Special Prosecutor Angela Corey has done it again. But before we dive into yet another fetid prosecutorial swamp, it would be very much worth your while to stop by The Conservative Treehouse, where they continue to do first-rate work on exposing the bewildering web of connections between the usually suspect left wing organizations and individuals involved in constructing and maintaining the Trayvon Martin Narrative. It’s very much eye-opening, and as the article suggests, with so many people and so much money involved (oh yes; large sums indeed), these growling dogs aren’t going to release this particular bone anytime soon.
Also worth your time are two posts by my former Confederate Yankee co-blogger, Bob Owens. The first concisely explains why Martin did not bleed on Zimmerman, and the second, for those who may have missed it, equally concisely explains the dynamics of drawing and using a concealed handgun while pinned to the ground.
In this article, I’ll also be quoting from and referring to three excellent and professional articles, all written by lawyers of note: one by Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, and two by Denver defense attorney Jeralyn Meritt at TalkLeft, here and here.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS:
Here is the Florida perjury statute applicable to this case. Those interested in reading all of the statutes relating to perjury—Chapter 837 of the Florida Statutes —can take the link and be satisfied that I am not leaving out relevant law.
837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) Whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of the crime of perjury under subsection (1) or subsection (2), and the defendant’s mistaken belief that the statement was not material is not a defense.
Perjury is much misunderstood. As the statute makes clear—and in this case, arguably only 837.02 (1) applies; the possibility of the death penalty (making the legally unlikely assumption the case ever actually goes to trial) is remote—to commit perjury, one must:
(1) Be under oath;
(2) Make a false statement;
(3) They must believe, at the time the statement is made, that the statement is false; and
(4) The statement must be made in an official proceeding, ie: court.
Notice also that the statue requires that the false statement be “material,” which essentially means that it must actually have some real, definable bearing on the issues of the case. If a female witness, embarrassed about recently gaining some weight, for example, underestimates her weight by 20 pounds, even though she knew that figure to be incorrect, it would not be perjury unless a precise telling of her weight was material to that case. Likewise, inadvertent mistakes, such as misstating one’s address or inverting times or places, is not perjury, even though, by the strictest definition, it may be false.
The difficulty for the prosecution in any perjury case is proving what the defendant believed. This is normally done by presenting clearly factual evidence that shows the defendant had to have known that what they said was false at the time they said it. As a result, perjury charges are filed far less frequently than the public imagines. For example, an alibi witness who claims he was driving in his car with the defendant at 10 AM ten miles from the scene of the crime on the day in question might be proved to be lying by the revelation of ATM camera footage showing him alone in his car on that date at 9:57 AM only three blocks from the scene of the crime. As I’ll demonstrate in this case, there is no such evidence and no such clarity.
THE AFFIDAVIT:
Remember that a charging affidavit must not only include the specific crime or crimes the defendant is supposed to have committed, but must provide evidence sufficient to establish probable cause. Probable cause, once again, is facts and circumstances that would convince a reasonable judge–in the case of an affidavit–that the person to be charged has in fact done things that fulfill the elements of the crimes charged. The affidavit must be complete. It cannot leave out pertinent information that might indicate innocence. The affiant swears to tell the whole truth. As regular readers may recall from Update 2 the special prosecutor’s affidavit charging George Zimmerman with second degree murder did not fulfill the elements of the offense—it did not establish probable cause—and the affiants lied—primarily by omission of evidence that would have established Zimmerman’s innocence, and also by stating that Martin was not breaking the law despite knowing that he was under the influence of marijuana (under Florida law, any amount suffices).
The cover page, the information, sets forth the specific statute.
The first page of the affidavit does establish that the alleged crime took place during an official proceeding and that Shellie Zimmerman, who testified by phone, was under oath.
The second page lists excerpts of the testimony done that day (April 20, 2012) where we learn that Shellie Zimmerman did not know how much money was in the Internet account. It is already clear that the attorneys and judge were treating the Zimmerman’s normal financial resources (savings, checking, etc.) separately from the Internet account about which everyone was clearly aware. The affiant, investigator T.C. O’Steen establishes that Shellie did not know how much money was in the Internet account, and presents no evidence to suggest otherwise. However, what O’Steen omits is the portion of the transcript that shows that Shellie testified that her brother-in-law probably did have that information, and she offered to bring him to the phone, an offer of which the prosecution did not take advantage.
The third and fourth pages are excerpts from phone calls between George and Shellie Zimmerman while he was in jail awaiting his initial bond hearing. They portray the Zimmermans speaking guardedly and trying to be careful not only how they speak about money, but that Shellie not carry too much cash “safety issue, you know,” George tells Shellie. They discuss financial issues and how to deal with them.
The final page consists of O’Steen speaking about his contacts with the Zimmerman’s credit union. O’Steen, throughout these pages, only establishes that the Zimmermans spoke about transferring money from one account to another and about how to deal with their bills and other obligations. O’Steen does not even mention, let alone fulfill, the most important element of the statute: HE DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANY STATEMENT MADE BY SHELLIE ZIMMERMAN AND PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE IT WAS FALSE AND SHE BELIEVED IT TO BE FALSE AS SHE MADE IT. Incredibly, once again, the special prosecutor has arguably lied—by omission; the selective editing of the transcript—on an affidavit and did not fulfill the elements of the offense.
This is plainly stunning. During my police service, any competent police supervisor, or any competent prosecutor reading this affidavit would be asking of the investigator submitting it: “Where’s the PC? What did she say that was false? How do we know she believed it to be false? Where’s the evidence?” Even if a police supervisor let such a defective affidavit find its way to the prosecutor, surely any competent prosecutor would ask the same questions and demand they be answered, in black and white on a new and complete affidavit, before proceeding. That Angela Corey would allow such a document to be submitted to a judge, particularly understanding the scrutiny it will surely receive, is almost inconceivable.
LYING BY OMISSION:
Here’s the transcript excerpt from page 2 of 5 of the affidavit. This exchange is between assistant special prosecutor Bernard de la Rionda and Shellie Zimmerman:
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.
Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A: I’m aware of that website.
Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was—
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.
Now consider the actual transcript. I’ll render the sections the SP left out in bold:
Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Who would know that?
A: That would be my brother-in-law.
Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.
A: No, he is not, sir.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven’t talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?
A. No. No, I have not
Q. Okay. And how long has that website been in existence, ma’am?
A. I do not know. I have not been with my husband since he’s been in hiding. I do not know.
Q. Okay. So you mentioned your husband was in hiding. I understand he left the state, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q – Okay. And did you continue to have contact with him while he was out?
A. Yes, every day.
Q. And that was every day?
A. Yes.
Notice that immediately after learning that the brother-in-law can come to the phone, de la Rionda immediately loses interest and does not follow up with the obvious request that he come to the phone. Here’s Professor Jacobson’s take:
The deleted transcript language certainly gives a very different context to the issue of whether Shellie knew how much was available or had an “estimate.” She offered to get the person who knew on the phone, but the prosecution didn’t take her up on that.
