circuit court judges are part of the non-partisan election process. They are elected to 6-year terms. In the case of a court vacancy, a commission nominates new applicants. Chief judges, like Perry, are chosen by the circuit and county judges in that circuit. The term is two years and begins on July 1 of each odd numbered year. According to a relatively new Florida Supreme Court ruling, successive terms are limited to eight years, and that's the reason why Perry cannot run again. However, he can still run as a circuit court judge.
Read what he had to say about it HERE.]
Will this case ever end??
[Yes. All things must pass.]
Sure it will , Janice. Just give it a few years... :-)
Great post Dave.
[Thank you, Joanna, I'm much obliged.]
Dave~~there is something I cannot understand but that is not unusual. How come it wasn't the state who filed the motion to have Judge Jessica Reckiedler step down? Jessica was associated with Mark NeJame's office thru her husband working there and NeJame had recommended O'Mara. Would this not be more detrimental to the state as to any conflicts of interest that may arise than to the defense? It doesn't seem fair that Mark O'Mara can't get a crack at the second sitting judge because he filed the first motion to get Jessica off the bench.
Thanks for answering my questions re the judges upthread.
[Another good question. In the majority of cases, the state looks at judges as neutral. Whether the prosecution can file a recusal motion or not is something I can't answer, but I can say I've never heard of it. I also think that, because it is the burden of the state to prove guilt, the defense will use whatever ploy available to weaken the state's case by filing a thousand motions, including ones against the presiding judge. Also, and very, very important, many of those motions are filed for appeal purposes if the defendant is convicted. In the state's case, once a verdict is in, it cannot appeal if the person is found not guilty. That's the end of it. The defense can utilize a wide open strategy, but the state can't. I don't know if this answers you or not, but the defense will always do what it can to screw up the state and court. Whatever they can get away with.]
Interesting comments on the forensics from a lawyer with experience in this area:
http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2012/07/15/was-trayvon-martin-attempting-to-get-away-when-george-zimmerman-killed-him/#comment-264057
Dave: Do you think the man in the video below is the man they are referring to in this article?
Miami Herald – Air marshal took Zimmerman in after shooting.
Quote:
In the summary of the friend’s interview with the FBI and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement released Thursday by the Duval County state attorney, the name and occupation of the friend is blacked out. But one memo in the 300 pages identifies him as an air marshal, and the interview he gave provides enough detail about the relationship to reasonably confirm his identity.
End of Quote
Axiommnesia: 02/26/2012 Bank Surveillance Video - 18:37
This video was released in the last discovery.
(Hope that link plays okay--sorry, if it doesn't. It is the only one I have, and I did look for another.)
[Yes, I think it's the same guy.]
Dave~~it seems to me that by O'Mara filing the motion to have Jessica R step down he was doing the prosecution a favor. When Judge Lester became aware that both Z and Shellie lied about their finances, he wanted to give both Z and Shellie a chance to explain themselves. He told the pros that they were within their rights to file perjury charges against Shellie. So BDLR immediately filed charges against Shellie. He knew that since she was charged that her lawyer would not want her to testify at the second bond hearing. This was a ploy on the part of the state.. Why? Who did it leave to explain why all the money was transferred, except Zimmerman? De La Rionda wanted O'Mara to put Z on the stand so he could cross examine him... it was like, "let me at him." O'Mara had no other choice than to ask the judge if he would question Z... of course, we know this was frivolous but he had to ask... he was left little choice. De La Rionda was forcing O'Mara to make an idiot of himself.
I understand this is all fair in the love and war that takes place in "the contest of the lawyers" which is my description of a pre trial/trial.. It seems that who is guilty or not guilty takes back seat to who applies the best strategy.
My opinion only...
Rule 2.160 no longer exists and thus does not apply. Current Rules are here:
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/F854D695BA7136B085257316005E7DE7/$FILE/Judicial.pdf
The pertinent standard is set forth in Rule 2.330, pursuant to paragraph (f) Lester must accept all factual averments in the motion to disqualify as true because this is Z's first "bite at the apple" under section (d) (1) as the prior motion to disqualify was made and granted under section (d) (2), not section (d) (1).
