George Zimmerman's bond hearing is over and his attorney Mark O'Mara got exactly what he wanted: a reasonable bond of $150,000 and a GPS monitoring device for his client. Yet, Friday's hearing was much more than just a bond hearing, it was O'Mara's chance to perform for the public, the media and try to sway opinion of his notorious client. And for that performance, all I can say is kudos and offer a glowing review of his "theatrical" debut.
All the judge needed to know to make his decision was whether Zimmerman was a flight risk or a danger to society and a discussion of his prior criminal history. So why did O'Mara lay into investigator Dale Gilbreath and grill him on the affidavit? Why did Zimmerman's family discuss his good deeds, including mentoring young African-American boys? Why did George Zimmerman himself take the stand to apologize, a move unheard of for a criminal defendant at a bond hearing? Simple; O'Mara is trying to educate the public and change the minds of potential jurors by painting the picture that his client is a good guy and the prosecution is unfairly out to get him.
O'Mara's performance opened with Zimmerman's family testifying about their do-gooder son. His mother, Gladys, testified by phone that her son is "protective of people... no matter their race." She then went on to describe how her son tried to seek justice for a homeless man who was beaten in Sanford and that he mentored two young African-American children in Orlando. His father, Robert, told the court that when confronted his son would "turn the other cheek" and that he was pursuing a degree in criminal justice and hoped to work as a magistrate judge. His wife, Shellie, told the court her husband "is absolutely not a violent person." All three were essentially characters in O'Mara's ace performance of trying to present his client as the exact opposite of the monster he's been painted to be in much of the media.
The key to the performance, though, was O'Mara's battle scene with investigator Dale Gilbreath. He got up and questioned Gilbreath so much about the affidavit that the investigator came off looking like a fool. First, Gilbreath admitted he wasn't aware of any inquiry to Trayvon Martin's father as to whether he could identify the voice heard screaming in the 911 calls as his son's. Gilbreath also admitted that he does not know who started the fight, does not have evidence to prove who started the fight and does not have evidence to contradict Zimmerman's statement that Martin started the fight. He also testified he does not have evidence to contradict Zimmerman's assertion that he turned back around to walk to his car. O'Mara also laid into Gilbreath over the use of "profiling" in the affidavit and the claim that Zimmerman "continued to follow" Martin even after he was told by a dispatcher not to. This claim that he "continued to follow" is key to the case, because it helps the prosecution prove he had an intent to kill, which is grounds for a 2nd degree murder conviction.
While some would say O'Mara showed all his cards in Friday's bond hearing, I think it was a smart strategy because he's basically trying to tell the public not to jump to conclusions here, as most have already done so based off media coverage of the case. The first thing a good defense attorney does is start knocking down the prosecution's case. The reason why it's so important here to question the investigation and the evidence is because if O'Mara thinks he has a good shot at attacking the prosecution's case, he may never even have to apply Stand Your Ground. If O'Mara uses Stand Your Ground as a defense, his client would be forced to testify about why he felt reasonably threatened with bodily harm, and more importantly, he'd be forced to face cross examination. Yet, if O'Mara can convince the jury the prosecution has a weak case without ever applying Stand Your Ground, he can keep his client off the witness stand. His goal was to poke so many holes into the affidavit and the initial investigation that some may now be questioning whether Zimmerman was unfairly charged.
And in the final act of the performance, the star himself took center stage. When George Zimmerman took the stand, most everyone in the courtroom and everyone watching on television was stunned. It's unheard of for a criminal defendant to take the stand in a bond hearing. Yet, this was a carefully calculated move in O'Mara's master plan to try to humanize his client. Zimmerman took the stand and apologized to Martin's family, telling the court he did not know Trayvon was so much younger than him and did not know whether he was armed or not. Now, when the prosecution saw the star defendant take the stand, they were likely chomping at the bit to get at him. Yet, O'Mara was a few steps ahead of them. Zimmerman apologized but did not discuss anything else about the night of the killing. With such limited exposure, the prosecution could not question him on anything beyond what he was testifying about. You can only cross-examine within the scope of direct examination. Yes, they asked why Zimmerman took so long to apologize, but couldn't grill him on anything beyond that. A risky move, but it paid off, because now all the media is talking about out of Friday's hearing is Zimmerman's apology. Was it sincere? I don't know. But a little good PR and publicity can't hurt.
If O'Mara's first performance is any indication of his future defense, this case is shaping up to be quite the show and the prosecution better be prepared.
Follow Mari Fagel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MariFagel
1. Is that Android font on your web site? If so, major geek points.
2. Am I correct in understanding that the Martin family cannot file a civil suit against GZ if GZ is found not-guilty in a criminal trial?
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
http://yourlegallady.com/2012/04/03/civil-suit-may-be-only-hope-for-justice-in-trayvon-martin-case/
That is why the detective danced around the term "profiling" when questioned about his Affidavit. The prosecutor was hoping for the innuendo at trial, but not the facts about the burglaries over the year prior, that caused them to form the neighborhood watch in the first place. With O'Mara that's not going to happen. He's backing them into a corner. See how carefully the detective avoided saying Trayvon was profiled for being black, and how O'Mara did not pursue the issue, when he could have. It was a warning shot.
The prosecutor either completely abandons the "profiling", or it is going to be ugly. He'll rub their noses in all those prior burglaries, and smear Trayvon with the same innuendo tried on Zimmerman. Like it or not, reasonable people in a situation like this, are not going to suspect a bunch of nuns of planning burglaries.
All the investigator said in essence is what they all have to say: none of them saw the crime. Big deal. That doesn't mean that because a cop didnt see it ergo, we have to believe Zimmerman's account. That's absurd. Prosecutors would almost never convict if the requirement is they have to have witnessed the crime.
Once again, another false goalpost.
That's like another poster in another thread who implied that Trayvon's girlfriend's statement doesn't count because it wasn't taped. That's absurd. There wouldn't be many witnesses in anything if the requirement is that what they testify to had to be taped. It's absurd.
I believe the focus is really more on Mark O'Mara in this story than Zimmerman. The article is pointing out that he is handling the case in a professional manner and that his performance, so far, is getting. " Rave Reviews", and we should expect a very good legal battle from both sides. O'Mara is obviously a well season criminal attorney, and I sure he knew what he was getting into before he accepted this case. The world will be watching every move the attorneys make. I am sure there will be days when the trial goes up and then goes down. It is amazing that this trial is expected to be broadcasted live.
This is a tragedy case and now we will get to hear the other evidence not released, and we will get to watch the legal process in action. Many are hoping justice is achieved and that healing can take place in the community, and improvements are made in law enforcements and many areas of society. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from this case.
The prosecutors may say that Zimmerman had the intent to gun down Martin, using racial profiling.
The defense will state that there was no such intent and that Zimmerman was acting in his community watchman role and defended himself in a fight with Martin.
So the arguments may be around whether there was racial profiling, whether this was self- defense, and if self-defense, whether using deadly force was justified in this situation. So now the evidence needs to be presented and our court system will then follow the procedures, which could take a long time.
Since this is a criminal case the proof will be high in terms of showing the statute that was violated, and the courts will require the meeting the beyond reasonable doubt criteria as the burden of proof.
Civil suits will follow, but the burden of proof is much less: preponderance of evidence. The civil suits will be for monetary damages, not jail time as in the criminal case.
This is a tragedy and no matter what the case results, a young man was shot and killed and his life cannot be replaced. Both families and friends are affected in this case. It is a sad story and I hope these kinds of tragedies can be prevented in the future.
in addition today under oath Georgie stated that he did not know how old Martin was, and that he thought that he was a little younger than himself...yet on the police dispatch tapes pinocchio states that the kid was a teen..
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/20/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html
Also, we don't know what Zimmerman did or didn't say under interrogation. I think he's likely to be telling the truth here because the prosecutor did remind Zimmerman that these statements could be verified.
Listen to the tape again. I have that passage clearly in my ear. Age isn't his first concern, that T.M is a "real suspicious guy" is, "late teens" has a slightly questioning quality to it. That will be the line of defense.
"because the prosecutor did remind Zimmerman that these statements could be verified."
Questioned he seemed to answer increasingly evasively. It felt to me, in the end he suggested that he may have said it in a phrase confronted with police that wasn't recorded. Of course only after he was confronted with the fact that everything was recorded.
But this was a clever PR stunt. He dressed up his supposedly changing perceptions about age with an apology. What he really wanted to get over is this: I thought he was close to my age, thus I couldn't be wasn't sure he wasn't armed. At what age can people carry guns in Florida? I think that was his core point.
What was the question about the text message on his phone with a comment about Trayvon's father about?
The real bad part of the story is that Zimmerman once the idea of using aggravated force, may well have screamed himself, while the boy didn't want to appear as a weenie. After all could he have known he would be shot?