Indeed it does. Jeralynn Merritt adds:
While the taped jail calls make it clear Shellie Zimmerman transferred funds from George’s credit union account to her credit union account, it’s not clear to me that she, as opposed to George’s brother, was the person who moved the money from Paypal to Zimmerman’s credit union account. It could have been either of them, or both of them, acting together or independently. The state never introduced documents from Paypal at the bond hearing, only statements from Zimmerman and his wife’s credit union accounts.
While Shellie Zimmerman knew the amount of funds in George’s credit union account on April 16, she may not have known the amount in the website/Paypal account on April 20 [the day of the bond hearing], which is what she was asked by the prosecutor, particularly since money was coming in every day and her brother-in-law may also have been able to move funds out of the Paypal account. She may not have checked the Paypal account after April 16. She may not have wanted to speculate and give an answer that was wrong.
It’s important to keep in mind that the prosecution did not do two very important things:
(1) Request that Shellie’s brother-in-law be brought to the phone to testify. Shellie told de la Rionda he was present and could be summoned to the phone.
(2) Use ellipsis “…” to indicate omitted material. This is particularly important and absolutely necessary for the first block of omitted text.
Ellipsis, for those who last struggled with high school grammar during the 1400s when I went to school, is three periods in a row used to indicate that some text is missing. This is not just the concern of a finicky English teacher. Legal language must be extraordinarily precise. Every lawyer knows the importance of ellipsis and uses it accordingly. That it was not used here is significant.
Professor Jacobson adds an additional, very necessary, point, quoting from Florida precedent on perjury:
This Court has held that statements alleged to be perjurious must be of ’empirical fact’ and not of opinion, belief or perception…. One of the essential elements of perjury in official proceedings is that the person making the statement does not believe it to be true… The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact.
Cohen v. State, 985 So.2d 1207 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2008)(citations omitted).
This merely brings the failure of the special prosecutor to point to any specific perjurious statement by Shellie Zimmerman, and the SP’s failure to produce factual evidence to prove why that statement was false, into sharper focus.
But what about the jailhouse conversations between George and Shellie Zimmerman? Aren’t they evidence of something illegal? Ms. Merritt addresses that issue:
The state’s complaint at the bond revocation hearing was not that Zimmerman omitted something from his testimony, but that he didn’t correct his wife’s testimony after she testified they had no other assets they could easily liquidate to make bond, that she didn’t know how much money “currently” was in the website account, and could not estimate how much had been raised by the website in total. There was also argument by his lawyer based on the testimony of his relatives that Zimmerman and his wife had no money to post a bond, and the family was trying to raise money. There was no testimony by Zimmerman about money at his bond hearing. He took the stand only to state an apology to the Martins and the subject of money never came up during his testimony – not even on cross-examination by the prosecutor.
There was no illegal activity discussed in the taped jail conversations submitted to the Court at the June 1 hearing. The funds were lawfully acquired. There was nothing illegal in Zimmerman’s instructions to his wife to transfer funds from one account to another or to disperse the funds. He had every right to put the money to whatever use he wanted. He had even stated on his short-lived website that he would make the final decisions as to how to spend the money.
ANALYSIS:
On a second affidavit in this case, the special prosecutor has not only failed to fulfill the elements of the offense charged, they have arguably lied by omission, in this case by plucking an entire portion of the exchange between Shellie Zimmerman and Bernard de la Rionda from the transcript without indicating by means of ellipsis it was removed. This is even more egregious because perjury, under Florida law, is a very specific statute requiring very specific, factual proof, proof that is simply not in the affidavit.
The prosecutor has made much in the court of public opinion of what appears to be George and Shellie speaking “in code” about their finances on jailhouse recordings. Let’s remember that those recordings were done in the several days prior to the April 20 bond hearing when George Zimmerman was in jail awaiting that hearing after his arrest. I’ll explain the importance of this shortly. By suggesting that the Zimmermans were speaking in code, the prosecution is suggesting that this is somehow evidence of guilty, criminal minds and they were therefore engaged in something illegal. Nonsense.
By April 20, 2012, the lives of the Zimmermans—and of their families—had been turned upside down. Like most of us, the Zimmermans lived paycheck to paycheck. Suddenly, under an avalanche of credible death threats, they were forced into hiding, their jobs and any source of income lost, any possibility of a future uncertain at best. Suddenly facing life in prison, and with a lawyer only one week on the job, everything was confusing and unsure. They had no idea who they could trust, but they could be certain of a few things: they still had bills to pay, financial obligations to meet, daily life went on, and any talk of large amounts of money in the jailhouse setting—they surely knew everything they said would be overheard and/or recorded, thus their “talking in code”—would be very foolish and dangerous indeed.
As Jeralyn Merritt observed, the transcript of their phone calls reveals nothing at all illegal or even shady. They were people in horrible circumstances I can only pray none of us ever have to experience, trying to hold together some portion of their normal lives and hoping to have a future while protecting their very lives. Could even a jail guard or anyone in a jail learning of large amounts of money present a threat? Of course, and the transcript shows George’s rational concern about Shellie carrying large amounts of money in public. Likewise, transferring money from one account to another and paying bills is completely legal. The inclusion of this information in the affidavit is yet another lie, perfectly legal and normal behavior presented as evidence of crime, a distraction intended to cover the prosecution’s lack of probable cause, a ploy to distract the judge who is, like most judges, not used to prosecutors lying to him and who therefore doesn’t think to examine their submissions with a magnifying glass.
So why didn’t de la Rionda do a better job during the hearing? He didn’t ask questions that would have clarified precisely who knew what when. Given the opportunity to speak with the brother-in-law who could have given him the questions he asked of Shellie who did not know the answers, he passed. With George Zimmerman on the stand, he didn’t even try to raise the issue. We’re not talking about advanced, Perry Mason-like skills, but the bare basics of minimally competent courtroom practice.
One possibility is that de la Rionda, as in the Dee Dee interview of Update 11 was concerned far more about maintaining and defending the narrative than the truth. He was far more concerned with trying the case in the court of public opinion than in reality.
Another possibility also very much on display in Update 11 was that de la Rionda is simply in over his head. He’s not competent to handle these matters and was accordingly poorly prepared.
The possibility I consider more likely is that the special prosecutor was trying to construct a perjury trap. The jailhouse phone calls, remember, were made in the several days prior to the April 20 bond hearing. The SP had the recordings and transcripts. Such things require no warrant. All inmates in jails are informed that they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their communications and that they will be audio and videotaped without warning or notice, the only exception being communications with their attorney which are, by law, privileged.
Considering what we know of the mindset of the prosecution and the sensitivity of Angela Corey herself to the merest hint of criticism or opposition, I can only imagine that those phone calls did seem like some kind of sneaky, illegal dealing by the Zimmermans. You may notice, gentle readers, that I am giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt. More cynical commentators might suggest that the prosecution was using the arrest of Shellie in an unprofessional, unethical and even illegal ploy to harass and/or pressure George Zimmerman to accept some kind of unfavorable plea bargain, which they may see as the only way to salvage anything outside the court of public opinion.
With this scenario in mind, one would expect the prosecution to ask of Shellie only that which they thought they needed to make a perjury case. They had no interest in discovering all of the facts about the Internet account and its balance, so they didn’t bother to ask. That wouldn’t help them to nail Shellie. They baited a trap and asked only those questions they thought necessary to trick Shellie into falling into it.
The problem is, yet again, the prosecution seems to have no idea of Florida law, or at least believes they need not adhere to it. Unless they have some amazing, hidden, specifically factual evidence that will prove beyond any doubt that a specific statement Shellie Zimmerman made was a lie and that she believed it to be a lie, they have no case. But even if they did have such amazing evidence, they would still have to identify at least one specifically false statement made by Shellie Zimmerman, and they have failed to do even that. They seem to be brazenly making it up as they go along and hoping no one calls them on it. Or perhaps they simply think themselves untouchable.
As I wrote in Update 10 I remain confused by the behavior of the judge in revoking George Zimmerman’s bond (a new hearing on bond is scheduled for June 29, 2012). I’ve little doubt the prosecutor is doing whatever they can to inconvenience and harm George Zimmerman and anyone associated with him, or as I pointed out in Update 9.4, anyone that disagrees with them, such as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Jeralyn Merritt shares those concerns, and I recommend you read her article on that and other matters. Her take is essentially that the Zimmermans weren’t lying to anyone, and that whatever confusion occurred was a result of a brand new attorney on the case for only a handful of days, and the expected uncertainty of a couple thrown headfirst and without warning into the thicket of the criminal justice system. I suspect she’s absolutely right.
Remember that the transcripts of the bond hearing and other hearings indicate clearly that everyone–judge, prosecutor and defense—were completely aware of the Internet account and were considering–on a continuing basis—how to deal with it. There was no concealment, no attempt to hide the existence of that account or its size. The two men who could have told the court its balance were at hand, but weren’t asked by either the prosecution or the judge. In fact, absent an hourly call to determine its exact size at that moment–by its very nature the account was continually growing–one could not provide an accurate balance, a balance that would hold for more than a short time. When the judge and the prosecution had a chance—in open court–to determine the amount of money in that account, again, neither availed themselves of it. George Zimmerman, who did not testify at all about financial matters, was under no obligation to speak. He was not obligated to pipe up whenever he thought anyone was incomplete or was not speaking with perfect accuracy. He cannot be held accountable for not speaking when he had no obligation to speak, indeed, had an unassailable legal right not to speak. That said, I’ve little doubt that if he was asked, he would have cooperated.
Underlying all of this, and surely contributing to the Zimmerman’s actions (or inactions), was the fact that the court was not only completely aware of the Internet account from the start, but was constantly treating that account and the other, normal financial assets of the Zimmermans—such as they are—as two separate matters. As does Ms. Merritt, I suspect the majority of whatever blame should attach to the defense side is due Mr. O’Mara. Yet considering he had very little time to be completely up to speed on a case made incredibly complex by the need to simultaneously try it in public and the courts, this may well be understandable and excusable.
I suspect—I hope—that at the next bond hearing, these matters will be quickly and easily explained and that George Zimmerman will again be granted bond. I’d be quite interested to hear what Mr. Dershowitz has to say about this matter, and will attempt to forward a draft of this article to him for his comment (NOTE: as this article is posted, I have yet to hear from Prof. Dershowitz).
FINAL THOUGHTS:
There seems to be no justification—at all—for the perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman, and the prosecution has presented no probable cause and no evidence to support the charge in the affidavit.
The prosecution cannot claim silence as a lie. They cannot neglect to ask specific questions and later claim that her failure to answer questions they did not ask (that she should have read their mind and anticipated?) was perjury. Unless they can prove that any statement she made was a lie, and that she believed it to be a lie even as she made it—and they have identified no such statement and made no such offer of proof–their arrest of Shellie Zimmerman is a cruel and arrogant abuse of power and the public trust and an unethical attempt—at best—to harm and manipulate George Zimmerman and public opinion. Ethical prosecutors handling such a public case would commonly wait until the conclusion of the primary case to file such a charge to avoid any appearance of impropriety or undue influence. I suspect another reason they did not wait is they feared the matter might come up at trial and the Zimmermans–if asked relevant questions–would testify truthfully, obliterating a perjury charge.
Angela Corey is looking more and more like Mike Nifong.
A GENTLE NOTE TO GENTLE READERS:
While I appreciate the passion and dedication expressed in the more than 300 comments about Update 11 I ask that you try to keep your comments focused on the specific issues raised by each individual post. By all means, comment—I appreciate it very much; it’s a large part of why we’re here—but let’s try to focus just a bit more clearly in the future. This is going to be a lengthy case and we’ll have more than enough time and space to explore every aspect of it. We don’t need to throw everything—including the kitchen sink—in at every opportunity, no matter how much fun that might be!
Thanks for reading, and for your invaluable insights!
Stately McDaniel Manor 
The two links at the top point to the same locale as to why Trayvon didn’t bleed on Zimmerman. Regarding “pinned dynamics”, nothing is present.
Dear RuleofOrder:
The links are now fixed. Thanks for the catch!
Mike, I agree with your conclusion. From the time that they concocted this perjury thing, I have stated that I thought that BDLR was attempting to set a trap for Shellie Zimmerman. I think this is quite disgusting.
+1
I believe that Ms Zimmerman’s troubles should be resolved before George goes to trial, since it amounts to undue pressure on his case.
I also believe that Ms Zimmerman’s attorney should assume the worst motives by the prosecution and act accordingly
Some time ago, I underwent an interrogation – by any reasonable definition of the term – by people who analysed everything I did several months ago, long before I knew that I had to account for it. Naturally, I was stressed and did poorly – and I didn’t have anything at stake that can be even remotely compared to G&S Zimmerman.
Can’t they file a harassment charge or something?
Chris
Mike – I suspect few things:
As you suggested, Mr. de la Rionda may actually BE in over his head. Yes, it may also be true that he orchestrated Shelly’s perjury trap, but that may just be a symptom that he IS over his head – that he must resort to that kind of thing to intimidate the husband. Another symptom is his incredibly disjointed and aimless questioning style – we saw that at the bond hearing and we heard it multiple times on recorded testimony of witnesses – ESPECIALLY “Dee Dee”.
de la Rionda seems utterly incapable of a structured examination of a witness. Perhaps he has never had to BE capable – resorting primarily to a Corey-esque overcharging and the expectation of a plea bargain that precludes actual trial courtroom proficiency.
I suspect Ms. Corey AND Mr. de la Rionda are unaccustomed to being under the national double-edged sword of interest in this case. Does it gain them a sort of infamy…notoriety? Sure…and their egos must be really percolating with that kind of attention. But with that comes the criticism of their legal maneuvering. No doubt Mr. Dershowitz would never have become intellectually involved but for the very influences that have caused the Zimmerman case to splatter over the national media.
I once sat in an Army court martial wherein I observed two incompetent attorneys (both the prosecutor AND the defense attorney). The prosecution was charging a count of manufacture of crack cocaine, and the defense was actually having her client plead guilty. Thank GOD for the trial judge. he went over the elements of EACH count and made the prosecution satisfy each one. When he hit that one and heard the facts, he laid into BOTH attorneys for their incompetence.
I believe Corey and de la Rionda might be in their current positions, in part, due to admirable conviction rates and certainly not a comprehensive and conscientious review of their courtroom competence and morality. Ahhh, but now…millions of eyes are on them, and I suspect they will be exposed for the lesser attorneys they actually are. I wish Zimmerman didn’t have to go through this, but if not, the world would not get to enjoy the fiasco that de la Rionda and Corey have got themselves into. It isn’t often we see unscrupulous attorneys abusing their authority and getting spanked for it. I saw Nifong bite the dust..I can’t wait to see these two.
Predictions:
Mark O’Mara will see success in this case.
Zimmerman will be exonerated, go on the talk show circuit and get a good book deal.
and the wild card prediction:
Professor Alan Dershowitz will find a way to co-counsel with Mark O’Mara to get a front row seat, to piss Angela Corey off, and to prepare (in case all the planets are aligned when the verdict is returned) for an aggressive appeal – and he will do it pro bono!
Re your example, “For example, an alibi witness who claims he was driving in his car with the defendant at 10 AM ten miles from the scene of the crime on the day in question might be proved to be lying by the revelation of ATM camera footage showing him alone in his car on that date at 9:57 AM only three blocks from the scene of the crime.”
Might prove their statement is false, but not necessarily perjury if I understand you correctly? The witness may be confused on the times, they still may believe they were at the ATM earlier/later and with the defendant at 10AM. Example should include some evidence of their awareness of the time at the ATM (comment to bystander that the they’re using the ATM since it’s only 10 and the bank isn’t open yet perhaps)
Dear styrgwillidar:
As with any prosecution for perjury, my example assumes the prosecution could prove that the alibi witness made a false statement and knew it to be false at the time. The ATM video would be presented as evidence to support the prosecution’s claim. The issues you raise would no doubt be raised by the defense.
Again, all of this points out why perjury prosecutions are far more rare than most people are led to believe by TV and the movies.
Thanks!
This actually goes further. Legal transcripts are cited and referred to very exactly. To allow this, every line of a transcript is numbered, and testimony is commonly cited both by page and line. Not only did they not cite it by page and line, but it appears that they deliberately stripped the line numbers from the testimony. A simply copy-and-paste from the electronic transcript would have preserved them.
This was an affirmative action that they took. It is not the default action of the word processing program.
Dear everlastingphelps:
Indeed. This is not an omission or a harmless mistake. It is amazing. I’ve never seen such a continuing series of stunning blunders on the part of a prosecution team in such a high profile case.
I have a question and I can’t find my copy of the bond hearing tape, but wasn’t Gilbreath used on the stand because he was the only person there that could testify as to the contents of the affidavit? I thought he was, but according to the affidavit above on Shelly it says O’Steen was there also. Can you clear this up for me? Also would it make a difference on the affidavit if he was NOT present at the hearing as the affidavit claims as this would be a blatant lie?
Dear Deborah:
Hi there and welcome to SMM! O’Steen and Gilbreath were listed as the affiants on the affidavit; in other words, they jointly prepared it and are therefore jointly responsible for its content (or lack therof). Gilbreath testified that “Bernie,” who is certainly assistant special prosecutor Bernard de la Rionda–his supervisor–assisted in preparing it, and gave directions for changes which were made by Gilbreath and O’Steen, though Gilbreath did not specify which changes were made, nor was he asked. That being the case, any of the three involved could have been called to testify, even de la Rionda–a dumb move on his part–but generally, only the two officers would be called. Legally, as affiants they were interchangeable, though Gilbreath tried to claim that his knowledge of the preparation of the affidavit was partial at best. Again, dumb.
My recollection is that O’Steen wasn’t present that day. That would have made no difference at all in terms of the truth or falsity of the affidavit. By signing it before a notary, the affiants are swearing it is complete and truthful. Their presence in court–unless specifically subpoenaed–would have no bearing on that issue.
I hope this answers your questions. If not, please let me know.
I am sorry I guess I didn’t make myself clear here. My memory tells me that O’steen wasn’t in the courtroom for the bond hearing, but I can’t find my recording of said hearing to make sure. My question is if he wasn’t there, THIS affidavit says he was, Shelly’s affidavit above says he was how would that affect the legality of Shelly’s affidavit. Can you direct me to who WAS present at the BOND hearing.
Dear Deborah:
Ah! Now I believe I know what you mean. Let’s try again.
I don’t recall the transcript of the original bond hearing mentioning who was present in the courtroom, and there would be no reason for that unless the person mentioned actually testified or their name otherwise came up during testimony. If he was not, in fact, present at the original hearing, he obviously swore that he was on the Shellie Zimmerman perjury affidavit. That would clearly be a false statement, and could be a criminal offense. I’ll dig into this, but I don’t recall a listing of everyone present at the original bond hearing in any of the documents I’ve found. If you do come up with it yourself, I’d appreciate a link.
Great question (if I got it right this time)!
You have it right. I questioned because I read ? saw? they chose Gilbreath because he happened to be the only one besides Bernie DLR there that they could put on the stand to answer the questions about the affidavit. Also O’Mara could have called O’Steen to finish up the questions about it if he was there. You know what I mean, the parts that Gilbreath said O’Steen did. I wish I could find it again but I have searched and searched and there is just too much info I collected and now I can’t find what I want LOL
Brilliant! Great information Mike.
“HE DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANY STATEMENT MADE BY SHELLIE ZIMMERMAN AND PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE IT WAS FALSE AND SHE BELIEVED IT TO BE FALSE AS SHE MADE IT.”
Really?
“Q And you mentione 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 knowledgde that is correct.”
She had personally transferred more than $74,000 from George’s account into hers. Clearly she was aware she did in fact have money. She affirmed
to the court that she “had no money.” That was a lie.
During call #18577856 G.Z. asked “So total everything how much are we looking at? ”
S.Z “um, like $155 (which we know meant $155,000)”
Not only was the statement that she had “NO MONEY” an outright lie. She knew that there was enough to pay his entire bail.
She lied. She knew she was lying. She did it under oath. I realize as a former cop you might have a fuzzy idea ab out purjery. After all prosecutors created a word especially for your brethern. I’m sure you’ve heard it. TESTALYING.
Now for all your complaints that Martin is being treated as some sort of angel, I was surprised to read that “Like most of us, the Zimmermans lived paycheck to paycheck.”
‘Paycheck-To-Paycheck’ is an expression used to describe those who would be unable to meet financial obligations if unemployed because his or her salary is predominantly devoted to expenses. Persons subsisting paycheck-to-paycheck have limited or no savings. The Zimmerman’s had access to more than a $100k. You’re suggesting they pulled in six figures a week? Average income per person in Florida in 2010 was $39,272. The Zimmerman’s had nearly FIVE TIMES that in CASH ALONE. No cashing in of a 401K or refinancing the house, no pawning the TV or Grandma’s broach. They had access to far too much liquid capital to have anyone expect to be taken seriously and describe their existence as living “paycheck to paycheck.”
Dear CCCC:
Welcome back! May I suggest you reread the article a bit more closely. Remember that the court was treating the Internet account separately from the Zimmerman’s normal assets, as I wrote, and the court was quite aware of the fact that a large Internet account of some amount existed when it authorized the first bond. Remember too that under Florida law, perjury requires a false statement, under oath, known to be false as it is uttered. Any transcript of the Zimmerman’s conversations at the jail cannot be perjurious. The other comment you mention might qualify, yet again, the court, and both attorneys were not speaking about the Internet account, which Shellie Zimmerman said she had no idea about (its balance), yet the prosecutor didn’t follow up when he had the chance. In any case, the prosecutor did not list the statement you mentioned–or any other–as perjurious–a requirement of the statute–and of course, did not offer any proof that any specific statement was false and that Shellie Zimmerman knew it to be false when she made it.
As to the idea that the Internet account has made the Zimmermans anything other than a common American couple living paycheck to paycheck, that account is in a trust and is not accessible by the Zimmermans. They have not spent it.
Reread my post. I never mentioned the Internet account. I agree that her statements regarding the proceeds from Zimmerman’s internet begging aren’t perjury. As you correctly state, those funds are “in a trust and…not accessible by the Zimmerman’s.” Her perjurious statements come prior to “Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?”
Her first lie is listed on page 1 of 5:
“”Q.Other major assets that you have which you can liquidatate reasonably to assist in coming up money for a bond?
A None that I know of. ”
Yet the transcript from call #18577856 clearly shows she new of at least $155,000 in liquid funds that could be used for bond. Now since she claims to have no idea about the funds in the internet account, and we know some of that cash was in a safe deposit box, that $155,000 was the Zimmerman’s personal funds.
Her second lie comes again on page 1 of 5.
“Q. And is — re you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?”
A. Uhm, not — not that I’m aware of.”
Once again during call # #18577856 she told her husband she had $155.000, more than enough to not just assist in posting bond, but to cover the whole amount.
Her third provable lie is listed on page 2 of 5:
“Q And you mentione 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 knowledgde that is correct.”
Once again she had at least $155,000 available to her. We know she was aware of the funds because she is on tape telling her husband the amount. And we have her on tape moving the money in amounts designed to avoid notifying the government.
She lied three times under oath, and while there is no proof that her statement about her knowledge of the PayPal balance, what credibility does she have at this point?
And finally, and this is what has bugged me about your discussions, you again r4sort to these little misstatements of fact. And while these little “white lies” or “suppositions” if you will seem harmless, when as so prevalent and riddle ever attempt to defend Zimmerman’s killing of Martin, its says something about your own belief in what you write. Because if you truly believed what you wrote, why lie at all?
I’m specifically referring to the statement, “Notice that immediately after learning that the brother-in-law can come to the phone, de la Rionda immediately loses interest and does not follow up with the obvious request that he come to the phone.”
Nowhere in the transcript is de la Rionda informed “the brother-in-law can come to the phone.” In fact S.Z’s statement doesn’t even put the brother-in-law in the same general area.
“Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.”
She says “we could probably get him ON THE PHONE, what one would say if they had to call him up because he wasn’t there. And just in case you still don’t see how disingenuous it is to act as if de la Rionda has any reason to believe the brother was there, we just need look at the next two sentences.
“Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.
A: No, he is not, sir.”
All de la Rionda knew the brother was not there, but he might b e able to be reached by phone.
Is that a huge deal? Not really? So I ask again.
Why do you feel the need to consistently skew the facts?
And one final thought, Although G.Z. didn’t perjure himself, its clear he was the mastermind behind hiding money from the court. While it isn’t illegal, it was purposefully deceitful. And when you life hangs on convincing others you are an honest man, that doesn’t seem to be the wisest of choices. At best G.Z. is coming of as both reckless and dishonest.
Dear CCCC:
I have made no misstatements of facts or “white lies.” Even the quote you use directly suggests that Zimmerman’s brother-in-law was at hand–likely in the same dwelling–and could have been brought to the phone. Even if he was not in the same dwelling and needed to be called at another number, the fact–not a white lie–remains that the prosecution did not avail themselves of that opportunity. Notice that the prosecutor does not clarify what “So he’s not there now” means. This is important. The police and prosecutors live in a world of details. The Brother-in-law could have been in another room, using the bathroom, next door, or reachable at another number, but again, the prosecution knew he had quick–perhaps even immediate–access to that important source of information, yet did not follow up on it. These are the facts. No skewing has been done.
And once again, in a charging affidavit for perjury, the prosecutor has an absolute obligation to meet and prove every element of the crime. Even if was assume–for the sake of argument–that the three answers Shellie Zimmerman gave were actually false and she knew them to be false at the time she made them, the prosecutor did not identify any of those three answers–or any other statements–as perjurious, nor did he provide evidence to fulfill the other elements of the statute in regard to those or any other statement. These are the facts I presented. Unless you–or anyone–can re-read that affidavit–which I reproduced in its entirety for just this purpose–and find that the prosecutor actually did identify any specific statement as perjurious and presented specific evidence that Shellie Zimmerman knew it to be false at the times she made it, my analysis stands, and your suggestion that I am lying speaks to bias, but not on my part.
And again, you ignore the fact–not supposition–that the court and every attorney involved knew about the Internet account and were indeed treating it as separate from the Zimmerman’s normal finances. The fact that de la Rionda treated it as separate to the Zimmerman’s normal finances confirms this. If he truly wanted to treat it as money immediately available to the Zimmerman’s for their use, he had only to pursue that line of questioning with Shellie Zimmerman. He did not. Any prosecutor trying to get a judge to deny bond for a defendant would surely have pursued that argument to show the judge the defendant did have financial means, but he didn’t. Either he is among the most incompetent prosecutors I’ve ever seen or heard of, or his primary interest was in snapping the door shut on a perjury trap.
Once again, your accusations of lying grow tiresome. I’ll allow this comment only because I know my readers are more than capable of sorting out who is being truthful and accurate.
Mike,
The affidavit as you have posted it is pretty clear to me and everyone else with a JD whom I have discussed it with. Even those who feel Zimmerman is getting railroaded can see how the affidavit shows: That while under oath, S.Z. made three separate statements about her lack of funds. Then we have the state’s evidence that the statements were false and that she was aware they were false when she made them. I’m sorry you can’t see that, but it’s there.
Now, if you can help me out and tell me what I should call it when you make statements like “Even the quote you use directly suggests that Zimmerman’s brother-in-law was at hand–likely in the same dwelling–and could have been brought to the phone.” Because that statement just is not true.
You say that my ” accusations of lying grow tiresome.” so help me out. What should I call it when you make such a patently false statement? ”
“I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone,” does not mean the same thing as “I can bring him to the phone.”
PhraseMix Examples Phrases
I’m sure we can… (do something)” is used when you’re not 100% sure you will be able to do something (http://bit.ly/NF0LVb).
When she chose to use to use the 1st person plural pronoun, she is pairing herself with de la Rionda. She is literally saying “You and I Together..” when she says “WE.” There is nothing vague about that statement. Her statement has only one meaning. The she and de la Rionda together have the same probability of getting the brother on the phone.
Now if you called a friend’s home and the family member who answered told you, “Jim is not here,” you wouldn’t then ask if Jim was “in another room, using the bathroom, next door…” There is no grey area in the statement “He is not here.” If S.Z, knew where he was she would have answered the question “So he’s not there now?” With “Yes, but he’s using the bathroom, right now,” “Actually he’s in the kitchen right now, “Yes, he’s just out back.”
“He’s not here” means “He’s not here.” You are faulting de la Rionda for believing S.Z
.”The police and prosecutors live in a world of details.” We learn the value of language in law school. While some words have can mean several things, there are words with specific, unwavering meanings. There is no grey area in “He’s not here.”
Your assertion was that after S.Z. confirmed the brother-in-law “WAS NOT THERE,” de la Rionda had learned “that the brother-in-law can come to the phone,.” That makes no sense. That statement is without merit. It is not accurate in any way.
So, I ask again. When I see you have made a wholly inaccurate statement, what should I call it? I find you far too intelligent to believe you misunderstood such a simple exchange. My respect for you intelligence leaves me with only one conclusion. Your statements are “intended or serving to convey a false impression.” (http://bit.ly/LY4e0Q).
This is your playground. If. to use a basketball metaphor, you refuse to allow others to call you for blatant traveling violations or flagrant fouls then your not interested in any real challenges.While the Globetrotters always have a swell time, I have no interest playing for the Senators.
Dear CCCC:
I’m sorry, but it’s not there. In an affidavit you must specifically list each and every element of the offense and its related proof. It is not enough to throw in a variety of statements and suggest or imply, one must be specific. The prosecution was not, not in the affidavit that charged George Zimmerman, not in the affidavit that charged Shellie Zimmerman. How hard is it to write “Defendant said: XYZ, which she knew to be false because ABC?” Yet the prosecution did not do that.
If you asked if my wife was here right now, I could truthfully tell you “she’s not here,” because she is in another room in our home. If however, you asked if I could have her come to the phone within a minute or so, you would certainly not only get a very different and far more informative answer, but you would also be able to speak directly with her to get the information you wanted. De la Rionda did not do that. Any competent cop or prosector knows one must clarify such details.
If you can prove–and by all means please provide the link(s) or other information that would constitute proof–that the brother-in-law was not, as I clearly wrote, either close at hand or easily reachable by phone. Unless you can do this, you are not remotely close to having the information necessary to call me, or anyone, a liar in this matter. I did not state these things as a matter of fact, but of possibility, even probability, therefore my opinion might be incorrect, but lying doesn’t enter into it. And the fact–fact–remains that the prosecution, having more than sufficient opportunity to talk to the brother-in-law to determine the exact balance of the Internet account did not do so.
You’ve thrown down the gauntlet; very well: No more characterizing opinions as lies. Insult people on your own time and dime.
Since you have a JD, perhaps you should be the one to enlighten everyone here about the ethical and criminal implications of suborning perjury. If the statements are false, by your reasoning, then the state was also aware that they were false when she answered.
Mike, You’re right “If you asked if my wife was here right now, I could truthfully tell you “she’s not here,” because she is in another room in our home.” But if one of her friends called and you answered the phone in kitchen while she was in the lving room, would you tell the friend “She’s not here?” And if you did would she begin questioning you as to which room she was in? Or would she take your statement to mean what it means, “SHES NOT here.”
The real reason the prosecutor didn’t try to locate the brother was because his testimony was no longer needed. If S.Z. didn’t have access to the account and none of their family members could access the funds then the balance didn’t matter. And that is was S.Z. testified. She didn’t have any money, she couldn’t get any money and none of he family members could help her get any money either.
Is the affidavit sloppy, absolutely! Does it address every element of the crime S.
Z. was charged with, yes it does. The woman lied to the courts about how much money she had at her finger tips. The couple, who you laughingly described as living “paycheck to paycheck,” had more than $150 in readily available cash. She hid money in the same manner those involved in an ongoing criminal enterprise hide their funds to avoid Rico prosecutions.
And Phelps, when a prosecutor questions a defenssinmplye witness and the witness lies, the prosecutor is guilty of “suborning perjury.” Not only did the prosecution do nothing to force Zimmerman to lie. Even if she was already aware of the hidden funds and had heard all the phone calls, that doesn’t mean she new the woman was going to lie like a throw rug.
You don’t seem to have a grasp of the term, because prosecutors simply can not suborn perjury from defense witnesses, and I didn’t need law school to see why.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 14: Crumbling Foundations and Disqualification « Stately McDaniel Manor
I believe that this move by the prosecution was primarily a method of harassing the Zimmermans, but I have to agree with CCCC here.
The elements may not have been spelled out in the format you prescribe “A perjured herself by testifying to X and Y is the evidence”.
The elements, and the proof, however, are there.
Mrs. Zimmerman, under oath at a court proceeding, testified unequivocally that “to her knowledge” they had no money to their name. None.
In the days preceding her testimony, however, it can be proven that they had many thousands of dollars in her account, her sister’s account and her husbands account, that she discussed the amounts in those accounts with her husband by phone and that thousands of dollars were transferred between the accounts.
Unless your contention is that those thousands of dollars somehow disappeared during the time between the phone conversations/transfers and the day she testified that they had NO money, then she lied. Under Oath. Period.
This has nothing to do with how much was in the Internet account. This has to do with the proven fact that Mrs. Zimmerman knew there were many thousands of dollars in the various personal bank accounts of herself, her husband and other family members, and testified under oath that <to her knowledge they had no money whatsoever.
Sorry, but that’s perjury, and the affidavit demonstrates it quite well.
For the record, I believe George Zimmerman is guilty of nothing more than being a responsible, concerned, involved citizen who was forced to defend himself against a gangster wanna-be thug who savagely attacked him.
But since that fateful night, Zimmerman and his family have made some astonishingly bone-headed moves. This is one of them. The phone calls, the dollar amounts being transferred (always less than $10k…which happens to be the threshold of where the bank has to report the transfer to the feds) and her testimony that “to her knowledge” they had no money whatsoever looks very much like someone lying to the court to minimize the amount they’d have to use for bond.
Is it germane to the bigger question of whether George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin was justified? Absolutely not. But it is what it is.
Materiality is a key element of the statute, and the affidavit is silent to it.
It’s a defective affidavit.
Dear Sailorcurt:
Thanks again for your comment. The format required is there for a reason. Our law requires that anyone accused of a crime be told precisely the charges against them. Therefore, each and every statute has a number of elements which must be proved to the standard of probable cause for an arrest to take place. It is not merely a matter of being picky, but the very foundation of a justice system that affords all due process.
In Florida, perjury requires statements–which the defendant knew to be false–made under oath in a judicial proceeding. The affidavit does not, in any way, do this, but merely relies on insinuation and implication based on recorded telephone conversations which were not under oath or in a judicial proceeding. One might present such information in court as a means of buttressing actual statements made in court under oath, but that is clearly not the case here, and it is not the case for a very specific and important reason: the prosecution does not have any statements, made under oath in a judicial proceeding by Shellie Zimmerman that are knowingly false and provably so, so they resort of innuendo and insinuation, using recorded conversations that do not meet the elements of the offense.
You may wish to review the facts in this case a bit more completely. Mrs. Zimmerman–under oath–testified that she knew of the accounts (everyone in that hearing did), but said she did not know precisely how much money was in them and that her brother in law probably did and could be brought to the phone to provide that information. The prosecution dropped the matter and did not take her up on her offer. The judge did not inquire. Mr. O’Mara apparently did not know enough about the case to inquire, and George Zimmerman was under no obligation to pipe up and fill in potential holes in anyone’s testimony. Even so, after that hearing, he fully disclosed everything about the accounts to Mr. O’Mara and transferred all money to his care. O’Mara told the judge one week later at the next scheduled hearing in the case.
As I’ve repeatedly noted, at the bond hearing, everyone knew about the Internet account–it was discussed in detail–and the court treated it as separate and apart from the Zimmerman’s normal finances. There simply was no deception.
Mike,
The perjury isn’t about the internet account. You seem to go out of you way to avoid this/
I ask you this: When asked the following:
”Q.Other major assets that you have which you can liquidatate reasonably to assist in coming up money for a bond?
A None that I know of. ”
Was that a truthful statement? Keep in mind that during call #18568099 she states she had access to over $100K in her personal account and in #18577856 She admits knowing of at least $155,000 in liquid funds that could be used for bond. And then, less that 24 hours before the hearing #18608875 she claims to have between $130 and $150K available to her.
Was she telling the truth?
When she was asked:
““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 knowledgde that is correct.”
Was that a truthful statement? Keep in mind that bank records show that during the previous three days she PERSONALLY transferred more than $70K from her husband’s personal account.
Was she telling the truth?
This has nothing to do with a person’s right to carry. This has nothing to do with Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law. This has nothing to do with whether its right to gun down an unarmed black teenager in the dark of night. This has nothing to do with who threw the first punch. This has nothing to do with one statement by Obama.
This has nothing to do with anything other than this:
Following three days where she was given access to G.Z.’s account and transferred more than $70,000 from said account, and removed cash from the couple’s safety deposit box, and was caught on tape admitting to having in the neighborhood of $150,000 cash available to her, does the state have probable cause to believe she lied when she testified that she had no money available?
The fact that you have to bring up that part highlights the defectiveness of the affidavit. There should be no question as to which statements are alleged to have been perjury.
In addition, there is nothing to indicated that it was material to the decision to set bail for Zimmerman. To show that it was material, you would have to obtain testimony from the judge indicating that the lack of money was a material factor in him setting bail, which puts the judge in a catch-22. If he says that he believed that they had no money and still set bail at $150,000, then it was exorbitant and therefore a sham bail setting (depriving Zimmerman of due process.) If he says that it wasn’t, then it wasn’t a material fact, and perjury doesn’t apply.
Face it — perjury just isn’t provable, certainly not on this affidavit. That’s why perjury prosecutions are so rare — it is a high standard to meet, and generally isn’t worth the time. The only reason it is worth the time here is that this has been a political persecution from the top to the bottom.
Dear everlastingphelps:
Precisely. Thanks!
Dear CCCC:
I’m not avoiding anything in this analysis. If indeed, the two questions you raise are evidence of perjury and are the essence of the prosecution’s case, why didn’t the prosecution provide these two questions/answers as evidence sufficient to fulfill the elements of the offense? Inference and insinuation matter not at all. The state must prove all elements of any offense to the minimum standard of probable cause on any affidavit for charging. They do not in this case.
Mike,
” If indeed, the two questions you raise are evidence of perjury and are the essence of the prosecution’s case, why didn’t the prosecution provide these two questions/answers as evidence sufficient to fulfill the elements of the offense”
The only information I have about S.Z.’s testimony at the bail hearing comes soley from the affidavit you provided. While it isn’t the most elegant document I’ve ever read, I see every aspect of the crime supported here.
(1) Be under oath; CHECK
(2) Make a false statement; CHECK and DOUBLE CHECK
(3) They must believe, at the time the statement is made, that the statement is false; and CHECK
(4) The statement must be made in an official proceeding, ie: court. CHECK.
Dear CCCC:
You’re missing the essential point. The prosecution did not list any allegedly false statement made under oath and provide evidence to the level of probable cause in support of that specific statement. They engaged only in insinuation and innuendo relating to the recorded jail conversations, none of which are material, none of which meet the elements of the statute. And again, there is no specific evidence relating to specific statements that meet the statute proving that Mrs. Zimmerman knew statements–which the affidavit does not specify–were false.
This is not hard.
Mike,
I guess I am seeing things because I see two “allegedly false statement made under oath” right there on page one.
1. ”Q.Other major assets that you have which you can liquidatate reasonably to assist in coming up money for a bond?
A None that I know of. ”
2. “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 knowledgde that is correct.”
Question A. Do you see where those exchanges appear on page one?
Question B. Were those statements accurate? Was S.Z. penniless as she claimed? Keep in mind that bank records show that during the previous three days she PERSONALLY transferred more than $70K from her husband’s personal account.
How do we know she has access to all that much cash?
Well, on page 2, the affidavit does in fact “provide evidence to the level of probable cause in support of [those] specific statements” being knowingly false.
And I quote..
“Insight Credit Union records of George Zimmermanm Shellie Zimmerman and George Zimmerman’s sister…show that Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $74,000 frm George Zimmerman’s account to her account from April 16th, 2012 to April 19th, 2012.” (The day before her testimony)
This alleged evidence indicates that S.Z. did in fact have “assets …to assist in coming up money for a bond,” and that, unless she has bout of sudden onset amnesia, she was well aware that her answer was not truthful.
Question C. Do you not see where bank records placing more than 70 grand in her hand directly contradict he claim to have “no money?”
I am flabbergasted that you refuse to see what is RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE.
Dear CCCC:
I see those issues quite clearly, but that’s not the point. It is the absolute responsibility and duty of the prosecution to list–verbatim–each and every statement they consider to have been in violation of the statute. It is also their absolute responsibility, for each and every such statement, to provide supporting evidence to the level of probable cause. They don’t do that, do they?
Failing that, the affidavit is defective on its face and no charge should ever have been lodged based on it. That, CCCC is what is black and white.
Mike,
You are so much smarter than this, I know it. Tell me where you get lost.
“It is the absolute responsibility and duty of the prosecution to list–verbatim–each and every statement they consider to have been in violation of the statute.”
Do you see where S.Z.’s testimony is reproduced VERBATIM there on pages 1 and 2? Where Q. represents the lawyers and A. represents the VERBATIM TESTIMONY of S.Z?
Was that a yes? Good let’s proceed.
“It is also their absolute responsibility, for each and every such statement, to provide supporting evidence to the level of probable cause. ”
Moving down to the middle of PAGE 2, IMMEDIATELY following the “VERBATIM TESTIMONY” we just discussed, until you find the paragraph which begins “Your Affiant…?”
Take your time, I’m in no hurry.