First Motion to disqualify pursuant to (d) 2:
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/F854D695BA7136B085257316005E7DE7/$FILE/Judicial.pdf
Order Granting First Motion pursuant to (d) 2:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/order_granting_m_disqualify.pdf
Nan11 ~~wow, you uncovered some real good information. It looks like many skeletons are starting to emerg from the closet. I always thought that it may be Zimmerman's father, the ex magistrate, who may be advising or coaching him but maybe it was this air marshall instead. Thanks for all your hard work.
Molly K: Thanks for that link. Sad things to note, but I 'appreciated' reading it very much.
Snoopy: You're welcome.
MollyK~~I also checked out your link and thanks. I sort of picture Z holding the gun and T trying to push his arm away so he cannot get a shot off while yelling for help. It sure sounds like the younger of the two screaming but after reading the documents, a jury may be convinced otherwise.
I can see if the gun barrel was pushed up against T's sweatshirt and jacket, ( direct contact) the impact of the bullet would move the clothing as it was en route to the chest. In that case, the bullet holes would not match up with the entry wound. I am no expert...as I am terrified of guns.
Wow. That link showing that Trayvon may have been trying to get away! Someone here had mentioned the other day that the bullet holes in the sweatshirt were up high. So it looks like George was pulling down on his sweatshirts to keep him close to him and then shot him. It had to have been Trayvon screaming then. He was trying to get away and GZ wouldn't let him...ugh... :-( This info, if believed by the jury, will surely get GZ 25+ in the slammer.
Oh. I just thought of something. Listen to George's reenactment testimony. He says he was holding Trayvon's hands apart...he was making an alibi to show that he had not been trying to hold the young man from getting away. To make it look like he had to shoot him in self defense. I think one can find the truth within GZ's lies.
Sherry: If this case goes before a jury, I so hope they take their time to look for the truth.
Here is something else.
A jury, of course, will never see the video I link at the end of my comment--but they may very well see the re-enactment video where the clips in the video are from. (Dave has the best link for the re-inactment video in his previous post.)
I'm not sure what will be entailed in a 'stand-your-ground' hearing. (Or if there will be one.)
page 78, about 5 lines up from the bottom.
Quote:
Martin then told Zimmerman to “shut the [bleep] up,” and Martin placed one of his hands over Zimmerman’s nose and one over Zimmerman’s mouth. Zimmerman used both his hands to pull Martin’s hand away from Zimmerman’s mouth. Martin then observed or felt the handgun on Zimmerman’s side, took his other hand away from Zimmerman’s nose and reached for the handgun stating, “You’re gonna die now [bleep].” Zimmerman slapped Martin’s hand away from the handgun, pulled the handgun, ROTATED the weapon and fired one round. Zimmerman’s elbow was on the ground at the time he fired.
End of Quote
I did not mean to shout the word rotated—it’s just that this is astounding to me. (I believe he has his buddy trying to correct one of his little boo-boos.)
But he ‘rotated’ the weapon. This is as he holds down one hand of a physically fit youth sitting on top of him. The youth supposedly has his other hand squashing Zimmerman’s nose; but Zimmerman still has the where-with-all to twirl the gun like in the old wild-west movies and manage a ‘contact’ shot straight-on through Trayvon Martin’s heart.
Oh, and Zimmerman's elbow is supposedly on the ground when he fires. Quick draw McGraw, or what?
All the while screaming in great terror, of course.
Now, there is lots of speculation and debate going on over this video I am linking.
It has only been established that Zimmerman is a left-handed writer. This, apparently, does not mean that he is a left-handed shooter.
Either way, according to his BFF, he rotated the gun.
Yep, but who knows--a jury might buy the bridge he is selling. {shrug}
You Tube Video by LLMPapa – Zimmerman’s R/H Tale in a L/H World
George Zimmerman’s cop connection
Nan what am I looking at on the bank survellience video? It only goes to 6:40. I thought TM was shot later than that.???
Conniefl: Yes, iirc you are right on that.
