This series of articles begins my coverage of the Shellie Zimmerman prosecution for perjury.  To understand that prosecution, you must understand the background of the charge.  To that end, you absolutely must read Update 10 (They Did What?) and particularly Update 12 (Perjury And–Perjury?) if you have not done so already.  Those two updates explain the factual basis–or as in the prosecution of George Zimmerman, the lack of factual basis–for the charge.

I’ll keep this article very brief so you have the time to read Updates 10 and 12.  As you do, keep in mind these essential factors:

(1) Shellie’s arrest was probably the result of an after-the-fact perjury trap.  I suspect the prosecutors, only after Shellie’s testimony, essentially said, “hey!  We can make it look like she lied and use her as leverage against George!”  It’s possible this was a planned perjury trap from the beginning, but I tend to accord the prosecution less credit for intelligence now that I know them better.

(2) As with the affidavit in George’s case, the affidavit for perjury has no probable cause.  As you read it and my commentary in Update 12–and read the actual affidavit–ask this question:  Where is the specific false statement made by Shellie Zimmerman, a provably false statement she believed to be false as she made it?  These are two essential elements of the offense, neither of which is satisfied (nor is the requirement that the alleged false statement–which is never identified–be material and relating to objective fact).  Update 12 explains Florida’s perjury statute in detail.

As always, thanks for reading, and I’ll follow with an article to bring you up to date with this aspect of the case very soon.