Got it? Good.
So beginning with “You Affiant..” and continuing until we get to the sentence ending in “for Perjury” on page 5 (It’s right above investigators signature) are a bunch of words which form sentences, which then form paragraphs which create a very easy to follow narrative outlining the evidence the State feels provides probable cause that the “VERBATIM TESTIMONY” we discussed earlier (remember those sentences that all began with A?) was false, and that S.Z. was aware how false it was when she was provided it.
Now, whether or not you agree that the bank records, phone transcripts and witness statements (the narrative we I just explained) which indicate S.Z. had access to a pile of cash worth six figures actually contradicts S.Z.’s VERBATIM TESTIMONY that she was penniless, is one thing.
But to say these five pages of “VERBATIM TESTIMONY” and the “supporting evidence” that said “VERBATIM TESTIMONY” was given by S.Z. even though she was well aware the said “VERBATIM TESTIMONY” was not in anyway true doesn’t fulfill the prosecution’s responsibility “to list–verbatim–each and every statement they [sic] consider to have been in violation of the statute.” (Those were the “A” sentences remember.) as well as its responsibility “to provide supporting evidence to the level of probable cause.” (You remember the bank records showing S.Z. was swimming in cash, when she testified she had no money) doesn’t exist is just nutty.
Unless it is your assertion that the affidavit doesn’t contain S.Z.’s testimony? Or is it your assertion that all those bank records, transcripts of conversations and witness statements (known in the legal world as EVIDENCE) are something I’ve made up in my head?
Dear CCCC:
I am more than smart enough to stop responding. I’m sure readers will understand.
Again, in your elements, you ignore materiality.
“Face it — perjury just isn’t provable, certainly not on this affidavit.”
And I never said it was. The Affidavit sets forth whether there is sufficient evidence the offense has occurred, it is never meant to provide absolute proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s what trials are for.
Trials are where a JURY determines the facts of the case and whether or not S.Z.’s statements about the family’s finance were not material to a hearing set forth the examine the family’s finances is a question for a jury. While you could argue that “If he [the judge] says that he believed that they had no money and still set bail at $150,000, then it was exorbitant and therefore a sham bail setting,” can be directly contradicted by the dozens, if not hundreds of other “indigent” defendants facing similar charges with equal, if not higher bail amounts in the state of Florida. The judge could have ruled, that as an indigent defendant, he had nothing at all tying him to the community, and then denied bail. I doubt you would find much support that $150K bail was excessive for a murder charge, regardless of the defendants means.
I would also like to see it argued that the Zimmerman’s finances were not material, considering the original questions regarding the Zimmerman’s finances were raised by GEORGE ZIMMERMAN’S ATTORNEY. Unless, of course Mr. O’Mara is in the habit of wasting the court’s time asking question entirely immaterial to the proceedings at hand. It would be interesting to see if he would testify to that.
Which brings me to something I overlooked when responded to Phelps a few weeks ago. Phelps wrote that I ” should be the one to enlighten everyone here about the ethical and criminal implications of suborning perjury. If the statements are false, by your [my] reasoning, then the state was also aware that they were false when she answered.”
Sadly, I responded with the basic concept that if the state asks the defense witness a question, and the witness lies, the state is not “suborning perjury.” However, when the defense asks its own witness a question and the witness lies, it can be assumed that the defense is “suborning perjury.” Unless, the defense argues it broke the fundamental rule of trial law. “Never ask your own witness a question unless you know the answer.”
So, yes, at a trial. S.Z. could argue that her husband’s attorney was completely incompetent by asking questions that weren’t important to the matter at hand as well as not doing his due diligence in knowing in advance the answers the court would receive from his own witness would be complete lies. From what I have gathered about O’Mara’s reputation, I doubt she would be successful
Still, all that is a matter of fact for a jury. The purpose of the affidavit is to set forth the evidence the State has the warrants a trial, if a judge agrees the matter the is held over for trial. I read the the affidavit and have “no question as to which statements are alleged to have been perjury.” As much as Mike would like to argue the alleged perjury is about the Internet account, I clearly see it isn’t.
Is the her prosecution of a political or personal nature, you bet. Prosecutors don’t like lies unless they come from their own witnesses. Is her prosecution relevant to her husbands. In an ideal world no. But when the man’s defense is based on the veracity of his word, I would recommend that man play things entirely on the up and up as even the illusion of deception these tapes create could be detrimental to his case. But as saliorcut aptly observed, “since that fateful night, Zimmerman and his family have made some astonishingly bone-headed moves.”:
At least the concept that S.Z. was lying under oath has stopped being a central question.
What I think we can all agree on is that the justice in Florida is never cut and dry and often filled with drama.
“So why didn’t the prosecution immediately impeach her rather than sit on the alleged evidence?”
Read the affidavit. They didn’t have evidence of the transfers S.Z. made until June 6th, 2012, 17 days after the hearing. While the phone calls are damning, on their own they don’t prove anything. However, the bank records clearly show what funds S.Z. had available and when she had said funds.
They had her statements in jail at that point.
Just curious, what are you basing that on? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I haven’t seen anything that supports that.
Still, as I posted…”While the phone calls are damning, on their own they don’t prove anything..” Remember G.Z. was sneaky and never discussed amounts more than $200. While the DA. may have rightfully suspected the Zimmerman’s were deviously speaking in code, it wasn’t until the bank records were obtained was she able to make the case that the amounts discussed where actually much higher.
Odd that your complaint now seems to be that the State didn’t accuse her of perjury before the DA had proof she had committed perjury.
Pick an argument and stick with it.
Actually I fully dealt with that in my August 19, 2012 at 01:34 post.
The elements above are not “mine” they are Mike’s.
I also have noticed that while I try to be very specific in my arguments, you seem to have come up with nothing more than,
“DID NOT.”
Now who needs to pick an argument and stick with it? I’m basing the elements on the statute. Materiality is part of the statute, which is quoted in the original post. Is your claim now that you aren’t arguing whether or not the affidavit is actually sufficient, or are you just arguing against Mike?
“Is your claim now that you aren’t arguing whether or not the affidavit is actually sufficient, or are you just arguing against Mike?”
No, I was responding to Mike’s assertion that “The state must prove all elements of any offense to the minimum standard of probable cause on any affidavit for charging.”
I was providing my view of why the affidavit is more than sufficient in the parameters Mike has set forth. Since Mike hadn’t contested my argument concerning how S.Z.’s testimony concerning the Zimmerman’s finances during a court proceeding that was trying to determine the exact nature of the Zimmerman’s finances was in fact material, there was really no reason to rehash that argument. One you conveniently ignored I see.
it seems that all you’re doing now is trying to muddy the discussion in hopes that you were either unwilling or unable to contest my argument concerning this issue.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 37: Shellie Zimmerman | Stately McDaniel Manor
Reblogged this on A world at war.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 37.2: Perjury and Malicious Prosecution | Stately McDaniel Manor
Shellie admitted that she knew about the money, and she willfully lied about the money… So she confirmed the perjury on live television… This makes your analysis of the affidavit as useful as toilet paper… good luck…