There is a great amount of speculation that the 'man' at the 18:37 minute mark of the video is Mr. Zimmerman's good friend, Mark Osterman. His name was redacted in the interview released in discovery; however, I believe that the fact that it is him has since been confirmed.
It is 'pondered' whether that is actually him in the video, and if that is the reason for the video being released through discovery in the first place. If that idea is excluded, no one can really find a good reason for the video.
If it is, indeed, him--it raises some speculation as to the 'coincidence' of him being in the neighborhood around that time. Please, let me repeat this is solely speculation.
Speculation regarding things like: exactly how soon did he arrive at the scene? Did he help 'prepare' Mr. Zimmerman for some of his wild tales? Because we know, of course, who fired the shot. (I believe it has also been confirmed that he was at the scene before George was taken to the station. There is a picture of him there, iirc.)
The video is mostly raising such speculation because it was released in discovery and know one can really find a good reason for it.
This comment is my opinion only. (Sorry if I have been repetitious in my wording.)
Dave~~ here is a case where the State Attorney wants a judge to recuse himself.
May 16, 2012
In one example, Antonacci claims Cohen said during a trial "the court is nothing less than outraged that we are now in a second two-day jury trial because the state, for whatever reasons, has refused to waive the jury trial, thus we are incurring unbelievable expense."
"That's the whole idea," Lubin said. "They're supposed to be referees. They're supposed to call them like they see them. They're supposed to do what they think is right. You can't have them be afraid of doing what they think is right. If that happens, our whole system breaks down."
Read entire article here...
State attorney asks Judge Barry Cohen to recuse himself from trials
Dave et al....
I have played the scenario of Zimmerman and Trayvon over many times in my mind. It seems a lot happened in a short amount of time. One thing that bothers me is the that Z said that after he shot T, and thought he was still alive, he spread T's arms out to the side. I vision Zimmeman turning T over on his stomach and tucking his hands underneath him so it would look like T had been on the top when the gun was fired. Once Zimmerman found out that there were witnesses, he had to explain why he was on T's back after the shooting.
When SPD arrived, Trayvon's hands were underneath him as per their statements. Does anyone know if they bagged T's hands at the scene before he was placed in a body bag? If T supposedly had his hands over Z's nose and mouth, which I doubt, there should have been some of Z's DNA on Trayvon's hands. I don't think the dampness of the grass could have washed it all away.
JMO...hope it made a bit of sense.
Dave~~ I have been doing some homework.... Since Mark O'Mara knows he cannot get Lester off the bench as he has already used up his " free disqualification" and he filed the motion to recuse so it would be on the record, why wouldn't he have filed a 'notice of intent' and give the old guy a little nudge to see if Lester wanted off the case or just save face. Okay, you are going to tell me that Judge Lester could care less about saving face. I wonder if O'Mara was within the time limit specified... '10 days'... maybe the motion will become moot before it is denied by the good judge.
It might behoove a litigant first to serve the judge with notice of intent to file a disqualification motion, attaching a copy of the prospective motion (meaning prepare one in advance) that explains the reason for fearing the litigant will not get a fair hearing. That gives the judge the opportunity to recuse so as to avoid the black mark of disqualification for prejudice. It also preserves the “one free disqualification” feature of the rule for the next judge
Time. A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling.
More here....
How to Disqualify a Florida State Judge
Snoopy, I want to know how it can be that both of Trayvon's hands can be underneath him when he was on top of GZ at the time he was shot. GZ would have to scoot out from under him making one arm come out from under him. I believe Trayvon was on his feet and was trying to get away when he was shot. Once shot, he died before he hit the ground with his hands under him-those hands probably just letting go of his grasp on GZ to remove his grip on his sweatshirts.
Don't know if you read all the witness statements from Thursday (I think) but one witness said Trayvon looked like he was still trying to run. Something to that effect, the way his legs were. Wish I could tell you word for word what I read but the statement has eluded me at the moment.
Zimmerman’s Guilded Lies Sealed His Fate
Published by AJStrata
Quote:
The details of Zimmerman’s account are just not possible. Therefore he made them up, sprinkled here and there with a touch of reality (like it was dark out). But since his story is provable fiction, then his self defense claim is also fiction. His self defense claim lies on his account being true and accurate. Some people like to lean on ‘reasonable doubt’. Well when the story told by Zimmerman is fiction, beyond any doubt, then guess what.
