Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by deen_ad, Jun 1, 2012.
for misleading the court about his finances:
Misleading the courts? That is donated money for his bail. That's like saying he's guilty of 2011 tax evasion because he didn't include a new car that he planed to purchase in 2012. This is just a way for the courts to remand his bail because they figured that the $150,000 bail would have held him in custody. He had no way of knowing what the bail was going to be or how much money was going to be donated to him. It just looks like the courts are already attacking his integrity.
I'm already not liking the way that the courts are treating Zimmerman.
He is a moron if he told anything to the police other than "I would like a lawyer".
Considering violence has already been done against the people (and suspected people) of this case, I have to disagree with this statement.
It's unfortunate that Mr and Mrs Zimmerman would attempt to hide funds given to them by folks who sincerely wanted to help them out. It will be interesting to see if this incident has any bearing on the case as I'm sure the prosecution will try to use this against Mr Zimmerman if admissible.
Unless he is a flight risk, there is no reason to remand someone's bail. They have his firearm and his passport. Where is the cause to remand someone's bail? Because they had money donated to them to pay for said bail? I'm not buying it.
apparently he had 2 passports and one of them he didn't hand in. I personally dont think this guy should get nailed for 2nd degree murder but it looks like hes got his work cut out for him considering the media and all the liberals have painted a target on him.
The story says the attorney had it and didn't turn it in in time.
I agree that he shouldn't have been charged with 2nd degree murder, but it's also going to be harder to prove than say manslaughter. I don't think they have enough actual evidence to get a conviction for murder and when found not guilty they can't retry him.
When this first came up, it was Zimmerman"s attorney who informed the court after Zimmerman asked him what he should do with the Internet donations and showed him the amount. This was AFTER the bail hearing, during which he and his wife were asked about their available financial resources and never mentioned it. His attorney was then legally obligated to bring it to the court's attention, probably wondering all along why he'd agreed to take the case. I don't think it was really an intentional try to mislead the court, but when the prosecution moved to revoke hid bail, the judge had no action available but to compare facts with the testimony. They didn't match, so the motion is supported. All of those advocating for silence and leave the battle to your attorney, I think you really have something there.
Here's a statement from Mr. Zimmerman's attorney regarding what transpired:
First sign of lack of intelligence on Zimmerman. I realize that he was probably very pro LEO and working with them while being a watch captain (and probably had several friendly run ins with the very same officers that arrested him). However, it is always prudent to never speak a word of the incident to the police after a shooting. Even if he isn't charged, he still has a civil lawsuit to look forward to.
Ah, well then he's a moron for not disclosing this with the courts.
I think he is being held out to dry for politcal reasons and should be considered innocent until proven guilty. If they hold him a year waiting for a trial and he is found innocent, he lost a year of his life for what ? This is not justice but a vigilantie hanging . The emotional trauma is awful for him and his family over a questionable shooting. Manslaughter at the most ? The public has already tried him from the media. That sucks!
If he knew about the money and then was asked about all his income, savings and any other means of income he should have disclosed it then and there during the bail hearing.
According to Zimmerman's attorney, the website fund were in a trust account and unavailable to both the Zimmerman family and his attorneys. The independent trustee was the only person who had access to the funds. If true, then Zimmerman and his wife did not lie in any way about not having those funds. If true and the prosecutor knew this, but withheld that information from the judge, the judge is going to be really pissed; and not at Zimmerman.
It is even more unfortunate that he chose to take the dishonest route (even going as far as creating code words with his wife to deceive authorities) when you consider his defense depends solely upon people believing his version of that night's events. It is not a good idea to prove your self deceitful right before you stand in front of a jury and say "trust me."
They don't need a trial. He's already been found guilty by the media.
Good luck finding a fair and impartial lynchmob...er...jury of your peers.
LOL! Zimmerman's prosecutor has eliminated all doubt about her being a complete moron.
Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism
Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman did not disclose the funds from the website until 5 days after the bond hearing at which time his attorneys put the money in an independent fund managed by a trustee and informed the court and prosecutor of Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman's dishonesty. Please share any links to substantiate that it was the prosecutor and not the Zimmerman's who were lied to the court.
I repeated what I read in a news article. If you say the money was not placed in trust until after the prosecution made an issue of the website funds, that may well be true. Perhaps you could provide links substantiating that statement. Meanwhile, I will do a news search to try to substantiate which is true.
That being said, even if the Zimmermans did have the website funds in their personal account, that does not necessary constitute a lie. A lie requires intent to deceive. The Zimmermans may well have thought that those funds were only for their legal defense, and therefore not available for use in posting a bond. That would mean not informing the judge about them in relation to their ability to pay a bond was a stupid misunderstanding on their part, but not dishonesty and certainly not a lie.
Okay, here is what I found:
So Zimmerman will have to explain his exact motives to the judge for failing to reveal the website funds. The statement from his lawyers do not exactly make that crystal clear. I assume we will find out more or less what he said after the bond hearing, since this case leaks like a sieve.
Another scathing response from Dershowitz. Corey really should let this die.
» Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching (Update: Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript) - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion