http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...Zimmerman-s-Anything-But-Routine-Bail-Hearing
It has taken six full weeks but at last George Zimmerman has been arrested and detained on charges of second degree murder in the killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin. Now that he has been arrested, will justice be served?
There were two unexpected surprises in Zimmerman's bail hearing, for the accused killer of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin. It's quite obvious that Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara has a specific strategy already in place for defending George Zimmerman against the charge of second degree murder, and the prosecution was caught unaware during the very non-routine hearing.
.
The first surprise came when Zimmerman issued an 'apology' to the Martin family for the 'loss of their son' (phraseology an uninvolved third party might use), allowing him to imbed a sympathetic perception into minds of potential jurymembers and the public at large.
It seems fairly apparent that Zimmerman's lawyer intends to base his case on a claim of self-defense by Zimmerman against the younger, lighter, unarmed but dangerously hoodie-wearing Martin. What hasn't drawn nearly as much attention but in my opinion is probably the more important development, as it hints to O'Mara's strategy, is his questioning of the investigating officer's validity of the arrest.
Apparently expecting a routine hearing about whether the man accused of killing unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was too dangerous to be released on bond, they quickly discovered the matter was going to be anything but routine.
The first surprise came when the judge allowed defense attorney Mark O’Mara to pepper one of the law enforcement investigators with tough questions about what evidence was used to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the Feb. 26 killing.
The result was that the defense was able to paint the case against Zimmerman as one that was full of holes and also convince the Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. to order him freed on bond as he awaits trial.
“I didn’t know we’d be trying the case,” prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda, apparently exasperated, said during the hearing.
O’Mara did most of his damage on Friday when he was allowed to grill Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for the state attorney’s office.
Gilbreath and another investigator, T.C. O’Steen, were the two people whose names appeared on the bottom of the April 11 sworn affidavit prosecutors used to bring the murder charge.
The affidavit laid out the facts of what authorities believed happened the night of the shooting. The affidavit clearly showed that prosecutors weren’t buying Zimmerman’s story that he shot Martin in self defense.
But as soon as Gilbreath took the stand, he admitted he hadn’t brought any evidence or supporting documents with him to court that morning. He didn’t expect he’d need it.
“I was not planning on testifying,” he said.
The defense attorney spent some of the time focusing on a single sentence from the affidavit, which said: “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”
The attorney wanted to know what evidence Gilbreath had to prove that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the confrontation. The investigator revealed he didn’t have any evidence that hadn’t already been made public. He said relied on two things.
Since when does the prosecution need to provide evidence warranting an arrest, at a bail hearing? Why was the defense attorney allowed to pursue this line of questioning at all? The special prosecutor, appointed after the first one was dismissed, spent many weeks combing through evidence and the resulting arrest itself is the 'evidence'.
The prosecution was not prepared to substantiate the arrest, nor did they have any reason to expect to defend their actions, but were asked to do so and made to seem that the arrest was unjustifed, at the least.
The first judge in the case recused herself on the grounds of a possible conflict of interest, only to be replaced with Judge Kenneth Lester, who seems pre-disposed to grant wide leeway to the defense, judging by his unorthodox granting of permission of this line of questioning, challenging the 'assumption' that Zimmerman initiated the conflict.
As stated, the prosecution clearly was not buying Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, took weeks to come to this conclusion, resulting in Zimmerman's arrest. So the time to question this is long past, but the judge provided the defense with the opportunity to do so and create doubt as to the vailidity of Zimmerman's arrest. This is clearly intended to cast doubt in the minds of potential jurors as well as sway sentiment to Zimmerman with the public.
Given this inauspicious beginning to what has become the de-facto trial, what other straying from normal court procedure will this judge allow in his courtroom? I can foresee many 'objection overruled' instances in this trial. The Sanford police did everything they could to prevent Zimmerman from being arrested in the first place and now it is being made difficult to convict him by judicial authorities.
Facebook
Twitter