You get a guilty charge on Murder 2.
End of Quote
This is an interesting read. He discusses the 'physically impossible' elements in Zimmerman's statements. Well, a few of them anyway.
He even has a few thought provoking pictures/diagrams illuminating the angle of the shot--one even discusses the arm, bent at the elbow, and resting on the ground.
In one of his own comments, (the very first one), he makes the following statement:
Quote:
Now, if you want something that may work the angles, TM tries to get up off GZ to run again, GZ pulls the gun while he is now not being compressed, and pulls TM towards him (possibly by the shirt or collar) while pulling trigger. TM grabs his chest and continues face down into the grass.
End of Quote
He continues on with a link to a picture of a person in that position: And also to say that even here Zimmerman is faced with the assumption that Trayvon was trying desperately to escape.
More speculation, interesting though.
(I think it is usually a political blog, so he does get on a little rant about liberals--but that is right near the beginning; so, (hoepfully), we can just skip over that. ; - )
Dave ~~I may become a law professor before this night is over. I am running across some good food for thought...
Friday, July 13th
Re- O'Mara's motion to disqualify....
The state intends to oppose it. I received this e-mail from the State's Attorney's office a few hours ago:
Good Afternoon. We have received requests asking for a response to the Defendant’s “Verified Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge.” The State Attorney’s Office just received the Motion. The State objects to the Defendant trying to disqualify Judge Lester. We will file a formal response to the Defendant’s Motion early next week.
But now we have a much more troubling situation, one that I think the courts will recognize. Judge Lester impugned George Zimmerman's character, saying he "flouted the system." He said he exhibited disrespect for the judicial process. He said he was a manipulator. He doesn't think Zimmerman is credible. He has suggested there is probable cause for the state to charge him with a crime for misrepresentations in his bail application. He is holding the threat of contempt over Zimmerman's head. The state presented no evidence other than a flimsy affidavit that failed to include information it had contradicting its theory of guilt, and he found the evidence against Zimmerman "strong." In setting bail at a million dollars, he didn't even acknowledge the strength of the defense evidence presented and admitted at the hearing. He even gratuitously threw in he thought Zimmerman might be preparing to flee.
[Added: This is O'Mara's second motion to recuse a judge, but the motion he filed in April was based on section (d)(2) of the rule (affinity of judge to an interested person) not the impartiality section (d)(1). Although he mentions impartiality in the first motion, he cites a case law for his statement, not the rule, and it seems obvious to me the first motion is filed only under section (d)(2) (although the state might disagree.)
If Judge Lester treats the motion as the first one filed under Section (d)(1), he has to treat the facts as true. Only if he deems it a second motion under (d)(1) does he have discretion to rule on whether they are true or not.
If the motion to recuse is denied, I believe Zimmerman can request a writ of prohibition preventing the case from going forward while the appeals court reviews the issue.
More here...
Source
I found the witness who said it looked like Trayvon was in a running position. Pg. 62 of 284
http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf
Nan11~ ~what you just posted coincides with what Sherry is saying. It would also explain why the bullet holes in the jacket (hoodie) and sweatshirt did not match up with the chest wound. When Z fired at close range, he may have been up on his knees after T released Z to try and run away. Z could have moved off to the side and T grabbed his chest and fell forward onto the ground. I am not too good at explaining myself.
Dave~~I took this from the same Source link above....
In other Zimmerman case news, the Judge ruled Witness 9's second statement (an audio conversation) can be released, as well as the jail calls O'Mara sought to keep from public release.
The State advises (through e-mail):
As for Judge Lester’s Order regarding Witness #9 and the jail calls, we are working to post those to the [media] site. Please understand this process takes time. As of right now, Witness #9 and some of the jail calls will be available Monday at 11 a.m. We will continue to upload more jail calls, and I will update you when they are available.
Michelle: I, for one, believe that witness. It makes me so sad to think that Trayvon was trying desperately to get away. (And that is a big part of the reason for the 'murder 2' charge.)
