« Zimmerman is not a deity | Main | The end of the summer job »

June 14, 2012

Comments

See Bronston v US, 409 US 352 (1973). I don't think this case is going anywhere.

I really hope she gets Nifonged. What a terrible person.

Shellie had no way of knowing whether the funds could be used for bail. She told the court how to get the precise info from her brother-in-law. Maybe the prosecutor should have asked, "Was the amount more or less than $10,000?" But he did not. She should not be blamed for the prosecutor's sloppy cross-exam.

+1 on the 'Nifonged.'

And so hard, and we can hope so frequently (though the jokers in the Ted Stevens case got a wrist-slap), it enters the vernacular.

Does anyone have more details on this special prosecutor?

She seems like a complete psychopath. Especially the 40-minute telephone rant to some Harvard Associate Dean about Dershowitz's criticisms point in this direction. She's lucky the associate Dean didn't record the call, or didn't post it on YouTube if he did record it.

I have some experience in dealing with psychopaths, and I have found that if you give them enough rope, and watch them carefully, they will usually hang themselves. So, yes, another Plus One on the hope she winds up getting Nifonged.

I think a Nifonging could well happen: whoever the "lead prosecutor" is in these Duke Lacrosse type bogus racial cases gets a rush of media adulation which not infrequently goes to their heads. Then the wheels come off the case, the MSM lemming pack quietly abandons the former Lead Prosecutor Hero Of The People, and they are Nifonged. They thought the MSM would back them no matter what they did in service of convicting the Enemy of the People, but that doesn't happen.

Maybe she knows she has no case and is throwing everything she can think of at the Zimmermans to try to get a manslaughter plea? Maybe she hopes that Zim will run out of cash for competent lawyers if she just endlessly hits him and his family with charge after charge? Or maybe she's just a psycho?

She's definitely a leftist prosecutor in the Vyshinsky tradition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials

RE: Corey details

Meh, she's a bully. Women like her are a well worn and no less true for it, cliche'. They yell and scream at underlings and anyone at their own level that might question their actions, and slavishly kiss-up to everyone above them in the power-chain that can further her career.

The tirade at Harvard was not her first. Legal Insurrection has reported on her doing the same to professors FSU. Now, if she's doing that to Harvard and FSU, what do you think she does to the poor schlubs that have to work with her.

If the two Zimmermans both get shived in jail, that would solve a lot of problems for the State of Florida.

Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?
A. To my knowledge, that is correct.

The Legal Insurrection blog argues that this answer is not perjury because the "is that correct?" question could be interpreted to be asking if she had previously said that they had no money.

If she thought that was the question, she would not have replied, "To my knowledge, that is correct." She would have said something like, "That is what I said."

Shellie Zimmerman had transfered $74,000 from her husbands bank account to her bank account in the days before this hearing. She certainly knew that she and her husband had some money. I think it is going to hard to convince a jury that Shellie Zimmerman did not make knowing false statements.

[HS: It's not a literal statement that they don't possess a single unit of currency like a quarter or a dollar bill, but a way of saying "we are poor" which is a relative statement and not something you can prove as being a lie. There are a lot of people with a net worth of $100K who consider themselves poor.]

"But there doesn’t seem to be any impetus on the part of prosecutorial agencies to go after this behavior."

That's because prosecutors have limited resources and plea bargain everything they can. They're only going after this one because its high profile -- kind of like they went after Martha Stewart. And just like they got Martha Stewart on a BS obstruction charge they're going to harass the Zimmerman's until they can scrape together enough to prosecute them for something else. Like Dershowtiz said -- she has no case.

[HS: It's not a literal statement that they don't possess a single unit of currency like a quarter or a dollar bill, but a way of saying "we are poor" which is a relative statement and not something you can prove as being a lie. There are a lot of people with a net worth of $100K who consider themselves poor.]

Shellie Zimmerman had just finished transferring $74,000 from her husbands bank account to her back account. Mitt Romney might be able to convince a jury that to him $74,000 is an insignificant amount of money, but I think it will be really hard for Shellie Zimmerman to convince a jury that to her $74,000 is simply pocket change.

It is possible, just possible, that the judge and prosecutors KNOW they can't convict Zimmerman of his main charges--so they're doing a kabuki dance of treating him harshly during this pre-trial phase.

They can then have some plausible deniability (WE were tough on him!) when he's acquitted and the Sharptons of the world claim that the justice system went too easy on him.

> Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the
> ability of your husband to make a bond amount,
> that you all had no money, is that correct?
> A. To my knowledge, that is correct.

The key phrase is "in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount".

If the $74,000 was donated for the purpose of his legal defense, it wouldn't even be ethical for them to use that money to make a bail bond.

If people donate $74,000 to cover medical expenses for a child, then you don't have "the ability" to use that money to keep pay a bail bond.

Similarly, if I donate money for legal defense, then I would be cheated if that money goes for anything other than legal defense.

This is outrageous. Not only is there no provable perjury, there is no perjury period.

This miserable wretch of human being needs to be removed from power and punished to the full extent of the law.

-Mercy

> The key phrase is "in terms of the ability of
> your husband to make a bond amount".

> If the $74,000 was donated for the purpose
> of his legal defense, it wouldn't even be
> ethical for them to use that money to make
> a bail bond.

The rest of the question was "that you all had no money, is that correct?"

If Shellie Zimmerman though they were not allowed to use the money raised from the web site for bail she should have replied that they have money from the legal defense fund, but that cannot be used for bail.

You can make excuses for Shellie Zimmerman, but it is up a jury to decide if this is perjury. It looks like a pretty strong perjury case to me.

[HS: How many perjury cases have you tried?]

[HS: How many perjury cases have you tried?]

I have never tried any case. I'm not a lawyer.

I have, however, served on juries. I know if I were on the jury and the defense made those arguments as to why Shellie Zimmerman's testimony was not perjury, I would call BS and vote to convict.

Zimmerman's 2nd degree murder case is a different matter. I don't see how I could vote to convict Zimmerman based on what I know about the evidence. I think there is too much reasonable doubt.

This is a classic, and tried and true tactic. No man wants to see his wife go to trial, or, much less, the pen. Thus, when you have a weak, unwinnable case against the man, you look for a reason to indict his wife. You then trade leniency for her against a guilty plea from him. Because I believe each case in independently weak and flawed, I hope that neither George nor his wife succumbs to the pressure.

"If Shellie Zimmerman though they were not allowed to use the money raised from the web site for bail she should have replied that they have money from the legal defense fund, but that cannot be used for bail."

While that would have been an answer that might have saved her some trouble, there is no "should" about it.

I have done my fair share of examinations and if the witness's answers are poor, it is up to the examiner to ask follow-up questions to pin down the witness. "And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?" was a poor question and it was not rehabilitated with follow-up.

I think HS is right that the State of Florida is out to get the Zimmermans. But they have no choice. The national media has already declared them guilty and are watching this case and demand a conviction. In order to not look like a redneck racist, good ole boy state to the national media, they will have to use every trick in the book to convict the Zimmermans on something.

The mob demands it.

The key issue remains how many blacks and SWPLs they can pack the jury with.

If they can get a few Cubans and non left wing whites and keep the blacks to 3 or less, the Zimmerman's have a great chance.

I think if you presented all the evidence to a sample of 100 Dem voting whites, 70 would vote to aquitt. So we don't need the jury packed with conservatives, just prevent a whole bunch of blacks and SWPLs.

How reliable would asian jurors be in a case like this? There natural sympathy would be with Zimmerman, a minority victimized by black thuggery, but on the other hand they might put Rainbow Coalition politics above that.

I can't see any Hispanic in the country voting against Zimmerman. The defense should try to get Hispanics on the jury.

You may want to re-evaluate your stance after listening to the released calls.
http://soundcloud.com/producermatthew/sets/george-zimmerman-jail-house-1

She knowingly moved money to hide from the courts. And knew enough to try to speak in code ("move less than ten dollars so you it doesn't leave a record").

Mickey --

The tapes are damning and really show that George Zimmerman is the sort of moron that thinks he can outfox the judicial system. More to the point, he isn't aware of how stupid he is.

As for HalfSigma, he's pretty much supporting Zimmerman out of raw spite at this point. He doesn't really care about the man's fate of whether justice is done, those are inconsequential abstractions. All he cares about is an outcome which will piss off liberals, because that's the most satisfying outcome for him.

Zimmerman will be further discredited and exposed, making it harder for people to believe his story, but so long as his acquittal meets disapproval of the NYT, MSNBC, and the SWPL set, that's what he'll be cheering for.

The comments to this entry are closed.