Here is the part quoted:
She then looked outside and saw what she describes as “the body” lying face down in a running position.
Heart breaking. Just heart breaking.
Notice she goes on to say that Trayvon seemed to be wearing a 'reddish' colored jacket. I find that so frustrating with all the witnesses--none of their statements actually line up with who had what color on.
lol--But it makes poor old me very confused. I try to hang in there, though. I read and re-read.
It's nice to 'see' you here, tonight. : - )
Here is Michelle's link:
Zimmerman Document Witness Seeing Trayvon in Running Position
Snoopy: Yes, I thought that as well. It's purely coincidental though.
I'm off to read your link now. I hadn't heard that about the calls coming in dribs and drabs. Makes sense, though.
I heard that to listen to them all will take about 24 straight hours.
(Hopefully I'll have sense enough to just read a few of the comments on them.)
Nan, Michelle, Snoopy, Sherry, take another look at the Leatherman blog post I linked above. But look on his blog (he cross-posts to Firedoglake, which is what I linked above.):
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/was-trayvon-martin-attempting-to-get-away-when-george-zimmerman-killed-him/
There are some comments near the bottom by Patricia and Elizabeth in which they describe a scenario which is consistent with the forensic evidence. Their ideas are in line with what you are all coming up with. I agree, Nan, that it is heartbreaking to think that Trayvon saw the gun and tried to get away.
Molly's link:
Trayvon Martin Attempting to Get Away
GZ says that Trayvon threatened him. I believe it to be the other way around. GZ says Trayvon told him to shut up. I believe it to be the other way around. I could go on but I believe almost everything GZ said Trayvon did or said was actually done or said by GZ. He minored on the majors and majored on the minors in his retelling of that night's events.
Thank you nan11. Sherry thank you for fixing my link. Putting links here must be an art.
Mr. Zimmerman must have never heard "less is more' it seems he does not know when to shut up/be quiet.
nan is you name short for nana with 11 grand kids? When I see your name it makes me think of my Nana.
Oh, and the fight may have began at the T section of sidewalk but I believe he chased Trayvon, grabbed him and Trayvon ended up on top and railed on GZ to get away from him and his gun (see, I never believed it was in his holster-I believe he had it out and cocked the whole time).
Only an elite few know how to post links at a Squarespace blog, Michelle....lol...I'm just kiddin' ya~
Michelle: ROFL
Nope, my mother named me Nancy and most people just call me Nan.
Sometimes I wish I was a Nana with 11 grand kids, though.
(Oh, the '11' is for the day of the month on which I was born. My lips shall remain sealed as to the year.) ; - )
MollyK~~I put the Leatherman blog in my favorites. I read quite a few comments and they coincide with some of the things we are saying here. I had to quit reading there for a bit... some of the comments were so descriptive that pictures were flashing before my eyes. It is too close to my bed time and I don't want to have nightmares. Mr Leatherman runs a great blog so thank you for the heads up.
OK, Patricia is my clone-she's seen more bar fights than Elizabeth. lol
Elizabeth brought up something I thought was interesting: Trayvon didn't fall backward when shot-GZ had a grip on his sweatshirt. IMO, that seals it that he cannot claim SYG for sure! Thing is, would a non-tethered person fall backward from a shot from the same type gun? We have to know that a straight in shot meant that Trayvon was standing up when grabbed.
Did Mr. Zimmerman really say he had to be careful not to shoot his other hand? I did not watch the whole video re-enactment. Made me kind of sad that Mr. Zimmerman appeared to be lying through out and LE did not call him on it. Sherry if Mr. Zimmerman was pulling the sweatshirt and fired maybe after the shot he just let go but it still had enough pull for Trayvon to fall flat on his face. Look- you all can tell me to hush, bar fights, murders and chasing people are out of my league.
LOL nan11. My Nana said we make her poor so you might be lucky you do not have 11.
Molly and Sherry: That really is chilling to read. Overlay it with the sounds of the screams.
I think the guy is lucky he is not facing murder one. jmo
Sherry, I totally agree and have thought the same thing myself about the transposition of who said/did what.